Well, it’s been four weeks since the whole ClimateGate scandal began to raise blood pressures in the Global Warming supporters camp. The way Al Gore has avoided any HARD questions on the subject is a better example of avoiding the rush than even John Elway used to be able to do during his time with the Broncos.
And, speaking of our mighty Goreacle – savior of the human race – he’s been hard at work promoting his doom and gloom visions of the end of the world (as long as it’s CNN, MSNBC, NYT, or any other liberal dirt rag)…he wouldn’t want to be challenged when he says such awesomely scientific things as claiming the earth’s temperatures are “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.
FACT: Temperature of the sun’s corona: 1–2 million kelvin
FACT: Temperature of the sun’s photosphere: 6,000 kelvin
FACT: Temperature of the Earths mantle, more than “2 kilometers or so down”: between 500 °C to 900 °C (773 to 1173 kelvin)
FACT: Gore is an idiot!
Even John Stewart has found the need to lambaste Gore and the Climategate scandal on “The Daily Show” and he’s a liberal stooge!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Scientists Hide Global Warming Data | ||||
| ||||
But, I digress…
I seriously think no one understands what it means to be a so-called “climate skeptic”. If you go to a site like www.wattsupwiththat.com you will be allowed to read the posted articles, and respectfully comment your educated opinions or ask questions if you don’t understand certain things, but if you go to a global warming supporter’s site – like www.realclimate.org – and voice any opposition to the supported opinions, you risk ridicule, and that is only if they even post your comments. Because, sites like realclimate love to censor the content allowed on their sites, because anything to throw their long held beliefs into question is strictly not allowed. Where true scientific debate occurs on skeptic sites, propaganda and denial of opposition are the main courses being served up on global warming sites.
Meanwhile, the very data being used as the whole basis for the debate has been shown (by climategate) to be unreliable and manufactured. The CRU is the main institute responsible for research which supports global warming. The UN’s IPCC report and Al Gore’s movie is all based on the data from the CRU. This is not a “non-issue”. This is disturbing. And, people should be standing up and demanding explanation beyond the usual response of “non-issue” or “out of context”. People should be outraged, but they are not…they continue to let Gore and Obama spew their rhetoric and propose to tax the air we breathe.
Why is it that 10 years ago, Gore stated “we have 10 years to tackle global warming” and now 10 years later he still says “we have 10 years to combat global warming”. Meanwhile, CO2 has not gone down, but the temperatures have NOT gone up; the polar ice caps have been steadily growing; hurricanes have NOT gotten stronger or more dangerous; and sea levels have NOT risen significantly.
Oh and by the way, the Polar bear population is not in danger of extinction according to polar bear expert, Dr. Mitchell Taylor. It’s a 55 page PDF file…I’ll gladly email to anyone who wishes a copy.
The concern that polar bears will decline if the climate continues to warm is valid. However, the assertion that polar bears will become extinct unless immediate measures are
taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions is irrational because it is inconsistent with the long-term persistence of polar bears through previous periods of warming and cooling; and because the IPCC climate model predictions 50 and 100 years into the future do not suggest a future with insufficient sea ice to support polar bears as a viable species. Currently, polar bears are abundant and in no danger of extinction thanks to coordinated research and management programs developed and implemented under the International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat (Brower et al. 2002; Fikkan et al. 1993,Prestrud and Stirling 1994). During the last 30 years, it is generally agreed that polar bear numbers have increased as a response to improved conservation measures (harvest controls). Climate warming has occurred
continuously during that period and consequent reductions in sea ice have been to the detriment of polar bear populations in at least two areas (Regehr et al. 2006, 2007a,b). However, the assertion that polar bears as a species are in imminent danger of extinction or even threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future is both unproven and unlikely.
I’ll leave you with these words from Dr Roy Spenser in explaining Global Warming Skepticism.
And, as always…”Don’t buy the hype, think for yourself!”
Peace
G
_________________________________________________________
From Dr Roy W Spenser, Ph. D. (December 9, 2009):
Global Warming Skepticism 101
The following list, in no particular order, are my responses to common claims and accusations about global warming skeptics. If other scientists or laypersons want me to add to the list, or want to argue for changes, email me and I will update it as appropriate. Please be sure to check back for the latest update (posted above).
1. Skeptics deny global warming. No, we deny that warming has been mostly human-caused.
2. Skeptics are paid by big oil. The vast majority of skeptics have never been paid anything by Big Oil (me included).
3. Skeptics don’t publish in the peer reviewed literature. Wrong…but it is true we do not have nearly as many publications as the other side does. But it only takes one scientific study to destroy a scientific hypothesis, which is what anthropogenic global warming theory is.
4. Skeptics are not unified with an alternative explanation for global warming. Well, that’s the way science works in a field as immature as climate change science. The biggest problem is that we really don’t understand what causes natural climate variability. Kevin Trenberth has now famously admitted as much in one of the Climategate emails, where said it’s a “travesty” that we don’t know why warming has stopped in the last 7 to 10 years. For century-time-scale changes, some believe it is cloud cover being modulated by cosmic ray activity, which is in turn affected by sunspot activity. A few others think it is changes in the total energy output of the sun (possible, but I personally doubt it). In my opinion, it is internal, chaotic variability in the ocean and atmosphere circulation causing small changes in cloud cover. Since clouds are a natural sunshade, changing their coverage of the Earth will cause warming or cooling. The IPCC simply assumes this does not happen. If they did, they would have to admit that natural climate change happens, which means they would have to address the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 has been largely natural in origin.
5. But the glaciers are melting! Many glaciers which have been monitored around the world for a long time have been retreating since the 1800’s, before humans could have been responsible. A few retreating glaciers are even revealing old tree stumps…how did those get there? Planted by skeptics?
6. But the sea ice is melting! Well, the same thing happened back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, with the Northwest Passage opening up in 1940. It was just as warm, or nearly as warm, in the Arctic in the 1930’s. Again, this is before humans could be blamed. There were very low water levels in the Great Lakes in the 1920’s too, just as has happened recently. We have accurate measurements of sea ice cover from satellites only since 1979, so there is no way to really know whether sea ice cover is less than it was before.
7. But we just had the warmest decade in recorded history! Well, if thermometer measurements had started in, say 200, AD (rather than in the 1800’s), and it was now 850 AD, the same thing might well have been said back then. The climate system is always warming or cooling, and the Industrial Revolution (and thus our carbon dioxide emissions) just happened to occur while we were still emerging from the Little Ice Age…a warming period.
8. But the Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing! Well, sea ice around Antarctica has been expanding since we started monitoring by satellite in 1979….so which do we use as evidence? There is no convincing evidence of warming in Antarctica, except in the relatively small Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the ocean. Just as glaciers naturally flow to the sea, ice shelves must eventually break off. It is very uncertain how often this happens through the centuries, and what has been observed in recent years might be entirely normal. Similarly, it was warmer in Greenland in the 1930’s than it has been more recently.
9. But the sea levels are rising! Yes, and from what we can tell, they have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Again, the more recent rise might be just a consequence of our emergence from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out in the 1600’s.
10. But we keep emitting carbon dioxide, which we know is a greenhouse gas! Yes, I agree. But the direct warming effect of moré CO2 is agreed by all to be small…and I predict that when we better understand how clouds change in response to that small warming influence, the net warming in response to more CO2 will be smaller still. This is the “feedback” issue, which determines “climate sensitivity”, the area of research I spend most of my time on. I and a minority of other scientists believe the net feedbacks in the climate system are negative, probably driven by negative cloud feedback. In contrast, all twenty-something IPCC climate models now exhibit positive cloud feedback.
11. But we can’t keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere forever! No, and we won’t. Assuming fossil fuels will be increasingly difficult to find and access in the coming decades, the continuing demand for energy ensures that new energy technologies will be developed. It’s what humans do…adapt.
12. But we shouldn’t be interfering with nature! Actually, it would be impossible to NOT interfere with nature. Chaos theory tells us that everything that happens, naturally or anthropogenically, forever alters the future state of the climate system. I predict that science will eventually understand that more CO2 is good for life on Earth. This doesn’t mean it will be good for every single species…but when Mother Nature changes the climate system, there are always winners and losers anyway. In the end, this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. Interestingly I have found that the vast majority of scientists also have the religious belief that we should not be impacting nature. I believe this has negatively affected their scientific objectivity.
Climate Change Examiner (December 13, 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment