Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The global warming scam
Melanie Phillips ^ | 09 January 2004 | Melanie Phillips's Diary

Posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:06 PM PST by Lando Lincoln

The global warming scam

The British government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of science into ideological propaganda.

Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate.

To take a few examples from Sir David's litany.

1) Sea levels are rising. As this article explains, this claim is not the result of observable data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer modelling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, as this article explains, sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise.

2) Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren't. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing, as this article points out. The bit of the Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria among eco-doomsters, won't increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own weight in the sea.

3) The hottest years on record started in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in Northumberland, for heaven's sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get excited about.

4) The causal link is well established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted. Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the -- literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change. If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.

That's why this week's earlier eco-scare story, that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years, is risible. All that means is that someone has put into the computer the global warming scenario, and the computer has calculated what would happen on the basis of that premise. But -duh! -the premise is totally unproven. The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the environmentalist camp.

After Kyoto, one of the most eminent scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted. Since his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:

'Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

'As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

'Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.

'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

'We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

'What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.

'The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.

'The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

'The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

'Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'

As Professor Philip Stott wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:

'"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance of the earth.

'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.

'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with population growth, industrialization, the car, development and globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr. Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'

Go figure.

TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globaloney; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; kyoto; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
1 posted on 01/10/2004 6:01:07 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

2 posted on 01/10/2004 6:02:20 PM PST by Support Free Republic (If Woody had gone straight to the police, this would never have happened!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
3 degrees below zero in Boston last night, coldest ever since 1875.

Thirty four degrees below zero in Saranac Lake (near Albany) New York.
3 posted on 01/10/2004 6:04:04 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
read later
4 posted on 01/10/2004 6:07:16 PM PST by sauropod (Graduate, Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Just heard on the news that Tony Blair is imploring Bush to act on global warming. Agitprop.
5 posted on 01/10/2004 6:08:22 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
6 posted on 01/10/2004 6:09:02 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

7 posted on 01/10/2004 6:10:30 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
8 posted on 01/10/2004 6:11:24 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Dear God,

Please send some global warming up here to Minnesota.

9 posted on 01/10/2004 6:11:40 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Bookmarked. Thanks for posting this - every single bit of ammunition to use on the enviros is appreciated. They certainly don't stand up well to truthful science.
10 posted on 01/10/2004 6:14:24 PM PST by 11B3 (Democratic Socialists of America: 78 members in Congress. Treason? YES.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egon
You have my sympathies. It did get down to ten degrees here in Seattle last week, the coldest I've seen it in about 12 years. Still, that ain't no -34!!
11 posted on 01/10/2004 6:16:47 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
There are FOUR edges to the "global warming" scam that the enviro's and international socialists are using (1) to attack Bush (in general), the US (in particular) and capitalism (in general).

First: Is the climate warming? Answer: Maybe. Some data says, some is inconclusive. Previous data from the 70's would have indicated we faced a cooling crisis!

Second: What is causing that warming?

We don't know for sure. Previous cycles could NOT have been caused by man, and current CO2 levels DON'T support the warming that (might have) happened already, so we don't know.

Third: Is the US's part of these CO2/freon/methane gasses causing the increase - if the increase is occurring at all? Answer: We don't know, since we don't know if they are the cause. Further, just because some of the gasses are admittedly from the US-econmy, that's only a small part of the total gasses.

Four: Is the US- economy part of these discharges, if controlled by the anti-capitalist Kyoto treaty, going to make a difference in global warming?

And, what EVERYBODY who is using the global-warming excuse ignores - is "If a small rise in fuel and gas cripples the economy, what is the EXREME limit in economic output mandated by our competitors going to do to the economy?
12 posted on 01/10/2004 6:17:40 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
13 posted on 01/10/2004 6:18:35 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf
Maybe we should get Kyoto bunch to address the
36 coalfield fires on a total of 826 hectares scattered along the northern and southern sides of Mt. Tianshan (Heavenly Mountain) in China, burning 10.03 million tons of coal. These fires have been burning for more than 100 years and annually put out more CO2 than all US cars and light trucks do.
Then if we put out the Centralia Pennsylvania fire, we would reduce the CO2 equivalent to all heavy trucks too...
Hey, I can keep my 2 SUV's !!!
14 posted on 01/10/2004 6:19:28 PM PST by DelaWhere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln; RhoTheta; Eb Wilson
I'm not sure I understand the problem.

The global warming people have a WAY inflated estimation of the effect we humans can have on a global level. If they're correct, it should be very easy to come up with an imaginative solution.

I propose the following:

The entire country of Britain can plan a chili cook-off for the middle of noon. At a pre-arranged signal, everyone can aim their collective asses at the sun... and fart!

The resulting shift in the earth's orbit around the sun should offset the effects of global warming nicely. Additionally, thousands of bean farmers will instantly see black ink on their budgets.
15 posted on 01/10/2004 6:23:01 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
"...carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible;..."

Why does Ms. Phillips have to say this? CO2 makes up 21% of the atmosphere, hardly "a tiny fraction".

16 posted on 01/10/2004 6:23:46 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DelaWhere
All it takes is one good volcanic burp to put millions of tons of CO2 in the air. But CO2, IMHO, is not the cause of weather extremes. The cause is a heating up of the upper atmosphere, caused mainly by air travel. This puts a damper on the normal vertical displacements.
17 posted on 01/10/2004 6:26:28 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
I believe CO2 is only about 3 percent.
18 posted on 01/10/2004 6:27:28 PM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
Kyoto is nothing more than the 3rd wave's way of introducing the PC version of socialism into the world. THANK GOD the Russians and US have held the line thus far.
19 posted on 01/10/2004 6:29:55 PM PST by Beck_isright ("Deserving ain't got nothing to do with it" - William Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Why does Ms. Phillips have to say this? CO2 makes up 21% of the atmosphere, hardly "a tiny fraction".

You're thinking of oxygen.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

20 posted on 01/10/2004 6:31:40 PM PST by Egon (If you can read this tagline, you may be sitting too close to the monitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson