Jan 31 2010
So you were duped. So you thought you were working on a crusade to save the world and it turns out you were just following a bunch of buffoons with fancy titles using impressive sounding mathematical and scientific terms (many of which the fancy titled buffoons did not really understand themselves). So what if it is becoming clear that we don’t know the global temperature index today, 50 years ago, 130 years ago, 500, 1000, 0r even 3,000 years ago to sufficient accuracy to know if today’s current warming trend is unique or standard fair for Mother Earth.
People make mistakes. The holier-than-thou amateurs who flouted man-made warming based on shoddy math and unproven theories have a lot to explain. But those who believed them should not be responding to these revelations with a ‘so what, I am still going to save the world through CO2 reductions’.
Why not? Two reasons: (1) no one needs to repeat what the ‘scientist’ involved in the IPCC did, which is promote wild speculation as fact, and (2) it won’t do anything but hurt the ecology of nature, not save it. CO2 is not a poison (hint, hint EPA) – it is a beneficial and important part of our world. We all know the gas is ingested by plants to make them strong and grow, but carbon is also a key building block of every living thing. From glucose (sugar made of CO2) to protein chains to polymers, the back bone of life is CARBON.
That is why we are called carbon-based life forms, as is every other living thing in the planet. CO2 gas is one of the primary mechanism for recycling and distributing carbon around the planet (the other being dissolved CO2 in the worlds waters). What happens when we burn carbon and release it into the atmosphere? It is taken up by plants, which are then consumed to build the body structures of all living organism. Without carbon dioxide, we don’t harness the sun’s energy (through plants) and live.
We are now at historically low carbon dioxide levels. life on Planet Earth has consumed and locked a lot of it away in sediments and deep deposits. We will not perish if we release that carbon (and other elements). In fact, history shows that warmth is better for life than cold – even the cold of the last hundred years, not to mention the Little Ice Age of 500 years ago.
So when we find alarmists are reaching into articles of pure speculation, political propaganda and a student dissertation to weave their lies, we are not required to take them seriously anymore.
The reputation of the IPCC is falling apart on so many levels it is clear it will not survive the year (maybe not even the summer). First there were bogus reports of Himalayan glaciers melting away by 2035 (the actual estimate was 2305, 300 years later). We learned that this was not some hapless mistake, but the deliberate introduction of unproven speculation to push a political agenda – in other words it is political propaganda:
TheÂ Sunday Mailâ€™s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC reportâ€™s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the reportâ€™s claim that Himalayan glaciers â€“ the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia â€“ could dry upÂ by 2035. Said Lal: â€œWe thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.â€ In other words, Rose says, Lal â€œlast night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.â€
Then came bogus claims about the Amazon forests, which were based on the fact that logging (not warming) can damage forests (like who did not know that one):
In that context, the 40 percent on which Rowell & Moore and then the IPCC rely relates not to an area of the Amazon rain forests but to the proportion of trees damaged in individual forest tracts, which have been harvested (and the top range of the estimate at that). It cannot be taken to refer to the totality of the Amazonian forest area.
Three points emerge from this. Firstly, these combined areas relate to a total forest area of between 4-6Â million square kilometres, and thus represent perhaps as little as ten percent of the total area. Secondly, the effects are observed in relation toÂ severe drought effects arising from an unusually strong El Nino episode, unrelated to climate change. And thirdly, the drought effect is localised. In other areas of the forest, the El Nino brings increased rainfall.
That, my friends, is more than a mistake or shading the truth. That is a lie, one carefully twisted out of irrelevant information – from a source that was never peer-reviewed.
In its [the IPCC's] most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
In other words it was all hearsay, circular hearsay. What we have is a decade of Chicken Littles claiming the Earth is melting, and then using the words of those who believe them as the basis of fact for their claims of doom.
The FACT is most of the data purported to indicate global warming is fictional – created by the alarmists. Less than 0.01% of the data used to estimate the global temp index is actually made up of actual measurements. The FACT is the world’s temperature has not been driven by CO2 levels, which respond in a delayed manner to warming – and can be delayed on the order of 100′s of years. This means the warming coming out of the Little Ice Age could produce a CO2 increase for 100′s of years – even if temperatures stayed the same or cooled! The FACT is we look to be heading into 3 decades of cooling while CO2 merrily increases in our atmosphere.
And finally, the FACT is that the US climate alarmists have admitted there is no evidence of man-made global warming in the US. And if there is (they speculate) it will not show up for 20-40 years. Think about that, and it becomes clear why the IPCC dug into speculation and hearsay for their last alarmist report. The science was not there, but they still need the spotlight and all that money that comes with it.
Is this what people are going to waste trillions of hard earned dollars on??
Addendum: This last one is so bad I find it hard to believe. The idea that a scientific paper having nothing to do with its own title or conclusions can maks it past ‘peer review’ tells you all you need to know about the quality of peer reviewed journals (a process no serious engineer would use to check the safety of an airline, bridge, car brake, etc). But the fact the paper claims low water levels result due to glacial melts is just stupid. When ice melts you get what again??? Â PhDs are way over rated.
Update: And yes, there are more dubious claims throughout the ‘scientific consensus’ of AR4