Not by Fire but by Ice


     Email Robert      l     Reviews     l      Order Not by Fire     l     Order Magnetic Reversals      l      Dissenters      l       Recent articles 

Discover What Killed the Dinosaurs . . . and Why it Could Soon Kill Us


They are all dead wrong!

Reply to Forbes magazine article


                       page delimiter

20 Oct 10 - In a recent article in Forbes magazine, journalist Warren Meyer - a climate skeptic, no less - tries to explain "the Climate Skeptic’s Position."

Meyer botches it, as far as I'm concerned.

"It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth," Meyer begins.

"Skeptics do not deny that temperatures have warmed over the last century, or even that man (through CO2 as well as land use and other factors) has played some part in that warming," Meyer continues. " What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to
CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes."

I want no part of Meyer's explanation. He makes it sound as if all skeptics agree that carbon dioxide is warming the planet; that it's just a question as to what degree.  

That is certainly not my position, nor is it the position of many other skeptics. I don't think
CO2 is responsible for any warming whatsoever. None.

These skeptics that Meyer is talking about have gotten the cart before the horse. The fact is that the warming precedes the rise in CO2 levels. First, the oceans warm, then the oceans release CO2. The rise in carbon dioxide levels is therefore a result of ocean warming, not the cause. (If you've read Not by Fire but by Ice, you know that I think the rise in ocean temperatures is caused by underwater volcanic activity.)

Meyer then babbles on about "positive feedbacks" from CO2, and the interaction of carbon dioxide levels with the "greenhouse gas effect."

But to what avail? Why talk about positive feedback and the greenhouse effect when no proof has ever been presented that CO2 levels drive the climate? That's like trying to figure out - scientifically - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I do agree with a few of Meyer's statements, such as, "Nothing about our current temperatures or CO2 levels is either unusual or unprecedented."

And, unfortunately, I also agree with Meyer that many skeptics accede to the alarmists, saying that carbon dioxide levels may contribute a tiny amount to global warming. I they're making a dreadful mistake.

Luckily, some scientists have had the guts to stand up to the onslaught.

"They are all dead wrong!" says analytical chemist Hans Schreuder. "Carbon dioxide has a nil effect on the global climate and does not cause climate change in any way, shape or form." (More by Schreuder here and here.)

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)," says climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. "This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. They have to perpetuate the myth that CO2 and especially human CO2 is causing warming." 

"It’s been the academics, the pros, who have tripped all over themselves to explain and defend a theory that the evidence keeps contradicting," climate researcher Alan Siddons.

"Human-generated greenhouse gases are warming the earth but not as much as alarmists say" never was a good strategy for winning the debate," says Siddons. "Dissenters should have just stuck with the evidence: there is no sign of CO2-caused warming at all, the "well established physics" of greenhouse theory be damned."

"Their probabilities are absolute crap," says Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need
CO2 to explain anything." They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science."

"During the past 50 years, atmospheric
CO2 has increased by 22%," says Soon. "However,  human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature."

"The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has, however, had a substantial environmental effect," says Soon. "Atmospheric CO2 fertilizes plants. Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. Increased temperature has also mildly stimulated plant growth."

"Is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities?" asks Dr. Sallie Baliunas. "The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case," answers Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division and formerly Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory.   

Meanwhile, chemist Dr. Kenneth Rundt, a bio-molecule researcher and formerly a research assistant and teacher at Abo Akademi University in Finland, declared his global warming dissent in June 2008.

“Let me state immediately before you read on that I count myself among the ‘skeptics’,” Rundt wrote in a scientific paper titled “Global Warming – Man-made or Natural?” “I am only a humble scientist with a PhD degree in physical chemistry and an interest in the history of the globe we inhabit. I have no connection with any oil or energy-related business. I have nothing to gain from being a skeptic.”  

“It can also be reliably inferred from palaeoclimatological data that no uncontrolled, runaway greenhouse effect has occurred in the last half billion years when atmospheric CO2 concentration peaked at almost 20 times today’s value," Rundt wrote. Given the stability of the climate over this time period there is little danger that current CO2 levels will cause a runaway greenhouse effect.”

"People are not responsible for the documented rise of carbon in the atmosphere," says meteorologist Joe D'Aleo. Not only do the numbers fail to match, the numbers can’t be made to match.

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly (even though CO2 levels have been rising).

See entire Forbes article, entitled
"Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic’s Position."
Thanks to Burt Rutan for this link




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 l Expanding Glaciers