Hmmm, well I guess that settles it then. Thanks to that enlightening article, we can all get back to driving hummers and burning coal without a shred of guilt...
Ah, but if you do a little research into this Henrik Svensmark you'll find that his theories have been ridiculed numerous times by his peers. Most climate scientists seem to consider his work junk science, the main argument having to do with there being no real "mechanism" for solar rays to affect clouds. It's a lot of crazy cloud science but I sort of managed to grasp it. Here's an article that refutes Svensmark's claims:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... w-clothes/
Here's the conclusion, which touches upon the kind of bullshit scientific practice Svensmark demonstrates:
realclimate.org wrote:I also think that Svensmark’s claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article. I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as “The Skeptical Environmentalist“, which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don’t fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification. Furthermore, it is only a lack of respect for the readers to publish an article that doesn’t provide all relevant sides to the story. I hope that Svensmark reads my comments and responds to them here at RealClimate. I also hope that this is read by scholars and journalists who start asking the critical questions. I do not know the answer to the questions that I pose here, so I’d be interested to hear your view.
Also, here's a review of Svensmark's book, "The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change." The review is written by Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30103
And a similar criticism of Svensmark's methods from that review:
physicsworld.com wrote:The common thread that is running throughout the book is that since GCRs must affect climate, it is just a question of finding the evidence. If one tack does not pan out, it is discarded and the next one picked up. This is a recipe for being led astray by spurious correlations and turns normal scientific practice on its head.
He sounds like a hack to me. I really wouldn't recommend taking scientific information seriously from a website that specializes in conservative news. Seems to me that it's always rather self-serving.
Hunchback Jack wrote:NOT one of the points I agree with, might I add.
Look, global warming/climate change is heavily politicized, and what we should *do* about it is a matter of intense debate. But is the jury still out on global warming itself?
No. No it isn't. The science is clear.
HBJ
And yes, in the last few years the climate change debate has become extremely politicized. I'm positive that there are plenty of politicians out there (both liberals and conservatives) who exploit the argument for their own agendas, whatever they may be.
But I recall a time when climate change wasn't exactly the hot topic in Washington (long before Al Gore's famous powerpoint presentation
). Remember when George W. Bush was the only leader in the G8 to oppose the Kyoto protocol, thus blocking it from ever becoming a reality? At that time, he claimed that there wasn't nearly enough evidence about climate change and what causes it. You see, having a stance that God is responsible for the climate is awfully convenient when all your buddies are rich oil-burners. At that time, those who knew something must be done about climate change (myself included) were of a minority, armed only with the overwhelming majority of scientific opinions. In those days it was all science and no agendas, and believe me I'll trust a majority of scientists over any group of politicians. Besides, just ask Frank Herbert about climate change, he'll set ya' straight.
The bigger picture here is that lobbyists descend upon Washington in a higher volume than ever right now. There is too much money to be made in the private sector, so major reform isn't going to happen without a vicious and bitter fight. Think of what happens if Washington becomes too environmentally cautious. The auto industry, coal, big oil, they all suffer dearly. These groups are immensely powerful, and will stop at nothing to ensure their annual profit gain. Now, think of what happens if healthcare reform is passed. The insurance companies (who are also huge) will be dealt a blow. This is the reason lies are being spread so much about universal healthcare, with Glenn Beck doing his part.
This is the essence of what I call Monster Capitalism. There seems to be this highly corporate notion that profit can be infinite. It's just not true. These giant CEO's seem to be blind to the effects they're having on the planet, and they justify what they do by calling it Free Enterprise. Or maybe they do realize it and are too greedy, concerned only with their retirement. Take the money and run.
I'd much rather ensure that the planet will be livable for my children, than protect my right to drive a Hummer. I'd also much rather accept a universal healthcare plan, than see 50-million people unprotected.
In summary, Glenn Beck is a puppet for an ultra-conservative media conglomerate which is clearly in bed with big oil, big insurance, and I don't even want to know who else.
