Star One Smart Blog's

There's fervor, almost to the point of religious faith, amongst the proponents of Global Warmalism. Look no further than the comments to Number 9's post yesterday, and you'll see vitriol directed at 'non-believers'. Anyone who challenges the accepted dogma is immediately subjected to attack. We who remain skeptical (somehow, we remember the 1970's promise of an impending ice age that didn't materialize, not to mention those silly pet rocks!) in the face of the warmologist's cacophony are deniers, we have our heads stuck up our posteriors, and we don't care about the future or little brown people or the joooooooooos....

Well, how about some nice Science that challenges your "the debate is OVER!" wide stance?

From The Austrailian, a reporter from ABC Radio National, Michael Duffy, interviews Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow at the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Duffy asks Marohasy the question:

"Is the Earth still warming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what skeptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognize that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

So. There are a "...lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide." But, but, that flies in the face of the Goreacle! How can anyone who has proclaimed 'the debate is OVER' be denied, again, His legitimateness and correctness (without even a recount?)

Again...there is room for debate. This planet has changed so much over the 4.5 billion years it's circled the sun; there is nothing we puny humans can do that won't be wiped away in the next billion years or so. We are transient!

If there is warming due to human activity, the only solution would be to de-industrialize and de-modernize; stop our forward societal evolution and become much like our betters, the Amish and the Mennonites. Let's tell India and China to stop their modernization programs, go back to the easy days of the past. I'll bet they will jump on board with that.

We, here, in the USA and other 'hypermodern' societies have the responsibility to find out exactly what should be done to both maintain and continue our advancement, and to make our world agreeable for our successors. We should start that by following China's lead and maintaining some sensible population stability. Not overreact and throw our economy under the bus to satisfy great Al's wounded ego.

---

(That's not my pshop, btw; I do admire the thing, though!)
h/t Ed Morrissey
Crossed from Tennessee Free

---