Posted on 02/21/2007 8:41:11 AM PST by TBP
It is ironic that as a major cold snap sweeps the eastern and central United States, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations, has released a report warning us of global warming and insisted that it was caused primarily by human activity.
The United Nations does not have a high record of reliability. The Los Angeles Times reported when one of the UN's agencies wrote a report a few years which disagreed with conventional wisdom on second-hand smoke that the UN suppressed the report. The UN is also well known for its anti-Americanism.
Nobody denies that the climate is changing. It has been changing ever since Earth came into being. That is why there are no longer dinosaurs, mastodons, and other life forms that used to roam the planet. But over the past 100 years, the average temperature has gone up seven tenths of a degree Celsius, or about a degree Fahrenheit, most of that before 1940.
As Jonah Goldberg writes in the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times, "The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate." He goes on to say, "Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat." So would I.
But the Marxist Luddites of the "global warming" movement don't see it that way. They would prefer to subject the United States to the restrictions of the Kyoto protocol (which the U.S. Senate defeated 95-0 during the Clinton-Gore Administration), despite the fact that China, India, and other Third World countries are exempt and that pollution is much worse in the Third World then in the industrialized world.
In an excellent article published February 5 at the Canada Free Press website, Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, wrote that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." He notes that 30 years ago, we were being warned about global cooling by the same interests.
That is not even taking into account the fact that the polar ice caps are melting on Mars and there is even some melting on Pluto. Now, I wonder how the human race made that happen.
Interestingly, these changes coincide with an increase in solar activity. According to scientists with the Max Planck Institute, sunspot activity is at its highest in 1000 years.
It also fails to account for the fact that there was a significant warm period in the Middle Ages (roughly 800-1300 AD) in which the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine grapes grew in Nova Scotia. This was followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance, lasting from about 1350 until about 1900. Since then, we've been in a warming cycle. Like the current warm cycle, the medieval warm period (which was warmer than today, by most reports) coincided with increased activity on the Sun. Columnist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that "The Medieval Warm Period was a time (mostly) of peace and plenty; the little Ice Age (mostly) of starvation and war."
But, but, but...there's a scientific consensus, the "global warming" advocates say. Well, it was that kind of scientific consensus that got Galileo imprisoned. You can't do science by consensus. Dr. Ball writes, "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact."
Besides, there isn't really all that much of a consensus. The actions of the "global warming" activists underline that fact. Note the recent controversy at the Weather Channel. Heidi Cullen, a self-proclaimed "climate expert" for the Weather Channel, called for silencing any meteorologist who questions man-made "global warming" by decertifying them. Cullen said, "It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement." Of course, she apparently did not know that in the Southern Hemisphere, hurricanes do rotate counterclockwise. On December 17, 2006, her program, "The Climate Code," featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts calling for Nuremberg trials for anyone who questioned man-made "global warming." Cullen is a contributor to the IPCC report. Yet all responsible meteorologists admit that the climate goes in cycles. But that apparently doesn't matter to Cullen and her friends.
The meteorologists and climatologists who promote the alarmist theory of global warming told us that the 2006 hurricane season would be dramatically worse than the 2005 season. It was not nearly as bad. If they were that for off on a short-term projection like that, why are we supposed to take their word for it on a long-term theory such as anthropogenic global warming?
When physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton suggested that climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine, he was verbally vandalized by Senator Barbara Boxer. Senators Susan Collins ("R"-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have demanded that Exxon Mobil stop funding research that questions man-made global warming, something it hasn't been doing at least since 2005.
Former Vice President Al Gore cancelled an interview with a Danish newspaper (one which had been long scheduled) rather than appear with Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace who is a global-warming skeptic. Yet Gore remains a major stockholder in Occidental Petroleum.
Why do the advocates of the man-made warming viewpoint have to resort to these intimidation tactics if there is a scientific consensus? The answer is because there isn't.
Recently, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery wrote a book called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years in which they show that there is evidence of 600 warmings in the last million years.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia is one of a group of hundreds of climate scientists who question the man-made global warming hypothesis. Another is Canadian Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University. He says, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences argues that the small increase in temperatures may be caused by atmospheric changes not related to human activity. He notes that until early in the 20th century, temperatures were going down. Shaidurov explains that the most common greenhouse gas is water and very small changes in the water vapor in the atmosphere can contribute to significant changes in the temperature of the Earth's surface. We have little control over the amount of water vapor.These are just a few of the hundreds of climate scientists who diverge from the theory of man-made "global warming." Yet the effort to force us to embrace extreme solutions to this problem, solutions that could damage our standard of living, continues. Are we getting all heated up over nothing?
The question about warming is neither interesting nor important. The ice core data shows that the "global climate" is constantly in flux, either warming or cooling.
"Global warmers" appear to take as their point of departure that warming (or cooling) is unnatural - and that therefore an extrinsic explanation, preferably mankind's failure to adopt socialism, must be the answer.
I have no doubt that the northern hemisphere is warmer, on average, than it was in 1800. I also have no doubt that the localized effects of warming (Sahara changing from savanna to desert) or cooling (NYC under 2 miles of ice) can be catastrophic and can decimate human populations. All this has happened in the past, many times, and no doubt will happen in the future.
But what accounts for the foolish obsession about humans causing this latest natural fluctuation?
Humans didn't cause the warmings on Pluto and Mars. Neither did the Sun -- particularly recent solar variability. So what is happening on Earth is exclusive to Earth. And what is happening on Earth is anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming. Simple, eh?
No, that is not what she said, at any time. I supplied the exact quote in post 33. What you said was from a different source. A nice illustration about the usefulness of consulting the original sources instead of secondhand.
Objection overruled. The evidence clearly indicates that Heidi Cullen is a significant distributor of junk political controversy. Kidd has provided documented evidence of two cases. It is not Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen made reference to a non-peer reviewed website as a n authoratative source of information. Nor is it Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen produces a nightly show designed to produce fear.
Could you please tell the court, Mr Cogitator, why the Weather Channel is in a position to present a show that features earthquakes and civilization-ending meteors?
Actually, she did, as you know.
Only you, Algore, and Heil Heidi believ that. The climate has always warmed and cooled, warmend and cooled. Just in the 20th century, it cooled until about 1910, warmed until roughly 1940, cooled until the 1970s, warmed until the end of the century. The temperature has not gone up in several years. Your data simply doesn't hold up.
Right now, we appear to be in a warm cycle. But it's been warmer than today. There was a major warming in the Middle Ages, followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance. Were those anthropogenic? The medieval warm period was, according to most reports, at least as warm as the current era. We know that the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine was made in Nova Scotia. Try that today.
The temperature has gone up less than a degree in a century. Futhermore, most of that happened prior to 1940 and apparently none in the past few years, as the temperature is what it was about 7 years ago.
Anthropogenic theory is largely based on the hockey-stick model, which has been proven false and on computer projections that have been proven to be wrong. That's why people like Algore and Heil Heidi have to work overtime to suppress any discussion of the data on the issue and to ge critics of their opinions defunded. That's the only way they can establish their case.
Now consider this: CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. Trees and other plants take in CO2, so planting more trees should reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are more threes than ever before (thanks in large part to the paper companies), yet the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle.
Your sources:
the socialist former Vice President
some chick on TV who wants to decertify anyone who dares to disagree with her opinion
the left-wing, America-hating UN
Grist Magazine
several left-wing political orgnizations.
The article's sources:
Jonah Goldberg
the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times
Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Canada Free Press
the Max Planck Institute
Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton
Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, authors of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University
Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences
So which list do you think has a higher degree of reliability?
Well...
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml
"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.
An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"
The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."
So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.
Well...
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml
"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.
An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"
The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."
So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.
One of the initial points is the warming on Mars and Pluto, which has nothing at all to do with variability of solar activity.
I wish more people on both sides would recognize that fact. It would avoid some really tedious and annoying comments from Algore and his worshippers as well as skeptics.
read later
After reading some of what cogitator posted I though I should inform you that post # 50 was meant as satire.
The burden of free speech is that you must deal with the religious fanatics.
Good one, Grizzled Bear.
Micheal Creighton's "State of Fear" is also fully referenced. And "State of Fear" also make reference to the non-science of the IPCC. Ms. Cullen chose to direct her readers to the work of fiction that would be preferred by the alarmists.
Why does the climate response to increased radiative forcing have to be linear? 1998 was the year of a monstrous El Nino -- and El Nino years are always warmer-than-normal years. 2005 was ranked ahead of 1998 by one group (GISS) and just less than 1998 by NOAA. And there was no El Nino in 2005, so it was a "normal" year. That means that the underlying trend is upward.
But it's been warmer than today.
Nothing quantitative/comparative can be said regarding global temperatures more than 400 years ago.
There was a major warming in the Middle Ages, followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance. Were those anthropogenic?
The actual sense of this was that the "Medieval Warm Period" was about as warm as now, and the Little Ice Age was colder. The LIA appears to have been colder due to lower solar activity.
Anthropogenic theory is largely based on the hockey-stick model, which has been proven false and on computer projections that have been proven to be wrong.
That's not accurate. The "hockey stick" is a paleoclimate temperature analysis. Anthropogenic GHG warming is based on the fact that atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and increasing concentrations absorb more infrared radiation, altering Earth's radiative balance.
Trees and other plants take in CO2, so planting more trees should reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are more threes than ever before (thanks in large part to the paper companies), yet the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle.
The Mauna Loa (Keeling) CO2 curve shows the uptake of CO2 seasonally by northern forests. The curve shows a continuing upward trend, indicating that CO2 sinks are insufficient to fully absorb the CO2 added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion.
If you would still like enlightenment on the science errors in the article, ask a a question about the science in the article.
Isn't that curve linear?
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.