By Isaac MacMillen
The number of scientists that are coming out against the “undisputed fact” and “closed discussion” of global warming keeps getting larger as time passes. Last week, we had the 650 scientists in a Senate report who opposed global warming alarmist claims. Even the scientist at the helm of the UN's global warming panel has expressed some caution on jumping to conclusions based on the IPCC's data.
And now a CNN meteorologist—and holder of the American Meteorological Society's Seal of Approval—has come out swinging against what he terms the “arrogance” of those who hold to global warming.
Speaking with Lou Dobbs earlier this week, 22-year meteorologist Chad Myers stated that we simply cannot determine our climate's actions in the long term, simply because we don't have enough data. He told the talk-show host:
“To think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant. Mother nature is so big. The world is so big. The oceans are so big. I think we're going to die from a lack of fresh water or die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure. But this is like you said, in your career; my career has been 22 years long. That's a good career in TV. But in talking about climate, it is like having a car for three days and saying this is a great car. Yes, it was for three days, but maybe in day five, six and seven it won't be so good. That's what we're doing here.”
Mr. Myers is absolutely correct—why should we presume that we can impact the planet to such an extent? A research article by Rodney Viereck, of NOAA, compared a graph of the sea surface temperature to a graph of the number of sunspots—both over about a century span. Any similarity? Absolutely—the trend lines were nearly identical.
While still towing the establishment line about “man-made” global warming, Mr. Viereck was forced to admit that the sun made a significant impact upon the earth's warming/cooling cycle.
The fact is, try as they may, it is ludicrous for environmentalist apologists to spin global warming as being caused by man—there are simply too many other factors that override our meager contribution to the atmosphere. And to close debate on an issue that has such drastic implications for the human race after such a short period of time is scientific suicide.
Chad Myers was correct. When it comes to issues regarding the temperature of the earth, caution must be taken in making extreme pronouncements. When history looks back on the late 20th and early 21st centuries, will they see scientists who critically analyze the data—or alarmists who sacrifice scholarship in order propagate the most headline-producing forecasts-of-doom?
Either way, its quite clear that the abundant claims of “total consensus” on this man-made controversy are simply arrogant.
Isaac MacMillen is a contributing editor of ALG News Bureau.