Global Warming
The case against
Pollution and conservation are two good reasons
to dramatically reduce the world's consumption of fossil fuels. The fear of man
made global warming is more questionable. We don't have the data or the
scientific tools to make reliable predictions about climate change in the coming
century. Not yet.
Nevertheless my suspicions are that humanity may indeed be provoking changes in the atmosphere that will result in catastrophe. Sometimes its prudent to act on suspicions and prepare for contingencies. It's also important to investigate further. Whether it be disaster planning or the war against terrorism there are serious consequences to being misled by a premature political consensus.
Over the weekend I came across a persuasive article that attacked imminent threat climatology: The global warming scam by Melanie Philips.
She challenged four arguments made recently by Sir David King, chief science advisor to the British government:
1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991
2) sea levels are rising
3) ice caps are melting and
4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.
It's not the last word on the subject by any means and the pro and con comments at the end of the post should be read as well. One of those comments led me to the Oregon Petition, signed by thousands of scientists, which opposes the Kyoto accord and makes a case that if anything the increased carbon dioxide in the air has been beneficial to plant life.
So now I have suspicions about my suspicions, and am looking for answers from the pro side of the warming debate.
The link I discovered to Philips was on Harry's Place, my favourite blog for left wing and socialist discussion. Another good site, Socialism in an Age of Waiting, was taken aback by the Philips reference, characterizing her as a right wing commentator whose opinions deserve nobody's respect (See Buzz Buzz Buzz and Butterflies and Bees). They were going to recommend that readers instead check out Philip Stott at EnviroSpin Watch, but he too was promoting the Philips commentary. As often happens all three blogs cross referenced each other, debating the degree to which differing perspectives should be acknowledged.
Some of the scientists quoted by Philips receive funding from industries that depend on fossil fuels. All that means is that their work needs to be closely scrutinized, but then so do the efforts of the so-called independent researchers, whose biases may be less visible.
I don't agree with Melanie Philips's politics but I like her journalism and have added her site to my newsreader.
Update: Philips has rewritten her blog entry for her column in the Daily Mail.
Nevertheless my suspicions are that humanity may indeed be provoking changes in the atmosphere that will result in catastrophe. Sometimes its prudent to act on suspicions and prepare for contingencies. It's also important to investigate further. Whether it be disaster planning or the war against terrorism there are serious consequences to being misled by a premature political consensus.
Over the weekend I came across a persuasive article that attacked imminent threat climatology: The global warming scam by Melanie Philips.
She challenged four arguments made recently by Sir David King, chief science advisor to the British government:
1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991
2) sea levels are rising
3) ice caps are melting and
4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.
It's not the last word on the subject by any means and the pro and con comments at the end of the post should be read as well. One of those comments led me to the Oregon Petition, signed by thousands of scientists, which opposes the Kyoto accord and makes a case that if anything the increased carbon dioxide in the air has been beneficial to plant life.
So now I have suspicions about my suspicions, and am looking for answers from the pro side of the warming debate.
The link I discovered to Philips was on Harry's Place, my favourite blog for left wing and socialist discussion. Another good site, Socialism in an Age of Waiting, was taken aback by the Philips reference, characterizing her as a right wing commentator whose opinions deserve nobody's respect (See Buzz Buzz Buzz and Butterflies and Bees). They were going to recommend that readers instead check out Philip Stott at EnviroSpin Watch, but he too was promoting the Philips commentary. As often happens all three blogs cross referenced each other, debating the degree to which differing perspectives should be acknowledged.
Some of the scientists quoted by Philips receive funding from industries that depend on fossil fuels. All that means is that their work needs to be closely scrutinized, but then so do the efforts of the so-called independent researchers, whose biases may be less visible.
I don't agree with Melanie Philips's politics but I like her journalism and have added her site to my newsreader.
Update: Philips has rewritten her blog entry for her column in the Daily Mail.
Posted: Sun - January 11, 2004 at 02:25 PM
Quick Links
A blog by Jim Monk
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
My Favourite Blogs
My Favourite Sites
Subscriptions
Windsor - Essex Blogs
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 12, 2007 03:13 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Sep 12, 2007 03:13 PM