Jun 03 2007
The Global Warming Debate
It seems as more and more hype is thrown around the THEORY of Man-Made Global Warming, the scientific community is in full retreat from the wild and unsubstantiated claims from the UN IIPC group – which is the center of the M-MGW view. Now someone has come out and catalogued this flight of top level scientists, and captured the false reporting by the IIPC concerning the scientific support of their theories:
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
S o said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun.
…
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated.
…
My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments.
…
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded.
…
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC’s comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
I have said many times the scientists I work with have many doubts about the claims of M-MGW. I find the ‘science’ presented by the IIPC as cherry-picked data which never takes into account all the data that conflicts with the M-MGW assumptions. That is not science – that is propaganda. You must address ALL the data and make it ALL work in a single concept. It can’t be ‘if we ignore these parts of the historic record – our theory works’.
But there is some hope to resolve this conundrum – if the latest Chicken Little cries about M-MGW are correct. Supposedly the problem is three times worse than the IIPC predicted (if you avoid measuring the global temperature and sea levels that is):
Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.
They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast – and the seas are rising twice as rapidly – as had been predicted.
…
The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.
The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year’s massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.
First off, many who reject the Man-Made portion of GW based on the historic record do so because the record shows CO2 rates rise AFTER the global temperatures rise. It is not a cause but a result of the warming temperatures. Which makes sense since under warmer times we had much larger and more abundant plants across the globe. And plants consume CO2 to build more plant. Sunlight and warm temperatures are not enough to make a plant grow. They need the C02 to make the celluloid, the sugars, the carbohydrates (all C02 based), etc. that make up the plant.
But there is another problem with the report which is much more fundamental. After a 3 times larger increase in CO2 where was the enormous temperature shift? The predicted temperature and sea level rises that were to come and create our doom in the 1990′ and the first decade of the 21st century (which we are no0w 65% of the way through) never materialized. The report says the destruction coming – but since this is historic levels it should be upon us now. And it is not. Sea levels have not risen much at all either. Which brings the next report into question:
On the ground, a study by the University of California’s National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.
OK, your computer model must be pretty damned hosed to under estimate the artic ice loss by an order of 3 times and still over estimate the resulting climate. How is that? They underestimated the artic loss and yet way over estimated the sea level rise? My gut tells me the ice study is flawed, because all that water has to go somewhere. Unless it is being captured on the land somehow.
But the bad science doesn’t stop there. When the math challenged media get into the picture the bad assumptions start multiplying:
The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world’s people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.
Since China has 3 times our population it is primed to produce a lot more CO2 than us as it modernizes. Our CO2 production is probably going to hold steady or go down since we do invest in green technology. But these simple facts just slide right by these geniuses of M-MGW.
Nice work. Here’s something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emmited into the atmosphere. Active volcanos represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteria.blogspot.com
I’m not a scientist, but in lay terms I wonder if sombody can explain this to me? Thanks, Jim
Nice work. Here’s something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emmited into the atmosphere. Active volcanos represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteria.blogspot.com
I’m not a scientist, but in lay terms I wonder if sombody can explain this to me? Thanks, Jim
Nice work. Here’s something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emmited into the atmosphere. Active volcanos represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteria.blogspot.com
I’m not a scientist, but in lay terms I wonder if sombody can explain this to me? Thanks, Jim
Nice work. Here’s something that bothers me. Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the CO2 emmited into the atmosphere. Active volcanos represent an additional 2%. Since the atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, that leaves depending on the source .038 to .045% for CO2 as an atmospheric gas. It seems to me that we are making a great deal of assumptions about a gas that represents less than 1/2% of the atmosphere and attributing the potential end of the world to it. My sources are available at http://globalwarminghysteria.blogspot.com
I’m not a scientist, but in lay terms I wonder if sombody can explain this to me? Thanks, Jim
So you support Pres Bush on his recent proposal for the G8?
Apparently he now believes in mmgw and is for the top 15 (or whatever) countries taking hits on CO2 emissions to control it.
No actually, it appears that you are knowledgeable on this subject (as I am) have done your homework and lay out a detailed, clear argument for your side of the situation. Since I agree with it (then I wouldn’t be a ‘hardliner’ on this subject?) then you won’t get any argument, only support, from me.
Now why won’t you do that on the illegal alien deal? Instead of just name calling.
You really should at least read the draft bill and quote the parts you agree with and why or why not, as you do on the mmgw issue.
MMGW is not even a hot issue on your blog, basically because practically everyone either already believe the way you do about it, or because you lay out a very clear, sensible argument for your beliefs( unlike the illegal alien issue)
So Pres Bush is not 100% correct?
Polar Bear and the Seal
PB: Hey there little fellow. How you doin?
S: Pretty good, just came up for some air. . . aaah you ain’t hungry are you?
PB: Naw I got my fill yesterday.
S: Yea, we saw, pretty gruesome if you ask me.
PB: Hey, I didn’t make this world, just trying to survive.
S: Tell me about it.
PB: So what da ya think?
S: About what?
PB: The global warming thang.
S: Global what?
PB: Ya know, it’s getting warmer stuff.
S: I wish; you have any idea how cold it is swimming under this damn ice?
PB: Thought with all that blubber you have, it wouldn’t bother you.
S: Well it does. So when is it going to warm up.
PB: There’re not sure, but it definitely is.
S: Who told you this stuff?
PB: Al Gore did.
S: You spoke to a human?
PB: No, I said Al Gore told me.
S: Where did you meet it.
PB: Off the north shore where I was swimming from one ice to another and it waved to me. So I went over to see what it wanted.
S: Wow! what did it say?
PB: It said that it loved me.
S: Loved you?
PB: Cross my mamby, that’s what it said.
S: So why does it love you?
PB: Because I’m beautiful.
S: What bullshit.
PB: I’m telling ya , that’s exactly the way it happened.
S: Ok, ok, so what’s causing things to get warmer?
PB: C02
S: What’s C02?
PB: It’s a gas that animals exhale.
S: Oh my god. . . . really.
PB: Yep and it said that they were doing too much of it.
S: Is that why the humans keep trying to kill us off?
PB: No dummy, they like to eat you.
S: You would know all about that. So what else did the Gore thing tell you?
PB: That the humans were doing more than their fair share.
S: Exhaling?
PB: Yep and it said I would be a star.
S: Like one of those dots in the sky?
PB: No! Like in the human movies.
S: Why?
PB: I don’t know. He asked me to swim and make it look like I was having a hard time of it. So I swam out, but how embarrassing it would be, if I looked like I was having a hard time. Like think who might see that.
S: Wow! What else happened ?
PB: Hmmm Oh! When I got back I offered to eat one of the humans there with him. You know, to help the global warming thang.
S: Did you?
PB: Nope, it said that it would take care of it.
S: Eating the human or the global warming thang.
PB: It didn’t say, maybe both.
S: You sure you’re not hungry?
PB: Take it easy dude.
S: Ok, but that’s one hell of a story? Any thing else?
PB: Only it kept waving its arms around a lot and yelling, which was scaring those sled dogs and me too a little.
S: Maybe it was trying to scare the CO2 away.
PB: Might be, ya know I didn’t think of that.
S: What was it yelling?
PB: I’M SMART I’M SMART THE DEBATE IS OVER.
S: Thought you said it was AL GORE.
PB: I did, don’t ask it’s just what I heard, ok?
S: Sorry, you still not hungry?
PB: Look dude as I told you before I ain’t hungry, but this Al Gore might be.
S: That’s all I need, another predator.
PB: I don’t think it eats seals.
S: How would you know that?
PB: Cause your too ugly.
S: Thanks, so what does it eat.
PB: Not sure, didn’t get the chance to ask.
S: You got to be putting me on.
PB: I’m TELLING you dude, exactly the way it happened.
S: Yea, so how does it know about this thang thing.
PB: I forgot. . . ya know, I asked it about that and he yelled at me.
S: I’M SMART I’M SMART. . . .
PB: Exactly. . . while waving his arms.
S: Sorry forgot that part. So it then must know?
PB: Apparently.
S: Wow! So how’s it going to fix it.
PB: Well it tried to explain that, but I didn’t quite understand its words. Something to do with his religion, love of a river, leaves, birds, tobacco and tree frogs
S: Religion? How is that going to get rid of CO1
PB: CO2
S: Right CO2
PB: Not sure.
S: Your making this all up. . . right?
PB: HEY I ‘m just reporting what I heard. I stayed until it left.
S: And it grew wings and flew off.
PB: No, it took off its shoes and got on one of those plane thangs, which really stunk the place up.
S: Why did he take off his shoes?
PB: Have no idea. Well here comes that damn wind again. I’m heading for the den.
S: Hey. . one sec.
PB: What.
S: You think it will come back.
PB: Don’t know, depends on how hungry it is. Catch ya later.
S: Yea. . . . . lets hope not.
China, I would think, believe they are entitled to as much pollution per capita as the US is. I belief is that they are entitle to the same total pollution as the US, therefore they either have to have a tighter limit per capita or less capita.(lower births) If the goal is to limit emissions, then the logical way is by limiting total emissions not by per capita. (on a per capita basis, if you want a higher total, you just get more people.
But CO2 has zip to do with global temp anyhow. As is well documented in many places that you are already familiar with.
Jim,
Your caculations are quite accurate, as is your question. Which is why most scientists do not agree with the IIPC hype.
Lying whore Solomon claims that a 1991 Gallup poll showed that only a small minority of scientists thought there was man-made global warming.
HERE’S THE TRUTH:
Associated Press
December 8, 1997, Monday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
HEADLINE: WASHINGTON TODAY: Global warming debate generates much heat
BYLINE: By DONALD M. ROTHBERG, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
One conservative group criticized the news media for accepting claims that there is widespread scientific agreement on global warming. The Media Research Center cited “a recent Gallup poll” that said only 19 percent of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union think that a warmer climate has been the result of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Gallup organization said the poll was taken in October of 1991. It noted that some people, opposed to claims that human-induced global warming is occurring, “have used the study to support their position.”
“These writers have taken survey results out of context that appear to show scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring.”
The statement from Gallup noted that when asked if they thought human-induced global warming was occurring, 66 percent of the scientists surveyed said yes.