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

From: Michael L Blood <mlblood_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:36:10 -0700
Message-ID: <C291A0BA.3679F%mlblood_at_cox.net>

Hi Sterling,

        First of all, I would like to thank you for being
a gentleman in presenting your perspective in a
relatively rational and respectful manor.

        Make no mistake, I certainly see the situation differently
and feel a bit like I did when hearing Tom Cruise declare
mental illness a myth. However, as someone suggested,
we should make a bet. Instead of $10,000, I suggest that
you and I get together in Tucson in 2017. I suspect by then
one of us will agree he was wrong. That person has to buy
the other's drinks at the 2017 Birthday Bash.

        Personally, I hope it is I who buys your drinks. I
would much rather be wrong on this one.

        Best wishes, Michael



on 6/10/07 2:25 AM, Sterling K. Webb at sterling_k_webb at sbcglobal.net wrote:

> 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 03:36:10 PM PDT