Global Warming Debate
Always beware when someone tells you there is no more need to debate, or the debate is over or some such rubbish. All they are really trying to do is win by default once they get their way. (Remember some Australian politicians who felt the debate over abortion was over, or canadian politicians who felt the debate over marriage was over). It really is a crock, and it is self-evidently not true. They wouldn't need to say it, unless some people were debating. Global warming is no different. Scientific papers continue to come out calling into question the human cause of global warming, yet we are constantly told there is a consensus, that debate is over. Those people are lying. Plain and simple. Tim Blair has one a post on such recent article.

Academics George Chilingar and Leonid F. Khilyuk examine global warming:

The two researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (USA) conclude that “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and that it has “proved to be an enduring one."

All of this is apparently peer-reviewed, as Andrew Bolt notes. Continuing:

The take-home message of Khilyuk and Chilingar’s analysis, as they describe it, is that “any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls."

What is more, they indicate that “application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences,” noting that “since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050,” and that “the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices)."

This being the case, they conclude that “attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful,” and that in their place the “moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic change,” hopefully by more immediate, rational and cost-effective means.

Yep. Harmful. That's what happens when you try and alter things that can't be altered.

Just remember, scientists now get around 5 billion dollars a year to study 'global warming'. Perhaps they are not as unbiased as they pretend.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Tuesday, December 05, 2006