More Opposition to Anthropomorphic Global Warming

Again, just more opinions to consider when your local news talks about global warming, CO2 emissions, or carbon credits, as if global warming is a definite fact.  This time they come from the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman. Note that he considers himself an environmentalist, as I do, though I have many serious doubts about the reality of man-caused global warming (aka. global climate change):

Great Moments in Climate Science: Scientists agree that global warming is beyond a doubt real…except for those that doubt it.

Two quotes from different articles today that make me smile on the inside:

POZNAN, Poland (AP) —Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth’s climate say they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

and article two…

The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Which story will make the nightly news?

Update: Some Killer Quotes -

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Inconvenient Unsettled Science Update: MIT Scientists – global warming theory contradicts scientific data

Boston (MA) – Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother natureand not the direct result of man’s contributions

Full Story (emphasis above mine)

No, I wasn’t surprised by this news.

I hope the folks at MIT are prepared to be demonized as pawns of Big Oil…or any other litany of “big evils”…

Consensus collapses: APS re-opens debate on global warming -Update: APS position unchanged

I stole that headline from HotAir

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.” …

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity — the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause — has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton’s paper an “expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and “extensive errors”

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, “I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ‘climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.”

Ed Morrissey notes the following:

The paper points out that the warming seen on Earth during the period under question matched the warming seen on other planets in the solar system, a point repeatedly made by skeptics over the last few years.  Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and one of Neptune’s moons experienced the same climate shift at the same time, and Monckton assigns the blame not to SUVs or belching smokestacks, but to the only energy source all have in common: the sun.  Solar activity during the past seventy years, Monckton states, exceeded what had been seen for 11,000 years, which led to the warming activity here on Earth and elsewhere in the system.

UPDATE: The AFP has not changed it’s stance – though an internal subgroup has brought up questions as to the consensus. It will be interesting to see where that goes…

 And yet, there are still people talking about ideas like a global carbon tax… Here’s a recent comment from the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid – talking about how “coal makes us sick”:

And here’s John McCain:

Here’s Barack Obama:

But what happens if it turns out that carbon emissions have little or nothing to do with causing global warming?

For your consideration – Here is a great overview of the counter argument against the assertion that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming:

Final question: Who exactly is hurt the most by high gas prices and crappy legislation brought to us by environmentalists? The poor. Think about that. For the middle class – $4.00 gas is crappy and inconvenient, but for the poor – it’s devastating.

Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists say

That’s right, you read the headline correct… Here’s the article, and I’ll repeat the headline with a little emphasis:

Global warming causing California glacier to grow, scientists say

The glaciers on Mount Shasta in California are growing because of global warming, experts say.

“When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking,” said Slawek Tulaczyk, a University of California, Santa Cruz, professor who studied the glaciers.

But the seven glaciers on Shasta, part of the Cascade mountains in northern California, “seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean,” he said.

As the ocean warms, more moisture evaporates. As moisture moves inland, it falls as snow — enough on Shasta to more than offset a 1 C temperature rise in the past century.

READ FULL ARTICLE

Exit question: What phenomenon can now NOT be attributed to global warming?

30,000 Scientists Rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

Wow, – this kinda sounds like what I have been saying over and over. (emphasis mine)

…the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Go Oregon! Here’s the link to the press release.

And here’s a picture of Al Gore who will almost certainly launch ad hominem attacks on these scientists to try to discredit them. Mark these words (or some variation of them): “They (or maybe a few of them) received money from oil companies.

A Global Warming Tutorial

I think that this should be a required tutorial for anyone, especially media personalities, before they are allowed to discuss anthropomorphic global warming (now often simply called ‘climate change’ – because it turns out the earth wasn’t warming like they thought.)

The reason that this should be required is because it is a widely held view that all scientist are in agreement that man is responsible for causing drastic, dangerous, and irreparable damage to the earths climate.

This just isn’t the case.

Here are five tests concerning the hypothesis that there is “dangerous human-caused global warming” occurring – presented by Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia:

  1. Has global temperature warmed over the last few years?
  2. Is today’s global temperature unnaturally high?
  3. Does CO2 output correlate with temperature change?
  4. Does CO2 lead or lag temperature change?
  5. Does the pattern of temperature change match theoretical predictions of greenhouse warming?

Video responses to these questions follows:

Original videos moved. Here are the four parts from a different lecture (same guy) that also answer the 5 questions above. Just listen to them if you cannot watch.

Do these tests definitely prove there is no such thing as anthropomorphic global warming? No. But they at least present a fairly strong argument that there isn’t a scientific consensus. In other words, the science is not ‘closed.

Note that this is not an argument against conserving energy and being less wasteful. I think those are great things. However – I strongly oppose being forced to do something by the government based on junk science. 

I’ve posted much about this topic. Here are some links. I am not, in any way, asking you to 100% agree. But please at least consider these arguments:

[ht:nb]

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.