Climate models “fundamentally wrong” says new study

As the Senate mulls ramming through an economy-crippling cap-and-trade measure with the ostensible goal of Saving the World™ through reduced carbon emissions, a new study published online in Nature Geoscience and reported on in USA Today calls into question the role of carbon dioxide in “climate change.” The study looks at a global rise in temperature 55 million years ago and concludes that a substantial portion of the increase cannot be attributed to atmospheric CO2, meaning that other processes or feedback loops are in play (Heads up from Hot Air).

The co-author of the study, oceanographer Gerald Dickens, says, “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.” The comment and the study illustrate that, far from an established consensus, there remains significant debate about the cause and severity of global warming/climate change. For educated and intelligent dissent on the climate change subject, one need only look at the work of meteorologist Anthony Watts, who posted this story yesterday and who regularly points to scientific findings and articles that call into question the “consensus” of global warming.

I have to wonder what Al Gore would say about this study. Actually, I already know – he’d ignore it and label doubters as ignorant fools. Meanwhile, he and others conveniently fail to deal with large holes in their worldview, such as the fact that temperatures on planets besides Earth have risen over the past few decades, pointing to a solar source and not a carbon one. The truth is that climate change is far from settled science, but supporters of man-made global warming have jumped to a narrow view of scientific fact and pushed forth with almost religious zeal in promoting an environmental agenda that does little to help the planet and harms us economically anyway.

So when the Senate rears its head on cap-and-trade, consider that the program,with its massive cost and economic hardship, has a very good chance of just a case of chasing the tail of a beast that never existed in the first place.

Rob Portman raises more money than both his two Ohio Dem rivals combined

Good news for the campaign of former Congressman Rob Portman, who is seeking the Senate seat being vacated by George Voinovich - during the second quarter of 2009, he raised $1.7 million compared to the $900,000 raised by Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and $228,000 of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, both Democrats. This brings the amount Portman’s raised to $3.4 million to Fisher’s $1.9 million and Brunner’s $435,000 (Heads up from RedState and Ohio Politics Online).

Now fundraising dollars aren’t everything, but as you move more locally in the scope of an election, the monetary advantage can become more apparent. And it can be an indicator of a candidate’s ability to motivate the base. From the monetary totals on the Democratic side, Jennifer Brunner’s paltry sum leads me to believe that it will be Lee Fisher bearing the standard for the donkeys in 2010.

That would set up an interesting race where both Fisher and his boss Gov. Ted Strickland would be up for election. As key members of the same administration, their political fates are undoubtedly linked. It would be difficult to imagine that Ohio voters would reward one but spurn the other, and as Ohio’s economy continues to slide and dissatisfaction with Strickland’s lackluster gubernatorial performance continues to mount, the case will be harder to make for both Fisher and Strickland that they deserve Ohio’s votes.

It leaves Portman with growing momentum heading into the contest next year. The ball seems to be bouncing toward his court, so it’ll be interesting to watch the coming debate within the Buckeye state.