Climategate: One Must Ignore 200 Years of Observations to Believe in AGW
There is no evidence of carbon dioxide being a poison, or that it is capable of causing a warming Armageddon. What follows is a summary of the proof — straight from real science, peer-reviewed over the past 232 years by legions of physicists, thanks to Newton’s Principia.
Remember the famous picture of Miss Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blown high? Even at the age of 76, when I see this picture my temperature goes up — followed by the amount of carbon dioxide I exhale. Never the other way ’round. Now, thanks to the study of a series of ice cores, this appears to be an inconvenient truth for the global warming industry.
Al Gore used this ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide made the temperature of the world rise, threatening life on earth, because there was a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the world’s average temperature. Yet the data from the much-celebrated Vostok ice cores paints a very different picture: Up goes the temperature, followed by a rise in carbon dioxide.
Effectively flattening Gore’s dreams of hedging his funds.
More troubles lie ahead for the warmists. Independent researchers have pointed out that crucially important pieces of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) evidence were based on false statistical analysis. For starters, take a look at historical evidence from the last 1,000 years. There was a worldwide Medieval Warm Period — no, not just in Europe — and a few centuries prior to that period it was warm enough for the Romans to produce red wine on the borders of Scotland.
The warmists did their best to hide this inconvenient truth, too. In 2006, Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He stated that soon after he had published a paper on borehole temperature based on historical data in the journal Science, he received an email from a major climate change researcher which read:
We have to get rid of the medieval warm period.
Michael Mann, one of the divas of global warming, had done just that. He published a reconstruction of past temperatures from AD 1000 to the present … in which the Medieval Warm Period conveniently vanished.Warmist believers joined in, flag-waving and sandwich-boarding, calling Mann critics “deniers” and worse.
Over the past 5,000 years? There was not just one, but three periods when it was warmer than today. And yet life on Earth survived. Climate change is natural, and warmer periods occur without human CO2 emissions being the cause. Just looking at the last decade, world temperature is falling as CO2 rises — big emitters China and India have been stocking up their coal sheds. Increases in CO2 rarely coincide with rises in the Earth’s temperature — so how can CO2 be the driver of global warming, let alone climate change?
Following the spread of this evidence, the warmists began to see the lights of the skeptic train rushing down their tunnel of hype. Those with the most to lose dropped the term “global warming,” replacing it with “climate change” — which has been happening since the first living thing was there to record the evidence. With this new term, they gave themselves a spurious license to carry on frightening law-abiding citizens with waterlogged tales of unprovable tipping points just around the corner.
Meanwhile, one of Britain’s mainstream scientific groups, NERC, sidestepped this troublesome term by blaming everything on “environmental change” in their publication Planet Earth.
We have had at least 75 major temperature swings in the past 4,500 years — all in great part explicable by solar cycles, volcanic activity, and those little rascals El Nino and La Nina. Those “warming” oceans? The recent trend is one of cooling, not the warming predicted by legions of modelers and their models. Since 2007, the Arctic ice cap has been increasing in area, heading back towards the norm again. Yes, the Northwest Passage was navigable this year — but it has been that way on a number of occasions, just since 1850. Thanks in great part to prevailing winds changing direction, as they are wont to do.
They can not hide the medieval warming period.
It was much, much warmer during the medieval warming period than it is today.
There are Vikings that were buried (interred) in the permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
They were interred hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. The CRU tried to hide this.
The ironic thing is that this evidence of the medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen.
Note for realclimate/CRU people that say the medieval warming period is based on anecdotal evidence. An artifact is something you can hold in you hand, like say, a skeleton that you chipped out of the permafrost. An anecdote is some kind of hearsay that only exists in the minds of people, like say, human induced global warming.
Note for realclimate/CRU people that say the medieval warming period was a local event. Do you know how absurd that sounds, Greenland alone really hot for 300 years, all on it’s own. Did they ban the jet stream or the gulfstream or did space aliens use a really big magnifying glass on Greenland. 300 years, seriously, a local event?
Google: “The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings”
February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
Also, the medieval warming period was global.
Google: “Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data”
For a satirical look at the climategate programming (hiding the decline):
Google: “Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert”
Good points.
For years it appears the “climate alarmists” wanted to make us ignorant of the Earth’s geological/environmental/climatic history, treating us like “sheep” and hoping that we naively believe their AGW stance.
It’s sad that many people and governments of the world accept the “alarmists” computer models as “gospel” and not realising their faulty nature (faults known before and after the CLIMATE-GATE scandal).)
In Australia, the CSIRO is a significant government research body
and Bob Carter,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2764827.htm ,
mentions …
“(CSIRO’s back is protected, of course, by the doubtless expensive lawyers who have insisted that the following disclaimer be inserted in all such reports: “This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report”.”
This is the sort of detail that should be made apparent to the unsuspecting public.
Hold on there, Tex!
The year 2000 disaster was absolutely real. We knew it was coming, we knew exactly what would happen, and we knew what it would take to stop it.
We paid the price, and we stopped it. We knew what computer systems were going to fail, because all we had to do was change the dates and watch the damn things fall over and die.
And we worked our asses off to get the problems fixed. And we fixed them. People like me put in long hours all over the globe.
Your article slanders our industry and hard work to compare it to the scum running the global warming hoax. Those who rue the day they prepared for the y2k hammer are quite free to turn off NTP listening on their time servers, reset the dates to 1971 and see what they have tomorrow morning.
They damn sure won’t have their jobs.
Great to see you fighting the good fight David Bellamy
Well said sir.(I trust that this sort of greeting is not seen as “ad hominum”!).
I must say that I find the politicisation of Climate Change “Science” very disturbing.
I studied Physics at University. The Scientific Method is very clearly set out. Research results must be open for verification, every postulate must be able to be disproved and so on. Failure to follow the proper procedure meant you failed your exam!
None of the principles behind the scientific method seem to apply to climate change research today. It is clearly in no way a mature science.
As a result of the “warmists” work we find Bangladesh claiming that they are vulnerable to rising sea levels when they are much more likely to be suffering from tectonic plate subduction.
“Ad Hominum” attacks seem to be the norm, for example: the academic from the University of East Anglia on Newsnight recently who very carefully called the other interviewee “What an A*******e” right at the very end of the interview, demeaned himself and his point of view. My reaction to those who use such language is that they must have no academic arguments left to present.
I am not at all concerned about the “loss of data”. If an experiment or a mathematical model cannot be replicated then it cannot possibly be the basis for proving or disproving a particular postulate. Unless it can be replicated by other scientists it cannot be accepted as an observation which supports or disproves a postulate. To make their point the “scientists” who ran the experiment or analysed historical data will have to go back and do it all again – this time carefully allowing anyone else who wishes access to their data and their methodology. I refer you to the case of “cold fusion” as an example of what happens when other scientists cannot replicate the initial results..
Finally – where can I lay my bet that by 2020 we will be getting scare stories about the next ice-age? Mini maxi medium or whatever. That will be the next device to raise funds and taxes.
This article featured on “Watts up with that” blog is outstanding.
Take a few minutes to read this down-to-earth article. You will gain a sound footing on how the alarmists are over-blowing minute short term trends and burying the historical context. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
You may also be motivated ty buy a good, warm coat……
Re#3: You are correct, Y2K may have been a disaster, if not averted by people like yourself. As for me, I was unaffected, because I use a Mac. (sorry, I couldn’t resist) But seriously, being successful is often a thankless accomplishment, like GWB getting “thanked” for the terrorist attacks that didn’t happen under his watch.
The Y2K / global warming comparison fails in another important aspect: You and your colleagues fixed Y2K so that we could live our lives as usual. Global warming is about creating means of control over our lives.
One should also point out the millions- yes, *millions*- of deaths from malaria thanks to Rachel Carson’s fraudulent attack on DDT and its resultant banning.
(Note: If you think that “everyone knows” DDT causes eggshell thinning in raptors and other birds, think again. “Everyone” is wrong- suckered by the same sort of PR manipulation we are seeing here with ManBearPig.)
The U.S. Air Force attempted to have a series of stations on what was then called ice islands floating in the arctic ocean. (Well after all it was the ‘cold war’.) About 1958 the ice began to break up and the men had to be rescued by air during the dark winter. One of the rescued, ‘Father Tom’ Cunningham, was the priest for one of the largest parishes in area, Barrow, Alaska. Time Magazine featured him on its front cover after the rescue.
Polar bears were hunted almost to extinction in this period. There were hardly any that came on shore near any village or camp. The hunter’s would fly out over the sea ice to find them.
We use the following charts for presentations to debunk there was no “medieval warming period” claimed by alarmist activists:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
Ummm….no. Believe it or not, scientists kinda did not ignore the previous warming and cooling cycles. All that stuff was looked at, but none of it explained the current warming trend and its timing. It’s kind of like having a car when you were a teenager that had a hard time starting because of a week ignitions coil, and then later on in life having a different car having a hard time starting because of the onboard computer not reading a sensor properly. Similar symptoms but wildly different reasons.
There, all explained, no?
In regards to the tree-ring data released, I believe you would be referring to Keith Briffa, not Mann.
All that they’re left with are lies and the “just in case” argument. But what if you’re wrong? What about the children? Do the warmists ever ask themselves or each other, what if we’re wrong? Ever?
The death of an idea comes not via the spear, but the noose.
It is and was a worthy goal to explore the impact of man on our planet, it became unworthy when certain charlatans stole the exploration, by replacing honest inquiry….with a preprogrammed answer, searching for a question.
Global warming exists, just not today.
Global cooling also exists, but man is not the sun…and despite their arrogance, this planet does not orbit around leftists as its replacement.
Scientific inquiry suffers a small death by strangulation each time the purity of her method of proof is brought to the gallows of political hangmen. Science was made cheap and common, kidnapped and made to live in the tower of leftist propaganda. Facts were caged, gang raped and buried there. And now, the criminals…the truth thieves, spit out their smirking denials and spew their vacuous homilies about “what everyone already accepts”.
Leftism, the author of The New Big Lie.
And the place where ideas, independent thought, and purity of exploration… go to die.
There, all explained, no?
No.
Believe it or not, scientists kinda did not ignore the previous warming and cooling cycles.
Since Mann clearly did ignore the Medieval Warm Period with his hockey stick, you are either lying, suggesting that Mann is not a scientist, or showing your typical Beyond Clueless ignorance. Frankly it kinda doesn’t matter.
Terry BC is a TRUE BELIEVER and he loves Obamabi too. Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Being a skeptical climate realist, I agree with most of what you say. With too much missinformation on both sides, I should point out one thing.
Since their inceptions the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on CLIMATE CHANGE) and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) have had climate change in their names. And it was Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant to the Bush White House, that suggested they “reframe ‘global warming’ as ‘climate change’ since ‘climate change’ was thought to sound less severe.”
MrC
Al Gore–when Ignorance, Dishonesty and Condescension just aren’t enough! Would make a great bumper sticker! Actually, I think I’ll do it!
In the debate about global warming, the issue is not whether some warming is taking place. The issue is whether that warming is caused by the human activities that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I will address this issue shortly.
As for pictures of glaciers melting and their use as evidence, periods of warming and cooling are natural parts of Earth’s climate. Something is always melting somewhere and something is always gaining ice mass elsewhere. These pictures tell us nothing about what is at issue.
As regards Climategate, I would remind everyone to stay focused on the Big Picture. In the argument offered by supporters of AGW, the argument that global warming is caused by human production of CO2, Mann’s hockey stick is essential because it offers the only evidence of temperature patterns that fit the “man caused” scheme.
In the hockey stick, the line that shows temperature change in the Seventies has a higher slope than that of the line in the preceding time period, and the slope of the line for Eighties is higher yet, and the slope for the Nineties is higher yet, and so on. Increasing slopes in each period means an increasing rate at which CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere and an increasing rate at which it accumulates there and holds heat. Thus, we have a “man caused” scheme; in other words, the temperature increases depicted in the hockey stick can be interpreted as being effects of human activity.
If Mann’s hockey stick is not used as evidence, there is no argument for “man caused” warming rather than “nature caused” warming. Yet Mann’s stick has been shown to be a fraud. The best explanation of the fraud is found on “climateaudit.org,” or “wattsupwiththat.com.”
The truth is that there is no credible evidence that human production of carbon dioxide causes global warming. Yet we can all agree that the Earth is warming and we can recognize that some glaciers are melting.
And…
no matter how many articles full of data PJM and others publish and no matter how many emails proving the trick are revealed, and no matter that the raw data have been destroyed…
the totalitarians carry on their vile propaganda job.
They are totalitarians, they just need to keep the people ignorant or silent, or terrorized, or hoping in personal advantages from obeying.
They want to stop the world’s capitalistic take off, and they will do anyhting they can to succeed.
In their pseudo-philosophy there is no space for Truth, honesty, values. HATE is their compass, destruction is their goal.
We must understand of the nihilists that they are nihilists.
Lots of us reject the notion of an evil that exists as pure evil, this is already the result of the subversive brainwashing.
The subversives will not relent.
The wall fell in 1989, by 1998 they had already invented this new plan to subvert capitalism. They will not relent.
‘The year 2000 disaster was absolutely real. We knew it was coming, we knew exactly what would happen, and we knew what it would take to stop it.”
Exactly what I was going to say. The only reason it wasn’t a disaster is because of the hard work of thousands of IT people.
The true global warming/climate change disaster is the effort by so many to line their pockets with tax dollars at the expense of citizens everywhere without providing any benefit.
#18. Great that you are a skeptic but come on now – there is really not “misinformation on both sides” and what is the relevance of the Bush White House involvement? . We have dozens of major falsifications from the AGW crowd. Can you supply examples of counter “misinformation”? There is none or very little because fabrications are not necessary. The facts that argue against this scam do quite nicely.
Plus, even if both sides were trumping up their position, wouldn’t that mean we should quietly shut down the whole mess? The anti AGW proponents are not trying to sell their own costly global plan of action – just trying to stop the other side from ruining things for the rest of us.
The AGW movement is just the latest incarnation of the well known scam where the end of the world and other baseless disaster predictions are used to gain attention, power, control or wealth by stirring up a whole bunch of people who are all too eager to believe such things for reasons I cannot fathom.
Yet we can all agree that the Earth is warming and we can recognize that some glaciers are melting.
No, we can’t. The warming has stopped.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
It seems to me this articel has one very important point, that is that CO2 rises after temperature rises. I have asked all along who decided and how and why did they decide that any correlation between temperature and CO2 had the rise in CO2 being the predictor of temperature. In a two variable analysis it seems to me that one must carefully consider what is the preiditor and what is the prediticted. If in fact the data show the CO2 concentrations rise after temperature, then what are we arguing about. The issue should have been over long ago, should it not. If this is true then this mostly a criminal fraudulent enterprise and we must get to its core. I do not blame Al Gore too much, I mean after all his life has been one of failure. He really needed something after his legitimate defeat in his bid to be king. IN 1992 election Quale was hung with the dolt wreath by the elitists and incompetents ate theNYt but in reality poor Al was the dolt, still is and I am sure with his limited ability he really believes this stuff. I mean after all it is way of becoming not just king but God. Somewher though in the bowels of all of this there is acriminal enterprise going on.
great essay David Bellamy. Please keep this issue out there. The main media outlets still are not talking about it.
I would hope there were some criminal prosecutors out there with enough courage to make some arrests since this is a criminal fraud involving public monies.
#18 writes:
“And it was Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant to the Bush White House, that suggested they “reframe ‘global warming’ as ‘climate change’ since ‘climate change’ was thought to sound less severe.””
Actually, it was because “global warming” is falsifiable but “climate change” is not. Totalitarians hate science; always have, always will.
21. Sherab Zangpo:
And…
no matter how many articles full of data PJM and others publish and no matter how many emails proving the trick are revealed, and no matter that the raw data have been destroyed…
the totalitarians carry on their vile propaganda job.
agreed they are marching on. pretending the emails never surfaced.
they will not accept the truth even as it is plainly displayed. they are morally corrupt and dishonest in character. (yes I mean you trolls, you are the foot soldiers of the totalitarians)
Bohemond: ummmm. Made made chems being sprayed on food should be stopped. Not believing in the myth of AGW, doesn’t mean you should start drinking ethanol, or aspartame while spraying your crops with chems, man.
The villagers faced a dilemma. Strong storms would occasionally appear, and damage their crops, homes, and livestock. Some thought building sturdier huts, grain storage, and barns for the animals would be useful. The village shaman convinced them all that the real cause was the anger of the gods, and that they needed to throw the chief’s daughter into the volcano, and if they didn’t, everyone was doomed.
It’s such a comforting thought to consider that civilization has advanced beyond such obviously ignorant practices.
#18 – I would like to see honest examples or misinformation from the sceptic side. There isn’t any. Empirical evidence alone says we are into a cooling period. A reasoned look into who is saying AGW exists, how they are saying it and the dates they use and omit will educate you. All the e-mails do is confirm what we have known all along.
When are we all going to stop falling into the trap set by the left by having these silly conversations about temperatures ? This non-issue is all and only about worldwide control through transfer of wealth from responsible to the irresponsible.
Good post. Only one small criticism: “Just this year, the data behind Michael Mann’s hockey stick was finally released. Mann had used only 12 carefully selected tree ring sequences to prepare his story — omitting 34 that didn’t suit his purpose.”
Mann’s original hockey as it appears in IPCC report was discredited years ago (actually before most people ever heard of an inconvenient truth or the IPCC) by Steve McIntyre. Then we started seeing all kinds of other hockey stick reconstructions from other which supposedly did not replicate the flaws from Mann’s reconstructions (though how could we tell when they are just as secretive with their data and methodologies) – hence the creation of the ‘hockey team’ and hence the argument from IPCC to retain Mann’s figure (since it had been reproduced by others). One example was a reconstruction from Keith Briffa. Only this year McIntyre got his hands on Briffa’s data and discovered what you have reported here. So it was actually Briffa’s reconstruction, not Mann’s that was discredited this year. Visit McIntyre’s blog to hear the whole story from the horse’s mouth.
Unfortunately using Y2K as an example of a scam was a mistake – and the Gore true believers will be going “see, just like that one shows, the ill informed just don’t understand”. Those of us in the computer world know far too well how real that was, and unlike the AGW crowd – as Hanzie points out – it was actually very testable – change the date and watch the systems die. We also knew it was coming for a lot longer than that panicked response implies – due to real issues of cost when many of those systems went on line the only part of the date that got coded in software (software that was truly mission critical) was the last two digits – they read 2000 or 1900 as 00 and due to how they were coded the result was the computers rolled back to 1900 and started counting up again from there (when coded no one thought the stuff would still be in use by the turn of the century…) – making an absolute mess of all the calculations involving dates (like, um – billing, for example….).
It was very real & was not exactly fun to get straightened out (especially as everyone waited tell the last second they could). The problems actually showed up in several things for a couple years after – Excel being a classic example (you got to tell it how you wanted 00 to behave – pre or post 2000). Actually wonder if that isn’t part of why Harry had such a time with CRU’s data – data sets longer than 100 years getting fried in old FORTRAN code… apparently stored in Excel files. Brilliant.
When you use an example of a giant fraud\scam – make sure you have your facts straight. AGW surely is looking like one. Y2K was a very testable, real thing.
Great article. There is still a lot of people who need to be re-eduated from the false CO2 propaganda the leftists in the MSM continue to spew. Fox hosts were clueless on CO2 discussions this morning. Despite the leftist EPA claim CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant. The supreme court ruling on CO2 was based on false IPCC data on CO2 from the AGW crew at CRU. so it should be overturned. The socialist frauds in the MSM are starting their BS propaganga campaign to explain the emails. Only noboby’s buying it this time. The only way to stop this socialist takeover is to rise up and defeat the socialist democrats, who despise this country, and boot their non american commie rear ends out of office in the next elections.
“Yet we can all agree that the Earth is warming and we can recognize that some glaciers are melting.
No, we can’t. The warming has stopped.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/”
The two are not inconsistent. The ten-year cooling trend is a fluctuation (unless, as some argue, we really are tipping into a long-term solar minimum-driven cold cycle). The overall trend for 350 years has been warming- gradual and linear. No big deal, it’s just coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Where the Warm-mongers are lying is in their attempt a) to erase the LIA and MWP from history, and b) to claim that the warming at the end of the 20th century was exponential and unprecedented.
BC you have no idea of what you are talking about.
The hockey stick reconstructions do not take into account historical records of climate events. They are based entirely on reconstructions from tree rings and other proxies which are calibrated against a portion of surface temperature records (I believe from 1900 to ~ 1960). They claim that the trees making up this reconstruction contain a signal of global average temperatures (even when not having a signal for local temperatures) which they can extract using statistics. ( They then use the tree rings to determine what past temperatures were. There are all kinds of issues with this bit of climate science, and much has been revealed in this particular area by the recent release of e-mails.)
They then use the temperature record which they have built with the tree rings data to figure out how much global temperatures are affected by all natural factors (like solar, or large volcanic events). Since their faulty reconstruction has determined that there is little variation before the 20th century they conclude that sensitivity to all these natural factors is very small. This is why they attribute such a large component to man-made CO2 when looking at 20th century temperature changes.
I can’t believe the crock of shit info you guys swallow from this idiot.
CO2 levels are not the only factor in warming the Earth, data already has shown that and real scientists KNOW about cooling factors. But to say that CO2 has no influence on global warming, denies 200 years of steady global temperature rising and CO2, while the cooling factors remained roughly stable.
This has been controlled by big business right from the start. The CRU has been a shill for Big Oil and Big Nuclear the whole time.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.
Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.
The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Perhaps the results were the ones the sponsors desired.
Anyone that thought this was about the enviroment has been played.
He who pays the piper..
I don’t profess to understand either side of this debate. But surely, even if there is NO global climate change, the suggestion that industry radically improves its impact (in terms of pollution, recycling, sustainability etc) must have merit.
Oh yes, and be bound by government regulations NOT to pass the costs of improvements on to the public (who seem to be the ones likely to pay in the end, either financially or physically).
We should be the change we wish to see in the world.
Give Hanzie an award for self congratulations but I am afraid that he is wrong. Italy chose not to believe in the Y2K and fixed nothing unless and until it failed. Italy experienced no special problems because of their failure to update their code. In fact the experienced fewer computer crashes then then their neighbors because a lot of Y2K remediation was slapdash and very buggy.
BC: Your statement that “..Believe it or not, scientists kinda did not ignore the previous warming and cooling cycles. All that stuff was looked at, but none of it explained the current warming trend and its timing…” shows your ignorance of science. Even the hundred year temperature recovery from the little ice age is a meaningless fluctuation. The time constant for climate change is measured in millenia. It more likely that the interglacial period ended with medieval warm period and the last 100 years is only a temporary recovery.
Have you guys ever noticed how I tend to provide evidence to support my posts, whereas you just huff ‘n’ puff with nonsense?
I used to believe the AGW theory wholeheartedly. It’s a very alluring cause and effect story. If you do a poll and ask, “do you like pollution” you get an overwhelming majority. The first problems I had were with the computer models. I started to check out both sides of the argument and it quickly became clear that AGW is an hoax. They couldn’t release their computer modelling code for “legal” reasons. I checked these undefined “legal reasons”. The legal reasons turned out to be legal advice that releasing the codes risked them being criminally prosecuted for fraud.
Later, I wondered why I believed it and I realised that it was because I wanted to. Asking an urbanite whether he prefers the concrete and the stink to a green field with birds singing is a total no-brainer. Do you like waste, or efficiency?
The real significance of the leaked documents isn’t the E-mails….. That’s just the detonator going off. The sub-folders hold source codes. It’s only a matter of research time before real peer review sinks this ship. The codes, in the public domain mean that any modeller can reproduce the manipulations. Worse, it can form the basis for criminal proceedings for fraud.
The BBC have ostracised David Bellamy because he tells the truth. It’s no surprise now that we get a silence punctuated with garbled damage limitation. I tried to de-bunk myself for around six months. Far from been de-bunked I realised that this was a giant fraud. A lot of people have been duped. When they come to terms with it the anger and sense of betrayal will surface.
Stop thieves!
When fraud is committed the FBI should be called in.
Let’s see who has the balls to enforce the law.
This is a test of the jurisprudence system.
BC, linking to reports and conclusions based on fraudulent data and very thin models just makes you a fool. But blather on if it makes you feel better about yourself.
The climate is changing. Always has been. We have no clue as to which way it will be going over the next decade, let alone century. We still have very little grasp as to the drivers of this change. In addition, the choice between knee jerk centrally planned responses that will devastate the world economies vs keeping our economies strong so that we can deal with the inevitable changes and continue to study it should be a no brainer.
But lets be honest. This is not about environmental issues or climate. Its about leftist political power.
BC:
To second Dave T, McIntyre got a hold of Mann’s model after Micheal “Piltdown” Mann was forced to reveal his model and his data. McIntyre used Monte Carlo techniques to produce simulated data drawn from a uniform probability distribution. Virtually every one of these randomly generated series produce a hockey stick. It’s the model not the data that eliminates the Medieval Warm period. See this data from the NOAA ice core database:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
The Medieval Warm period was real and it was global. Mann’s hockey stick is a modeling artifact to “hide the Decline.” In real science if your model doesn’t match the data then you change your model. In Global Warming psuedo-science if the real world data doesn’t match the model change the data!
You an all the trolls haven’t got a clue about anything more then what George Soros tells you to say. You are merely an epsolon minus semi moron programmed for this kind of work. (I wonder if you get the reference)
If data has been proven to be manipulated, then criminal charge sneed to brought upon all who have participated in this hoax to earn more grant money…
Mike
On the coast of Libya are two unearthed Roman cities Sabratha and Leptis Magna. These cities were in their prime 2000 years ago. Both have dry harbors a few hundred metres from the shoreline. It would seem the Mediterranean sea level was higher at that time.
Sabratha is surrounded by no vegetation. How could people survive at that time unless the climate was wetter to support agriculture?
I suggest the climate warms and cools on a regular basis without the help of humans.
bc, as usual, your “evidence’ is thin at best. Using NOAA, which has yet to release it’s data sets IIRC, and the 5y/o article supporting Mann, don’t adress the behavior of the CRU bums nor the inability for anyone else to replicate the findings due to their throwing out and altering the data.
Try this link, if you like evidence so much
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/smokin.html
It speaks volumes about the “warming” of the last few decades.
over
Back in the early 70′s, concerned about protecting the envirnoment, I decided to join an anti-pollution club in my school. I went to the first meeting full of passion about making a positive difference in my community. When I walked into the meeting room, the first thing I noticed was that ALL of those “cool” kids and the faculty advisor were smoking.
Once the meeting started, they began talking about what they could do to shut down the two factories in our town, since they were the cause of all the pollution. I was only in 8th grade, but even then I realized that the goal of this club had nothing to do with clean air (that room looked like a steam room), it was about shutting down our local economy. No one in the group seemed concerned about what our community would do if they succeeded in shutting down the factories
Those factories employed the majority of our parents and produced valuable products. Each of these students (and the teacher), were polluting MY air, and weren’t producing anything or employing anyone.
I knew then, that the entire evironmental movement was a farce. I laughed at the “Ice Age” warnings, it just produced great hockey weather. Now I would like to laugh at the the Global Warming warnings, but this is no laughinng matter. Too many governments are pushing this crap. We need to fight tooth and nail to ensure that these global warming fanatics do not succeed. These are the same people who sat in that room smoking their lungs out while acting smug and superior.
To nolan: I’ll see your nutcase blogger page and raise you a German climate research site.
BC: There are three climate data sets and they are all dependent on the CRU database. The CRU demonstrate that the CRU data is corrupt and the data manipulated by code that cannot reproduce the results. Any research that depends on the CRU does not meet scientific standards of reproducibility. There is no evidence for global warming because all the evidence comes from CRU derived data that was manipulated to the hide he decline. Show me the data that demonstrates AGW that is not derived from CRU data.
You are not mentally capable of making an evaluation only parroting talking points.
“14. cfbleachers:
The death of an idea comes not via the spear, but the noose.
It is and was a worthy goal to explore the impact of man on our planet, it became unworthy when certain charlatans stole the exploration, by replacing honest inquiry….with a preprogrammed answer, searching for a question.
Global warming exists, just not today.
Global cooling also exists, but man is not the sun…and despite their arrogance, this planet does not orbit around leftists as its replacement.
Scientific inquiry suffers a small death by strangulation each time the purity of her method of proof is brought to the gallows of political hangmen. Science was made cheap and common, kidnapped and made to live in the tower of leftist propaganda. Facts were caged, gang raped and buried there. And now, the criminals…the truth thieves, spit out their smirking denials and spew their vacuous homilies about “what everyone already accepts”.
Leftism, the author of The New Big Lie.
And the place where ideas, independent thought, and purity of exploration… go to die.”
Excellent prose Sir. Bully, well crafted and truthfully stated. Deserving of repeat.
While running in the California International Marathon last weekend, and suffering through the unseasonably “COLD”, sub-freezing weather, I kept wondering were Al Gore was with all his global warming hot air??
But, but ,but; Soros and Gore are in it up to their necks! This could be the next “Microsoft” for the U.S.!
It’s gotta be big money if these tarts are involved. The U.S. could tax the entire planet for their CO2 emissions!
Is this a great country, or what?
All AGW proves to me is that the majority of humanity are sheep. Jim Jones, Hitler, AGW, what’s the difference? The sheep follow.
I watch the world today and tend to edge away from group think regardless of the cause. So much so that even if something I believe in becomes overly popular I back off.
I have always followed the old dictum, only follow someone looking for the answer, run from the one that say’s he’s found it.
BC, Wahl and Ammann? So the controversy has been settled by Mann’s students and coauthors? Typical.
Then there was the Wegman report …
Well said, David, it is essential that people like you who have authority and the ear of the general public keep speaking out.
As for my own modest contribution, update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to calmly study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.
In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.
Please note, I am using the highs, to put the strongest possible case for the warmists. (If I were using apparent UN scientist techniques, I would probably be using the lows to distort the case in favour of my own position, or apply a downwards inverted hockey stick adjustment).
Day 1: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
Day 2: a high of 7 C, the same.
Day 3: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Day 4: a high of 6 C
Day 5: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Day 6: a high of 5 C
Can someone please point this out to the Met, the BBC and all the eminent and learned delegates?
bc, you evidently didn’t read the atlasshrugs post. The character assasination piece you supplied the link for didn’t address the topic, which is no surprise. “Kill the messenger!”, right? She didn’t wtite the piece, bc. You’d know that if you read the article! Nor would you have supplied the link for MPI.
MPI is a well-renowned and prestigious institution, yes. But, since you evidently didn’t look too closely at that one either, please do so. You’ll find that the information they used (and they actually linked to wikipedia, the home page, not the relevant data sets which I found after five minutes!) for the 1000 yr temps were supplied by folks like Mann and other group-thinkers mentioned in the CRU e-mails. Further, the data for the last part of the graph (in black) was supplied directly by the CRU @ East Anglia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Referring back to the wattsupwiththat post (where she found it!),
you probably shouldn’t have used MPI as your evidence. Not only was it based on data that’s proven to be falsified, but it’s one (yeah, one) guy! try these German scientists, all 130+ of ‘em!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
C’Mon, bc! If you’re interested in real answers, stop parroting the party line! Have you, in all seriousness, actually read the disections of the CRU e-mails? If you’re truly that hard-left, then you should do a better job of researching your arguments as you must know by now that most here are reading them and shooting them down. It took me about thirty minutes. The time stamp reflects the time I took to feed and bathe my kids. Point being, your stuff’s weak! I know others here bad-mouth you pretty regularly and have no hope for you, but I would like to know what you (YOU) think of the CRU e-mails, not the party line.
over
bc, corection on the time-stamp. My page has been open since 5:44, but actual post-time is 8:45.
Just trying to stay honest.
Hey, bc, sorry to be on your case, but I just ‘gotta! I ‘gotta try to turm you!
Try this link. I just found it. Frankly, it made my head hurt, but it’s another explanation of the falsification of the data.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
over
Actually, the hysteria over Y2K (as opposed to the very real problem itself) is a better fit to the climate change bleating than you would think. There were real problems to some pretty mission critical systems that had to be fixed unless we were willing to accept some major economic damage. Banks, booking and billing systems, utilities and other mechanical plant control, etc. If it’s true that Italy adopted a “fix it when it breaks” attitude – well, I wouldn’t have taken that chance. I expect even if that was the official government stance a lot of companies checked their own systems out of self interest. I worked on machine controls in a couple of factories that would have shut down on Y2K if we hadn’t tested and fixed them – not the end of the world, but it would have cost them significantly, especially as I would have been far too hungover on the day to help them fix it
In the same way, a changing climate may well have effects that need to be mitigated or adapted to. Being much slower to occur though, I think in this case a wait and see attitude is more appropriate.
But the ridiculous predictions for the effects of Y2K were way over the top. Civilisation was going to end as we know it, planes dropping out of the sky, all financial records disappearing, blah, blah, blah. Survivalists stocking up on food and ammo, etc. There’s just too many diverse systems out there for everything to collapse like that (same reason “hackers taking over the world’s computers and controlling everything is a fantasy). And too many people to see sense and sort it out afterwards. Major disruption but not the end of the world. And this panic drove some incredibly stupid and costly efforts to prove “Y2K Compliance”. I spent half that year chasing up compliance certificates from our suppliers and providing them to our customers. Anything and everything electronic got dragged in to the net, right down to digital light timers (who cares? just unplug it if it stops working). A laptop running legacy software for programming a discontinued product would only run on Win95, our IT department tried to take it and upgrade it because of a few silly Y2K bugs (dates don’t sort properly in Explorer apparently, so what), and it was a major deal to get them to make an exception – I had to physically take it away and hide it till they cried uncle. A lot of the money spent on compliance was wasted on this sort of stupidity.
I’ll leave the parallels to climate change hysteria as an exercise.
The main difference has already been pointed out, that Y2K was a fix to a specific problem and the efforts were largely private, not a total shift in control of the world’s economy and driven by government regulation.
Dr. Bellamy – Very informative – especially the information on the ice core and that concentration CO2 lag temperature changes, not the other way around. That means that something else, not considered by those frauds and charlatans at CRU may be causing the warming since the little ice age. It might something so simple as fluctuations in sun-spots, or it might be something more complicating.
bohemond @ #8: spot-on.
@62 LTW
/Agreed. While Y2K was in fact a real issue, the hype around it was totally over the top and idiotic. I was hired here at Goldstone in 2000 so it was well after the Y2K stuff but they still had lots of stickers on the equipment that said “Y2K Compliant” everywhere. So I was able to talk to several of the guys, most specifically our timing guys and they told me there was lots of issues that had to be fixed for Y2K.
The thing was they had fixed most of them by 1998 because they new of the issue for quite some time. All the hysteria on the news was total BS as far as they were concerned.
So yeah not a totally off-base argument, but perhaps there were better ones to chose. Like say the Ozone hole maybe?
“the last thing the economy of the world needs is to spend trillions of taxpayer money trying to solve the credit crunch by raising taxes”
THIS is the crux of the whole concept of the climate change theology. The world is over its head in debt and there is no way out of it without creating a huge tax bill on the people!
Time to stop yelping and philosophizing and file lawsuit after lawsuit. If we don’t, the corrupt press will cover up the truth.
Esoterical discussions can wait, we need to protect ourselves !
What I don’t understand is,
Why is everyone wildly accusing climate-change idealogues of TAX grabbing and wealth re-distribution!?? And this “truth thieving” business… what?
I seriously want to know. Wouldn’t it be good, just to use the EXCUSE of humans (highly theoretical) impact on the planet to:
A: Rid ourselves of foreign oil dependency. (Redistribute the wealth FROM SAUDI ARABIA… how.. un-american right?)
B: Attempt to further the REAL science of atmospheric reaction to pollutants, climate cycles over the eons, etc etc. Let everyone debate and we’ll find some objective truths, yes?
C: Innovate new technology that would reduce the average person’s heating/electricity/transportation costs. How is this a tax grab or something sinister? We are all PAYING THROUGH THE ASS to energy companies, who have kept our technology in near-complete stasis as to better profit from it. Do you get dividends from oil companies!? I DON’T.
Whats wrong with creating a new generation of clean-tech entrepeneurs, similar to the 90′s semiconductor and electronics industry boom? Has microsoft enslaved you and increased your tax burden? I’m assuming we all enjoy reading this article on the PERSONAL COMPUTER. haha.
Whatever happened to continual progress? Are we supposed to use oil/natural gas/coal forever? Everyone will clamour for hard science facts when 10% of florida is under-water. Do we have to wait until then?
Notice I am asking questions, not claiming to have answers. Who knows what the heck kind of climate cycle we are in, but WHY NOT FIND OUT. If we even have a mild impact on the worlds atmospheric ecosystem with our emissions, shouldn’t we investigate and attempt to understand?
# 67 D.B.: Why do you ignore the fact that the Green NAZIS are telling us that they DO know what is happening and that MAN MADE CO2 is a POLLUTANT up there with all the TOXIX waste that is produced and is SOLELY responsible for Climate Change ( a euphemism they changed to when Global Warming did not live up to its SCARE MONGERING stories).
BTW if you think Cap and Trade is NOT a TAX and if First World Countries paying BILLION AND BILLIONS of dollars to third World counties because of FRAUDULENT SCAM reports by the IPCC and the CRU is going to have no effect on you and your lifestyle then I would hate to do your family budget.
They are not waiting to find out the truth they are doing it NOW after all Polar bears are dying and the seas are rising and everyone will DIE if they dont LOL
David, thank you for standing out and reporting what the rest of the UK population suspected – that the Emperor Gore does indeed wear no clothes.
D.B., your questions indicate you have done virtually no listening on this subject. “Wildly” accusing? So you know apparently nothing about these accusations except that they are wild.
I’ll address your first question, even though it’s unreasonably phrased, by referring you to the writings of Vaclav Havel on the subject. Go read, extensively, then come back and we’ll get to whatever remains of your insouciance.
Excellent article David, and very clearly explained.
I would like to take issue with your use of the Year 2000 problem as a similar scam, however. In 1998 and 1999 I was employed in the Middle East on this problem, and it was very real. The apocalyptic scenarios predicted by some were of course rather exaggerations, but I reckon that about 30% of the programs which I examined (using software analysis tools) would have failed in some significant way during the year 2000 if left unchanged.
Joe Richardson
As a resident of East Anglia, I phoned the CRU directly after reading Tony Giovanetti’s report on the climate data archives having been destroyed. I was bounced from phone to phone, and eventually found myself speaking to a manager in the press department who said the data had been destroyed due to copyright issues and bemoaned the “mischief” being made over the issue. If they’re going to dissemble, they might at least sing from the same hymn sheet: but that requires intelligence, which is something entirely different to blind faith in an ideology.
Exactly @ #66: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is doing just as you say. I am sure they would welcome anything you could give them.
D.B. @ #67: It is not good to use a lie to achieve some desired end. The ends do not justify the means, simply put.
As to you all your other questions, it is a matter of cost and benefit. It is best to use the cheapest methods of producing energy until we find better ones. To stop using the cheapest methods now may actually delay us in finding alternative methods later. By using the cheapest methods now (which may over time become more expensive) we will free up resources now (i.e., make us wealthy enough now) that will allow us to look for cheaper alternatives (or fund the research to find cheaper alternatives). In the short run, we can gain energy independence by getting rid of some of our whacko environmental laws that prevent us from getting oil off the Atlantic shelf or off the coast of California or from northern Alaska. (Note, even if we do all that, it will still take years for us to achieve a modicum of independence.) Also, we need to build more refining capacity which we have not done since the late 1970s. Finally, we need to use more coal, natural gas and atomic energy. Unfortunately, we are doing none of those things I mentioned, and thereby allowing the medieval sheiks and their sharia to lord it over us.
I believe there is a way to collect the raw temperature data for the last century independently from the government, and it is a simple but tedious task. I’ve put the details on my blog. At some point, someone will have to do this. I don’t trust anything coming out of the government funded outlets.
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-to-quickly-collect-raw-temperature.html
Could Prof Jones, CRU, Michael Mann et al be sued? Talk is all very well, but at this 11th hour, the architects of AGW need to be put out of business. In Copenhagen, after a call for disobedience from Naomi Klein, their cadres have attempted to attack a shipping line – the intention being to close down world trade.
Check out the Copenhagen Document leaks, this knowledge may save your life! Do what you can with your Government Reps in your country to have these infringements on your life eliminated! You will literally be fighting for your and your family’s existence, Click the videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAqqAnUxACY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0
Request that PM Harper DOES NOT sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Sign the petition to protest the Inaccurate Science measurements that are being used to base the Copenhagen Treaty off of: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Well, it seems Mr. Ehrlich ( another of Obama’s Eugenicist Science Czars who works with John Holdren ) will have his way with humanity if the Copenhagen Treaty will have success. There is your global system, with a globally enforceable mandate- at first to impose carbon taxes upon humanity- later on to do what the eugenicists have always called and planned for: the orderly extermination of at least 80 percent of the global population.
Writer: Btok
Professor Bellamy,
“Since 2007, the Arctic ice cap …”
Small point – Antarctica has an ice cap, frozen fresh water covering land.
The Arctic has an ice pack, frozen seawater covering (floating) an ocean.
Are you angry about this obvious fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The Environmental Defense Fund. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored funding and coordination of this and related propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD0
#69 Andrew, thanks for nothing. How do I get that image out of my mind? Curse you, Sir.
It’s already been said here, I think, but it bears repeating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming and we are pumping out a lot of it. Just how much it contributes and ow much it counterracts or accelerates “natural” cooling and warming is not clear.
As for the tree rings which supposedly show the MWP as being warmer etc., are they any more reliable than the tree rings called in question in the CRU stuff? Supposedly, actual thermometer temperatures in the last thirty years show warming which are NOT reflected in the recent tree ring studies, so the whole tree ring method, to my mind, is in some doubt.
And if the countries who rely on melting glaciers, eventually lose their water, they are going to need some kind of international aid whether it comes under the global warming reparation fund, or just straight humanitarian aid. I saw on the news tonight that many of those countries including Bolivia, walked out of the conference today…not that they won’t be back tomorrow.
#23 — The only on I can think of off the top of my head is the Oregon Petition. I checked the signatures and it lists cartoon characters, actors and the like. I cringe every time I see someone quoting it. As for any specific other misinformation, like I said, I’,m on your side. There is too much empirical evidence that casts doubt on the case for AGW. I don’t buy it.
#27 — I’ve never talked to Mr Luntz so I don’t know exactly why he put out that memo. I simply relied on the media for their interpretation.
MrC.
Dwight -
“…but it bears repeating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to warming and we are pumping out a lot of it. Just how much it contributes and ow much it counterracts or accelerates “natural” cooling and warming is not clear.”
Yep. And if I light a match, I can burn my fingers. If I light a whole box of matches, I can generate a fair amount of heat. Not to sure I could manage to affect the heating (or cooling) of Cowboys stadium however….
Question for the crowd: Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased CO2 (how much?) will lead to warmer temps (how high?), can’t we show that with experimentation at the actual concentrations under question? I’d like to see a fairly simple experiment: two simple containers of air transparent to IR fitted with temperature probes placed in the sun and monitored over a suitable. One with a CO2 concentration similar to the turn of the 20th century (280 to 300 ppmv or roughly 0.03% of the volume) and one with CO2 concentrations of today (380 to 400ppmv or roughly 0.04%).
Can one detect an increase in temperature, everything else in the samples being equal, based on an increase of 0.01%? Not 1%, and not even 1/10th of 1%, but 1/100 of 1% increase. At what point can one actually document a temperature increase? If the temperature goes up, by how much?
Thank you David Bellamy. You put the case well.
Hanzie, as an IT director who put together those reports on Y2K non-compliant systems to submit to the government, I disagree with your statements about year 2000 disaster. I don’t disagree there was a Y2K problem, but all IT guys knew about it, and we fixed as best we could all vulnerable and critical systems. However, the alarmist baloney causing Greenspan to flood cash into the system because he believed the world would crash and burn kept the dot.com bubble going longer. We have a much worse threat now, from hackers getting access to vulnerable networks.
AGW is happening ask those in Bangladesh as their homes disappear underwater, or Kenyans as they enter another year of prolonged drought and self explanatory satellite images of the Artic. CO2 is only a pollutant when it reaches levels that do damage, and this applies to to any substance. Everything has an LD and when the LD is reached you are dead, quite a lot for CO2; very little for aldicarb. So to state CO2 is not a poison is just as ridiculous as to state that salt is not poison. But this is not the issue no-one has stated that CO2 is a poison in the context of AGW, but they have stated that CO2 causes climate change and that our worlds balance is finer than we would like to think. Small even tiny changes in CO2 levels change the ability of this planet to support life in the way that the spoilt western world considers necessary. We are setting fire to millions of years of stored solar energy in the form of oil, coal and gas in a few centuries, and doing so at a rapidly increasing rate. The west protects itself from the effects of this by using more and more finite resource. In the 1940′s we used to get more energy out of the food we grew than we used to grow it; now we use more energy to grow that food than it produces.
Will the world end tomorrow? No. Will the world be able to support 9 billion people in western lifestyle reliant on fossil fuels? No. Is the world in trying to achieve a western lifestyle through setting fire to fossil fuels going to change climate? The evidence is yes. Will that depletion of finite resource result in less people on the planet? Yes.
We can plan our way out of this mess or wait until it hits us, both will be painful, the latter far more than the former. For many countries that extreme pain is already being felt.
An excellent statement of the position taken by the majority of scientists. Your correspondent JT118 seems to have sources of information unavailable to people like me.The bald statement “In the 1940′s we used to get more energy out of food we grew but that process is now reversed” – to paraphrase- is new to me. Is there anyway in which he can let us have a reliable reference for that statement?
Anyone who visits the rock island of Skelig Micheael off the south West coast of Ireland will see the remains of gardens on the top of the cliffs built by the monks hundreds of years ago. Archaelogists say they grew their own food in little beds. The monks supplemented their diet with fish and sea-birds, according to documents from the time.
As a fairly experienced gardener, I would have severe problems growing a few cloves of garlic or a few scallions (spring onions) on Skelig Michil today. There must have been a warm medieval period or the monks would not have survived there for so long.
This global warming was prior to the Industrial Revolution. I can only presume it was the methane from all the bison on the American plains which was warming the planet at the time.
Jim
H20+CO2 H2CO3 .
Surely Le Chateliers principle would imply that the more atmospheric C02 we have the more should dissolve ?
Does anyone have any proper thermodynamic data on this reaction ?
The theory behind carbon dioxide trapping heat or infrared rays reflected off the earth’s surface is 19th Century science and is still not proven
The GREEN HOUSE analogy is not applicable to the earth-there is no glass ceiling surrounding the planet.
The global warmiong circus has gone on long enough. There is no decent science in any of it only hype, distortion and exaggeration. It is beyond shocking that people are now making big money out of this whole charade. Let us not forget that Mr Gore’s nonsensical and quite childish film on this subject has been barred in a British court because of its inaccuracies.