by Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - Not that I compare myself with Albert Einstein other than our musical enthusiasm is well beyond our competence. But what Einstein did to discover the theory of relativity was to construct thought experiments rather than invest lots of money in test equipment. So let us use think our way through this question. First, if man-made global warming was fact and not faith we would have a target as to the amount of greenhouse gases to remove to stabilize our planet. The expressed target would keep us from removing too much and thereby making things worse for humans. But climate advocates have no target nor do they hypothesize what to do if we go too far changing the environment. Likewise, if we did have the ability to warm the Earth upon a human notion, why should we not. Certainly in Death Valley they can use a little relief, but much of the rest of our country could use a push upwards of temperature to extend the growing season. Why not do that if we can? So, is there a perfect temperature for the Earth? Why not? As a researcher I believe in the predictive power of data, not just the descriptive ability. For someone to convince me of Global Cooling, Warming or Extreme Climate Change I want to see correlations between the change agents in a predictive model and extend both directions. Namely, if too much greenhouse gases cause temperatures to fall, to rise or to be unsteady, let me see that in action over the centuries of data. But the data does not fit the prediction models. Where does that leave us? We just have to fall back on faith that there is such a thing. Faith works for me and God. I guess for some people it works for Global Warming. Read more
News New Mexico
Swickard Column: Faith based Global Warming
by Michael Swickard, Ph.D. - Not that I compare myself with Albert Einstein other than our musical enthusiasm is well beyond our competence. But what Einstein did to discover the theory of relativity was to construct thought experiments rather than invest lots of money in test equipment. So let us use think our way through this question. First, if man-made global warming was fact and not faith we would have a target as to the amount of greenhouse gases to remove to stabilize our planet. The expressed target would keep us from removing too much and thereby making things worse for humans. But climate advocates have no target nor do they hypothesize what to do if we go too far changing the environment. Likewise, if we did have the ability to warm the Earth upon a human notion, why should we not. Certainly in Death Valley they can use a little relief, but much of the rest of our country could use a push upwards of temperature to extend the growing season. Why not do that if we can? So, is there a perfect temperature for the Earth? Why not? As a researcher I believe in the predictive power of data, not just the descriptive ability. For someone to convince me of Global Cooling, Warming or Extreme Climate Change I want to see correlations between the change agents in a predictive model and extend both directions. Namely, if too much greenhouse gases cause temperatures to fall, to rise or to be unsteady, let me see that in action over the centuries of data. But the data does not fit the prediction models. Where does that leave us? We just have to fall back on faith that there is such a thing. Faith works for me and God. I guess for some people it works for Global Warming. Read more News New Mexico
Posts
3 comments:
Global warming, climate change, the sky is falling and every other claim that humans are causing changes in the weather on earth are unscientifically orchestrated ruse specifically designed to justify the act of raising taxes and penalizing certain businesses. It's no accident that GWR'ers (global warming ruse'ers)find it convenient to attack some of the most successful corporations on the planet, energy companies. The entire ruse is a money and power grab predicated upon unscientific data and flimsy presumptions about weather patterns. Global warming, aka climate change, is absolutely the greatest worldwide con ever perpetrated upon mankind.
Global warming, aka climate change, doesn't exist. The scientific evidence is weak and unsubstantiated.
Aside from all the accusations on both sides of this issue, it strikes me as rather strange that the advocates of human caused climate change have been reluctant to engage their counterparts in a televised prime time public debate. Al Gore's film did attempt to make the warmer's case but fell way short of the mark. On the other hand, credible advocates who deny the warmer's claims have openly expressed a willingness to engage the warmers in a public debate. From what I can tell, the warmers feel it's not in their best interest to engage in a widely viewed public debate. The "warmers" seem to be more interested in not having to explain the scientific details of their scientific theories and instead ignore and pretend the opposition's views don't exist. They are a very intolerant bunch.
Post a Comment