Global Warming Theory Finally Disputed

One of the first major magazine pieces that the Trunk and I wrote was called “The Global Warming Hoax.” It appeared, as I recall, in 1992 and is not available anywhere on the web. I don’t recall what led us to start studying the issue, but we were astonished to find that a theory that commanded such universal political allegiance, even then, had so little scientific support.
The data are too voluminous to reproduce here, but our argument was basically along these lines: 1) The earth’s temperatures today are not historically out of line. The earth was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today, and as recently as the 1970′s falling temperatures were causing environmentalists (in some cases, the same ones who now push global warming) to warn against a coming ice age–caused, of course, by man’s activities. 2) The evidence for global warming consists entirely of computer models. Those models, however, are known to be wrong, since they do not accurately account for past temperatures. (This fact is so elementary that the success of environmentalists in obscuring it is remarkable.) 3) Average emperatures on earth never stand still; they are always either rising or falling. The most obvious potential cause for these fluctuations is variation in the amount of energy emitted by the sun. And, indeed, recent research has shown that variations in solar energy output correspond closely with temperature fluctuations on earth.
The global warming advocates have never presented a sound scientific case, but in the political realm they have been virtually unchallenged. Finally, however, some Republicans are starting to question the global warming theory publicly, as this Washington Times article recounts. The principal hero here is James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, who recently heard testimony from scientists who pointed out the absence of evidence for human-caused global warming.
The response from the left was predictable: howls of outrage that anyone would question a theory that everyone knows to be true, with no acknowledgement, let alone refutation, of the arguments made by the dissenting scientists.
The occasion was the upcoming debate on the energy bill, which a number of Democrats will seek to amend to impose limits on carbon emissions. Such curbs would have a devastating impact on the economy. For now, it appears that carbon emission limits will be defeated. But they are inevitable if pro-science legislators fail to make the case that the global warming theory is, indeed, a hoax.
There are many web sites dedicated to this topic; here is one; here is another; and here is a third.

Responses