Global Warming Catastrophe Looms

Photo credit: NASA satellite image

WorldNetDaily reported today that a US climate researcher says we only have a decade left to fix global warming before we face disaster.

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Addressing the Climate Change Research Conference this week, Hansen said if "business as usual" continues, world temperatures will rise by 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit and "we will be producing a different planet."

Ironically, a report issued yesterday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that while the summer of 2006 was the second-warmest on record, the hottest year for the contiguous 48 states since statistics began in 1895 was 1936 – seven decades ago.

I'm skeptical about global warming alarms, especially the variety that says we're all going to die. Soon! I see reports that say we're cooling slightly. Other reports announce heating in Alaska but ignore the cooling in Canada that happened during the same time period. A person might think we can't be warming and cooling at the same time, but think again.

Take a look at the picture at the top of this post. It's from the WorldNetDaily article, and it shows the Arctic ice cap. The caption under it in the article says that the polar ice has been reduced by the equivalent of the state of Texas (which has no ice to speak of and is home to the hated President Bush, so I'm surprised they use that as their example).

But if you look closely, the melted part (white on the left picture and pink on the right) is near Russia. At the same time, Alaska's ice grew since the year before. And so did the ice near Iceland and Scandanavia. But nobody's talking about Alaska and Europe. No, everybody likes to blame the US for not signing the Kyoto Treaty, as though we're to blame for Russia's failure to keep its ice from melting.

There are scientists who dispute the global warming alarmists, and several are listed (along with their arguments) in the WND article. But these are often dismissed by the alarmists as not being "real" scientists.

So how can you tell if people are real scientists? Here's the scientific method the alarmists use:

If they agree that global warming is real and a threat, they're real scientists.

If they dispute the global warming alarm bells, they're quacks.

Simple.