Monday, April 13, 2009

More Hairspray Please

As a follow up to my recent post which discussed Obama's science advisor Holdren's call to artificially pollute the air in order to cool the earth, see C. August's post at Titanic Deck Chairs which provides more detail including a link to a post at Reality Talk. Reality Talk uncovers the genesis of Holdren's plan which appears to stem from a paper published last year that argued that the rise in temperature in Europe since 1980 is being caused by declining aerosol concentrations - yes, global warming is being caused by cleaner air! Quoting the paper's abstract:

The rapid temperature increase of 1°C over mainland Europe since 1980 is considerably larger than the temperature rise expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. Here we present aerosol optical depth measurements from six specific locations and surface irradiance measurements from a large number of radiation sites in Northern Germany and Switzerland. The measurements show a decline in aerosol concentration of up to 60%, which have led to a statistically significant increase of solar irradiance under cloud-free skies since the 1980s. The measurements confirm solar brightening and show that the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is +1 W m−2 dec−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.
Weren't we told that the science behind global warming is definitive and that this fact entails "a huge reordering of the world economy"? Yet, evidently, we are at the stage where new research is revealing causes that are orders of magnitude greater than previously known. As I said in a previous post and again here related to recent evidence that the sun might actually have something to do with temperature:

I submit that if climate scientists are still at the point of saying things like "I think the main question is, how does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?" then perhaps we should have some skepticism as to the validity of their computer models which extrapolate their current understanding and attempt to predict the weather over the next 100 years!!!!!
Of course, environmentalists are not really concerned with "warming" but with any human impingement on nature. As I stated in my post The Average Temperature of Eden in which I speculated as to what Environmentalist's might regard the "perfect" temperature to be:

...religionists and/or environmentalists both explicitly or implicitly postulate an Eden wherein “man” allegedly lived in “perfect harmony” with nature and/or God which has now been defiled by man’s essential nature which is flawed and profane.
Their real agenda is to protect the earth from man. As I noted in my post The Change to Climate Change, the usage of science by environmentalists is a facade and explains why environmentalists have been deftly changing their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change".

Environmentalists are not concerned with saving the Earth for man but saving the Earth from man. In other words, because man by his nature must use the Earth, the environmentalist who values nature "intrinsically" must in principle consider man to be only an enemy of the earth (which has now attained the status of a pseudo-god to be worshipped for its own sake.) Therefore, the scientific issue of "warming" is a smokescreen, i.e., a convenient claim carrying a pseudo-scientific veneer which can more easily confuse the ignorant public as to the movement's true aims. If "warming" were wholly disproved it would not temper the Environmentalist cause for a second as they would move on to something else as they are already doing with "climate change" or some to be determined apocryphal fantasy aimed at scaring the public into accepting sacrifice and global government decrees thwarting production and economic progress. Remember global cooling, acid rain, DDT, overpopulation, soil erosion, etc. etc.
Economic and scientific arguments are window dressing to the root premise of modern intellectuals: the morality of altruism, i.e., self-sacrifice upon which all of their claims are predicated. Note that socialists originally argued that socialism would outproduce capitalism (so they urged the producers to sacrifice for the proletariat). When socialism led to widespread misery and death, the socialists reversed their argument to the claim that capitalism is producing too much and destroying the planet (so they urge the producers to sacrifice for the sake of the planet). Now that we are discovering that clean air is leading to warming (excuse me, "climate change"), what will they claim? Well, of course, they will urge us to endure the suffering associated with polluting our own atmosphere and blocking the sun's rays. You see, as long as man is suffering, it is all good.

No comments: