The Bucks County Courier Times
The real global warming story: Facts don't support it
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2014 6:00 am
By DOUGLAS B. MARSHALL
“Global warming” remains in the news, with varying opinions. However, as with any important issue, facts should determine opinions and policy.
Credible scientific evidence establishes “global warming” is not occurring, nor is there any man-made threat through consumption of fossil fuels.
A review of facts establishes:
•Data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2013 confirms increase in carbon dioxide levels (to 395 parts per million or ppm) from 360 ppm in the 1990s with no global temperature increase;
•This follows the 30-year decline in temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s in a period in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent;
•Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, representing only 0.037 percent of the atmosphere and a tiny percent of greenhouse gases (96 percent of which is water vapor and clouds).
•All greenhouse gases are essential to life. Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, rejects the global warming orthodoxy, noting that at 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die: “Thank goodness we came along and reversed the 150 million year trend of reduced CO2 levels in the global atmosphere.”
•Scientists at the world’s most prestigious physics laboratory at CERN in Switzerland measured a near perfect correlation between climate change and penetration of the sun’s cosmic rays into our atmosphere.
•All the dire predictions from computer models have been proven wrong, perhaps leading to the fraud which came to light in 2009 in emails from the Climactic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, where data was simply fabricated to reflect the global warming agenda. A similar scientific hoax was exposed in May 2014;
•NASA records show the Arctic much warmer in the 1930s (when there was far less carbon dioxide) than today (80 years later). In fact, with all the increased carbon dioxide, polar ice sheets have reached almost mythical proportions (as have the record-setting ice on the Great Lakes in the winter of 2014 (continuing to present) — again, all occurring with consistently increasing CO2 levels (from ongoing industrialization in China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc., and regular consumption of fuel in the developed world);
•Lord Christopher Monckton, former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, notes the “scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they’re there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they’re under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none.” Of course, during this Medieval Warming Period (1100-1400), there was no industrialization/consumption of fossil fuels. The East Anglia email scandal attempted to erase this historical period;
•James Lovelock, the famous scientist who invented the Gaia/Whole Earth Theory, predicted horrific consequences from climate change and now admits “all right, I made a mistake.”
All of the above (and much more) can be confirmed through an Internet search engine. There is no credible evidence or scientific consensus supporting “global warming” or man’s alleged role in it.
There are powerful entrenched interests that would benefit from centralization of governmental power to combat this imaginary danger. That is the real story, the story of the “New World Order.”
Well, this guys gonna be fired!
"Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer rejected the media and some scientists claims that the record U.S. cold is due to man-made global warming. Happer, explained the science in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot.
“Polar vortices have been around forever. They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Happer said in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot."
SCHMITT AND HAPPER MANUFACTURE DOUBT
Posted on 15 May 2013 by Dumb Scientist
Dr. Harrison Schmitt and Dr. William Happer, who have scientific backgrounds but are not climate scientists, just wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal. Despite their claims, global warming continues. This continued warming is confirmed by GRACE, ICESat, InSAR, GPS, and camera observations of ice sheet mass loss, which absorb heat without warming as they melt. The continued warming is also confirmed by global sea ice loss, which absorbs heat without warming as it melts. The continued warming is also confirmed by increasing global ocean heat content, which absorbs heat without warming the surface... until it’s released in an El Niño.
They also dispute that humans are very likely responsible for most of the warming since 1950. But solar activity hasn't increased significantly since 1950, and studying "complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere" is why NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences exist. They're saying that the rate at which heat escapes Earth has slowed due to our emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2.
If Schmitt and Happer want to dispute mainstream science, they should do so in a peer-reviewed science journal, not The Wall Street Journal. Neither of them have published any peer-reviewed articles on climate science, despite being experts in other fields.
Then they dispute that global warming is a problem, by mentioning that CO2 levels were much higher in the distant past... when alligators roamed the Arctic, and most of Florida was underwater. That climate was radically different than the one our civilization is adapted to, and CO2 is already higher than it's been in millions of years.
Scientists are actually concerned about the unprecedented rate of our CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions rate from the Siberian Traps eruption (which lasted a million years) caused warming and ocean acidification that preceded the end-Permian extinction, 250 million years ago. Today, our CO2 emissions rate is ten times faster than that of the Siberian Traps.
Schmitt and Happer mention that plants have fewer stomata when CO2 levels are higher, allowing them to conserve water. This is an example of a negative feedback which reduces the biosphere's sensitivity to changes in CO2, but they ignore larger positive feedbacks where CO2-induced warming stresses ecosystems. For example, the 2010 Russian wheat crisis shows that our crops aren't drought-proof despite CO2 levels unseen in millions of years.
They compare the natural biosphere to an artificial greenhouse where humans work hard to reduce competition with weeds and pests. Another lesson from the ancient climate is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when rapid CO2 emissions caused warming that preceded marine extinctions, and a spike in leaf damage caused by insects. Kudzu, pine beetles, desert locusts and jellyfish thrive when it warms. Rice doesn't: it grows 10% less with every 1.8°F of night-time warming.
In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences and a dozen other science academies told world leaders that “the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
Scientists aren't the only ones concerned about risk management: large insurance companies like Munich Re, Swiss Re and Allianz have already noticed increased damages that are partially due to climate change. In 2010, the Pentagon said “Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”
World leaders ignored them. So here I'll speak as a volunteer for the Citizens Climate Lobby rather than as a scientist:
Australia and British Columbia have already stopped their coal plants from treating our atmosphere like a free sewer. They did this by charging the fossil fuel industry for their carbon pollution, then returning these fees to citizens as dividends.
Republicans Art Laffer and Bob Inglis agree that this revenue-neutral approach is fiscally conservative. Instead of taxing something we want more of, like income, let’s tax something we need less of: carbon pollution.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
polecatt, your Lord Monckton was a twit. It would be impossible for the earth to be 3C warmer in Medieval Times and still have the planet as it is today. The planet was estimated to be 3C warmer 5 miilion years ago and it was totally different than it is now. A Chinese Naval squadron sailed aroud the Artic in 1491? Really? And poor old Columbus landed on an island in the Caribbean and thought he was in India. I could go on refuting this stuff but I have to stop because I'm.... lmao
Lonesome: The left cannot refute the fact that man caused global warming is a fraud. But that makes no difference to them. Many of them know it is a fraud but do not care, since the end justifies the means in their minds, and their end is control over everyone. A socialist/communist utopia such as we have seen in Stalin's Russia and Kim Il Jong"s North Korea. So they follow the standard policy of liberals, attack the person instead of the idea or policy that the person presents.
I agree, rodent, you and poleonutt are total hallucinating idiots with totally idiotic RWNJ paranoid ideas and hoped for policies. Even so, your greatest threat is in your own Party wherein you haven't yet generated the balls to set out on your own and establish a pure and true Party so your major battles will continue to take place in your own Party's ongoing Civil War rather than with any liberals.
Hey, at least those battles will be in real time and won't have to be enactments of the failed battles of 150 years ago. God speed to you, rodent.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I see the nitwit replied to my post. I'll bet the idiot did not answer or address the post. It's what the moron does.
He never gives a point by point rebuttal because he can't for two reasons:
1. You can't argue with the facts.
2. He doesn't have the intellectual capacity to give a sane, logic response.
In short, he's an idiot.
poleonutt, let's just admit it, if PT Barnum was still alive he would be saying:
"There's a sucker born every minute and now all of them read Breitbart and Drudge and watch Fox News."
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Nah, he'd say, "There's an elk_1 born every minute, ready and willing to attack anyone who doesn't drink their preferred flavor of kool-aid, insisting that those with different understandings of the world around them must be partaking in the other, demented, flavor of kool-aid."
Some of us don't drink any flavor of kool-aid.