- Global arming: Nature or Nurture? - - Elli -, 25.06.2003, 10:35
Global arming: Nature or Nurture?
--><div>
<font color="#002864" size="1" face="Verdana">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1240</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font face="Verdana" size="2"><font color="#002864" size="5"><strong>Global arming: Nature or Nurture?</strong></font>
</div>
<font size="4">by Kevin Van Cott</font>
<font size="2">May 24, 2003</font>
<font size="2">[img][/img] I'm
wondering if the major media outlets reported on the following item. Maybe
I just happened to miss it, but I have my doubts.</font>
<font size="2">The June
issue of Scientific American highlighted some research results out of
Columbia University. Recently, Professor Richard Wilson published a
peer-reviewed article in the journal Geophysical Research Letters where
he reported the results of his studies on the amount of solar energy that our
sun has been producing over the last 24 years. During this time period,
the amount of energy the sun is producing has increased by 0.05% every 10
years. </font>
<font size="2">Now that may not sound like much to anyone, but, as Prof.
Wilson points out in his article, the cumulative effects of this trend could
be significant. For example, if this trend had begun even earlier, say as
little as about 100 years ago, it would account for a significant amount of
the global warming that has become so important to both climatologists and
environmentalists. </font>
<font size="2">Prof. Wilson acknowledged that the whole story is not yet
known, but his discoveries have shown that the mantra that has been chanted
over and over in the media about how human activities are causing
global warming needs to be re-evaluated. </font>
<font size="2">It appears that the issue of global warming is a bit more
complicated than those in the major media outlets and the environmentalist
organizations would want us to believe. It also appears that our"fragile
ecosystem" is a bit more robust than they would have us believe.</font>
<font size="2">But I wouldn't count on hearing a report on this during the
evening news. And I also wouldn't count on hearing any apologies from
environmental groups such as the Sierra Club for their statements in the past
ridiculing President Bush's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. And
I haven't heard of any new statements from them welcoming more research into
this interesting topic. </font>
<font size="2">Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, but again, I have
my doubts. People in these organizations are rarely concerned with
scientific integrity if it doesn't happen to favor their own agenda, and the
data of Prof. Wilson are precisely what these groups do not want to even
consider. Their raison d'être will disappear if it is shown that
global warming is caused, not by a lack of nurture, but by the laws of physics
that are embedded within the"genetics" of Mother Nature.</font>
<font size="2">The lesson for us here is that we need to be very careful
when we hear so-called experts from lobbying groups pontificate about
"scientific facts." Sure, university professors are not
completely impartial, but in the realm of the natural sciences, hard data
cannot be disputed, and the peer review system is one of the best detectors of
phony science. </font>
<font size="2">The Bush administration should be commended for not making
rash environmental and economic policy decisions before both sides of the
story have been heard. Who will be the first to voice that"blasphemous"
idea over the airwaves?</font>
<font size="2">
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
Kevin Van Cott teaches chemical engineering at Virginia Tech. </font><font size="2">kvancott@vt.edu</font>
</font>
![](img/lock.gif)
gesamter Thread: