CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > News and Politics
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28th September 2007, 12:08 PM
Posts: n/a
Default The Hoax, Part 1

The Global Warming Hoax
By Alan Caruba

On June 13, USA Today declared, "The Debate's Over: Globe Is Warming." That's another headline you can ignore.

The world has been warming ever since the last Ice Age, but it is not rapidly warming in ways that threaten our existence, nor warming in a way that requires the industrialized nations to drastically cut back on their use of energy to avoid the many scenarios of catastrophe the Greens have been peddling since the 1980s.

Global warming is a classic scare campaign initiated by the Greens after a previous effort in the 1970s to influence public policy by declaring a coming Ice Age failed to generate any response. What we are seeing now is yet another worldwide coordinated campaign by the Greens to rescue the global warming theory from the junk heap to which it should be consigned.

In early June, the National Resources Defense Council, one of the large Green organizations, declared that, "Global warming is fast becoming the number one environmental problem of our time."

It has organized an Internet campaign led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Sen. John McCain, and other so-called environmental leaders to drum up the fears of people who know little of the real science of the Earth in order to force the US to implement the United Nations Kyoto protocol on "climate control." Anyone who thinks humans have any control over the Earth's climate is willfully ignoring the evidence that we have none.

The NRDC declared, "The world's leading scientists now agree that global warming is real and is happening right now. According to their forecasts, extreme changes in climate could produce a future in which erratic and chaotic weather, melting ice caps and rising sea levels usher in an era of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions."
Scary, eh? One huge volcanic eruption could do this. As to the weather, it is the very definition of chaos and has been for billions of years.

The good news is that leading climatologists and meteorologists are actively debunking this nonsense. One of them, Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, is in the forefront.

He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain's Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, "The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction."
Among the data he cites is the fact that, "Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from weather satellites."
Moreover, "an extrapolation of the satellite data gives at most a fraction of a degree rise for the 2lst century," adding that, "The IPCC further claims that the 20th century was the warmest in the past 100 years, but this myth is based on a seriously flawed publication. The IPCC also claims that sea levels will rise by up to nearly a meter by 2100; but every indication is that they will continue to rise inexorably and much less, as they have for nearly 20,000 years since the peak of the last Ice Age."


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)

FP: If global warming is not actual science, how and why is the Left successful in passing it off as such?

Horner: Specifically, the catastrophism isn't grounded in the scientific literature. The alarmists, however, are enabled by a combination of personal and professional intimidation that makes it very risky and often painful and costly for anyone to dare disagree. If you just want to do what you've chosen to do for a living, you know the path of least resistance, and you know what would be very, very risky. Also consider that the lifeblood of research science is, for better or worse, taxpayer dollars. And no one likes standing in line, hat-in-hand, arguing for their appropriation, having to justify their loftiness to bureaucrats and politicians, year-in and year-out. Partly as a result of this, the institution of "science" has succumbed to the lure of massive sums of money that have been guaranteed if they promise the right answer. For about three decades, that answer to just about any relevant question has been one variation or another of "the human did it!" And for about half of that time, "catastrophic man-made global warming" has been the more specific response desired. Numerous scientists have gone on record with their experiences that one would think make terrific news stories but, like so much in this debate, by their absence from the record apparently do not.

Remember, the US taxpayer alone spends $5 billion-with-a-b on climate-related programs. That's the same amount we also send to the National Cancer Institutes every year. I suggest that if "the science is settled" on climate as we are hysterically told -- by people who obviously despise the scientific method of "here's my hypothesis, challenge it" -- then I want my money back or at least an end to this gravy train. And suggesting this would provide the most honest assessment of the state of the science you would ever attain: "by 'the science is settled' I meant you are supposed to take my work seriously enough that I don't have to stand in line with the unwashed every year. Not that 'the science is settled'."

FP: Crystallize the connection for us how hyping up "global warming" is connected to the hatred of capitalism. In other words, if it wasnt global warming, it would just be something else, just another weapon to wage war on our society. Illuminate for us how the ideological tactic works.

Horner: A belief in both the certainty of catastrophic man-made global warming and the horrors of capitalism are matters of faith, which tend to be held in tandem. No society in its right mind is going to wilfully do to itself what the environmentalist industry, at its core, desperately seeks: massive diminution of individual liberties and ceding of most decision making to the least accountable level of governance possible, in the name of creating an Edenic world, a Goldilocks world, where man's population, growth, energy use and impact is "just right"; this, by the way, is to be judged in the eyes of people who believe there are just enough of them and way too many of everyone else. In the meantime, environmentalists insist that wealth is the root of all evil; capitalism is the root of such wealth; ergo, capitalism must go. I quote them to this effect, in my book, in their moments of candor. No evidence, no data, no observations are sufficient to disown such people of the faith, despite the unavoidable reality that wealthier is healthier, and cleaner, that only wealthy societies impose the expensive form of showing that one "cares", that is environmental regulations; and that only healthy growing economies agree to layer on more and more. They just cartoonishly scream "big business" and the ritual, accompanying rants.
FP: In your book, you explode ten top global warming myths. Now without giving too much away, can you talk about one or two of these myths here?

Horner: The biggest-ticket item is that which underlies Al Gore's movie and every proposal offered in the name of averting climate catastrophe: that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive temperatures. This is absurd. Al Gore even shows this -- without focusing on it -- in his movie. Just look closely at the data he shows in chart form as he rides the hydraulic lift upward to where, on the wall, he claims that temperatures will go unless we agree to the "World War II-style" commitment that for some reason he refuses to provide the details of. This data was published in Science magazine in June 2006 and quite plainly reveals that temperatures drop before CO2 concentrations drop, and that the intimated cause-effect relationship actually doesn't exist. Which is precisely why Gore elected to not superimpose the two charts. Further, the other famous data set, with better historical resolution in the data, also shows that temperatures historically increase before CO2 concentrations increase.

If you want correlation over any period of time that might actually be meaningful -- that is, more than a convenient couple of decades when things might match up -- then look at the sun, and cosmic waves. They correlate over the 20th century -- which is when we have the best data, that is observations and not "proxies" but also in prior centuries -- and CO2 quite plainly does not correlate. After all, as emissions rose it cooled from the 1940's thru the 1970s sufficient to start a "global cooling panic", then as emissions and contributions continued to climb, temperatures reversed. One can only try to be clever -- or ignorant -- with the "it's warmed since the 1970s and emissions have risen since the '70s" syllogism, as one declared Republican presidential candidate confidently informed me when I was given the opportunity to brief him. Yes, and cell phone use has gone up since the 1970s, too. Correlation, however, doesn't mean causation of temperatures in that example any more than it does with a very tiny timeframe with CO2 and temperature. Move your baseline year to 1940 and the whole argument implodes.

Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 12:09 PM
Posts: n/a
Default The Hoax, Part 2

Global Warmalists & the uptick in increased intensity of hurricanes:

Global Warming Not Featured in New Hurricane Study
by Patrick Michaels

A major hurricane is a very unique event a lot of disparate factors must become organized in just the right way to allow a major storm to develop. While high SSTs are one critical ingredient, they alone are insufficient to generate a whopper storm. SSTs have been increasing since 1970, as have major hurricanes, but the connection is not nearly as simple as some authors are suggesting. And careful scrutiny of ALL of the available data shows the connection to global warming is less than tenuous.

Meeting the Climate Challenge?
by Tim Worstall

Another day, another report on global warming and climate change. (Sigh). This one is called "Meeting the Climate Challenge" from the self-appointed International Climate Change Taskforce and has been organized by The Institute for Public Policy Research (UK), The Center for American Progress (USA) and The Australia Institute (guess). Amongst the panel members we have from the US Senator Olympia Snowe; from the UK Stephen Byers MP (this is the man who when Transport Secretary deliberately bankrupted the private railroad system to replace it with a state-run system which costs three times as much and performs worse) and Jonathan Porritt (Founder of Friends of the Earth and here proudly described as Vice-President of the Socialist Environment Resources Association); and, as Scientific Adviser, Dr Rajendra K Pachauri who is, as we know, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


The essential point they make is that whatever Dr. Pachauri and his scientists are paid to tell us (and let us do them the honor, for the moment, of believing what they do tell us) our enlightened thinkers actually know that matters are much worse than that. For:

"On the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature, we propose a long-term objective of preventing average global surface temperature from rising by more than 2C (3.6F) above its pre-industrial level (taken as the level in 1750, when carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations first began to rise appreciably as a result of human activities).

"Beyond the 2C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly. It is likely, for example, that average temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. Exceeding a global average increase of more than 2C could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest. Above the 2C level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase.

"The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea levels more than ten meters over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planets forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon.

"Climate science is not yet able to specify the trajectory of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that corresponds precisely to any particular global temperature rise. Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2C will require that the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm)."

Allow me to translate that for you. We have decided to take an arbitrary number, 2 oC, set the baseline at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, immediately after the Maunder Minimum, mix in every scare story we can think of to scare the fecal matter out of you rubes and if you don't listen carefully to us important people we'll hold our breaths until we turn blue. (We might also note that no one, no one at all, thinks that human influence on the climate started in 1750 AD. Try 8,000 BC with the invention of agriculture.)

This is then used to design a system whereby the US and Australia, while not part of the Kyoto mess, agree to voluntarily meet the targets (think Sen. McCain here) and so usher in the brave new world where luminaries are again allowed to ventilate. I read the rest of the report so you don't have to but there really isn't all that much else of any great import in it. I'm therefore left to retell some of the more minor matters that make it such an amusing little document.


Allow me just to recapitulate this argument. A modest number of the international great and the good get together to bemoan the way the world is running to rack and ruin, identifying the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and not coincidentally, the beginning of capitalism) as when our forefathers began to cause our problems, come up with a series of recommendations on how to reduce carbon emissions, lots of international action, international aid, international spending, international regulation, in short, lots for the international great and good to do, and in the process they take no position on nuclear energy? None at all? Not even a "Tsk, tsk, that will allow capitalism to survive?"
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.