Submitted by Right Brain, Sep 23, 2008 08:06

Given the brevity of a newspaper essay Mr. Sachs is not able to cite sources for his various claims of global warming, but still he implies that there is a scientific consensus regarding this matter. There is not, possibly there was in 2005 but it began falling apart in 2007 due to the data arriving from the two weather satellites put in space by the Americans to study this exact matter. ALL paleoclimatologist agree that for the C02 warming hypothesis to be correct there would have to be a warm layer, hot spot if you will, somewhere around 10 Kilometers above the earth around the tropics. It is not there, we have been looking for it endlessly with satellites and weather balloons for years, and cannot find it. Two separate data sets now belie that it is there. Without that layer, for those who understand it, the C02 heating hypothesis cannot be true. The second problem is that the globe is cooling, has been for ten years or more, and we have seen recent and huge ice formation in the Arctic as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), 700,000 sq/kil this past year alone. Slowly but surely the early adaptors to this warming theory are now backing away from it, Australian weather-scientist David Evans for instance wrote the "carbon tax credits" model in fear of global warming, but now no longer believes in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). His turnaround based on the satellite data not found, "the greenhouse signature is missing" as he states concisely. The point being that Mr. Sach's article ridicules Sarah Palin and other awful Republicans for not accepting scientific conclusion over their instincts. But neither is he, the data changed, but he has not. As a journalist Sarah Palin is more on top of the confusion, rancor, and rapid change in the environmental sciences than Mr. Sachs; quite possibly by her experience with fluid scientific models.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.