Sunday, December 02, 2007

Global warming? You decide

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome


Once you look around, there's actually no concensus on global warming, one reason they now prefer to call it climate change. This states a certainty.

The medieval warm period has been rediscovered  as well as numerous alterations to make falls appear to rise and many others discovered to be flat and receive absolutely no media exposure.

Oh, it's stopped! And previous maximum years coincided with solar maximum activity. Fancy that! Since then despite climatologists pouring cold water on them (no pun intended) solar variations are slowly becoming more apparent as driving the climate, as claimed for decades by experts such as Piers Corbyn who is paid only by results.

I think the US senate committee is a reliable source of information. More and more scientists are speaking out

It also says for every one who does, there are many who agree but don't dare losing their jobs if they say so in public. Maybe they'll be coaxed out.

Dr Fred Singer interview 


Check this site and its links for very specific figures and scientific details

The 'excuse for high taxation' argument isn't just mine either. Here's a quote form Professor William M Gray, one of the world's top five experts on hurricanes and climate from Colorado University:

I'm sure he'd be only too pleased for me or anyone else to share this online.

"Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

More from his interviews:

You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?

G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.

Another expert 'Going against the grain' (how many will have to disagree before they're treated no longer like lunatics?).

US senate committee questions classic 'Hockey stick' diagram How global warming is used to control the masses as a new religion. eg- did you know the base temperature is raised by 'normal' global warming by 33'C? The 0.5-1.5' increase over 100 years is not going to be a noticeable effect even if it happened. Humanity has suffered from every ice age in history, but never during the warm periods. Why would they were it to happen again?

Here's some commonsense, explaining how the news can be twisted to fit almost any weather conditions. Here's how the diehards try and wriggle out of the latest (October 2005) data that the ice on Greenland has actually increased!

Seas rising: The North Atlantic is rising, but the seas around Australia aren't, and the sea level round New Zealand is falling. When temperatures rose from 1900-1940, mean sea levels dropped, showing there is not an automatic correlation.

 Ice caps are moving, not breaking up. For example, while the Larsen shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, much of the rest of it is increasing. Between 1992 and 1997 numerous meterologists, geologists and other experts said global warming was based on theoretical models that weren't supported by existing records, and based on unproven theories and imperfect computer models. Carbon dioxide levels also aren't automatically related to temperature. From 1940-75 when levels increased, temperatures went down, and historically it increases after, not during periods of warming.

Rising overall temperatures since 1880 have mainly been due to the ending of a mini ice age, which would have to end with a warming. Prior to this, Europe was at least 2 degrees warmer in 1100, with no dire consequences. The official figure turns out to be 0.6 degrees. When history proves 2 whole degrees was not a problem. Sudden changes are normal in world climate. 11,000 years ago (no industry present) temperatures dropped by 10'C, and then rose between 7 and 15' in around 50 years. NASA is beginning to doubt original predictions.  Ian Joughin, from their jet propulsion laboratory found, using satellite radar, West Antarctica has added about 27 billion tons of ice, and could indicate an actual reversal of the 10,000 year trend of glacier shrinkage (which is clearly then not a recent problem),in fact, containing 90% of the world's ice, Antarctica has gained 1% for decades and continues to do so in 2012.

By measuring air temperature rather than sea, it has cooled over the past 20 years. The European Science and Environmental Forum has found the troposphere, which rises from the surface to 30,000 feet, has not warmed at all since 1979 according to satellite readings Prof Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre "The greatest jump in temperature was in the Twenties, since then they have been relatively stable'. The European Science and Environment Forum says since 1979 satellite measurements have not detected any significant warming in the troposphere. Ian Joughin from NASA and Slawek Tulaczyk from The University of California believe their study could indicate the end of a 1000 year trend of sheet shrinkage of the ice. The UN official figure for temperature increase in the 20th century was 0.6'C, but they themselves predict a rise of around 2' for the 21st (ie facts followed by speculation, which is not scientific). However, James Hansen who was a major cause of the original theory at NASA 15 years ago now says that the warming in the 21st century is far more likely to be no more than 0.7C, which is normal. The air, if measured as a single factor from water, has actually got cooler over the last 2 decades. In the year 1200 Europe was 2'C warmer than it is now, and has since undergone a mini ice age which lasted from 1400 to almost 1900, and the small increase since is what it took to stop it becoming a major one.

Sir Ian Lloyd, Conservative MP 1964-92, describes the consensus of the 1989 Select committee on energy " What is disturbing is the reluctance of the political (and to a significant extent the scientific) community to accept that there is no consensus on the existence, let alone the causes of this phenomenon..." adding now in 2004 "This has not diminished.

Petrol vehicles account for 0.18% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, over 99% of the atmosphere altogether is unaffected by man's activities. Finally, the best current temperature measurements have been made by an independent Norwegian scientist Nils-Axel Morner, using a satellite. He doesn't seem to have a website, but a search on his name will turn up plenty of his findings, and those alone should have been sufficient to finish all the speculation for good.

One far more likely and provable cause of global warming is cosmic rays, as the whole solar system is heating up which dismisses the whole CO2 argument.  By Svensmark and Calder.

One more, claiming persecution of any scientist who dares to disagree with the prescribed (by who??) view:

One thing about predictions is the longer you have the more can be tested. James Hansen, the grandfather of man made warming, was helpful enough to make his in 1986, saying "Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020." and

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.

In 2012 the temperature has risen 0.8C (he may have been using Fahrenheit for the first one but still works either way) since 1850, the official IPCC estimate now for CO2 related being a whole 0.4C. Below the expected 0.5C with no positive feedback whatsoever. Hansen is still quoted as the world's leading authority on 'climate change' (whatever that means), and has lost none of his reputation despite getting every single prediction from 1986 on totally wrong. That says more about the greedy community than one isolated loose cannon who are present in most areas of science.

The real effect (ie none) of carbon trading. Carbon trading article  Energywatch in the UK have just assessed the last couple of years results from carbon trading. Three conclusions were found. Huge extra profits for energy companies, higher energy prices and no change in emissions. Fancy that!I always said that it reminded me of Enron, and just discovered it wasn't 'similar' to Enron's accounting methods, they actually created it. No surprise there.

Kyoto Protocol. My view and the view of

Kendra Okonski, Environment Programme Director, International Policy Network

The intergovernmental Kyoto Protocol is an example of mitigation by government fiat.
Based on present knowledge it appears unlikely that pursuing this strategy for the next few
decades would have any substantial benefits either now or in the future: The total amount
of carbon emitted would be reduced by an insubstantial amount because much of the
carbon-generating activities would shift from wealthier countries to poorer countries.
Meanwhile, the costs of this strategy would be incurred today, in the form of increased
energy prices and downstream economic consequences for industries, employers and
workers, and households. So essentially Kyoto generates large net costs to society.

Honey, it's cold outside By Colin McNickle TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, January 9, 2005 Ever hear of Paul Reiter? Probably not. How about Nils-Axel Morner? What about Madhav Khandekar? Or William Keatinge? Perhaps Ragnar Arnason? Martin Agerup? Maybe Indur Goklany? Nope, nope, nope, nope and nope, I'll bet. Please allow me to introduce you to this fine cadre of scholars. For they likely will be thinking man's best defense against a global warming lobby that's attempting to steamroll a gullible world into believing its quite large body of junk science and, that accomplished, dive into its pockets for "the public good." The "conventional wisdom" is that the Earth rapidly is warming, that such warming is caused by man and that something must be done or we will commit hothouse hara-kiri. Those who don't believe it are branded as members of the Flat Earth Society; those who question the "proof" of such a theorem are derided as irrational pyrrhonists. But a funny thing happened on the way to climate Armageddon when these analytical, disease, economics, engineering, environmental, sea and weather experts took a close look at the Data of Doom. They found much of it, and many of the conclusions drawn from it, to be pure hokum. Or in two words, "fatally flawed," according to Mr. Agerup, the economist president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and one of the lead authors of "The impacts for climate change: An appraisal for the future." The report is extensive and technical. Those so inclined can partake of more particulars -- including 10 pages of detailed, peer-reviewed scientific references -- by visiting the Web site of the International Policy Network in London Here, however, I'll spare your eyes of a solid glazing over with the studies' relatively easy-to-understand talking points: "Predictions of extreme (global warming) impacts are based on scenarios of future emissions of greenhouse gases that are fundamentally flawed. These scenarios employ faulty logic, faulty science and faulty economics, thereby massively over-estimating future emissions and any warming that might result." "Future changes in sea level are based on models that over-estimate current sea-level change by 100 percent. If observations rather than models are used, estimates of future sea-level rises are far more modest ... in the next 100 years." "Claims that climate change will lead to a rise in malaria and other diseases are unwarranted. Models ... fail to account for interactions between humans and mosquitoes, as well as a variety of other factors ... . (I)t is morally unacceptable ... to misdirect resources towards climate change mitigation." "Contrary to popular perceptions, extreme weather events are not on the increase. Many weather events, such as tropical cyclones and rainfall in Asia and Africa are interrelated and phenomena such as El Nino/Southern Oscillation which themselves are not entirely understood, much less their relation to human-induced climate change." Shall I continue? Let's: "Throughout most of the world, cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths. In absolute terms, a warmer climate would mean that additional deaths due to heat would be much smaller than the reduction in deaths due to cold. The effects of heat on humans are also manageable with simple adaptive measures."North Atlantic fisheries would not be decimated. "The economies of Norway, Greenland and Iceland are dependant on fish production, and some have claimed global warming will be economically catastrophic. A warming of the magnitude predicted is likely to be beneficial for the main commercial fish stocks of the North Atlantic" "Attempts to mitigate climate change through policies such as the Kyoto Protocol would have very little effect on the incidence of climate-related deaths but would be very costly."

February 2012: After announcing the world's longest glacier chain, including the Himalayas, had been losing 50 billion tons of water a year unanimously, someone actually measured them and found they had lost none for ten years. Now if the 'climatologists' had been caught making stuff up once, it not only shows others may have been made up, but far more importantly they 'just make things up' at all.

Their comments were similar to those of children caught stealing:

"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."

Meanwhile back in the past a small diagram surfaced from the authority of authorities, the IPCC bible of 1995. It showed a period hundreds of years ago some way warmer than the present. One most non-believers call the 'medieval warm period'. This had to be physically removed to make anything they said subsequently make sense, otherwise there would simply be no problem. If either it could be shown it was warmer in the past and people were better off (as they were, the record show fewer overall weather deaths, more food and fertile areas far north of present) or that despite CO2 rising at a constant rate the current temperature simply couldn't be made to rise more than it was at 260ppm. Either or both these scenarios simply wrecks their case and removes it altogether. Of course it has, the diagram still exists and represents the temperature accurately, but has just been removed from history much as Soviet history was rewritten by the communists.

They may have removed it now but it's still around elsewhere and must still be factored into the whole picture, or the IPCC need to give a full and plausible explanation why an accepted historical record with anecdotal evidence of local conditions across the world has been simply erased from the records. Which they never have.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton

“We have to offer up scary scenarios” Dr Stephen Schneider

“A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’” David Deming, 2005

“Global climate change” papers: 539
Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0
Schulte (2008)

“No supercomputer,however powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity, so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC (2001)

"Solar changes cause most climate change. The Sun caused today’s global warming. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual. Today’s global warming will end soon."
IAU (2004)

“Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”


Dr David Bellamy agrees as well

Since then Dr Harold Lewis appears to be the first scientist to leave an organisation as he was fed up with science being perverted in the name of global warming, and shortly followed by Vincent Gray and Peter Taylor. As they are still alive it has set an example to their previously silent colleagues who are now free to join them without consequence.

No comments: