Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
Discover What Killed the Dinosaurs . . . and Why it Could Soon Kill Us
|BACK TO HOME PAGE|
By Kirk Myers
Where does such nonsense come from?
According to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd (e.g., government-paid shills like NASA’s James Hansen, “Hockey Stick” Penn State Professor Michael Mann, and disgraced former Climate Research Unit Director Phil Jones), CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are being trapped in the atmosphere where they act as a temperature-forcing agent. As CO2 levels continue to rise, the planet will eventually face runaway global warming.
No hard, empirical evidence
However, there is a problem with their “catastrophic climate change” theory: hard, empirical evidence does not exist to support it.
According to Dr. Pierre Latour, a chemical and process-control engineer, a tripling of CO2 from current levels (approximately 385 parts per million) would not produce any additional warming. In an editorial published in the February issue of Hyrdocarbon Processing magazine, he writes:
"CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in earth's atmosphere. The first 50 ppm [parts per million] of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, [and] each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm, there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1,000 ppm, with no additional discernable absorption-emission [warming]."
Some climate scientists claim that water vapor amplifies the radiative “forcing” of man-made CO2 – creating a sort of magic “multiplier effect” that raises surface temperatures. But where’s the proof? There isn't any. . . In fact, as recent studies have shown, clouds may act to suppress any warming triggered by greenhouse gases.
Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements have failed to find a pattern of upper trophospheric heating predicted by the models. Global temperatures flat-lined in the late 1990s and have been declining slightly since 2002. The IPCC models predicted a steady upward trend, not a decline. Ergo, their predictions are faulty.
Creative computer models
The belief in runaway CO2-induced warming is based solely on computer models that have been manipulated over time to produce a desired political conclusion: ergo, a world being warmed by mankind. It is a theory unsupported by solid scientific evidence.
As Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, writes:
“All the global General Circulation Models (GCMs) which predict future global temperature change for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They do not realistically handle the changes in upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness . . . They should never have been used to establish government climate policy.”
Gray also observes that models “failed to account for the weak global cooling over the last decade, ” so how can they be expected to make long-range predictions?
“Any experienced meteorologist or climate scientist who would actually believes a long range climate model should really have their head examined. They are living in a dream world,” he concludes.
Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, challenges the rubber-stamped theory that blames CO2 emissions for global warming while disregarding the sun’s influence on climate.
The sun probably the only true external climate driver
“The sun, of course, with its light energy output is probably the only true external driver of the earth’s climate system . . . There is no other force on earth that would supply that amount of energy for the air to move around, for the ocean currents to move around and for the trees to grow,” Soon explains.
The theory that increasing CO2 levels lead to warming is false, according to Soon. In fact, the process is exactly reversed: Increases in CO2 follow, rather than precede, warmer climate periods, he says.
“Published papers [analyzing ice core data] clearly, clearly show that it is always temperature that rises first by at least several hundred years . . . then the CO2 curve response follows. It is a very clear scientific consensus on this issue,” Soon says.
Political science, not actual science
Nevertheless, the AGW camp, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claims the “science is settled” and continues to finger human-generated CO2 as the principal cause of global warming. There seems to be more “political science” at work than actual science, Soon laments.
“Those [AGW] views are promoted by political bodies . . . and there appears to be a corrupted process . . . . This is all becoming a war of words instead of a war of evidence and science,” Soon says.
Rigging the findings
Dr. David Legates, associate professor of Climatology in the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, accuses IPPC policymakers of rigging the findings in “working group” science documents so they match the conclusions in the IPPC Assessment Report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
“In many cases, they [policymakers] go back to scientists and say, ‘Can you change this science document to match our summary? We want to beef this up. We want to make it look worse.’ That’s not the way science is done,” Legates says.
Billions of dollars are pouring into the study of man-made global warming. It is the Mother Lode that keeps the grant money flowing. If the theory were given the proper burial it deserves, research dollars would dry up, forcing scientists to hunt for other sources of funding. As a result, the theory is defended with wolf-pack determination by scientists who stand to lose the most, including their reputations.
A favorite canard of global warming alarmists-turned-conspiracy theorists is the claim that AGW skeptics and their climate blogs are funded by corporate interests, especially “big oil.” But the reverse is actually true. The truly big money is pouring into climate-change research.
3,500 times the amount contributed to skeptics
The U.S. government has spent $79 billion since 1989 on climate research and technology, 3,500 times the amount contributed to skeptics, according to Joanne Nova, a science writer who runs the Web site JoNova.
By comparison, the skeptics’ camp is largely self-funded. Greepeace, after conducting its own investigation, discovered that Exxon funneled $23 million to so-called skeptics over a 10-year period, a pittance compared to the riches heaped on taxpayer-funded scientists by governments and foundations.
CO2: a plant nutrient
CO2 is not the global menace described by climate-change scaremongers. It is an essential planetary nutrient.
“The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous,” writes physical science and mathematics professor Richard F. Yada physical . “The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.”
Rising CO2 levels will not lead to runaway global warming and may very well provide a nutritional boost to agriculture, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
The CO2 fantasy is driven by both money and a profound hatred of
“polluters,” those nasty industrial capitalists on a mission to destroy
Mother Earth through their relentless efforts to raise mankind’s
standard of living. It is a falsehood that deserves a place alongside a
belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
BACK TO HOME PAGE
|Order Book I Q & A I Book Reviews I Plant Hardiness Zone Maps I Radio Interviews I Table of Contents I Excerpts I Author Photo I Pacemaker of the Ice Ages I Extent of Previous Glaciation I Crane Buried in Antarctic Ice Sheet I Ice Ages and Magnetic Reversals I It's Ocean Warming I E-Mail Robert at firstname.lastname@example.org l Expanding Glaciers|