tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5474839973577967601.post1771535427622769576..comments2023-10-16T08:53:17.602-05:00Comments on Paul In Houston: A Perspective on Man-Made Global Warming (Excuse me: "Climate Change")Paul Gordonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16530815397182777195noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5474839973577967601.post-91538168009007403062010-01-01T18:24:41.078-06:002010-01-01T18:24:41.078-06:00Paul,
You make an excellent point about the certit...Paul,<br />You make an excellent point about the certitude, which all the "Warmers" have about the issue.<br /><br />It is a theory and their proof for the theory is quite thin. It is based on two observations:<br />1. Temperatures have been increasing for the last 150 years and CO2 has also been increasing during that period. They believe correlation proves causation. <br />2. They have constructed computer models that, as long as you feed in the right data, appears to model the last 150 years. They then project those results into the future and come up with a projection of drastic warming in the future.<br /><br />When you get into the details, however, there are many holes in their argument. Most of these people (the Warmers [Gore especially]) are basically progressives or statists at heart. They want this drastic warming to be true because it provides a rationale for more state power to control citizens and to cripple capitalism. At least that's my judgment. That is why they are so invested in their theory being correct and must keep anyone from questioning them by bringing up "inconvenient facts."<br /><br />One of the best "Fiskings" of AGW theory is here:<br />http://sppiblog.org/news/scientific-american%e2%80%99s-climate-lies<br />It's long, but, IMO, well worth the time.Jimmy J.noreply@blogger.com