Taking the Longer, Unsettled, View...

Russ Vaughn

FoxNews.com is reporting more possible chicanery on the part of the scientists who monitor the effects of supposed global warming; but after reading the Fox article I would have to say this appears to be one of the less egregious cases of fact-fudging by the climate alarmists. The situation summary is that scientists with the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group took it upon themselves to arbitrarily add a small incremental increase to their annual measured reading to account for a natural phenomenon and explained their actions thus:

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com  that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly  bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What caught my eye here was not the minor increment added by the scientists but that comment that global land masses are rising because they are still rebounding from the ice age. Think about that for a moment; a geo-climatic event nearly 20,000 years in the past is still having physical, measurable effects on our planet. Yet we have Al Gore and his chicken-little Warmbats screaming hysterically that we should be alarmed that mankind's activities of the past couple of decades may have drastic and irrevocable global effects on the future of the planet.

And even as the Warmbats splutter, we have other scientific institutions reporting this week that we may very well be looking at a significant reduction in sunspot activity for an extended period which could result in a resumption of glaciation and serious global cooling. The Warmbats are quickly jumping all over these particular new solar observation reports claiming that we simply don't know enough about the effect of the sun and sunspots to make any judgments about their effect on earth's climate. Is this not a curious argument in light of the fact that sunspots have been studied since before the time of Christ and their effects on the earth observed for hundreds of years? Couple that with the fact that even the Warmbats acknowledge that the earth's land masses are still unsettled tens of thousands of years after their causative, glacial events while the so-called scientific study of global warming has been underway for all of twenty or thirty years?

Yet the science is settled on global warming?

I believe I'll take the longer, still unsettled view, Al.

FoxNews.com is reporting more possible chicanery on the part of the scientists who monitor the effects of supposed global warming; but after reading the Fox article I would have to say this appears to be one of the less egregious cases of fact-fudging by the climate alarmists. The situation summary is that scientists with the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group took it upon themselves to arbitrarily add a small incremental increase to their annual measured reading to account for a natural phenomenon and explained their actions thus:

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com  that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly  bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What caught my eye here was not the minor increment added by the scientists but that comment that global land masses are rising because they are still rebounding from the ice age. Think about that for a moment; a geo-climatic event nearly 20,000 years in the past is still having physical, measurable effects on our planet. Yet we have Al Gore and his chicken-little Warmbats screaming hysterically that we should be alarmed that mankind's activities of the past couple of decades may have drastic and irrevocable global effects on the future of the planet.

And even as the Warmbats splutter, we have other scientific institutions reporting this week that we may very well be looking at a significant reduction in sunspot activity for an extended period which could result in a resumption of glaciation and serious global cooling. The Warmbats are quickly jumping all over these particular new solar observation reports claiming that we simply don't know enough about the effect of the sun and sunspots to make any judgments about their effect on earth's climate. Is this not a curious argument in light of the fact that sunspots have been studied since before the time of Christ and their effects on the earth observed for hundreds of years? Couple that with the fact that even the Warmbats acknowledge that the earth's land masses are still unsettled tens of thousands of years after their causative, glacial events while the so-called scientific study of global warming has been underway for all of twenty or thirty years?

Yet the science is settled on global warming?

I believe I'll take the longer, still unsettled view, Al.