I;ve been following a lot of blogs, web sites, popular press stories and other sources of information concerning climate change, global warming and cooling, supposed causes and effects, and am appalled by the enormous proportion of them that involve non-scientific thought.
Here’s today’s basic question.
Is engineer Burt Rutan exhibiting correct (realistic, logical) thinking and analysis when he applies his analytical skills outside his field of aeronautics and plunges into the battlefield of debate about anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
Take a look at his reasons for studying AGW, and some of the conclusions he has reached, in this PDF and this PowerPoint presentation.
Here’s a tiny taste of his writings on this topic. With slide 8 of the PowerPoint set he casts serious doubt about the effectiveness of any attempt to curb human-caused CO2 emissions on global warming:
His notes for slide 8 say:
Introducing the AGW scare requires only a look at Greenhouse Gasses. The big block of 100 squares represents all the greenhouse gasses which are dominated by water vapor. The Yellow is CO2 that comes from natural sources (other than Man). The little Red block is CO2 from Human emissions. Stare at this chart while you ask yourself; Why would the economies of the US and the world be threatened by this much of the greenhouse gas, even if the greenhouse were the only driver of planet warming?? It is not, and we will later see what actually controls the planet temperature. There is an enormous push now to reduce the red block by a few % by 2020 - a difficult, expensive goal that will have a nil effect on planet temperature.
The fact that this is so clear reveals that those pushing the hardest and those controlling the funds for research worry little and care little about warming or flooding. If they did, they would not grossly emit carbon and buy homes at Sea Level in West Palm Beach, Florida.
There’s a lot else to ponder in this presentation. For example, in slides 24 and 25 he looks into atmospheric temperature variations over the last 410,000 years (as indicated by Vostok ice cores), and says:
“Is hot or cold bad?? The Alarmist warns that a third of Florida could again be flooded like it was many years ago. However, most of North America and Europe have had a mile-thick ice sheet, most of the time.
Therefore, if you have a of crisis, is it the rescue of those in Disney World or the need for everyone move to Panama/Sahara to keep from freezing?
… The planet preference is the ice age, where the fossil record shows extinction preference”
So my question is, what would you prefer? Examine Rutan’s entire presentation and let me know what you think!
No comments:
Post a Comment