Solar Warming Hypothesis heats up the GW debate


Nigel Calder is no science slouch and he joins a growing number of voices challenging the conventional wisdom about warming. Although I think there are still too few such voices to reject the findings of the IPCC report that states it is 90% certain that observed warming is caused by humans, it’s should be clear to all now that dissenting voices in academic circles are stifled both by peer pressure and by grant pressure where projects that might challenge the current thinking simply are not funded.

Calder’s perspective is interesting. All of us should be frustrated by the intensity of the groupthink and alarmism that has characterized the warming debate, though there is enough of a concensus among respected researchers that I’m skeptical Calder is right that most of the warming is due to solar radiation fluctuation and not greenhouse gasses.

However I’m very respectful of the fact that Calder and many others are correctly asserting that good science comes from hypotheses that challenge conventional wisdom rather than adopt it unskeptically.

A book that needs to be written is one that exposes the academic censorship claimed by a growing number of insiders and outsiders in this heated global debate which arguably could lead to the most expensive project in history.

However, even if one accepts IPCC conclusions, I’m floored to see how many scientists are comfortable asserting that since IPCC suggests a 90% likelihood that warming is human caused we therefore should forego trillions in GDP to stop it.  This conclusion does NOT flow from science, and borders on economic and societal irresponsibility.

The global public, even more than scientists and politicians, seems unwilling to engage in an intelligent debate about whether to spend resources on current catastrophic conditions of poverty and health or on the potential dangers of global warming. As always, our ignorance is our peril.