Les traigo dos magníficos artículos para reflexionar. Por favor, léanlos. En el primero, publicado en el Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens nos habla del Calentamiento Global como un fenómeno de masas, un fenómeno patológico, pseudoreligioso:
If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.
[…]
The first (explicación posible para el fenómeno) is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: «And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart». That’s Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What’s remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
No dejen de leerlo completo.
El segundo artículo es más científico. Me llega por e-mail gracias a Antonio Gimeno. En este texto de Roy Spencer encontramos, de forma sencilla pero concluyente, muy buenas razones para dudar del caracter «artificial» o «antropogénico» del cambio climático que observamos. La naturaleza, lo venimos diciendo en este blog por activa y por pasiva, es mucho más consistente que la humanidad, por muy vanidosa que esta sea:
Here are the conclusions I have come to:
1) Current satellite estimates of climate sensitivity have a spurious BIAS in the direction of HIGH SENSITIVITY.
(2) This bias is probably due to small, natural fluctuations in cloud cover causing contamination of the true climate sensitivity signal.
(3) The true climate sensitivity only shows up during those shorter periods of time when non-radiative forcing (e.g. evaporation) is causing a relatively large source of temperature variability, compared to that from cloud variability which «tries» to push the diagnosed line slope toward zero (borderline unstable climate system).
[…]
Finally, what I have presented above represents both empirical and theoretical evidence for what many people (meteorologists and laypersons alike) have been wondering for a long time….
«Couldn’t most of this global warming simply be part of a natural cycle?»
La verdad es que no existe ni un solo científico que tenga la mas mínima idea de como funciona la naturaleza.
De las pocas cosas que si se saben destacan dos:
– Que el llamado efecto invernadero provoca calentamiento en la Tierra.
– Que el sol calienta cada vez menos.
El problema es que se está combatiendo únicamente el efecto invernadero por lo que, aún por casualidad, se tiene éxito, va a haber un frío de un par de c*jones.
Todo memo necesita creer en algo (no todos los que creen en algo son memos), y han buscado un sustituto a la religión.