Posted by
Compassionate Conservative on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:02:18 PM
Another letter to the Patriot-News Editor destined for their round file. Thank God for this blog.
"Penn State Professor Donald Brown wants us to adopt the Scottish Parliament's position on "anthropogenic" global warming, which is to say that it is "the Scott's [sic]... obligation to the rest of the world to do so." Evidently, Professor Brown thinks it's also the United States' obligation to do so. Brown claims that "human-induced climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is now affecting 300 million people around the world" by causing "severe heat waves, floods, storms, and forest fires." He further argues that, in effect, Americans are irresponsible because they continue "to debate this issue as if the only consideration is how our economy might be affected."
I agree that it certainly would be irresponsible, if there were any proof that there's such a thing as "anthropogenic" global warming. Unfortunately for Brown and his liberal allies, there isn't. The climate, of course, is always and has always been changing, either continually getting colder or warmer, but humans have never had anything to do with it, and they still don't. Remember that these are the same people who gave us "nuclear winter" just over 30 years ago.
Predictions of "global warming" aren't based on the scientific method, whereby scientists theorize that a particular outcome will result from a given input, then test that theory in a laboratory, either indoor or outdoor, to see if the expected outcome happens. Current predictions are based on forecasting, statistical modeling whereby past data is analyzed to determine if observed inputs and outputs from the system under observation can be correlated. Sometimes, though, scientists make false assumptions about causality by assuming that because two or more events are statistically correlated, that one must be causing the other(s).
While we know the climate will change one way or the other over time, but it's never certain exactly what direction it's going, warmer or colder. What is certain is that there are literally at least thousands of relevant forces that interact to produce what we know as the weather, in the short term, and the climate, in the long term. What's equally certain is that meteorologists and climatologists don't even know what all those variables are, let alone what the interactions between them signify. We know they don't, because if they did understand these interactions, they could forecast the weather next week. Meteorologists, as most of us have experienced, frequently can't even tell us tomorrow's weather accurately, so why should we believe they can tell us what it will be in 100 years?
Unfortunately, meteorologists and their liberal pals are trying to make major economic decisions based on the results of these math models. Or rather, they're trying to get us to let them make major economic decisions, using the leverage presented by this "crisis" to get us to accept increasing government control of our economy. This is, of course, for our "own good," since the average person can't possibly know what's good for him (or her) and must let the elite political class make those decisions for him. But don't fall for this, and don't let Professor Donald Brown make you think you're irresponsible for wanting Americans to have a good standard of living."