Everything is Caused by Global Warming

Here we are, in a nationwide heatwave, so you know it was going to happen: somebody somewhere was going to get the idea that it's not hot because it's summertime, it's hot because big bad Global Warming did it.  Well, that happened yesterday.  To be fair, the article makes no mention of anthropogenic causes, but what's not fair is that there is no critical voice explaining other causes for these warm nights.  Major cities display what's known as the Heat Island Effect, which is caused by fewer shade trees, artificial canyons made by tall buildings and narrow streets, and waste heat produced by engines and motors (in cars, air conditioners, industry).  The Global Warming crowd has two fronts that they need to advance in order to achieve their goal of behavior modification for the rest of us: anthropogenic carbon dioxide and an extreme rate of change.  On the first part, they have to prove how much (or how little) carbon dioxide is necessary to drive atmospheric climate change and how much carbon dioxide people's economic policies are producing to effect that change.  On the second part is where most of the fear mongering occurs.  They have to convince the public how much more the increase is happening than "normal" warming and that this "alarming" rate causes all sorts of problems.  When we see these problems in everyday life, bang!  Global Warming is happening!  We need to change now!

It's good to report on what the effects of Global Warming might be, because the theory is complicated and an average mean temperature increase would have many different effects in different local microclimates.  What I object to is the obvious bias in the reporting.  I can just imagine the reporter's thinking process: it's hot out there, I wonder if this is because of Global warming!  Let me call my usual quote machines and bounce this idea off of them.  In other science reporting, the critical view is (mostly) employed.  Take this story on an "obesity vaccine".  There are critical points all over it.  Warning that rat and human physiology is different, human metabolism is very complex so forming an antigen for one hormone is too simplistic, and that much more research had to be done.  This article was a story on a research paper that had been published online in a reputable journal for peer review.  In the other article, there was none of this.  I wouldn't even call it a science story.  That's my major objection right there.  If Anthropogenic Global Warming is to be taken seriously by the majority of the public, the science needs to be presented as science, not some looming disaster movie, where we see the signs, and we did nothing to stop the disaster from happening.  Every year, this list gets longer.  Proof of Global Warming or proof of an agenda?  Guess which way I lean.

 

Update:  Here's another reason to be skeptical of Global Warming - Pat Robertson now believes that Global Warming exists because of the east coast heat wave.  If someone that can't abide the evidence which continually points toward evolution can accept that anthropogenic warming exists because its hot during summertime, perhaps current adherence to global warming is more a matter of belief than of science.  Frankly, I'm surprised Robertson didn't say something more along the lines that the heat was God's wrath for out of wedlock babies and letting lesbians adopt children.  You know, something ridiculous.

 

Update 2: Welcome guys from Tim Blair!  Thanks for stopping by, stay awhile, ask me questions, leave snarky comments.  Thanks, Tim, for the traffic!  This really made my day!