 Yes folks, from the same people who made you pay for the millenium bug and brought you Reds-Under-The-Bed and WMDs in Iraq, who told us we would run out of food and oil by 2000, banned DDT for nothing (& here & here & here), stopped you from eating "frankenfood" just in case it harms you, stuffed up all air conditioning for an ozone hole that just won't go away &[2][3][4], filled up your engine bay with expensive anti-pollution gear, told you Chernobel killed hundreds of thousands, (&here) and that we were entering a new ice age, stopped them building dykes around New Orleans, made wild fires worse by baning burning off, claims high voltage power lines cause cancer, and Fluoride would poison people not to mention alien crop circles, Big Foot and the loch Ness Monster, we now present the grandaddy of them all - Ta Da! - GLOBAL WARMING - and if you think the millenium bug was a waste of money you ain't seen nuthin' yet folks, get ready to really pay. Your power bills and your fuel bills are going sky high. The days of the cheap, readily availiable, power and fuel that brought luxury, prosperity and comfort to the masses are over. Global Warming is not science. It is a strange mixture of politics, spirituality and superstition, and media hype. Global Warming comes from a UN political group called the IPCC, an off-shoot of the EU green parties, who have successfully used science to predict various ecological non-disasters. Global Warming is the mother of all such doomsday fear. They have very successfully reversed the principle that the consensus follows the science - now science follows the consensus. Unfortunately, fixing Global Warming is not simple - Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara would have just loved it - it is radical change.  Putting up
solar panels, wind farms, and fluro light bulbs are pathetically
inadequate.Fossil fuels are so intrinsic to our whole way of life that the cure would be far worse than the disease. We should be careful - count the cost first. We could finish up in a Soviet-style regime, where we all catch buses and ride bikes, while the ruling Green elite enjoy the spoils of office in the name of Gaia. What Vladimir Lenin, Carl Marx and Che Guevara would NOT love is the betrayal of socialism that Global Warming means. Billions of third world people live in abject, subsistance, poverty. They are all denied advancement by AGW (Anthropogengic - human - Global Warming) activists and it's not just them - the attempt to control Global Warming must result in higher energy prices. The abandonment of cheap, readily availiable energy in the developed world will result in the impoverishment of not only the poor but the whole middle class. The egalitarianism that has brought abundance and prosperity to the masses in the West is now threatened. The rich like Al Gore and Leon Decaprio and Kate Blanchet will sail through aboard their business jets while their fans pay a very high price for their activism. The left should be alarmed by the alacrity that big capital has shown in embracing Climate Change - they are playing with fire letting those snouts into the trough. At best, we'll just get endlessly nagged about a problem with no actual solution, but which goes on and on costing us a hell of a lot of money anyway. The next time some Greenie or some Pollie starts nagging you about Global Warming, demand to see his plan to actually fix it properly once and for all or tell them to p*ss off and don't come back without one. The whole theory is based on the very dubious contention, that this web page will now effectively debunk, that although it has no effect by itself, Carbon dioxide is going to warm the air enough to trigger more humidity and thus warm the planet up that way. The fact that this permanent rise in humidity never occurs naturally is convieniently ignored but is never-the-less true. The Globe often does warm up slightly all by itself and it never causes humidity to stay up (below). Why a small warming by a small CO2 increase should be special is never explained. If we had the kind of instability assumed in the Global Warming theory we would see it in the historical record - we don't. If we get lucky, the "natural forcings" that really determine the Earth's temperature will cause a cooling in climate and we can spend our 20 million million dollars on something useful like elevating the third world. The IPCC themselves state that the world may only heat by one degree - nothing. We should wait, see what happens to climate, and just deal with it as best we can, as we always have.
|
|
Now here - http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do |
|
ONE "But how do you know that that wasn't going to happen anyway"? TWO "But how can you be sure that those computer models are correct"? THREE "And how are you so sure it will be so bad - how do you know that? . FOUR
"Why did the Globe stop warming 19 years ago ?
|
| Speaking
of fundamentally flawed, how's this? Greenie answer - "no Virginia it stays in the air for up to 80 years that's why we must stop making it?" "Well why do we pay that man to plant lots of trees so we can have a nice big car and a nice big house and fly everywhere?" "Don't ask stupid questions Virginia - that's devil talk - people will think you are a Denier and you will FAIL. Trees are nice. Trees are Green." "Oh." (When the trees die they all decay back to CO2 eventually anyway -but we won't mention that or forest fires either) |
|
CARBON DIOXIDE IS A VERY TINY
COMPONENT OF AIR
CARBON DIOXIDE is only 370 parts
per million volume in
air - one part per million is one can of coke in a 30 meter swimming
pool [370 is just over two 44-gallon drums - if it was salt you
couldn't taste it, if it was dye it wouldn't colour it].
The reason CO2 is such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere is because all the plants on the Earth love it - they just gobble it up immediately - they can't get enough of it http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp . The Earth's greenhouse effect is totally caused by water vapour, but an insignificant 2% of it is due to Carbon Dioxide - MIT prof. RS Lindzen. Water Vapour is up to 40,000 parts per million volume of air - variable - typically 10,000 - and it's molecule has a greenhouse effect three times that of Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide at a concentration of 370 parts per million volume is, in effect, not actually a Greenhouse gas at all. No reputable scientist would call Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse gas. To call Methane at 1.8ppm a greenhouse gas is just a perversion of science. 
Anyway, the Earth's temperature is mostly determined by air currents between the warm surface and cold space. The greenhouse effect is overwhelmed by convectional cooling. The sun shines through and heats up the Earth's surface, so there is a relatively hot surface at the bottom of the atmosphere and extremely cold empty space at the top. Hot air rises and takes the heat with it and cold air flows back down to fill the gap. Almost all the Sun's heat that is transferred back to space is by this convection - updrafts - not by re-radiation from the surface. The blanketing effect of the atmosphere is overwhelmingly due to the speed of this circulation - greenhouse is purely a minor radiative effect. This convection effect is a negative feedback and a "natural forcing" of the Earth's temperature. That is, if more greenhouse warming did occur, it would cause more active convection currents in the atmosphere and thus counteract the warming effect. Ironically this is actually how real greenhouses work, by stopping this convection, "greenhouse" is a misnomer for the radiative effect (glass and plastic transmit infrared as efficiently as the higher wavelengths); by stopping the air mixing freely the Greenhouse retains it's heat. Also, of course, some heat comes from the planet's molten core. |
|
Carbon
dioxide's wavelength is very quickly becoming saturated.
The
carbon dioxide molecule can only adsorb a certain very narrow band of
frequency (about 15 microns wavelenth) of the total infared heat (5-70
microns wavelenth) going
back out from the Earth.
CO2 thus has less and less effect on the global temperature as more and more of that 15 micron frequency is absorbed. You very rapidly reach the point where CO2 has absorbed all it can. The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is thus (inversely) logarithmic and climate sensitivity decreases rapidly with increasing concentration. i.e. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. etc.etc. We have reached the point where adding more and more CO2 to air just has less and less effect. This is scientific fact - reference here - http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf |
|
HOW CARBON AND CARBON DIOXIDE
FUNCTION IN THE BIOSPHERE
WITHOUT CARBON DIOXIDE EVERY GREEN PLANT ON LAND AND SEA WOULD DIE. MANY BILLIONS OF TONS OF IT CIRCULATE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND PLANTS TO SUSTAIN ALL THE LIFE ON OUR BLUE PLANET. The Carbon Cycle is awesome. Every
plant on earth and in the ocean breathes in Carbon Dioxide and breathes
out Oxygen and every animal on the planet breathes in Oxygen and
breathes out Carbon Dioxide on a gigantic scale that dwarfs the human
burning of fuels.
The
level of Carbon Dioxide in air changes naturally.The Earth teems and seethes with life, most of it is invisible, such as bacteria, algae and plankton. Our macro-fauna bodies constantly battle these microbes until the moment of death, when they quickly consume us. A Carbon Dioxide molecule from an animal is heavy and soluble and usually doesn't get far before it is grabbed by a plant. The Carbon Dioxide that we measure in air is this flux of molecules in transit from animals to plants. There was once much more Carbon dioxide in the air without historical evidence of a runaway greenhouse effect. It has been slowly locked up in minerals over Eons. Modern plants are hungry with a voracious appetite for it. See the Vostoc Ice core data graph below, and here, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/877439799.Es.r.html . It varies measurably in the northern hemisphere when trees drop their leaves in winter - it doesn't take decades or centuries, billions of tons of CO2 are sucked from the atmosphere every spring. Also, its
solubility in the oceans varies with the earth's temperature.
Previously an increase in CO2 in air was always the result of the Earth
warming - not the cause of it. (When you warm up a glass of Coke it
gives off it's CO2 bubbles)
We are, however, a very long way
from
being able to scientifically predict the effects of perturbations to
this active, dynamic, biological system. Attempts to do so quickly bog
down.
An essential of the Global Warming Theory is that nature cannot absorb the human produced Carbon for many decades or even a century or two. Like the assumptions that human CO2 will hugely trigger more water vapour in the air, and that Greenhouse will exacerbate the weather and cause disease, this is just made up as they go along and not proven. It is not science. What is science is that... [ from http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ] Humans produce just 6 billion tons of Carbon (26 billion tons CO2) each year. The atmosphere contains 750 billion tons of Carbon. The surface ocean contains 1,000 billion tons of Carbon. Vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 billion tons of Carbon. The intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of Carbon. Each year;
The
interaction of these gargantuan carbon sinks is biological in nature
and extremely complex. It does defy scientific prediction; but...It is
a
very big [ if not incredible and disreputable ] assumption that adding
a tiny 4 billion tons a year from fossil fuels back into these huge
cycles and gigantic sinks will make any significant difference to the
atmosphere or, conversely, that any difference in the atmosphere is
entirely attributable to that tiny 4 billion tons.
UNTIL WE CAN QUANTIFY AND PREDICT THE CARBON CYCLE, GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS INVALID. |
|
Update. There
was a large spike in Global Temp in 1998 but since then nothing. Now,
just recently, global temperature has suddenly dropped leading to real
fears that if the solar wind stays quiet we will have another "little
ice age" or extended cold climate period lasting decades.
Yes Virgina the globe was warming, it goes in cycles, we had the Roman Warm period, the Medieval Warm period when Vikings settled Greenland, then until quite recently we had the "little ice age" when it was quite cold - at present we are still coming out of the little ice age, but this appears to have stopped about 10 years ago, so the climate may have stopped warming now (graph below). It would be a bad thing for cool temperate climates such as Europe and USA if we plunged into another cool period, but it would kill off the superstition that we are global warming the planet and save us trillons. On a
macro scale, Antarctic
Ice Core Data show that we appear to be somewhere near the
top of the most recent cycle in the global temperature - we may get a
little warmer before we plunge into the next ice age.
found
on http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
A
more recent global temperature graph shows a tiny increase in global
temperature that shows
no relationship with human Carbon Dioxide output [ the curves below
show no correlation ] and which is well within
natural variability.
 [
A temperature anomaly dT is how much the average temperature for a
month or a year varies from the norm.]
 
The Total Human Carbon
(Dioxide) Output
The Proportion Of Carbon
Dioxide In Air in parts per million by volume
These
two graphs seen together show how, despite such a huge, rapidly
increasing, global output of carbon dioxide, there is only a small,
slow,
linear, increase in the proportion of the gas in our air. The
350,000 million tonnes of Carbon we have added to the atmosphere (left)
is
almost half the amount that was there when we started.The planet seems hungry for the gas. It is being rapidly absorbed and there seems to be no relationship between the two graphs. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N10/EDIT.jsp) The
claim that recent temperature rises have occurred due to Carbon Dioxide
rising is also effectively debunked by comparing the above Vostok Ice
Core temperature graph [orange]
with the following Vostok Ice Core CO2
graph whereby the level of CO2 follows the temperature pattern closely
but always just slightly behind proving that temperature is causing CO2
to rise or fall - not that CO2 is causing temperature to rise or fall!
In other words the measured increase we see in Carbon Dioxide is
perfectly natural - the result of a natural cycle [probably solar] not
the cause of the Earth warming as claimed by the Greenies.
 found
on http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ninelieslaunch.pdf#search=%22vostok%20figure%20125%22
Here is tne NASA data - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ - bit complex, but there has been a slow rise - expected from coming out of the "little ice age" - and this seems to have tapered off since the big El Nino event year 1998. It's
supposed to be GLOBAL warming but the southern half of the
globe
is being a "denier" and just refusing to warm at all.
 scource http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf see also http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsHadley.html and http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html Please note that there is a strong "spike" around 1998. The spike in 1998 is proof against carbon dioxide causing more water vapour and thus more humidity and thus catastrophic warming. After the big rise in 1998 the Globe quickly corrected itself and plunged back down again. Humidity did not go up and stay up as supposed in the computer models. The Earth is obviously regulating itself. Dismissing that spike as just a strong El Nino cannot explain it away. Fact is the Earth is always regulating itself and it will do so in response to any human disruption also. Global Warming models all rely on CO2 increasing the global humidity - an invalid assumption. If the Alarmists could explain what happened there in 1998 we could start taking them seriously, but like the rest of us, how planet Earth behaves is still a mystery to them too - at present predicting mother Earth is still presumptuous superstition. |
|
A MODEL IS A MODEL
OF REALITY - IT'S NOT REALITY ITSELF.
Why
are otherwise
sensible, rational, intelligent people prepared to
blindly accept that the earth is going to get hotter because a
computer program predicts it ???
A COMPUTER PROGRAM ! well it must be true then! Pig's Bum. It
is extremely ambitious to try to model the earth's climate itself, let
alone try to include the biology and oceanography, of the whole planet
in it as well!
Even supercomputers are inadequate to allow long-term integrations of the relevant equations at adequate spatial resolutions. At presently available resolutions, it is unlikely that the computer solutions are close to the solutions of the underlying equations. YOU COULD MULTIPLY MANY TIMES THE CO2 LEVEL IN AIR WITHOUT IT DIRECTLY WARMING THE GLOBE AT ALL. All, not some, but all the computer models and the scenarios based on them are based on assumptions, not verified by experimental facts or physics but pure conjecture and unproven assertions that... 1.
A small increase in carbon dioxide is some how going to trigger off a
very large increase in the only significant greenhouse gas, water
vapour.
2. The normal negative feedback effects of increasing water vapour - more snow and clouds reflecting heat back to space and more active atmospheric updrafts dissipating the extra heat - are somehow not going to work any more to cool things down as per usual. [Snow and clouds are just left out because it is impossible to computer model them] This is
known
colloquially as blinding you with science.
Do all the computer programs factor in the Carbon Cycle ? NO. Does the Carbon Cycle affect the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere ? YES. [ It is the determinant ] Do all the computer programs assume that the Earth's climate will otherwise remain stable YES. Is the Earth's climate otherwise stable ? NO. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we find
the models are proven
wrong - they all predicted much increased
equatorial temperatures and they were all wrong - HEREBut let us hear from the self appointed authority who bought us the whole Global Warming theory theory based on computer models... "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Q.E.D. A very good technical expose
and discussion on computer models... http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/23/a-short-summary-of-why-skillful-climate-prediction-is-much-more-difficult-than-skillful-weather-prediction/ |
The
Arctic Ice Cap is only a few meters thick, it only contains .01% of the
worlds ice (the East Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 80% of the
world's ice). It is the frozen interface between a very deep,
relatively warm Arctic ocean and the very cold air mass above.
It varies considerably in thickness and extent, having a huge
annual variation and apparent long term cycles. It is pushed
around by
the wind and the arctic ocean currents which tend to pile the ice up in
some regions and create open water in others. The contention that
satellite images of the AREA of the
ice represent the VOLUME
of the ice are patently absurd. The only measurement of the thickness
of the ice has been by a very few and arbitrary submarine voyages. 
|
HOW COULD SO MANY
GET IT SO WRONG?
Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund For Nature, and the Others are big multinationals, generating large cash flows from a sympathetic public. They succeeded far too well with the CFCs [ozone hole] acid rain, DDT and anti-nuclear scares - they got what they demanded and built up credibility, - but the money flow slowed up. They had killed the goose that laid the golden egg and urgently needed a new one. Cowardly Governments and a supine media had proven to them that only the premonition of disaster was needed, not the actual fact of it, so they cast about for a new one. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was perfect because no Government can immediately replace all the national power stations and transportation vehicles without causing a massive depression and huge social disruption. It is a doomsday scenario that they can drive on and on indefinitely and maintain a stable, reliable cash flow. Then there is politics. A certain part of the electorate will decide their vote on the environment issue. They elect balance-of-power MP s. The
mainstream parties are too scared to alienate these votes and are
locked into a bizarre death dance to be Greener Than Green.
The whole raison d'etre of green politics is a crisis mentality. The impossible demands of Global Warming keep them firmly in place on the cross benches. Many, now powerful, politicians cut their teeth on valid, sound, environment issues - they don't want to discover they are now being lied to by the Green movement that nurtured them in their youth. The media of course no longer go out and find and convey facts and information to the public or check and balance reporting with contrary opinion. That is long gone. News has become entertainment. They just sit and pluck the most sensational prepackaged items presented to them on the screen. For some reason they just accept press releases from the Green lobby without question where they always balance press releases from all other political parties with comment from the opposition party. Then there is Science.
"Earth Science" is trendy and popular. It turns out too many graduates, more than are needed in climate science. The temptation is very strong to manufacture dramatic scenarios [qualified liberally with the word "may"] to generate research funds and employment and media publicity. Then there is the Industry, As a sop to Green groups, governments spend not millions but billions on "alternative" and green projects on the assumption of Global Warming and this creates a huge vested interest, an industry lobby and political voting power, and a media hype which only exacerbates the problem, because nobody opposes any of it. Then there is religion.  Global Warming is religious. It tells us how we are all sinners, destroying the world, and to save ourselves we must repent and become truly Green . They believe the Earth is perfect and unchanging and that anything Man does to alter it is evil. Their Satan is the 'Evil Multinationals'. People questioning Global Warming don't realize that and become very irritated at the lack of response to reasoned theoretical argument based on fact, but they are not dealing with science, they are dealing with an article of faith. It's like trying to convince a Creationist that Darwin was right - you're never going to win... Global Warming is a Sect, taking an ideological stance. Their response to anyone opposing them is to accuse them of being in the pay of the Devil in the form of the Evil Multinationals -- this is exactly how cults keep their followers in line - we don't listen to him, he's the devil, we are pure. |
|
The
three fundamental flaws in Global Warming are...
1. It falsely assumes that the Earth's temperature is otherwise stable. 2. It relies on coincidence, not science, that an increase in CO2 in air comes from burning fossil fuel. 3. It just assumes, with no proof, that very, very small Carbon Dioxide increases will be amplified (positive feedback) into big temperature effects. .
|
|
WHEN IDEALISM GOES TOO FAR
|
|
THE INFAMOUS "HOCKEYSTICK"
The whole basis of the Kyoto protocol was proven a fraud. The IPCC did not check or peer review it's contention here, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm or here http://pame.arctic-council.org/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm that there has been a sudden increase in the World's temperature - probably because they knew that they were really stretching it by trying to ignore the "Medieval Warm" and the "Little Ice Age" periods and they were assuming that they would get challenged on the method [tree rings!] not on the fixing of data - but fixed it was in a truly historic fraud (turns out that meaningless random data fed into the graph produces the same "hockey stick" result). http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm Their response? - the response to this fraud is more important than the fraud. In a real science situation it would have immediately been acknowledged and corrected. Instead the IPCC had to be dragged kicking and screaming. The messengers were viciously attacked and deprecated and the errors were denied. The graphs were never removed. This is not science. So we are now back to the fact that the earth warms and cools all by itself and that there is only a normal, co-incidental, warming of the Earth with industrialization which is nothing special. The IPCC is looking more and more like an ugly sister trying to fit into a glass slipper as it desperately tries to fit the science to it's doomsday scenario.  This is now getting into the mainstream media. Canadian National Post 27-1-5a Canadian National Post 27-1-5b Canadian Financial Post 28-1-5 Natuurwetenschap & Techniek februari 2005 http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html "The Australian" 20/7/06 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19835476-31478,00.html Congressional Report http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf Comment on report http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8245&fldIdMsg=31029 The Greenie response - "Fake but accurate" http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5770 |
|
You would think
after getting their fingers burnt with the infamous faked "hockey
stick" they would be more careful, but then scruples have never been
the strong point of the IPCC.
This article... http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html points out how the IPCC fakes things to fit their ideology. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR. I QUOTE HIM FROM THE ARTICLE.
"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geo-logy when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gau-ges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!" |
|
KYOTO
All
Europe, Japan and Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol and pledged to
meet their targets even before it came into force.
They all solemnly agreed to reduce their Carbon Dioxide emissions to 1990 levels and now many years later, not one of them has gone anywhere near reducing their Carbon Dioxide levels at all. |
|
STERN
The
Stern Report was brought out because Tony Blair, genuinely wanting to
fix Global Warming, costed
it and discovered that it would cost just under
half the global GDP, a staggering 15 million, million dollars, to stop
it and started going around saying "no country is going to
severely disadvantage its economy". [http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091605JP]
The job of Stern was to prove that it wasn't that bad and that it would cost more to do nothing than to fix it . Stern then cherry-picked all the scenarios and models and produced the required report to bring Blair and the nay-sayers back into line. We are asked to believe that, while replacing all our power stations and transport vehicles systems is certainly hugely expensive, we shouldn't just wait and see how the climate changes, because computer models say it will be even more expensive not to replace them - yeah right! These are not physical models of the climate either - they are economic models - cloud cuckoo land! If it was actually possible to acurately model future economic conditions the modellers would keep it to themselves and become very rich, they wouldn't need to be paid by the government. See the references below in red for criticism of the economics and methodology - I went to his science. I have waded through the "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" presented in the Stern report. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm First thing is that he really insults our intelligence. How can Stern report on Global Warming without balancing the benefits of Global Warming with the problems of Global Warming? For instance, Greenland - if Greenland melted a huge island larger than the UK would be opened up for development - a positive benefit for the Globe - such positive benefits are just ignored. Stern mentions only two small benefits of the Earth warming by 1 degree, for over one degree it is all bad. He only mentions possible benefits of Global Warming such as the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth, so he can deprecate that benefit. Come on now, lets get real. The Earth warms by several degrees and it is all bad - no good at all - yeah, right! --------------------------------
He blandly
states that we do not know how much the world will warm and then claims
to know that it will all be catastrophic.
Here... "The question of precisely how much the world will warm in the future is still an area of active research. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 in 2001 was the last comprehensive assessment of the state of the science. This chapter uses the 2001 report as a base and builds on it with more recent studies that embody a more explicit treatment of risk." --------------------------------
Stern
asserts that there is no doubt that humans are responsible for all the
increase in carbon dioxide in air. This is absolutely crucial to
the whole argument and yet this is the best he can do for a scientific
reference to justify it
Here... "2 The human origin of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is demonstrated through, for example, the isotope composition and hemispheric gradient of atmospheric carbon dioxide (IPCC 2001a)". That is not a proper scientific reference - nobody can examine it. Isotopic composition and atmospheric gradient proves that we have put a lot of CO2 into the air - not that we have increased it's proportion of air - the proportion is still determined by the carbon cycle. Hemispheric gradient means there is more in the large heavily populated northern hemisphere land masses - durh! --------------------------------
Stern
dismisses the astounding fact that the CO2 graph [sic above] does not
follow the Earth's temperature graph with this...
"And there is uncertainty in linking temperature change to amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere." --------------------------------
It is
amazing, the amount of junk science that is being done.
For instance Stern makes the preposterous claim that we can model the Carbon Cycle... "Rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns are expected to weaken the ability of the Earth’s natural sinks to absorb carbon dioxide (Box 1.3), causing a larger fraction of human emissions to accumulate in the atmosphere. While this finding is not new, until recently the effect was not quantified. New models, which explicitly include interactions between carbon sinks and climate, suggest that by 2100, greenhouse gas concentrations will be 20 – 200 ppm higher than they would have otherwise been, amplifying warming by 0.1 – 1.5°C.21 Some models predict future reductions in tropical rain forests, particularly the Amazon, also releasing more carbon into the atmosphere22. Chapter 8 discusses the implications of weakened carbon sinks for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations." The Carbon Cycle is the exchange of carbon (dioxide) between all the plants on Earth and in the sea and all the animals on the Earth and in the sea - you can imagine how extremely complex that is - makes the weather and climate look simple! "New models"! Is that it! Yet more models - could we have some real science please? He cites these "New models" to counter the perfectly reasonable claims that human produced CO2 will just fertilize more plant growth and be quickly absorbed. The carbon cycle is biological and extremely complex - it just cannot be properly modeled. Still, if you can get away with models of a coupled non-linear chaotic system like the Earth's temperature why not?! --------------------------------
Stern
erroneously claims that science is determined by consensus and has the
gall to claim there has been a
debate - when was the last time you heard a climate cynic on the mass
media, or a balancing comment on the latest "Arctic is melting, polar
bears threatened" press release? There has been no debate...
"The IPCC concluded in 2001 that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over at least the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.10 Their confidence is based on several decades of active debate and effort to scrutinize the detail of the evidence and to investigate a broad range of hypotheses." The scientific doctrine determines that science is decided by a few individuals with reasoned, reproducible, theory and evidence and who then generally overturn the existing consensus. (The existing consensus was overturned, but not by the scientists, they got shoved aside). So sad what these people are doing to science. --------------------------------
Stern offers
this magnificent piece of obfuscation - clear evidence that Stern is
fudging the whole document...
"The main positive feedback comes from water vapour, a very powerful greenhouse gas itself. Evidence shows that, as expected from basic physics, a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour and traps more heat, amplifying the initial warming.17". Problem is...
1/ Water vapour is the ONLY effective greenhouse gas - it is typically 10,000 ppm vol in air, it's molecule has a greenhouse effect several times that of CO2 which is only 380ppm vol. and which is totally insignificant as a greenhouse gas on its own. 2/ The temperature of the planet obviously stabilizes itself - if we had the positive feedback claimed there for water vapour we would just have a runaway greenhouse effect. It would runaway every time the Earth warmed (yes Virginia the Earth does warm all by itself). There must be a negative feedback in play (e.g. more water vapour - more clouds - cooler surface - less evaporation - less water vapour; or, more heat, more updrafts, more clouds and more removal of heat to space that way). 3/ He has singled out Professor Lindzen, a prominent Greenhouse critic, for denigration here. Stay tuned I'll let you know how Prof. Lindzen reacts. --------------------------------
Speaking of
fudging the whole document.
Stern has the gall to mention the infamous "Hockey Stick". A US Senate committee determined that the "Hockey Stick" was a fake. The whole point of the "Hockey stick debate" is not what the Earth's temperature has or has not been doing, but that the IPCC, on which Stern is relying totally, published and relied upon a FAKED document and no amount of "faked but true" argument is going to alter the fact that the IPCC DID NOT CHECK IT PROPERLY. It discredits the whole TAR 3 document and the IPCC and thus Global Warming itself. Nobody can understand the computer models. We are told - trust us we are UN scientists, we used a faked graph but you can still trust all our computer models. Uh huh! Mmm. http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19835476-31478,00.html http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8245&fldIdMsg=31029 http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5770 (The hockey stick has now been airbrushed out of the IPCC dogma - no explaination - it's as if it never existed) --------------------------------
Stern
claims...
"Most climate models predict increases in rainfall at high latitudes" and then speculates on the ice caps melting. The two are mutually exclusive, nobody can claim that the polar climate will warm above zero even in summer. More precipitation means more ice cap, not less. --------------------------------
So much for
the movie!
The Gulf Stream is not going to stop and freeze Europe and eastern Nth. America after all. (phew!) Stern confirms... "Any sustained weakening of the THC (sic. gulf stream) is likely to have a cooling effect on the climates of Europe and eastern North America, but this would only offset a portion of the regional warming due to greenhouse gases." --------------------------------
Stern
offers this pathetic (follows) consensus argument as proof that we will
get all
the weather disasters predicted by Global Warming and then uses by
it for all his doomsday prognostications.
Stern here... "45 Huntington (2006) reviewed more than 50 peer-reviewed studies and found that many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified in the past 50 years, including rainfall and evaporation. Modeling work by Wetherald & Manabe (2002) confirms that warming will increase rates of both precipitation and evaporation". Waiting, waiting, waiting, for proof - sorry but "many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified" proves NOTHING, neither does "modeling work". All of Stern is based on modeling work. Modeling work is just that - someone's model of what they think may be reality. --------------------------------
Stern keeps
talking about the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet when the huge magority of the world's ice is in the
East
Antarctic Ice Sheet. The West Antarctic Ice
Sheet is relatively trivial.
--------------------------------
The most
significant piece of the Stern report could be this conclusion.
"We must be very clear that this is an international problem and action must be multilateral." Almost none of them are honouring the token Kyoto Protocol. This gives them their escape clause. They can justify doing nothing as long as one magor power stays out of the Global Warming consensus. --------------------------------
Want
some more Stern Review reviews that you didn't get? Here's a
couple more...A Cambridge professor http://www.foundation.org.uk/events/pdf/20061108_Dasgupta.pdf - A Yale professor of economics http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/stern_050307.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/nordhaus_stern_science.pdf Stern Report "falls apart" - Bjorn Lomborg. The
dodgy
numbers behind the latest warming scare.Wall Street
Journal
|
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_Bullcrap.htm
SPPI - New site by heavyweight anti-alarmists,
e.g. Lord Christopher Monckton, William Kininmonth, and our
own
Robert M. Carter ... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Demand Debate http://demanddebate.com/news.html
I.C.E.C.A.P.
Brilliant new website http://icecap.us/index.php
Professor Singer's new website http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
Friends of Science - a University of Calgary based
group http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php
Another Anti Global Warming website - SEPP - The Science
& Environmental Policy Project - http://sepp.org/
New Zealand Climate
Science Coalition - a very good, newsy, new website. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
John
P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental & Regulatory Affairs http://www.nationalcenter.org/eptf.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html
CO2 Science is
back
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
Junkscience - an irreverent
tilt at those abusing
science, including global
warming
http://www.junkscience.com/
Colorado State
University. http://climatesci.org/
Professor
Stott. A long time contributor to debate in UK...
http://parliamentofthings.info/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
The website of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an international
group
of non-profit organizations dedicated to smarter thinking on the
subject of global warming and climate change. Here you will find essays
and articles on the science, economics and politics (both domestic and
international) of the issue. The debate over global warming has become
very heated. That's why it's time for Cooler Heads.
Heartland Institute http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
very newsy and updated website.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.WelcomeMessage
US senator Inhofe now a prominent cynic and nemisis of
AL Gore. THERE IS AN
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT AND DEFINITIVE BBC
