Atmospheric science, Climate indicators, Cryosphere, IPCC, News and Views, Sea levels, Surface Record, Urban Heat Islands

The Great Global Warming Swindle

12 Comments

View the Ch4 (UK) TV documentary online thanks now to YouTube.
Watch, listen, do some thinking, make up your own mind.
The original link to Google video seems now dead, 15 Mar

12 thoughts on “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

  2. Pay a tax, change the weather. I don’t think so. Humans account for only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide released into the biosphere annually (Google: carbon cycle). Congresswoman Pelosi’s and Senator Reid’s plans for regressive new carbon offset and green tax legislation are designed in concert with UN and Kyoto Accord mandates. The goal is to reduce human CO2 production by 1/3. How high would new carbon offset taxes on transportation and heating fuels need to be to motivate you and everyone else to cut back by 1/3? At best that level of taxation will reduce annual CO2 production by a mere 1 percent globally. Not much mitigation or hope there. Certainly 1% is not enough to make a difference in the perceived problem of anthropogenic (human) global warming gases. The impact of such draconian tax measures can only be imagined. However, it does beg the question, “If humans can’t really be expected to make much of an impact on global warming gases, how can they possibly be blamed for warming in the first place?” Why are people compelled by politicians and the media to feel responsible and guilty for causing global warming? For the answers, Google “blame, shame and guilt used as political controls”, read “Unstoppable Global Warming” and “The Chilling Stars” for the scientific facts and “State of Fear” for the political dynamics behind this renewed eco-tax controversy. Those party faithful that think this debate is over are sorely mistaken. It’s a little late, but welcome to George Orwell’s “1984”. Watch - www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

  3. A small sample of the pending stupidity. Recently, European politicians, apparently with no protest from Phlips, have mandated a ban on incadescent light bulbs by later this decade. And now, US politicians have at least mouthed support of doing the same in the US. One small problem (pun intended). Go tomorrow to the store and try to purchase flourescent bulbs to replace any of the following:
    * Appliance rated / temperature resistant 40W
    * Bent tip 25W chandelier
    * Blunt tip outdoor 25W miniature (for example, for reduced profile porch light)

    Etc … if they ban incadescents it will force millions of low to middle income people to have to either tear out endless numbers of light fixtures and outdoor lighting, and replace appliances.

    Dumb and dumber ….

  6. A Layman’s Review of the latest IPCC report (2007)

    Is global climate changing?

    Yes, undoubtedly. The only constant in climate is change. Average surface temperatures rose by around 0.6°C over the period from 1900 to 2000, possibly a few tenths of a degree less if we correct for the “urban heat island effect”. This warming trend already started around 1800, with 0.5-0.6°C warming over the period from 1800 to 1900, as well. Prior to 1800 the earth was in a global Little Ice Age, which started around 1300, with temperatures cooler than today.

    Have atmospheric CO2 levels risen?

    Yes. From around 290 to 375 ppm over the period from 1900 to 2000.

    Is this increase in atmospheric CO2 levels man-made?

    While man-made CO2 emissions are only a small percentage of the total carbon cycle, there is no doubt that man-made CO2 has contributed to at least a part of this increase.

    Is there a scientifically proven link between increased CO2 and higher temperatures?

    No. Just model scenarios that have been programmed in by the IPCC to demonstrate this link. Certainly the warming actually experienced from 1800 to 1900 and from 1900 to 1940 had little to do with man-made CO2 emissions.

    If it isn’t from higher CO2 levels, from where is the warming coming?

    We all know that the primary source of energy for Earth is the sun (not the exhaust gas from your automobile). Warming and cooling trends on Earth have always come from swings in solar activity, long before there were any automobiles or humans, for that matter. There are many scientific studies that show this link.

    Is the “warmth of the last half century unusual in at least the previous 1300 years”, as the IPCC report states?

    No. This is not true. It ignores the existence of the scientifically proven and historically well-documented global Medieval Warm Period, with temperatures higher than today.

    But the latest IPCC report (2007) states that it is very likely that man-made CO2 is causing the recent and projected future temperature rise and that this will lead to all sorts of problems: melting ice caps; rising sea levels and flooding; reduction of snow cover and thawing of permafrost; higher ocean salinity; increase in severe weather events including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones; loss of habitat and possibly even extinction for many species; increase of tropical diseases; increased deaths from heat waves; etc.

    This all sounds pretty scary (as it is obviously intended to do by the writers).

    But is there any sound scientific basis for these dire predictions?

    Fortunately not.

    To put it in plain words, the IPCC 2007 report is largely based on “junk science” backed up by “garbage in / garbage out” computer models and leading to unfounded “disaster scenario projections”. Some examples:

    · uncorrected surface temperature records show more rapid warming than is actually occurring
    · claim (unsubstantiated) that urban heat island effect has a “negligible effect” of “less than 0.006°C per decade” has been proven by two separate studies to be untrue
    · more accurate, more comprehensive and more pertinent satellite temperature record of the troposphere (available since 1980) is ignored (this shows 0.3°C lower temperatures during last 10 years than the uncorrected surface record)
    · claim (unsubstantiated) that discrepancy between surface and satellite record has been reconciled is not true
    · models created to show that greenhouse effect from “anthropogenic CO2” is the primary driving force for climate change when there is no scientific evidence or proof for this supposition and a significant amount of paleoclimate evidence to show that CO2 does not drive climate change
    · greenhouse effect of naturally occurring water vapor is ignored – instead water vapor has been programmed into the models as a “positive feedback” to man-made CO2, more than doubling the calculated impact of CO2 alone on warming
    · impact of clouds is ignored
    · effect of variations in solar activity are relegated to a very minor role in driving climate despite fact that past records for millions of years show this is the major driver of climate on Earth
    · claims made that Greenland ice cap has melted from 1993 to 2003, causing an increase in sea levels of 0.21 mm per year while latest ESA study of essentially same period shows an increase in Greenland ice, equivalent to a lowering of sea levels by 0.27 mm per year
    · claims that reductions in the Antarctic ice sheet have contributed to a further 0.21 mm per year rise in sea levels over the period 1993 to 2003, when latest ESA studies show a net increase in Antarctic ice, corresponding to a lowering of sea levels by 0.08 mm per year
    · forecasts sea levels rising by up to 59 cm (23 inches) over next 100 years, when the international organization responsible for monitoring sea levels worldwide states that any prediction for the next 100 years exceeding a maximum of 20 cm (7.9 inches) is nonsense and 10 cm (4 inches) is more likely
    · claims that world-wide tropical cyclone activity has increased both in frequency and intensity due to global warming, when the record outside USA shows a net reduction in both frequency and intensity and the US record shows a reduction from 1940 to 1995 followed by an increase from 1996 to 2005 (including 2005 with Katrina and Rita), followed by a drop in 2006, with overall 1940-2006 record showing essentially no statistical increase in either intensity or frequency; also, theory says these are driven by the temperature gradient between tropics and poles, which will decrease with warming
    · claims that other extreme weather events, such as heat spells, extreme precipitation events, thunderstorms and tornados are increasing due to global warming when there are no comprehensive reports to show this and many local reports show there is no statistical change in extreme weather events
    · claims that tropical diseases have increased and will continue to do so as a result of anthropogenic warming have been refuted by world experts on these diseases
    · population checks on polar bears, for example, show these are stable or increasing slightly on average and have increased from around 5,000 in 1970 to 22,000 to 25,000 today despite the warming

    All in all, we should ignore most of what is in the IPCC 2007 summary report, just as we should ignore the sensationalist press reports on global warming and its dire consequences and the calls by politicians for immediate action to stop this “impending disaster”.

    It’s all hot air.

    But why do so many scientists and political leaders plus many in the media support the man-made global warming theory?

    “Cherchez l’argent.”

    It’s driven by an estimated 2.5 to 4 billion dollars per year in climate research grants, with the grants going selectively to those scientists who make the most disastrous predictions.

    The media also love disaster stories, since they sell better to the public than “it’s OK” reports, thus generating more profits for the media.

    The politicians and bureaucrats love the idea of “carbon taxes”, higher taxes on fossil fuels, “carbon footprint offset” schemes, etc., because it gives them more money to spread around (and more power).

    Not only that, but it’s also become “sexy” and “trendy”, with pop stars, Hollywood figures and many other “media darlings” jumping on the bandwagon.

    It’s truly a “win-win” situation for everyone, except for the people that will end up paying for this circus: you and I.

    We’d be much better off diverting our time and resources from this non-problem of “CO2 pollution” to address the true problems of today, such as poverty, hunger, genocide, slavery, disease, terrorism driven by religious fanaticism, illiteracy, lack of clean drinking water and electrical power for millions of people, world dependence on a dwindling supply of imported fossil fuels, killing off of the rain forests, real pollution of the environment, etc.

    Just think what we could do in these real problem areas with 2.5 to 4 billion additional dollars per year, not to mention the hundreds of billions it would take to truly implement the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol…

    Max Anacker 30 March 2007

  7. Frankly I am quite worried about what is going to happen not if but when the Negative PDO we are currently flipping into gets spiked further downward by a weak solar cycle. I’d welcome AGW, unfortunately, at least for the next long while, it’s going to be overcome by other substantially negative forcings. Be prepared.

  9. We are dedicated to hunting down, and blasting to smithereens, spammers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.