The entire argument for this long-term forecast of catastrophic global warming is based on flawed computer projections produced and touted by United Nations operatives and their retainers and friends. In science, theory must be verified by experiment. These computer models have had a low level of reliability in the past, and there is no reason to expect that the same models will be any more accurate in the future. The UN computer models are flawed in several ways: The data are inaccurate; the adjustable parameters are too numerous; the uncertainties in the computed values are large and poorly defined; and, most importantly, key assumptions regarding the "science" of global warming do not conform to experimental observations.
CO2, by itself, is not a significant greenhouse gas, and there is no scientific evidence that it can raise global temperatures significantly. However, the UN computer models assume not only that an increase in CO2 will cause a small increase in temperature, but that this small temperature increase will cause more evaporation from the oceans, and that the increase in water vapor (a highly significant greenhouse gas) will greatly multiply the effect of the CO2. This amplified effect is the basis of human-caused global warming claims. The problem with this is that the Earth has already demonstrated that it does not happen. The historical record shows that the Earth has, in the recent past, been much warmer than could ever be achieved by a CO2 greenhouse effect. Since water evaporation during those warm periods did not cause catastrophic global warming, there is no chance that CO2 could do so.
Why is it so difficult to accept the relationship shown on this graph?
Why is the following statement more important:
LeKiwi: What is meant is that dragging our feet when 90% or more of ALL SERIOUS, PROFESSIONAL, grant aided or not scientists and climatologists agree, I'll say that again, AGREE that Global Warming is a quantifiable phenomenon, right here, right now, and that URGENT action is needed to REDUCE THE VISIBLE AND IMMEDIATE ACTIVITIES that contribute to the effect.
Could there be another reason all these people want to see dramatic reductions in economic output? Would not such economic output reductions change the world in ways that could not have been accomplished through any other means?
Will there be an incredible increase in spending on scientific research if the theory "human activity causes global warming" is accepted as science? Who would benefit?
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
Former Vice President Al Gore has accepted an invitation to testify next month in a congressional hearing on the highly controversial issue of climate change.
Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which focused on global warming, received two Oscar nominations this week, one for best documentary feature. For people who make a parlor game of guessing Gore's intentions for 2008, the appearance will surely stoke speculation that he may yet be a late entrant into the Democratic presidential derby.
Gore will appear at a joint hearing on Wednesday, March 21. He will be the only witness to appear before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality and the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Gore served on both committees during his House tenure representing a Tennessee district.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., and Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., will jointly chair the hearing. Climate change has proved a politically thorny issue for newly empowered House Democrats. Dingell, whose district includes many auto industry workers, has been locked in a political battle with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., over panel jurisdiction on climate change issues.
by capttom on 02.03.2007 at 08:41 AM
Al Gore testifying on the science of Global Warming is analogous to Hugo Chavez of Venezuella testifying on Democracy. Neither has any credentials to do so. The politicalization of a scientific issue such as Global Warming does not add anything to the solution, but instead misinforms and invites the unqualified to steer the issue.
Mr. Gore could testify before the FCC because of his claim that he invented the internet.
Capttom
by Mr Robert on 02.03.2007 at 08:30 AM
Climate change or global warming has evolved from analytical science to political science. A study of the Earth's climate shows the planet has experienced cycles of global cooling, glaciation, to global warming for hundreds of thousands of years with global cooling being the norm. Man's contribution, even now, is negligible. Climate change is brought about more by cyclical changes in the sun's radiation coupled with the peculiarities of the Earth's elliptical orbit, varying degrees of tilt, and precession, not to mention local geological phenomena such as volcanic action and tectonic plate movement. If you want a more comprehensive explanation of climate change take a look at Global Warming, A Chilling Perspective, at: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Then decide what the may be the real cause of climate change.
by SixFigures on 02.03.2007 at 07:50 AM
The IPCC just met and issued their report. Yet they with hold the data upon which that report is based. The Earth has warmed approximately 1 degree C in the last 50 years. If that change was human induced as they say why won't they share the facts upon which their conclusion is based? Algore cherrypicked data points totally ignoring anything contrary to his hair raising and thereby fund raising message.
by ambientsw on 02.03.2007 at 03:14 AM
When I was a kid, by the year 2000, the alarmists said: (1) we would run out of fossel fuels (2) we would run out of food (3) overpopulation would kill the planet (4) the world would head into another ICE AGE because of global cooling as a result of pollution. The alamists today are at it again, the goal is to raise $ and put the USA out of business.
by TheMadKing on 02.03.2007 at 02:53 AM
The only global warming problem we have to fear is from the massive amounts of greenhouse gases being spewed by so-called "experts" on the global warming problem. I'm already starting to choke. Maybe if they'd all just shut up (especially Gore, a MAJOR source of this heinous pollution) the Earth might have a real chance of surviving. I noted a previous entry on Drudge stating that major corporations funded scientists st speak out against global warming. As opposed to say, the purists like Gore who never accept a dime for their lectures, seminars and documentaries on this Chicken Little phenomenon. No, only those against it get a paycheck. PS I was a meteoroligic and oceanographic technician in the Western Pacific for three years, and I worked with some real pros. For anyone to think that they have a full command of the functioning of the earth's biosphere is pure arrogance. Volcanoes spew out more greenhouse gases in an afternoon than man does in five years! Something I would call "An Inconvenient Fact."
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
I like your posts, Dan, because at least they offer an alternative to mainstream concious thought.
Have a look at what these guys are saying. Real specialists in the climate, not just grant-hungry quack scientists, or oil company stooges, or politicians hungry for power, or misguided greenies, or misguided conservatives, but REAL climate scientists who do this for real. They even have graphs !
As an aside, if there was finally concensus on the reality of Global Warming, the only people who would lose out would be, er, the scientists who are looking for grants to PROVE that Global Warming is a clear and present danger....doh !
What process do you use to come to this conclusion: Real specialists in the climate, not just grant-hungry quack scientists, or oil company stooges, or politicians hungry for power, or misguided greenies, or misguided conservatives, but REAL climate scientists who do this for real.
Very difficult to take these people seriously when the editor runs the following articles. If you take a moment to read their "information" it's relatively easy to pick out their angle or "agenda".
— group @ 11:02 am
"An Inconvenient Truth," the Davis Guggenheim documentary on global warming starring Al Gore's presentation on the subject, provides an accurate, engaging, accessible, thought-provoking and (at times) even humorous introduction to one of the most important scientific issues of our time ( see our review of the movie). In some countries, viewing "An Inconvenient Truth" has actually become a required part of the science curriculum, and with good justification, we think. Given that the DVD is currently selling for $19.99 through Amazon.com, you'd think that the National Science Teachers' Association ( NSTA) would jump at the chance to quickly get 50,000 free copies quickly into the hands of their members. Yet, when Laurie David, one of the producers of the film, made this offer to NSTA last November, it was summarily turned down on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against "product endorsement" (as if Laurie David were trying to shop some new deodorant to high school science teachers). What in the world is going on here?
Before continuing with the history of NSTA's bizarre decision, let us provide you with the most important information: Up to 50,000 US science teachers can receive a free copy of the DVD by filling out a simple request form here . The deadline for requesting your copy is January 18, so if you want a copy, take a few minutes to put in your request right away.
— group @ 1:43 pm
Guest Commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington
Last month a paper I co-authored received considerable media attention. Headlines read "Experts warn North Pole will be 'ice free' by 2040", "The Big Melt: Loss of Sea Ice Snowballs", and "Arctic Clear for Summer Sailing by 2040: Models Predict Rapid Decline of Sea Ice''. The story also reached NPR, BBC, CBC, the Discovery channel, and Fox News, among others. Dr. Marika Holland, the first author of the paper, was inundated with media attention. About a dozen journalists contacted me too. I was impressed by the questions they posed -- questions that probably reflect what the public most wants to know. However, after giving lengthy interviews, I would read the resulting article and see my explanations boiled down to a few lines. In this essay, I'd like to explain the science in the paper and give my answers to the most often asked questions.
You obviously haven't considered that maybe, er, they're RIGHT ? And that MAYBE they have more idea and information than WE do ?
I guess the fact that they aren't paid for by oil companies is a negative point in their copybook for you, but I find it quite healthy and sane, myself...
And that MAYBE the Al Gore film is close to some kind of reality, and that the REAL reasons he was involved in it was because he REALLY believes that the Earth is posed on a thresh-hold, and he likes the idea of his great-great-great-great grandchildren being able to look out over clean, sparkling oceans and go "Gee, thanks Ancestors, for making the effort to wake up in time." ?
You obviously haven't considered that maybe, er, they're RIGHT ? And that MAYBE they have more idea and information than WE do ?
I guess the fact that they aren't paid for by oil companies is a negative point in their copybook for you, but I find it quite healthy and sane, myself...
And that MAYBE the Al Gore film is close to some kind of reality, and that the REAL reasons he was involved in it was because he REALLY believes that the Earth is posed on a thresh-hold, and ...
Nevermind, I can see the thought process you utilize.
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints."
Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Dan, here is a really interesting series of exchanges between Nir Shaviv and some of the climate scientists that I think seem to be on the ball. I think it makes interesting and vital reading, even though it makes my eyes bleed and my brain hurt....
What is a shame is how some of these guys have been plucked out for a tiny percentage of their work, and spun in a way which seems to support that "Global Climate Change" is NOT such a serious problem, and that we should all just carry on as if nothing was more important to our survival than who was going to win Superbowl this year...and all by some pretty sinister corporate or Governmental interests.
Now, why would they do that ?
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
The Friends of Big Oil thank you, and wish you a sooty, hot and short future.
But it's good to have dissenting voices raging against the vast mainstream of scientific and popular opinion, assuming they don't have hidden agendas or are in the pockets of lobbyists....
But it's good to have dissenting voices raging against the vast mainstream of scientific and popular opinion...
It's even better to have an open debate on the facts and the science behind the claims and hype - open debate, point by point.
Popular, vast, mainstream, scientific opinion, all of these terms are unimportant and are not critical - facts are critical.
Science is critical.
The scientific method is critical.
Opinion is not critical.
Consensus is not critical.
Media reports are not critical.
Political endorsement is not critical.
European endorsement is not critical.
World opinion is not critical.
Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Calling it science does not make it science.
Open debate is sorely lacking in the entire Global Warming theory arena (circus).
Maybe you're looking in the wrong place, Dan ?
In Europe, there has been a LOT of open debate, not just one side shouting down the others. A lot of it has been backed up with scientific fact and serious information, and a lot of it was ignored or pushed aside by, er, the oil lobby (don't forget, in France, ELF is still a part of the Government..), although this was counterbalanced a fair bit by the VERY strong and loud Nuclear lobby.
Most people arrived at the reasoning that, whilst the 100% pure, impossible to criticise empirical scientific fact was not present, there were grounds for being sure with precision that 1) The Earth is not flat, and 2) Global Climate Change IS a reality, supported by peer-reviewed and critically accepted fact, and that action needs to be taken. If it turns out that everyone with any credibility was wrong, well, at least the Planet will be in better shape than if we had sat around on the deckchairs of the Titanic sipping sherry, and wondering what all the fuss was about over needing more lifeboats......
In Europe, there has been a LOT of open debate, not just one side shouting down the others. A lot of it has been backed up with scientific fact and serious information
Scientific fact and serious information...
I would like to see an accurate, scientific response to the following facts shown in the graphs.
Not a link to some website about how horrible it is to deny the existence of "the human cause of global warming" - no, a scientific response to the fact that:
1. The temperature in the USA is steady now and has been steady for hundreds of years, and in fact for the past 30 years has actually decreased.
2. There is a direct coorelation between Solar Intensity and atmospheric temperature.
3. There is no direct coorelation bewtween CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures.
4. At a point in the past - CO2 in the atmosphere was very low yet the atmoshperic temperature was very high (Medieval Warm period). And at another point CO2 was very high yet the atmospheric temperature was very low (the Little Ice Age).
5. The United Nations IPOC Predicted Global Warming Trend is completely inaccurate yet is used as a model for future warming predictions and in fact is considered the "Gold Standard".
Go back and re-read some of the stuff I've linked to.
For the time being, as I need to nip out and save the planet, have a mosey on around in here and see if you can see where they say that North American "temperatures are actually decreasing", and I think these people should know.
You do have some freaky, far out shit that you use to guide your life, outlooks and actions, Dan. I hope you have taken advantage of some of that lovely cash the oil boys were doshing out, it would be a shame that your work goes unrewarded by people who desperately want Global Climate Change issues to go the way of the Dodo.
Linear Mode
