The Real Truth About AGW [Peer Reviewer Exposes Stench of BS (Bad Science)]

IceCap ^ | Feb 17, 2009 | Richard Courtney

[Robert A Cook PE]

Sirs, you say: “And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC’s real climate experts take them on.”

Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) - notably carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists. The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.

1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.

The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science: i.e. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.

But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Excellent summary.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[olezip]

What surprises me, is that this anthropogenic global warming hoax continues to “live.” Even when you look into the history of man caused global warming it started when someone (in the late 1800s) decided that his fellow man had too many fires and too much industrialization that was spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When the alchemists (including Jim Hansen) discovered that carbon dioxide did not cause global warming, but followed periods of global warming, they just continued their quest to prove that mankind was causing global warming by putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! This Quixote like work would be amusing but it has become a billion dollar industry!

When told that water vapor clearly dominates (tens of thousands of tons exchanged per day) our daily weather and climate, they counter-claim that the “real” cause is a mini-volume of an inefficient or even questionable greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide that lets at least 92% of the heat pass right through). These alchemists also ignore that fact that there are practically zero concentrations of it in the upper atmosphere because it is heavier than air. Facts and science do not matter to the alchemists.

Because these illogical and unscientific claims have gotten this far is a reflection of the dumbing-down of the entire world!

Carbon dioxide is really NOT a global greenhouse gas, and should not be presented as such, especially in the concentrations that exist today. Water vapor and clouds are the primary drivers of climate change, as driven by the Sun, whether it be cosmic rays or variations in solar radiation, or magnetic field changes, or distance from the Earth.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Good, powerful summary.

What EVERY article about AGW fails to mention is the very, very small actual temperature rise that has (supposedly) field these tens of thousands of “symptoms” from global warming (melting glaciers, changing migrations patterns, changing “health” and lifestyles, droughts, animal and plant extinctions, acidification of the sea, etc.

Global warming is nothing more than a 1/2 of one degree rise in average temperatures over a single 27 year period (1972 - 1998) followed by a 10 year of slightly declining temperatures (2/10 of one degree from 1998 through 2008).

But NO AGW extremist has been able to show how 1/2 of one degree can actually yield such influences. Instead, they must extrapolate to some (NEVER defined and ARBITRARILY very high) future temperature at some arbitrarily chosen future date - THEN create their dire forecasts - while NEVER specifying exactly what temperature rise would be needed to create the dire results they desire. (.

[Always Right]

The scientific community has done a crappy job at refuting this alarmist bull crap. I have lost all respect for scientists. Major scientific organization after organization endorses this quackery. Sure there is some dissent, but the science is so lame that every scientific organization should have condemned the so-called science of global warming and all the over the top fear-mongering a decade ago.

[stayathomemom]

On Rush's show Monday he talked about the Market being driven by lobbyists:

Rush:...the guy that is advising his investment clients not to look at the performance of the company or the balance sheet but rather how much lobbying they are doing, because if they are doing a lot of lobbying they're going to get government contracts and it doesn't matter whether they succeed or not, they're going to have a lot of investment and the stock price is going to go up.

Break

DON LUSKIN: ... I'm not even going to dignify this mess by pretending that there are going to be winners. This green energy stuff, come on, throwing subsidies at stupid, unprofitable ideas isn't going to make stupid unprofitable companies profitable.

Now, if the government is once again manipulating the economy, encouraging investment in a bogus idea, haven't they just created another market bubble that will go bust?

[rockinqsranch]

“But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.”

Drug test them all. I’d bet the results would be telling.

[Incorrigible]

Short, sweet smackdown!

[mc5cents]

Yes but, but just look at all the things that are affected by Global Warming! It HAS to be so! It has to I tell you!! So many livelihoods depend on it. It is too big to fail!! Look:
Things caused by Global Warming

[stayathomemom]

“Publish or Perish” is the mantra in academia. If grant money is awarded to those who stick the phrase “global warming” into their grant application, then I guess you somehow try to tie your research to global warming. Then you have bad reviewers with an agenda, a MSM who can't understand the research reporting a skewed review of the paper to educators with an agenda who then teach it to gullible children, easily put in crisis mode. Panicked children come home crying to their parents that the world is going to end. Parents complain to their public officials who pass more legislation throwing money at bad research. The Circle of Life.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Socialism dressed up to look like Science.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Yes - Worse, the government (entire parts of our society - news media, universities, “green” industries, schools, etc) are EMOTIONALLY invested in the fallacies of AGW extremism and the “environmental harm” western culture is committing.

These people cannot be convinced of their error by reason. Or facts.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

Hundreds of years ago, consensus science agreed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. The funny thing about AGW is the fear-mongers (control freaks) accuse their opponents of being deniers. Well, people who say, “no, you are wrong,” can count themselves in the company of deniers such as Copernicus, Galilelo and Columbus.

[Tex Pete]

Ping for later.

[Reaganesque]

The whole “we’ve got to do something right away or we’re all doomed” theme is an attempt to get the changes they want implemented before real scientists refute AGW beyond any reasonable doubt. Then, once they’ve had their way and it is disproven they will simply say, well, if we had done nothing and we were right, then the world would have ended.

[bobsatwork]

The posting originated here:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/public_enemies.html#comment1189
This is the far-left NRDC, and it is truly amazing seeing not just this terrific post, but many others agreeing with it. My favorite line: “Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.”

[SteamShovel]

Well, people who say, “no, you are wrong,” can count themselves in the company of deniers such as Copernicus, Galilelo and Columbus

A TEAM

.....Copernicus

.....Galileo

.....Columbus

*****vs*****

B TEAM

.....Algore

.....James Hansen

.....Cheryl Crow

.....Laurie David

.....Leonardo DiCaprio

Pick your team

[Thickman]

ping