Global Warming Boggarts

By July 16, 2006Global Warming

In the Harry Potter books, the Boggarts are a special kind of foe that will always take the form of the thing you dread most. Looks like global warming is the 2006 version of the Bggarts.

Yesterday’s WaPo had on its front page a story we ran here back in May, ie.., that global warming was making poison ivy grow. Isn’t it bad enough that the media’s been in a feeding frenzy over global warming for the past year? Do they really have to keep re-heating the old stories and old theories? No matter, here’s the idea: pick something that skeeves people out and blame it on global warming. Next it will lead to more monsters under the bed.

Here’s what we don’t understand: Along he same lines of our post of a few days ago, is more vegetation a bad thing, even if it’s poison ivy? The story last week said that global warming was causing trees to grow in Antarctica. That’s good, isn’t it? Would it be better if trees and vines were dying off? Wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?

So mark us down as confused. The bottom line apparently is that global warming is causing all the bad stuff you can think of. It’s killing the stuff you like and causing the stuff you don’t like to grow faster.

Curse you, Boggarts!

Join the discussion 3 Comments

  • KAZ says:

    That guy’s a perfectly archetypical AGW bureaucrat…note that he didn’t actually offer any valid arguments, he instead tried to distract with other nonsense.

    This is standard for the AGW fearmongering.

    “We have a consensus, so don’t argue with me”, or
    “you obviously are working for some evil capitalist company”, or
    “none of these criticisms pass peer-review”, or
    “the risk is too great to actually wait for proof”, anything but actual science.

    Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.

    I worked as a consultant in DC, on projects at NOAA, NASA, et cetera.

    What I learned is that things like “impending asteroid strike” and “el nino crisis” and, especially, “global warming” and “ozone depletion” had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with Fear Equals Funding.

    I suspect that the Amospheric Chemistry guy above knows all about that.

    This is also why guys in positions similar to his actively censor scientists who would mess up their racket with actual science.

    I had a friend who was the head scientist on a key weather project in DC. The results he was getting contradicted AGW and ozone depletion…but he said he had to spin and massage the data, in order to make it appear either neutral to or supportive of those things.

    Why? Because otherwise, regardless of the soundness of his methodology, he would not be able to pass peer review. This would be a threat to not only his job, but the project itself.

    And that’s aside from the cold, hard fact that if your results aren’t scary, you can’t claim you need more money to save people from something.

    The “climatologists” who are pretending anthropogenic global warming is a fact are exactly like tobacco scientists, precisely as trustworthy; they are out for money. If anything, people seeking grants, tenure, et cetera are /more/ driven by greed than those who simply work for profit. It’s like all the worst academia normally accuses of capitalism, without any of its actual benefits.

  • Pat Cleary says:


    I’m an advocate, not a scientist. But I do read a fair amount and realize there’s another side to the global warming story. That’s all I’m trying to present here before the hysteria gets too great.

    But here’s a Q for you:

    What should the proper temperature of the earth be?

    Thanks for writing,
    Pat Cleary

  • Oliver says:

    Dear Mr. Cleary:

    I am unsure if you are qualified to comment on an issue such as “Global Warming” if you do not understand the simple principle of the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”. Please answer to the best of your knowledge these two questions.

    1. What is the most basic principle that allows an atmosphere to behave as a “Greenhouse”?

    2. What would the approximate temperature of the Earth be with out our present atmosphere?

    Once you can correctly answer these very simple and much overlooked questions, we can go on with our dialogue you’ll be one question away from understanding the simple truth. Until you can demonstrate your understanding on these simple principles, I would say you are just “full of hot air”.

    Oliver W. Wingenter, Ph.D.
    Assoc. Prof. of Atmospheric Chemistry
    Chair, Department of Chemistry
    New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
    Socorro, New Mexico 87801