[meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a farce

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 04:25:32 -0500
Message-ID: <028001c7ab41$4c378780$c3e08c46_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi, Rob, Michael, List

    Here we go again!

    "Global Warming - Scientifically Proven or A Farce?"
Bong, bong, bong! I'm sorry, the Correct Answer is...
Farce!

> the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United
Nations ....

    Wrong! Cap'n Blood is referring here to the IPCC -- the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a document produced
by beaurocrats, not scientists, of the UN. It lists 2500 of the
world's "leading" scientists as authors. In actual fact, NONE
of these scientists wrote ANY of the report, and the report
does not contain their scientific conclusions, evidence, etc.
The scientist named as "lead author" on the title page, John
Christie, has repeatedly repudiated the report and called it
"worthless." He's asked to have his name removed from it,
but the UN has just as repeatedly refused to do it.

    The IPCC Report contains a section on the "dire" biological
consequences of GW that contains such idiocies as the suggestion
that GW will "allow" malaria to spread from the tropics north and
south to areas now "safe" because mosquitoes "are not found where
temperatures fall below 18 deg. C." They should be staked out on
the banks of the Yukon River in summer so non-existent carnivorous
mosquitoes can devour them. The worst malaria epidemic in history
took place in Russia in 1922. The city of Archangel on the ARTIC
OCEAN had 30,000 cases and 11,000 deaths...

    Why didn't the UN consult an expert? Well, they did. They consulted
the WHO's and the world's leading expert on malaria, Paul Reiter of the
Pasteur Institute. I could give you paragraphs of his credentials, but this
post is going to be too long as it is. Google him. OK? They put his name
on this idiocy. He told them to take his name off. They said, no, you
contributed. He said, no, because you didn't listen to anything I said.
The UN refused to remove his name from their garbage. He sued the
UN in Belgium. They took his name off.

    You'll have to ask the beaurocrats at the UN why they wrote what
they did in the IPCC Report. If you ever get a straight answer, let me
know. But, whatever the reason, it wasn't the "science." I'm equally
sure they had a reason. Wonder what it was?

    Next, we have the incorrectly titled "An Inconvenient Truth." This
title was chosen because it sounds so much better than the accurate
one: "A Convenient Lie." Highlights of the presentation are the display
of the "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature rise, an artifact of faulty
computer programming on the part of the modeler. The mathematical
error that gave rise to it is acknowledged by every expert who's seen
the code except, of course, by the man who screwed up. You can take
his bad code and give it RANDOM temperature records and it will
still produce a sudden sharp curve of warming... Garbage processor.

    The highlight of Mister Gore's presentation is the giant graph of
world temperature and carbon dioxide levels which march up and
down in lockstep, together, in a perfect fit, taken from the ice core
data of 400,000 years. Man, that nails it! That's proof positive! Well,
he does mention that there are "some difficulties with the ice cores,"
but he never says what they are nor any word about them.

    The "difficulty" is this. The ice cores for 400,000 years show
that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by 800 to
1000 years. FIRST, the temperature goes up, THEN CO2 goes up...
800 years later. Does CO2 cause warming? NO. Warming causes
CO2. The mechanism is easy to understand. CO2 solubility in water
is very temperature dependent. Leave your soda sitting out on a warm
day; it goes flat. When the planet warms, the ocean surface warms.
Warm water cannot hold much CO2; it releases the CO2 that was
dissolved in it when it was cold. The oceans "turn over' in 800 to
1000 years; new CO2 laden water is continually brought to the
surface and warmed, until all the dissolved CO2 is in the atmosphere
-- on the same time scale as revealed in the ice cores. QED.

    This one piece of evidence ought to be enough all by itself to drive
a fatal stake through the heart of the fundamental flaw of "Warmism."
Carbon dioxide, man-made or natural, does NOT drive climate
change. But like Dracula in the horror movies of my childhood,
"Warmism" comes back from the dead, time after time. It's not
one set of cores, by the way, it's all the cores, from everywhere,
Antarctica, Greenland, mountain glaciers in South America, decades
of cores -- they all show the SAME thing.

    At any rate, a stage show run by a politician IS NOT EVIDENCE
of anything, except that politicians will do or say ANYTHING that
furthers their purpose, an observation that is not new and should not
come as a shock to anyone. No doubt, you say, Mr. Gore is "sincere."
So what? Ever been "sincerely" wrong? I note that his "sincerity"
increases in direct proportion to his political rehabilitation. Could
be a coincidence...

    Mike Farmer just chimed in with the scientific observation that
it gets mighty hot downtown on the asphalt surrounded by a million
people and their cars; how can you doubt we're warming the planet?
Localized warming is trivial on the scale of the planet, meaningless.
The raw heat produced directly by human thermal activity is a trillion
times smaller than the heat involved in warming a planet by any
observable amount.

    The problem is that it is exactly IN such places that we humans
record temperatures "for the record." No wonder the "records"
say we're warmer. It's called the Heat Island effect. Of course,
compilers of world temperatures remove the most urban places
from the long-term record, so as to "correct" for the Heat Island
effect, but is it a big enough correction? Do they remove enough
places or are they leaving in recording spots that are artificially
warmed by human activities (not gases)? They say they are
compensating adequately, but...

    The answer is NO. If you remove ALL urban weather records
and use only RURAL weather stations, the planet has not warmed at
all in 120 years. Using only rural stations, the US has the same
climate regime it did in 1895. Ireland is colder now than a century
ago. A series of NASA satellites have measured the temperature
of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) for 30 years. They show
the planet has COOLED slightly for thirty years. This being a very
disturbing result to some people, the satellite data has been
"re-calibrated" three times. Now, it shows warming! In thirty
years, the Earth has warmed by 0.078 degrees C. Wow! It's
a scorcher!

    This is particularly significant, as ALL climate models predict
that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) will warm MORE than
the Earth's surface. But the surface (according to weather stations
surrounded by heat-wasting humans) has warmed while the
atmosphere has not warmed -- a clear scientific impossibility,
IF TRUE.

    As for the measurement of carbon dioxide concentration in the
Earth's atmosphere, for ultimate scientific accuracy, it is (and has
been) measured at one and only one spot on Earth. It has never been
monitored anywhere else, because multiple measurements and more
data could be "confusing." So, WHERE is it monitored? Why, on
top of an active VOLCANO. No chance of any carbon dioxide
"confusion" there, is there? Volcanoes don't have anything to do
with CO2, do they? Sounds like good science to me... How about
you? And we'll never know if it's not, because we don't monitor
any other spot on Earth, and never have since monitoring started
in 1958.

    Even if you accept the flawed temperature records accumulated
during urbanization and industrialization of the planet as real, they show
that 75% of the warming in the twentieth century happened between
1908 and 1940, a time with little increase in anthropogenic CO2
(man-made CO2). There was slower population growth than today,
a much smaller industrial plant and only a limited number of cars,
yet the warming was more dramatic than today's warming even
though there is no evidence of any big CO2 increase.

    In 1940, world temperatures began to fall and they continued to
fall until 1975. The period 1940 to 1975 was a vast expansion of
all the things that humans do to produce CO2, but while CO2 DID
increase dramatically, temperatures just fell and fell. In the 30 years
since 1975, temperatures have recovered and warmed about above
what they were in 1940, sixty years ago. All of this depends on
those weather stations in urban heat islands. of course. By the
record of purely rural stations around the world, NOTHING has
happened. (Life in the country is slow...)

    Charting CO2 versus temperature for the twentieth century shows
no clear relationship. I think it shows NO relationship, but I'll be
flexible... What about in past times? Throughout the last half billion
years, there is nothing that suggests any relationship at all between
CO2 and the planetary temperature. Nothing at all in the geological
record supports the notion that carbon dioxide drives or determines
climate in any way. We've had nasty ice ages when there was ten or
twenty TIMES more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now and
the planet was fairly well freezing its butt off.

    I could go through each and every fallacy of "Warmism." I could
fill your arms with reams of reprints, stacks of data, to demonstrate it.
But the actual debate is not the issue. Michael does not say it in such
stark terms but he implies that the time for doubts is ended, that no
reasonable and scientific person could possibly NOT believe in
Warmism. Well, actually, he does say that, doesn't he? Hey, I'm not
bitching about Michael that specifically; a great number of people
act that way. The time for debate is over, they say. It's irresponsible
to argue about the science when confronted by disaster. Just go along...
Accept it.

    Whenever people say that there can be NO reasoned argument
-- don't go there -- you are being sold a bill of goods, and truth is
not among those goods.

    It is no accident that global warming funders are politicians,
bureaucrats, activists, and a long list of people who like trying to
control things (and people). It is NOT, as some people have asserted
on this List, a left-wing or a right-wing thing. It cuts completely across
old political divisions. Fox News pushes Global Warming and Rupert
Murdock drives a hybrid car. (It's a Lexus, but it's a hybrid Lexus...)
The Left did NOT invent global warming; the Right did, but it doesn't
matter now. The next few years will show lots of ideological shifts,
as Warmism becomes more universally believed (unfortunately) and
more ways are found to make money from it.

    Global warming's rise to become a dominant doctrine is a case
of cascade failure. There now exists a "global warming industry" that
employs 60,000 to 100,000 people in science, government, and the
media. Budgets have snowballed from tiny "worry" grants to billions
in every major nation, and those people whose livelihoods depend on
the threat of global warming are the same ones who are relied upon to
prove it is so and to arouse the populace to its "dangers." They have
succeeded and their jobs are safe. Will the media get more viewers
by claiming disaster looms than they will by saying "weather changes
all the time"? The latter, though true, is not very exciting. It will not
sell
soap nor soup.

    There are lots of scientists who understand that Warmism, if
not utter tripe, is at best highly questionable, but it's not worth
saying -- out loud. Not if you like getting the grants, not if you
plan on becoming Department Chairperson someday, not if you
want to "advance." What you really want is to study scavenging
efficiency in squirrels. Ask for money for that, and you're going
nowhere. Ask for money to study "The Effects of Global Warming
on the Scavenging Efficiency of Squirrels in Appalachia," and you
are having a great summer vacation watching your favorite rodent,
which is all you wanted to do in the first place. It's easy. Just keep
your mouth shut.

    The major change is recent. The media have now "turned" the
population at large to Majority Warmist, paradoxically by persuading
those who consider themselves the most "informed" first. Like
the Captain. Of course, everybody is "informed" (everybody who
watches television) nowadays. People have now reached a state of
unreasoned belief that they hold to with a religious passion. To
behave contrary to their expectation is not to disagree; it is to be
a "bad person."

    To not believe in Warmism is to ask for Big Trouble. Rob said
he thought warming might be cyclical (it is), and Michael's "feelings"
were "outraged" because Rob's opinion was threatening "the
survival of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life
forms on the planet."

    Whoa, Dude! Take another 'lude. Chill. Can't we all just get along?

    The Truth:

    1, There is no unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming, but
it may be. If it has warmed, the climate has warmed and cooled by
similar amounts in cycles of a few hundred years over the last
millennium or more. It is not as warm now as it was 1000 years ago.
IF warming continues at this pace until 2050, it will be as warm as
it was 1000 years ago. I will point out that our ancestors and "the
majority of life forms on the planet" got through that time 1000
years ago with no trouble .

    2. There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is a primary cause,
or driver, of climate change. Period. Not now. Not ever. There are
a few episodes of sudden warming (and many more of sudden
cooling) in geological history, but by and large there is no chance
they have been caused by carbon dioxide. (There are some
impact-related "spikes" that are suspicious in a few cases.)

    3. There is even less evidence that man-made carbon dioxide,
a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide total, is climatically significant
in any way. (It's hard to have less evidence than NO evidence, so
I guess that's just for emphasis.)

    4. Nevertheless, Climate does change. In fact, Climate IS
change. On long time scale, it's a serious problem. But not
Warming. For 41 million years, it's been cooling. We're in
an Ice Age. Global Warming would be nice, in my opinion,
but it ain't happening. Change is not without cause. I'd like
to know what the cause(s) is (are). To find out, we need some
objective science. Wonder if we'll ever get any?


Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net>
To: "Rob McCafferty" <rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com>; "Meteorite List"
<meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven ora
farce


Hi Rob,
        I am usually able to waylay any strong feelings posts
might arouse in me. However, when talking about the survival
of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life forms on
the planet it becomes a little more difficult for me to keep my
feelings in check. However, I will try.
        I strongly suggest that if you have ANY belief in the
scientific process at all that you examine the following:

1) The history and current movement WORLD WIDE by
the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United
Nations .... After years of denial of scientific evidence, finally
a treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.
Of the 173 recognized countries on the planet, only 3 were
and continue to be "hold outs" - of course, under King George,
the US is one of them.
(Clinton was guilty in spite of the urging of his vice
president, as he always, always, always pursued the action
that was politically most "favorable")
>From this you can see that 98.3% of the various countries
have chosen to head the warnings of their scientists on this matter.

2) Do at least a LITTLE research on the scientific reports that
were requested by and sent to the current administration - and
then ALTERED by said administration & the number of former
advisors who have resigned as a result of the bull headed refusal
of the administration to accept the truth, even when research
was conducted by their own scientific advisors.

3) See Burk's "Before the Warming" (Made in the early 1990s,
it is scary how exactly, as scientifically predicted, the results
of global warmiing have progressed thus far.

4) See "An Inconvenient Truth."

        I am confident that you are intelligent and sane enough
that, once having reflected upon the above, any reluctance to
see the evidence in this matter will be gone.
        If, after reviewing the above, anyone remains unconvinced,
I suggest they buy an ostrich ranch as that way they will be
among those who are equally like minded and scientifically
aware.
        Sincerely, Michael Blood



on 6/9/07 2:41 PM, Rob McCafferty at rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com wrote:

> This post simply underlines a theory I had presented
> to me 10 years ago, that global warming is just a
> phase.
> If as little as 13000 years ago, the sahara was
> watered grassland, and the sahara grew before
> industry, how likely that we are the influence of
> climate change?
> I do not work for Shell, BP, Xxon, etc. I Just think
> that humans have an over-inflated opinion of their
> significance.
>
> Even so, I will confess to actively reducing my carbon
> footprint over the last 2 years.
>
> Sorry, I know it's not met related.
>
> Rob McC
>
Received on Sun 10 Jun 2007 05:25:32 AM PDT