Log in


Two articles about global warming

I recently read two articles written from a pro-AGW point of view that bear discussion.

The first one is Global warming lull down to China's coal growth.It attempts to explain the lack of warming from 1998-2008 by blaming it on particulate pollution.  The lead  is rather interesting: "The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China's coal use, a study suggests." (emphasis mine). It doesn't conclude, or determine, it suggests. After 10 years without warming, I'm sure the AGW believers were open to all kinds of suggestions.

This is  not the first time someone has suggested particulate pollution as a means to curb global warming. As I wrote about in a previous post, Obama science czar John Holdren actually suggested creating such pollution for that very purpose,

It's reasonable to ask after this study if the warming that preceded 1998 was at least partially caused by a lowering of particulate pollution as a a result of environmental laws.

My favorite quote in the article comes from climate researcher Robert Kaufmann:

People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

This is an interesting remark coming from someone who is trying to explain away 10 years of empirical evidence.

The other article was Former Global Warming Skeptic & Conservative Tackles GOP’s “Rejection of Proven Science at matternetwork.com.
It is about Michael Stafford, a former climate skeptic and "former Republican Party officer" (it doesn't say what office or at what level), who has decided to be a skeptic no longer.

I am a conservative and a climate skeptic. If Michael Stafford was prominent in either of these areas, I think I would have heard of him. But things do slip under my radar, so I googled his name. The first link  that seemed to reference the Michael Stafford this article talks about is to an article at  coffeepartyusa.com he authored. The coffee party is hardly a conservative organization. And his article is entitled Is Ayn Rand the L. Ron Hubbard of American conservatism?

It appears that in addition to being a former climate skeptic, he is a very former conservative.His bio states that he is a "a former Republican Party officer from Delaware". As I suspected, he was not an officer at the national level.I still don't know what office he held. Maybe he was in charge of bringing refreshments.

This guy is not a convert. Show me a change of heart by Pat Micheals, Anthony Watts, or Steve McIntyre, and I'll pay a little more attention.