Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Did Charles Osgood move to the dark side?
Knock me over with a feather, but it sure looks as though Charles Osgood is an AGW skeptic. Wouldn't have guessed it in a thousand years.
6 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Tue Apr 21, 11:30:00 PM:
It's even more amusing to read the comments. Some express palpable disappointment and hope that he will not be taken seriously because he is old.
Yeah...."liberal"...sure...
Others are blaming "Big Oil" and Karl Rove.
Hilarious!
Cap, Trade...and FREEZE!
By Escort81, at
Tue Apr 21, 11:57:00 PM:
Listening to his piece at the Westwoodone.com website, I can't tell if he is being ironic or sarcastic when he says:
"Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?
Hush, child! You're not even supposed to suggest that. The only thing that can change global warming is if we human beings --- we Americans, especially --- completely change our ways and our way of life."
I listened to it twice and just can't discern any mocking tone of voice, but the context and the "hush child" language certainly leads one to believe that's the case. Osgood is an old pro and always plays it straight, in a down home kind of way.
The data he cites about a 100-year low in sunspot activity is interesting, although 100 years in geologic time is less than a blink of an eye.
By 
Nobrainer, at
Wed Apr 22, 07:41:00 AM:
One of hypotheses of skeptics is that solar activity accounts for a lot of the warming we see. But if the data in the Osgood report is correct, then it would seem that we're still at temperatures above the 100 year mean while the solar activity is at a 100 year low. If the sun is ruled out as a cause, then it would seem there are few other potential causes and it improves the odds that man is the cause.
With friends like that, who needs enemies...
By , at
Wed Apr 22, 09:06:00 AM:
I've raised this question here before. There was 5,000 feet of ice sitting on my yard just 30,000 years ago. The Little Ice Age just happened. Thus, you can logically conclude that the Earth's climate isn't static but is instead dynamic ... and that there are drivers of this that have nothing to do with man.
That's not to say that man can't be a driver, and even a significant one. But I've yet to hear a good explanation for how we figure in this larger dynamic -- I just think the science is too immature. We've seen bigger actual swings in the last thousand years than what the greens are projecting for the next century. That's why I'm a global warming skeptic.
But if we are a significant driver of climate change -- and I'm not convinced we are -- what's being proposed as a solution is nonsense. If we are, we need to either 1) go balls out on nuclear, 2) go live in tree forts, or -- if you truly believe we're facing an imminent global catastrophe -- 3) kill off half the world's population.
Killing the US energy industry -- which is what we're about to do -- isn't a solution.
Link, over
By , at
Wed Apr 22, 07:35:00 PM:
Is Osgood a skeptic of human-caused warming? Read the transcript:
"Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?"
The answer appears to be no, he is not a skeptic of human-caused warming. He is only positing a silly theory that might counteract human-caused warming, in some amazing coincidence.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Apr 22, 10:13:00 PM:
"a silly theory that might counteract human-caused warming"
You act as though human-caused warming is not, as you say, a silly theory.
The fact that we take the role of C02 seriously, despite clear evidence that there is no connection to global temperatures (whatever they hell they REALLY are...since we have yet to reliable measure them) is a sad testamonial that our science is grossly contaminated with politics.
I wonder if they have a place in China where the political leaders gather together, high-five each other, eat, drink and laugh themselves silly at our politics.
Since they now own most of our debt, don't be surprised if the Chinese have the FINAL word on global C02 policy. As much as they would probably like to see the Democrats immolate our economy, it is in their best interests to exert the control and common sense that we can't seem to provide for ourselves.
