Posted on 05/18/2007 12:20:32 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
New Zealand Weatherman on Global Warming: 'It's All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years' Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 18, 2007 - 15:03.
The air continues to seep out of the global warming consensus balloon, ladies and gentlemen.
Meet Augie Auer, the former University of Wyoming professor of atmospheric science turned New Zealand meteorologist who isn’t buying what soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists are selling.
As reported by the New Zealand Timaru Herald (emphasis added throughout):
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, [Auer] maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Unlike folks such as Gore, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, and Leonardo DiCaprio, Auer has actually studied and taught this science. As such, he walks the walks AND talks the talk:
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Auer correctly concluded: "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt."
Yes it has, Doctor. Unfortunately in this instance, the hunt is more serious because there are a lot more people involved, and the consequences far more dire.
But the rate of change is much faster now then at any time in the ice core record.
We know, more or less, how much ancient CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year. If that's not the CO2 we see where is it going?
But that still doesn't make it a problem.
LOL. that's a good one...
That cold wind must be coming from Algore’s little homestead...the one with the offsets.
And then the lawyers screwed the techies with H1-B visa supports.
They're worse then that. They think they're doing it for our benefit. Which is more dangerous then a simple dictator (who only wants personal power and wealth). There's a Ayn Rand quote perfect for this, but I can't be bothered to look it up.
No the science is not settled regarding global warming.
But there is clear data regarding humans as the source of CO2. The rate of change is unprecedented in the ice core record.
In 1975, the “experts” told us that Global Cooling was coming and the planet was in dire straits, there would be mass starvation etc.
Now they’re telling us that Glo-Bull warming is going to destroy us all.
Gee, I’m so confused...
That's a big myth. Any number of bogus scientific theories have survived peer review over the centuries. It is very far from a fail-safe process and once a theory takes hold in a closed establishment, group-think takes over and presenting evidence to the contrary is not guaranteed to change to minds of individuals who are vested in the old theory.
Add to that the global power politics and incredible amounts of government money invested in AGW, and you have some really perverse incentives to spike data contrary to the prevailing theory and conduct ad homin attacks on those who present contrary evidence.
Scientists are just people and prone to all the ambitions, flaws and failings of the average guy on the street.
Peer review no more assures accuracy and honesty than swearing on a Bible in court.
Oh. Well, of course that makes all the difference...
Some survive for a time. Eventually they fall away as peer review does its job.
Can you name one still around? (Please leave evolution out of it, once it's mentioned the signal to noise ratio gets bad and the thread gets moved. If that's your only example we're just going to have to disagree.)
My initial point is we don't need to fudge data in this argument. The data is on our side. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it's not a big piece of the total greenhouse gas effect. But it's not a 3.2% increase in CO2 as stated in the article.
Speak for yourself. I, as a human, don't carry around that kind of conceit.
Your claim paraphrased.
It is as easy to get a group of competing people to agree to a lie as it is for one person to lie.
That defies logic.
Is this why Nancy Pelosi is requesting advice in regards to Global Warming right now on Yahoo Answers?
Hey! Don’t be dissin’ the Y2K. We made a lot of money off of that scare.
That defies logic.
If only logic applied. Peer review, especially in the age where government funds 90% of scientific research, is not "competing people". It is far more likely to be "cooperating people" (like Democrats and Republicans behind closed doors a appropriations committee, each signing off on the other's earmarks.) These guys basically review each other's papers and fund each others grants. They scratch backs.
I think you have an idealized view of how the peer review process works. Here's a blog discussing the issue in general--- read down to the comments.
The peer review process is not working in areas where there is big money involved. The blogs have some suggestions on how to fix it which boil down to breaking up the "old boys clubs" that the review committees have become and making the process more open to outsiders.
Sure can. String theory.
From Wikipedia, on point, re: Peer Review Failures.......
Another notable failure occurred in 2004, with a paper published in Nature on global warming.[25] The paper contained invalidating errors that required no scientific training at all to understand. This was exposed in 2007.[26] A review by Richard Lindzen and colleagues stated, "a paper on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking of the work prior to publication
Rush read an article about five years ago which claimed global warming (at least as chanmpioned by the Left) may actually be impossible. And you learned it in junior high school.
2/3rds of the earth is water. Water, when heated, evaporates. Evaporation as it rises, eventually forms clouds. Clouds provide insulation from sunshine (and heat) and provides rain which then returns to the earth which is covered by water. So God has provided a lovely insular cycle that constantly recycles itself. Man is not capable of changing it. In fact, the vast majority of it takes place where man isn't even present.
I just read “State of Fear” by ? I’m having a brain freeze..(the author of Jurassic Park and Andromeda Strain). The fictional story is based on facts (copies of the actual FOIA are included) is shocking. It really changed my mind about the people worried about my carbon footprint.
bttt
Two different things. Y2K was man-made. There were shortcuts in computer programs taken that would have caused serious problems if they were not corrected.
The problems were caused by “laws of man”; rules that are made up by man with the best of intentions. On the other hand, man’s arrogance is shown by the people that believe they can disrupt the “laws of God” which rule our natural existence.
BTW I help fix some of the Y2K problems. One of my customers used the Y2K effort to revamp there entire systems and became more productive.
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.