Ah, yes, “the need for action”. Certain scientists have called for a 60% reduction in manmade greenhouse gases. (A few advocates call this target inadequate.) Let us set aside for a moment the lack of any feasible alternate energy source and focus on the matter of effectiveness. Sixty percent of six percent is three point six (3.6%) percent. Those scientist, then, are asserting that if total greenhouse gases are reduced by 3.6%, global warming will be considerably slowed and possibly stopped. This seems questionable at best. What is their scientific proof?
We turn now to the scientific heart of AGW. It is computer models. And they are the dirty little secret of Al Gore’s theory. Because they are flawed. Even the IPCC so acknowledges.
> They are based on a certain amount of temperature data that is unreliable, having been collected inconsistently or achieved with a “fudge factor”.
> Not all of the computer models agree.
> All failed to “predict” current or historic conditions.
> All mishandle in some way the effect of clouds, “… the largest source of discrepancy among climate models”
> All fail to include the effect of aerosols (fine particles) in the atmosphere.
In the absence of a clean, economically equivalent alternate energy source, a source that is not even on the horizon never mind the drawing board, the proposed reduction of 3.6% of total greenhouse gases – 60% of the greenhouse gases which man generates – could only be achieved at a staggering cost, financial and lifestyle, to man. Yet looking at those flawed computer models, there is no conclusive evidence that such drastic measures would even work!
This is a good point at which to issue two disclaimers.
1.) No one denies that up until 1998, the planet was warming. Skeptics only question the extent of the role of man.
2.) Personally, I have no love of fossil fuels. Yes, compared to past energy sources – the burning of wood and peat, the use of animals – it is far more potent and clean, especially the way the United States, with its myriad of enviro regs, utilizes them. Nevertheless, they are not 100% clean. Accordingly, the day a clean, adequate energy source that costs the same as bitumen by-products is discovered, I’ll be standing right there with a champagne glass.
Al Gore has notoriously urged AGW advocates to resort to “over-representation” when making their case. AGW skeptics are happy to stick to the facts, especially as one in particular provides remarkable perspective on both the extent of man’s role in global warming and the very high price he would have to pay if his actions, indeed, are the tipping point for the phenomenon.