Since I first posted about it, I’ve been idly checking around to see what comes of it. My glancing around is by no means exhaustive, and yet, the apparent absence of a very strong scientific counter broadcast far and wide tells me a great deal. Why wouldn’t they, if they had the goods? By broadcasting this far and wide, along with the obvious refutation, they could nail the coffin shut on dissenters far and wide. In its place, though, is a whole lot of attempts at various character assassination.
Character assassination, of course, is a pretty effective technique when you’re talking about opinions, rather than whether the link between Co2 and global warming is cause and effect (in the case of Co2 causing warming — never mind the even more dubious anthropogenic element), or effect of cause (the sun’s increased activity over hundreds of years slowly heats the Earth — imagine that — and increased Co2 levels are one of the many measurable effects).
What I think is devastating about this revelation for the man-made global warming sycophants falls into two broad areas: (1) it acknowledges a relationship between heating and Co2, and (2), I cannot imagine a better illustration of Occam’s razor.
The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible [there’s your anthropogenic], eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
This, laddies and gentleman, is why I never for an instant bought into the global warming hysteria. Like many others, I was at first even unconvinced that there was any average temperature increase. But over the years, they convinced me that there is indeed warming. I’m not going to ignore plain facts, and this now seems to be the case. But Co2 is about 1/30th of one percent of the total atmosphere, and there are a number of natural phenomena that produce far more Co2 than man, like volcanic activity and biological respiration (of all organisms — especially in the oceans, the largest Co2 producer). It just never added up, and now it all seems to, and very neatly.
And in my layman’s eyes, it’s a pretty damn elegant explanation, too.
Then again, I have only to rely on my own senses, sense of honesty and integrity to facts and reason, and the reputations of those producing data, hypotheses, and conclusions. The fact that this debate has been so politically charged and motivated made me smell a rat early on, and I was convinced that there are legions of scientists out there who have sold their very professional beings for grant money, i.e., money that’s more often than not stolen from you. See how "legitimized" theft — not money — corrupts?
Brian Micklethwait has a pretty good roundup of the whole deal and who might be behind it, and why. Frankly, I don’t care if they’re commies or not (who isn’t, these days?). If they think that scientific truth will somehow advance their cause, then that (novel) approach to politics ought to be the least of my fears.
If it turned out that knowing the truth resulted in the absolute annihilation of the Earth and everything in it, I would have but one reaction: bring on the truth. Living a lie is the worst form of annihilation.
Regular readers may note that I have recently seen signs that this man-made global warming debate is peaking. This revolutionary new development is right on schedule.
Update: Billy Beck renders insights.