The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
You still don't know the science on CO2. Why are you so ignorant?
---
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: <font color=red>"I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement:</font> 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decadeâindeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projectionsâsuggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promotedâor worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it beforeâfor example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="512" height="288" src="http://live.wsj.com/public/page/embed-B951E1BE_01A3_4F92_B871_A4AB9B171419.html"></iframe>
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Signed,
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
So a few people disagree with the American Physical Society's position statement....
'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'
So what?
The rest of the article questions the economics of addressing it. That's a separate issue from whether it is occurring or not.
And what a surprise, it's in the Wall St Urinal....published by who again? Oh that's right Rupert Murdoch. The same guy that owns Faux News. The slimiest money whore media mogul in the entire world. The Koch bros tell him to jump and he asks how high.
'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'
So what?
The rest of the article questions the economics of addressing it. That's a separate issue from whether it is occurring or not.
And what a surprise, it's in the Wall St Urinal....published by who again? Oh that's right Rupert Murdoch. The same guy that owns Faux News. The slimiest money whore media mogul in the entire world. The Koch bros tell him to jump and he asks how high.
ok... some science. while there is a scientific dispute as to what percent of earths temperature is attributed to the greenhouse effect... we do not even need to touch that discussion yet.
note... I am not disputing co2 is a defined as a greenhouse gas.
But, I am wondering....
since co2 is a a small component of the atmosphere and the greenhouse...
and
since the earth already naturally adds co2 while it is warming and decreases it while cooling... how we would even know what percent of the man made co2 actually added to what the co2 tally would be.
3. and then based on that tally what percent of the warming man made co2 would be accountable for? (given todays best science.)
finally, I would like like to know if warming is preferable to cooling?
in short show us the science showing man made co2 changes temps on earth and then put a number on it.
will that number even reach a tenth of a degree.
note... I am not disputing co2 is a defined as a greenhouse gas.
But, I am wondering....
since co2 is a a small component of the atmosphere and the greenhouse...
and
since the earth already naturally adds co2 while it is warming and decreases it while cooling... how we would even know what percent of the man made co2 actually added to what the co2 tally would be.
3. and then based on that tally what percent of the warming man made co2 would be accountable for? (given todays best science.)
finally, I would like like to know if warming is preferable to cooling?
in short show us the science showing man made co2 changes temps on earth and then put a number on it.
will that number even reach a tenth of a degree.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Well jem does have a valid question. We are just told that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but never shown how we know that. Here is one way we know it
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
In addition, these greenhouse gasses also reduce radiation into space at certain wavelengths.
These observations are proof-positive of the greenhouse effect of GH gasses.
So I guess the scientists are all leftist drones then.
But thanks for showing us once again how you view the science of AGW...........through ideological lenses.
We have gone through this already. Isotopes of carbon, barrels of oil and tons of coal burnt. Not to mention how CO2 levels have skyrocketed within the last 150 years.
Like I said. You're not too bright.
If you can't understand the science, just say so. We won't laugh at you. At least not for long. Well, at least not beyond the end of the year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Rectum, you should just STFU. You are really lost in the wilderness and nothing is going to be able to save you.