Sunday, May 20, 2007

The Great Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM !!!

Ok - since I promised long ago to post the stuff I had on CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) CAGW is just another way of saying that Man will cause catastrophic changes to the Earth by releasing CO2).

Let me give you a nice image ok??? This;

comes courtesy of Pete Du Pont, former governor of Delaware and Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis

I'll give you a nice quote from it;
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
That Little Ice Age (which is a matter of GEOLOGIC RECORD), was conveniently ignored when some "scientists" produced the "Hockey Stick" a few years ago which purported to show an alarming spike in global temperatures. Well the Hockey stick was a result of a flawed study that was done. Go here and read al lthe articles on the site which will show how flawed the "Hockey Stick" is here;

Interestingly enough, the Climate Porn people pounced on it to prove their own statements that the debate was settled.

So, the Climate Porn people state that the science is "settled". They states that Man is warming the Earth through his release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, these people obviously ignore(d) that the Earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millenia now but why bother to actually pay attention to the geologic record when you have a fantastic story to sell...hmmm? I mean after all, no news story leads with "A Plane Landed Safely today at Heathrow airport". Since it isn't sensational, it is therefore not newsworthy.

Same with climate science. I'll explain below...

The Science is "settled" they say... Really ?????!!!!!!!

Thats news to ...

--The IPCC Report - the first chapter of IPCC AR4 deals with the historical overview of climate change science. In that overview, cloud modeling is discussed. On page 114 we are treated to the following statement;
The strong effect of cloud processes on model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall inter-model range of sensitivities.
On Page 116 it reveals the next surprise;
The scientific community realized long ago that using adequate data to constrain models was the only way to solve this problem. However, existing data have not yet brought about any reduction in the existing range of simulated cloud feedbacks
Seems like the only thing that is settled here is how little we know about clouds.

--Saying the science is settled and or that Al Gore's movie is fact is also news to;

Marlo Lewis, Jr. (Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute) who states the following about Al Gore's fictional movie:
In Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda. And in many instances, he distorts the evidence he cites. In fact, nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong.
Al Gore poo-pooed him on Oprah's show so Marlo responded here (YouTube link);

The CEI has put together a series of response videos on Gore's movie here;

Go here to read CEI's the Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth here;

--Going on...

Here's another voice who doubts that the science is "settled";

In it, you will see this money quote;
To be sure, the IPCC does an impressive job of mobilizing experts to
produce a report it hopes will be of service to the world. No one should
trivialize this achievement. But let's not make the error of allowing a
glossy summary to trivialize the complexities and uncertainties in
climate change. After all, if the issues were so simple, you wouldn't
need 3,700 experts to write the report. It is a paradox that some of the
strongest claims of unanimity in science are made on a subject involving some of the deepest intellectual disagreements and uncertainties
.
--Its not settled for...

Fred Singer (Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia) and Dennis Avery, who write about it in their book titled Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years which can be obtained here;

--Nor is is settled for

David Bromwich, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, who reported the following;
A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models
...in this press release;

--Nor is it settled science for Doug Hoyt who put together a climate model scorecard to show how accurate those models, that the Climate Porn researches use, really are...

The scorecard can be found here;

Go see it for yourself as it will lead you to more in-depth debunking of some of the models predictions. But for the lazy here is the final tally;

The final score is 1-27-4. One confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined.

Hoyt has also published a book titled "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" :

--Nor is it settled for Roy Spencer who asks questions based upon Richard Lindzen's work at MIT;

Here's a nice quote from this page;
The fact is, science doesn't understand why these natural climate variations occur, and can not reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures. So, if scientists have no other natural explanation for a warming trend, they tend to assume that it is manmade
Here's his bio (lest you disbelieve based upon credentials)
Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which we was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE
Going on...

--Lawrence Solomon has been publishing a series called "The Deniers" in the Canada's National Post. This series can be found here;

So thats more scientists who think that this debate is "settled"?? Clearly, some people have a peculiar definitions of the word "settled".

Here's the last one that Solomon did. It concerns French scientist Claude Allegre's recantation of his Climate Porn past. Like many of the deniers he is a prominent scientist. Unlike many of the deniers Monsieur Allegre he was on the Climate Porn side of this issue for many years. Here's someone with relevant expertise who changed his mind just when the evidence for human induced global warming became sacrosanct? What gives??? Well read about it here and find out why he's changed his tune;

--Climate Scientist Roger Pielke Sr who discovered a HUGE mistake in the IPCC summary;

Pielke also has this to say;
Recently the SPM of IPCC’s AR4 stated that it’s now very likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years is the result of anthropogenic CO2. Are Global Circulation Models crucial to ‘prove’ that AGW is already taking place the last 50 years? My answer is ‘no’. The primary aspect that GCM’s have claimed to be able to show skillfully is a globally averaged surface temperature trend (link). But the models do this without including all the forcings. The models are incomplete. What they have shown is that CO2 is just one important climate forcing, but the 2005 National Research Council report Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties shows there are other first order climate forcings. Another problem is that our research suggests that the actual warming, particularly the minimum near surface-air temperatures on land, have been overstated. There is a warm bias in these data. So if the models agree with the temperature trends, they do this, at least in part, for the wrong reasons.
His comments can be found here;

-- Richard Lindzen (from some backwater university called MIT) wrote an article for Newsweek;

In it he concludes;
The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
You'll note that his bio states this;
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies
Now about that CONCENSUS of scientists that supposedly underpins the CAGW theory... here's what Lindzen has to say
It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit
The link is here;

In other words - this supposed consensus only includes scientists having agreed on the one page to page-and-a-half that they were tasked with drafting (usually with one or two other scientists). No one is asked if they agree with the report as a whole, let alone the Summary drafted by bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists.

--The Great Global Warming Swindle (which blows gore and CAGW theorists out of the water) is on Youtube and is in 9 different parts (had to be broken up into 9 parts due to Youtube restrictions)

Part 1
:(youtube links 1-9) Part 2: Part 3: Part 4: Part 5: Part 6: Part 7: Part 8: Part 9:

This documentary exposes the lie behind the Climate Porn side of the debate. among that the lie that the CO2 emissions preceeded the rise in temperature. If that were thew case, then why did the Earth warm and cool before Man ever arrived?? Think also back to your physics class in school. A cold liquid retains more gas than a hotter liquid. Water contains not only H2O but also traps CO2 and O2 and other gases. When water is heated it releases these gases. The Earth's surface is mostly water. When the temperature rises, the CO2 then gets released into ther atmosphere. It is simple physics my friends. The Climate Porn people have the relationship exactly BACKWARDS and there are Artic Ice core studies that have shown this to be the case.

--- Winding this down (because this post is WAY too long) I'll leave you with the ramblings of a radio host that thinks the way I do...

His blog can be found here;

Look for his post on Global Warming which contains this really good synopsis of where we are;
First, let's identify the "Global Warming" fanatics for what they really are: radical Socialists hell bent on controlling everything people do in life, and delivering a mortal blow to capitalist economies worldwide. (Or, if nothing else, America's economy itself, will do.) It's true, the Earth has been on a warming TREND lately. And increased CO2 emissions surely account for SOME of it. Everything else is nothing but an educated guess. Following the U.N. report, "Global Warming" fanatics declared that "the debate is over." Oh, really? Over? Since when does science EVER put away its labcoats and clipboards and say: "Okay. That's that. Stop your experiments. We don't need to know anything else."
In other words, they want us to believe that...

a. They have "figured everything out" regarding Global Warming. All of it. Every piece of data, every method of analysis, every alternate theory. "They" now know exactly how this all works. All the incredibly complex global interactions of sun, earth, clouds, wind, oceans, land, gases, volcanoes, factories, jungles, cow farts, jet streams, snowstorms, hurricanes, landslides, ice caps, currents, landfills, wildfires, lakes, streams, bogs, bays, puddles, snowbanks….. all of it! They've got a huge chalkboard like the one you saw in "Good Will Hunting" that explains it all.

b. It is OUR fault.

c. We MUST act NOW, or else CATASTROPHE is imminent.

d. In addition to having "solved" what the "problem" is, the same geniuses have simultaneously and conveniently ALSO "solved" the problem of what is the "solution." Thank you. That was handy.

e. We can "afford it." Trust them.
Its surprising that a sports radio host can cut through all the B.S. and remind us all that science never puts away the labcoats.

--Finally I'll leave you with the comedic stylings of Lewis Black who has a few things to say about the subject here on Hotair;

Conclusion ??? --> Global Warming --> A Market correction for the Global Cooling of the 1970's

(I warned you guys I didn't want to have to wade back into this debate b/c I was afraid of posting too much and alas although I posted alot, I have only posted about 1/2 of what I have on this subject on just this one harddrive - I have tons of other stuff as well)

{edited some links and formatted for style ~ LN}

No comments: