With thanks to Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney
Published on January 10, 2010 By Bunnahabhain In The Environment

Well, well, well. One of my favourite columnists, Lawrence Solomon wrote a very interesting column yesterday. This is sure to turn a few heads. The gist of the article is that man-made global warming was occurring due to the hole in the ozone layer. When the key industrial nations of the world banned CFCs, the layer repaired itself, and global warming stopped.

From the linked article:

 

"Climate change is real and man-made, explains University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, author of a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal,Physics Reports."

 

The biggest problem that I've always had with the global warming hypothesis was that it was too simple an explanation. The earth's climate is a very complex system, and while CO2 admittedly plays a role, it is such a minor component that you can't explain the effect on the entire system by adjusting it up and down.

It's kind of like trying to determine how the economy is going to perform solely by looking at "supply and demand".

This will surely fry the AGW crowd's bacon, if it turns out to be correct explanation. Thank you Qing-Bin Lu!

 


Comments (Page 2)
on Jan 11, 2010

One more thing quacker.  Was it not you who said:

I was born and grew up *in* Detroit. I lived on Robson St. between Grand River and Schoolcraft St. from 1952 until 1970 when my family moved to Southfield. I was there in 1967 during the riots and when the Tigers won the World Series in 1968. I went to Cooley High School before moving to Boston to go to MIT.

What killed the city of Detroit is one simple thing. White flight. Black people moved into white neighborhoods and everyone was so panicked that they sold their houses for ten cents on the dollar.

 

And is it not you that "flew"?  Have you now branded yourself (once more) a racist? Hurts when the truth is revealed - by you no less.

on Jan 11, 2010

And is it not you that "flew"?
Hardly, given that I was a minor at the time.

And if I am a liar, you should be able to post my lies.
Everything you type is a lie.

The party of Abraham Lincoln indeed, that's how far you'd have to go back to find an honest one.

You are a childish ass and I will no longer participate in your inane doublespeak talk. Feel free to chatter on aimlessly, it suits your personality well.

on Jan 11, 2010

Hardly, given that I was a minor at the time.

I was born and grew up *in* Detroit

grew up?  Or was just born there?  And if you left when a minor, you could not have been too cognizant of the surroundings (but then that was just last year, right?).

And there must be a warrant for your arrest upon your return, right?  and that is why you did not go back?

The party of Abraham Lincoln indeed, that's how far you'd have to go back to find an honest one.

Oh, I see.  So you were not against freeing the slaves, just civil rights?  Kind of like bobby.  Yea, how far are you in the grand order?  Kleagle yet?

Please run away and take your juvenile insults with you.  I guess we have enough of your lies.  I know, everything I type is a lie.  And how do we know?  Mr. Know It All says so!

on Jan 11, 2010

Of course there are still people that believe that smoking isn't bad for you either. It shouldn't be suprising that many of the same organizations that deny global warming were heavily involved with denying that smoking was harmful.

Q. What does smoking have to do with global warming or the hole in the ozone layer?

A. Nothing.

Please keep the conversation on subject.

on Jan 11, 2010

I don't suppose you notice the irony between these two comments.

That's a joke. I say, that's a joke, son!

on Jan 11, 2010

Gentlemen, let's try to keep the language clean, the discussion civil and on-topic. Thanks.

on Jan 12, 2010

I appologize for polluting your blog.  An excellent thesis and I appreciate being a part of the discussion.

on Jan 12, 2010

Apology accepted Doc. Mumblefratz was on the attack the moment he walked in the door. While I deleted two of his posts due to the language used, I'll let the rest of it stand.

It will be interesting to see if there is any follow-up to the original research and what the results are. Time will tell!

on Jan 23, 2010

With Mumble, anyone who questions the assumptions upon which AGW theory is based is either an idiot or an untrustworthy tool of Big Oil.  All AGW proponents are pure, all opponents tainted in some way.  The value of any information is determined exclusively by where it came from, not its content.  AGW is in his mind accepted fact (settled science), therefore any burden of proof is exclusively on those who question its assumptions.

As long as we're on the subject: interesting read.

on Jan 25, 2010

any information is determined exclusively by where it came from, not its content.

The sad part is that the arguments he uses to minimize the sources he does not like can also be applied to his sources.

Such as he only wants to use "Climatologist", but Pachauri, head of the IPCC is not one, nor is Mann.  And climatology is not a branch of science, just an interaction of several branches.  But he discounts anyone in those branches as not being an authority. 

Too many of the AGW religious are like him, and nothing short of the destruction of the planet is going to convince they are wrong.  It is like the Daffy Duck cartoon (the one where he is auditioning for a spot on a show and blows himself up).  They can only be proved wrong once - but there will be no one around afterwards to say "see, we told you so".

on Jan 27, 2010

As long as we're on the subject: interesting read.

Yes, very. Thanks!

on Jan 27, 2010

Too many of the AGW religious are like him, and nothing short of the destruction of the planet is going to convince they are wrong.  It is like the Daffy Duck cartoon (the one where he is auditioning for a spot on a show and blows himself up).  They can only be proved wrong once - but there will be no one around afterwards to say "see, we told you so".

 

I read an interesting article recently by Andrew Coyne, and I quote "The error here is not only scientific. It is also political. If your desire is to persuade the unpersuaded among the general public, the very worst way to go about it is to advertise your bottomless contempt for your adversaries."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/07/the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere/

It doesn't matter what side of the debate that you are on, but if your basic argument is, "I'm so smart, you're so dumb, and I'm going to hit you over the head with my opinions until you get it", well that is not likely to be the argument that persuades me.