Einstein once said that 100 scientist could be proven wrong by one fact. It amazes me that some would suggest that the author has no business commenting on global warming because he is not a scientist. That is illogical and fallacious. Argumentum Ad Verecundium, an appeal to authority, is saying that an argument is wrong simply because the person making the argument is not an “authority” on the subject that is being debated. If the author’s views are to be discounted and ignored because he is not an authority in the field with a college degree than we would have to apply the same principal to Al Gore because he is not a scientist. To say the pro global warming camp’s arguments are correct because an organization or group of scientist say its so is another appeal to authority. There are thousands of scientists, including some of the most distinguished and eminent in the field of climatology, who disagree with the theory of global warming.
Jim Hansen of NASA, a leading proponent of the theory of global warming, recently changed the listing of the hottest years on record because of a Y2K error in his calculations. Now, according to NASA’s official website, the hottest year was in the 1930′s. Also, other years in the top ten changed. Moreover Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. In fact, the IPCC has airbrushed the hockey stick out of its literature. The medieval warm period, when Southern Greenland was green and populated by vikings, was warmer than the current period. So also was the Roman warm period and the Holocene maximum was much warmer than now. In fact, the three previous interglacial periods were warmer than the current warm period. If we take the warmest point of the holocene maximum and plot the warmest point in every warm period there is a negative or downward trend in temperatures. We are near the end of the Holocene and we will almost certainly go into another ice age perhaps starting now but most likely within the next 1,500 years.
We came out of the little ice age in 1850 and the world has warmed to a degree that is well within natural variability. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but is a critical component in the process of photosynthesis. The earth is starved for CO2 when compared to historical norms and averages. In the late Ordovician Period there was over 4,400 parts per million of CO2, more than an order of magnitude greater when compared to current CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and yet the world was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages ever. The effects of CO2 is logarithmic. The per unit effect decrease with greater volume. If the preindustrial level of CO2 were doubled it would have an extremely minute impact on temperatures. It is simple math. Just review the matter with any physics professor.
Regarding the analogy of weapons of mass destruction and the IPCC’s degree of certainty as to mans culpability in the rise of temperatures which has occurred since the end of the little ice age, the analogy is fallacious and illogical. First, most political leader in the US and UK believed that there were WMD’s in Iraq. Saddam Hussein stated that he wanted the Iranians to believe that for deterrent purposes. Also, the UNIPCC states in its summary for policy makers a 90% probability, not a 99% probability, that man is responsible for most of the global warming. Therefore, the premise is wrong and non sequiter and a red herring. Moreover, when one reads the various assessment reports contained in the main body of the document the numbers range from in the 60% + area to 90%. Also, authors in the main report often wrote that there is no way to state with any degree of certainty that man’s actions are responsible for temperature changes. Some authors had to threaten the IPCC with litigation to get there names removed from the list. By the way, the list of approximately 1500 people cited by the IPCC as experts contains many people who are not recognized experts in the field of climatology or even degreed scientists. True, you do not have to be a degreed scientist to have a valid opinion but it is an outright lie to state that everyone on the list is an expert.
None of the predictions made by the IPCC have come to fruition. Thirty years ago they stated that if something was not done within ten years run away global warming would occur. Twenty and ten years ago they said the same thing. Weather balloons and satellite data confirm a slight temperature decrease since 1998. When the earth experienced warming during an extremely strong El Nino it was credited to global warming. Now that the Earth is cooling in part to a La Nina we are told by the AGW forces that it is a variance in weather. The theory of global warming states that the middle to upper troposphere would warm faster and to a higher degree than the lower troposphere and it has not. Global warming theory states that the oceans would continue to warm and they have slightly cooled. What is really amazing is that the IPCC acknowledges that temperature increases precede rises in the level of CO2 by hundreds of years and the IPCC also admits that it cannot explain why. It is simple cause and effect: if increased levels of CO2 are responsible for increases in temperature than a rise in CO2 levels would precede a rise in temperatures. Instead it is the other way around.
Global Warming is an animist nature worshipping religion that posits that man is evil and that animals, nature and the environment are more important than humans. This is not a straw man argument but is a statement based on the published works of the various leaders of the environmental movement. Either there is a God and we were given dominion of the earth or Darwin is right in regards to his theory of evolution and we humans have hit the darwinian super lotto and we are at the top of the food chain via natural selection. I am an open minded person who refuses to stoop to Ad Hominem attacks. It is sad that so many have done so in their postings.
Al Gore would have us believe that the debate is over. The diversity of opinions expressed in this comment section would suggest otherwise. In a recent debate hosted by New York’s IQ squared debating society, the pro anthropogenic global warming forces were trounced as was shown by a survey taken prior to and immediately after the debate. In a recent poll regarding the upcoming US presidential elections zero (0) percent of the respondents rated global warming as the most important issue. I believe when politicians try to reach into the American taxpayers wallet that will change.
I do care about the environment. Saddest of all will be when, in the post environmentalist world, there is a legitimate claim made by them and that it will be ignored as the vast majority dismisses their claims while reminiscing about the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
One question I would like to share with my fellow readers: if global warming is such an infallible truth why don’t the pro anthropogenic forces engage the skeptics in a series of well publicized debates and show the world the validity of their argument? Maybe they are still reeling from their defeat in New York.
