Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore, but who has had enough of Greenpeace radicals, and left Greenpeace, has come clean about global warming. To put it bluntly, he knows global warming is a fraud.
"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food." Something I’ve been saying for years, and anyone who understand botany and life on this planet knows, warmer is better—for everyone, for all living things. Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears, and what are their motives?
"A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." But, says Moore, dissent is growing: "There are many thousands of scientists' who reject man-made global warming fears...It's all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object." Indeed!
And I'll be you won't find stuff like this in the mainstream press. Reporting something like this would make them look pretty dumb since they have excitedly told the world a completely opposite story--with a straight face.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
More "climate" baloney
Maybe you saw the U.N.'s weather announcement that 2010 was the warmest year on record, "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. But anyone with even elementary understanding of weather and climate, knows this is nonsense. Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.
1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated
2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.
3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."
4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.
5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.
The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.
1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated
2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.
3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."
4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.
5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.
The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Environmental Predictions Not Even Close
The following is an edited version of an article by FoxNews on December 30, 2010
Some climate scientists and environmental activists say we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But what’s the truth? What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010?
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers. North America, Europe and Asia (China and Russia) all experienced record setting cold and snow at the end of 2010
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
As of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ok…and we continue to believe this guy?
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
"Present trends didn't continue." Of course not, they never do, yet these guys continue to get press for their beyond absurd predictions.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
Well, I think you get the point, these prophets of doom from the environmental culture, so want things to go very, very bad, that they believe their own imaginations. Science? This isn’t science. This is beyond silly. These environmental leaders could be less credible if they tried. Sadly, U.S. and global policies are often based on these outrageously wrong predictions.
Some climate scientists and environmental activists say we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But what’s the truth? What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010?
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers. North America, Europe and Asia (China and Russia) all experienced record setting cold and snow at the end of 2010
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
As of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ok…and we continue to believe this guy?
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
"Present trends didn't continue." Of course not, they never do, yet these guys continue to get press for their beyond absurd predictions.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
Well, I think you get the point, these prophets of doom from the environmental culture, so want things to go very, very bad, that they believe their own imaginations. Science? This isn’t science. This is beyond silly. These environmental leaders could be less credible if they tried. Sadly, U.S. and global policies are often based on these outrageously wrong predictions.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Top U.S. Physcist says Climate Change is a scam
Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming/climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…And it is doubtful you saw anything about Hal Lewis' resignation, or his resignation statement, in the mainstream press.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…And it is doubtful you saw anything about Hal Lewis' resignation, or his resignation statement, in the mainstream press.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Carbon Footprint Scientific Nonsense
"Arguments made about saving the planet are basically ridiculous, even if naively well intended. All the blather about "carbon footprints" is scientifically nonsensical. It's not a matter of tree hugging. If you're paying more for something than necessary, you're mis-allocating capital. You're destroying capital. That's a real crime against humanity." Doug Casey
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Liberal Environmentalist Debunks Global Warming
Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.
“the global warming myth is a red herring. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.
Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.
Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm: “They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks.”
Rancourt also openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”: “I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all.” Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”
Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice,” he said.
Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. He said that the scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government.”
Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade: “Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes.”
But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with: “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.
“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming.”
This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.
“the global warming myth is a red herring. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.
Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.
Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm: “They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks.”
Rancourt also openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”: “I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all.” Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”
Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice,” he said.
Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. He said that the scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government.”
Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade: “Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes.”
But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with: “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.
“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming.”
This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Climate Change" Temperatues Are Bogus
NOAA Deception
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made some surprising and indefensible statements of late; including this one, “Accuracy, with respect to global temperatue readings, doesn’t matter. The temperature reading itself is not important.” So what’s the issue here? At issue is 1) what are the real temperatures being reported? 2) are these temperatures accurate? 3) what policies are driven by global temperatures?
NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:
The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. For categories 1 and 2 there can be no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).
The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?
More Research
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.
What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement! Again, that number is ninety percent.
This means that among numerous other violations, most climate measuring stations have artificial heat sources within 33 feet of the thermometers. Examples of these heat sources: buildings, roads, air conditioning vents, heat reflecting surfaces, stations located on top of roofs, in confined areas that restrict air flow, at waste treatment plants that generate heat, and on asphalt parking lots.
The Global Warming Bias
All of these influences introduce a warming bias to the measured temperature. Many of these warm biases were introduced in the last 25 years. During this time, a new generation of thermometers — the MMTS/Nimbus thermometers — were gradually installed across the country. These thermometers are hardwired to the weather station or building where the readings are recorded. Because of this wiring, the thermometers have been repositioned closer to heat sources. The older, more pristine locations were too far away to run the cables — there were too many things in the way like buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The installers simply moved the thermometers closer to make the installations easier and more economical.
So NOAA now has climate measuring stations located much closer to buildings and industrial heat sources, over dirt, black pavement, cement, crushed stones, steel, shingles, wood, and other hard and heat-reflective surfaces. These violations of NOAA’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement have gradually — and fully — corrupted the U.S. climate measuring network.
To state it bluntly, global temperatures have been deliberately manipulated to show a “global warming” trend, when in fact no trend exists. Virtually all remote sensing sites in the United States have been removed. These sites, located in forests, mountains, deserts, open fields, etc; have all been removed and transferred to urban areas. Urban areas are known to register higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban areas. So the warming trend was manipulated by simply moving sensing devices from accurate reading sites, to warmer locations (parking lots, concrete pads, etc). In the past, urban temperatures were discounted as being inaccurate and did not account for the foundation of global temperature reports. That has all now changed.
There is no global warming trend. There is a trend of moving temperature sensing stations into urban areas clearly compromised by artificial heat sources.
Actual Data Contradict NOAA's Phony Data
The actual temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, shows something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s [two decades], the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in 1999 and there has been no warming since.
Not only did NOAA say the last 50 years was a period of warming, they said it was a “rapid warming.” This is a blatantly intentional distortion of what actually took place. The historical climate data show that the temperature only warmed for two of the last five decades!
In an attempt to “educate” the public about global warming, NOAA is working hard to deceive taxpayers about the quality of temperature measurement and the trend of temperature. The careers of many scientists and bureaucrats at NOAA depend on funding to study the “problem” of global warming. If global warming stops (as it already has), research projects could be canceled. The careers of high-ranking administrators could be severely compromised if they are blamed for “dropping the ball” on their watch.
The evidence says that to continue with funding and to legitimize NOAA’s research efforts, the myth that “temperatures have been rising rapidly” must be maintained through distortion and outright misrepresentation of the facts.
Beholden To False Data
Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” has been completely discredited. His data is faulty, his interpretation is flawed, and his conclusions are false. Still, faithful environmentalists continue to quote from this baloney science. Those making a living off of taxpayer supported “climate change research” are beholden to the theory. If they fail to “keep the faith” of climate change, their careers could be in jeopardy–wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of someone’s career.
Many writers and researchers have challenged the myth of global warming, and more specifically, challenged the source of the data–urban placed temperatures sensing devices. Taking readings from a thermometer placed on an asphalt parking lot, near an air conditioning vent, and claiming global temperatures are rising is not only dishonest, it’s criminal. Naive citizens of the world are been manipulated, deceived, and forced to pay for this false nonsense. It’s time it ended.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made some surprising and indefensible statements of late; including this one, “Accuracy, with respect to global temperatue readings, doesn’t matter. The temperature reading itself is not important.” So what’s the issue here? At issue is 1) what are the real temperatures being reported? 2) are these temperatures accurate? 3) what policies are driven by global temperatures?
NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:
The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. For categories 1 and 2 there can be no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).
The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?
More Research
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.
What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement! Again, that number is ninety percent.
This means that among numerous other violations, most climate measuring stations have artificial heat sources within 33 feet of the thermometers. Examples of these heat sources: buildings, roads, air conditioning vents, heat reflecting surfaces, stations located on top of roofs, in confined areas that restrict air flow, at waste treatment plants that generate heat, and on asphalt parking lots.
The Global Warming Bias
All of these influences introduce a warming bias to the measured temperature. Many of these warm biases were introduced in the last 25 years. During this time, a new generation of thermometers — the MMTS/Nimbus thermometers — were gradually installed across the country. These thermometers are hardwired to the weather station or building where the readings are recorded. Because of this wiring, the thermometers have been repositioned closer to heat sources. The older, more pristine locations were too far away to run the cables — there were too many things in the way like buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The installers simply moved the thermometers closer to make the installations easier and more economical.
So NOAA now has climate measuring stations located much closer to buildings and industrial heat sources, over dirt, black pavement, cement, crushed stones, steel, shingles, wood, and other hard and heat-reflective surfaces. These violations of NOAA’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement have gradually — and fully — corrupted the U.S. climate measuring network.
To state it bluntly, global temperatures have been deliberately manipulated to show a “global warming” trend, when in fact no trend exists. Virtually all remote sensing sites in the United States have been removed. These sites, located in forests, mountains, deserts, open fields, etc; have all been removed and transferred to urban areas. Urban areas are known to register higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban areas. So the warming trend was manipulated by simply moving sensing devices from accurate reading sites, to warmer locations (parking lots, concrete pads, etc). In the past, urban temperatures were discounted as being inaccurate and did not account for the foundation of global temperature reports. That has all now changed.
There is no global warming trend. There is a trend of moving temperature sensing stations into urban areas clearly compromised by artificial heat sources.
Actual Data Contradict NOAA's Phony Data
The actual temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, shows something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s [two decades], the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in 1999 and there has been no warming since.
Not only did NOAA say the last 50 years was a period of warming, they said it was a “rapid warming.” This is a blatantly intentional distortion of what actually took place. The historical climate data show that the temperature only warmed for two of the last five decades!
In an attempt to “educate” the public about global warming, NOAA is working hard to deceive taxpayers about the quality of temperature measurement and the trend of temperature. The careers of many scientists and bureaucrats at NOAA depend on funding to study the “problem” of global warming. If global warming stops (as it already has), research projects could be canceled. The careers of high-ranking administrators could be severely compromised if they are blamed for “dropping the ball” on their watch.
The evidence says that to continue with funding and to legitimize NOAA’s research efforts, the myth that “temperatures have been rising rapidly” must be maintained through distortion and outright misrepresentation of the facts.
Beholden To False Data
Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” has been completely discredited. His data is faulty, his interpretation is flawed, and his conclusions are false. Still, faithful environmentalists continue to quote from this baloney science. Those making a living off of taxpayer supported “climate change research” are beholden to the theory. If they fail to “keep the faith” of climate change, their careers could be in jeopardy–wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of someone’s career.
Many writers and researchers have challenged the myth of global warming, and more specifically, challenged the source of the data–urban placed temperatures sensing devices. Taking readings from a thermometer placed on an asphalt parking lot, near an air conditioning vent, and claiming global temperatures are rising is not only dishonest, it’s criminal. Naive citizens of the world are been manipulated, deceived, and forced to pay for this false nonsense. It’s time it ended.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Climate Change and Brainwashing
I have argued for years that environmentalism is not about the environment, but about power. I’ve argued that global warming was not about global warming, but about power. And I’m still arguing that climate change is not about climate, but about a Marxist, totalitarian control over the lives of every person on earth.
A small think tank by the name of the Sutherland Institute, in Salt Lake City, has just published a study about the “educational” side of environmentalism.
The Sutherland Institute discovered a considerable educational presence. In Great Britain, they found that officials distributed copies of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, with clear instructions on how to direct the discussion to insure students support Al Gore’s claims and policy proposals.
“Green” Activists
The study clearly showed “green activists” are making significant inroads into the public schools–at all levels. “There are many advocacy groups whose specific mission is to make “environmental education” (EE) the focus of schools. These groups view EE not as one important part of a well-rounded education but as a thread that should weave through every facet of school life.” In other words, they want to make environmentalism as the foundation of all educational disciplines, or make all other subjects subservient to environmentalism.
The report continues, “Organizations like the Green Education Foundation and Edutopia collect, design, and distribute educational materials that teachers can use to advance EE in schools. The mission of Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) is “to educate, inspire and activate students to curb climate change and its effects.”ACE also provides resources for teachers and holds assemblies in schools using “hip talk, animation and jokes” to teach children their version of climate change and to sign them up for their “anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause,” often without the consent of parents.”
Ninth Grade Brainwashing
A ninth-grade text asserts that “Mounting evidence suggests that the rate of global temperature changes over the past 150 years is largely due to human activity.” This statement overstates the facts. Other materials go much further.
One school district has provided several worksheets that single out human activities as the cause of global warming and that raise “alarming” scenarios. One fear-inducing scenario predicts that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to become too hot to inhabit, like the planet Venus.
Two textbooks recommended for Environmental Science and high school Advanced Placement (A.P.) Environmental Science classes, includes this statement by William P. Cunningham, “our actions are now causing global climate change” and “an overwhelming majority now agree that there are unmistakable signals of human impacts on the world’s climate.” Nothing about “theory,” nothing equivocal, no apology, just straight statement of “fact.”
Textbook Permiation
Another textbook contains the following quote by Richard T. Wright, “The Earth is in the midst of an unsustainable rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the result of our intense use of fossil fuels. In short, we completely depend on a host of technologies that are threatening our future.” Again this is not presented as a theory, or even a controversial theory, but stated as fact and teachers are expected to “tow the party line” and teach this doctrine, whether it’s factual or not.
We could go on and on, but the point is this; environmental extremists, who care far less for the environment than they do for indoctrinating America’s young people into a Marxist style “green” youth corps, are very active in their religious zeal to spread the word about environmentalism. And these folks are not messing around, they mean business, they mean to convert this country into a socialist state, a one party socialist state, with complete and totalitarian control over the lives of every person.
A small think tank by the name of the Sutherland Institute, in Salt Lake City, has just published a study about the “educational” side of environmentalism.
The Sutherland Institute discovered a considerable educational presence. In Great Britain, they found that officials distributed copies of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, with clear instructions on how to direct the discussion to insure students support Al Gore’s claims and policy proposals.
“Green” Activists
The study clearly showed “green activists” are making significant inroads into the public schools–at all levels. “There are many advocacy groups whose specific mission is to make “environmental education” (EE) the focus of schools. These groups view EE not as one important part of a well-rounded education but as a thread that should weave through every facet of school life.” In other words, they want to make environmentalism as the foundation of all educational disciplines, or make all other subjects subservient to environmentalism.
The report continues, “Organizations like the Green Education Foundation and Edutopia collect, design, and distribute educational materials that teachers can use to advance EE in schools. The mission of Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) is “to educate, inspire and activate students to curb climate change and its effects.”ACE also provides resources for teachers and holds assemblies in schools using “hip talk, animation and jokes” to teach children their version of climate change and to sign them up for their “anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause,” often without the consent of parents.”
Ninth Grade Brainwashing
A ninth-grade text asserts that “Mounting evidence suggests that the rate of global temperature changes over the past 150 years is largely due to human activity.” This statement overstates the facts. Other materials go much further.
One school district has provided several worksheets that single out human activities as the cause of global warming and that raise “alarming” scenarios. One fear-inducing scenario predicts that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to become too hot to inhabit, like the planet Venus.
Two textbooks recommended for Environmental Science and high school Advanced Placement (A.P.) Environmental Science classes, includes this statement by William P. Cunningham, “our actions are now causing global climate change” and “an overwhelming majority now agree that there are unmistakable signals of human impacts on the world’s climate.” Nothing about “theory,” nothing equivocal, no apology, just straight statement of “fact.”
Textbook Permiation
Another textbook contains the following quote by Richard T. Wright, “The Earth is in the midst of an unsustainable rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the result of our intense use of fossil fuels. In short, we completely depend on a host of technologies that are threatening our future.” Again this is not presented as a theory, or even a controversial theory, but stated as fact and teachers are expected to “tow the party line” and teach this doctrine, whether it’s factual or not.
We could go on and on, but the point is this; environmental extremists, who care far less for the environment than they do for indoctrinating America’s young people into a Marxist style “green” youth corps, are very active in their religious zeal to spread the word about environmentalism. And these folks are not messing around, they mean business, they mean to convert this country into a socialist state, a one party socialist state, with complete and totalitarian control over the lives of every person.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Ten Myths About CO2
MYTH 1: Increased levels of CO2 would prove harmful to life, health, and the planet.
FACT: CO2 is an essential component of life on this planet, without CO2, there would be no life here. Noted Agronomist Dr. Sylvan Wittier, who has studied crops and the effect of increased levels of CO2 on all plant life, states emphatically that increased levels of CO2 produces more growth (more food), more plant growth (trees, etc), and produces no adverse consequences. CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that. From an agronomy standpoint, there is no known negative to increased levels of CO2.
MYTH2: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favorite environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.
MYTH 3: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small. But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect. Water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts. CO2 is NOT a “powerful greenhouse gas,” as claimed by environmentalists. Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and CO2 and other trace gases are no more or no less “greenhouse” producing than is water.
MYTH 4: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
MYTH 5: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!
FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
MYTH 6: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing new.
Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.
MYTH 7: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
MYTH 8: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax. Pro-global warming scientists spend great effort in attempting to control the dissemination of the information on this and related topics.
MYTH 9: It's never been warmer in the past.
FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Sensible people should be cheering any rise in global temperatures, there would be less death, less disease, and less suffering by the people who live on this planet.
MYTH 10: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no evidence that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Upwards of 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes not from man, but from the oceans, plants, and other forms of life.
Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise! There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Without the “greenhouse effect,” there would not be life on this planet. The greenhouse effect keep temperatures moderate and livable. To demonize the “greenhouse effect” is also intellectually dishonest.
The biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans. Furthermore, animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankind’s insignificantly tiny emissions.
Some of the foregoing data is contributed by co2science.org
FACT: CO2 is an essential component of life on this planet, without CO2, there would be no life here. Noted Agronomist Dr. Sylvan Wittier, who has studied crops and the effect of increased levels of CO2 on all plant life, states emphatically that increased levels of CO2 produces more growth (more food), more plant growth (trees, etc), and produces no adverse consequences. CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that. From an agronomy standpoint, there is no known negative to increased levels of CO2.
MYTH2: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favorite environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.
MYTH 3: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small. But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect. Water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts. CO2 is NOT a “powerful greenhouse gas,” as claimed by environmentalists. Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and CO2 and other trace gases are no more or no less “greenhouse” producing than is water.
MYTH 4: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
MYTH 5: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!
FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
MYTH 6: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing new.
Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.
MYTH 7: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
MYTH 8: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax. Pro-global warming scientists spend great effort in attempting to control the dissemination of the information on this and related topics.
MYTH 9: It's never been warmer in the past.
FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Sensible people should be cheering any rise in global temperatures, there would be less death, less disease, and less suffering by the people who live on this planet.
MYTH 10: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no evidence that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Upwards of 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes not from man, but from the oceans, plants, and other forms of life.
Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise! There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Without the “greenhouse effect,” there would not be life on this planet. The greenhouse effect keep temperatures moderate and livable. To demonize the “greenhouse effect” is also intellectually dishonest.
The biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans. Furthermore, animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankind’s insignificantly tiny emissions.
Some of the foregoing data is contributed by co2science.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)