Now for some comments on global warming (that is, AGW or Anthropological Global Warming) by a guest blogger.
Regards — Cliff
GUEST BLOG POST
Let's try a thought experiment for a minute. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the software, data, charts, and implications of the EAU CRU research is 100% accurate. There are still two questions left unanswered:
First, what is causing the change?
Second, why are they telling us the change is bad?
I have yet to see convincing evidence that the change is anthropogenic. Indeed, were I to see such proof, I'd be very skeptical since the nature of the scientific method is to eliminate theories, not to prove them. Indeed, just last week I heard of a new theory that better fits the observed data than general relativity.
That is to say, a proper use of the scientific method would be to posit that X causes global warming and then attempt to disprove X. You would do that by saying, "if X causes global warming, then we can predict that it also causes (or cannot cause) Y" and the go looking for Y. For example, if COO emissions cause global warming on Earth, then we cannot expect that it is causing temperatures to rise on other planets. Of course, the fact that other planets ARE getting warmer might make us want to change our assumption, or at least try to find another reason for the other planets getting warmer, and thereby explain a startling coincidence.
Also, why are people getting upset about rising temperatures? A warmer earth would make most or all of Canada and Russia not just comfortable, but habitable. Moreover, for every acre of land rendered inhospitable for agriculture (mostly around the sparsely arid equator), you will see places with one growing season extended to two, two to three, and more importantly, zero to one. Sure, there MAY be some change in sea level, but that is life. Either build a dyke or move to higher ground.
I would point out that it is the people who wanted to stop change that gave us the worst forest fires. Fire in a forest is a natural and necessary part of the cycle of life for a forest. When good-intentioned people said that fire is bad and we must put out all forest fires, we ended up with a decade of dead wood and debris on the forest floors. Then when a fire did start, it was cataclysmic. It turns out that smaller, lesser intensity, more frequent fires don't kill the forest, they are necessary for survival. Nothing survives the really intense fires.
Before we make very expensive and disrupting changes based on scientific theory we should try very hard to disprove that theory. Perhaps we should even give some grants to people who seek to do just that. After that, we should think very carefully about the impact of the proposed changes, and maybe even try testing it in a small way first.
/GUEST BLOG POST
There is space here for other Guest Blog Posts.