More about the scam called "Global Warming"

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by sitarro, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Once again an article that pretty much says it all about the "scientist" pushing the global warming scam, check out the difference in spending as the alarmist scream louder.........very well written but no pictures so I guess submariner still won't get it.


    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

    Climate of Fear
    Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

    BY RICHARD LINDZEN
    Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

    The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

    But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

    To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
    If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

    So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

    All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

    Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

    And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.





    Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
    M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Very interesting article. Here's another article citing a few more facts on this questionable issue.

    A Little Warming, A Lot of Hysteria
    By Wesley Pruden, The Washington Times
    April 11, 2006

    "Since the early 1990s," writes Prof. Robert Carter, a professor of geology at Cook University in Australia, "the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each alarmist article is larded with words such as 'if,' 'might,' 'could,' 'probably,' 'perhaps,' 'expected,' 'projected' or 'modeled' -- and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense."

    The professor, writing in the London Daily Telegraph, does not dispute the evidence that we're in an era of rising temperatures. Who does? But he suggests that man exhibits considerable hubris -- insolence, even -- if he imagines that he's responsible. Consider the official temperature records, kept at the University of East Anglia in England: Between 1998 and 2005, global average temperatures actually went down.

    This seven-year period, he observes, nevertheless coincides with a period in which man was pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as if there were no tomorrow, which is, of course, exactly what Al and his fellow hysterics keep telling us.

    Of course, this is only a tiny blip of time. But Al and his pals argue triumphantly that the 28 years between 1970 and 1998, another tiny blip, were decades of deadly manmade warming. Then what should we make of the warming trend between 1918 and 1940, well before the years of greatest carbon dioxide making? How to explain the period between 1940 and 1965, years of pell-mell worldwide industrialization, when the earth recorded not warming, but cooling, temperatures?

    Not so long ago, the media fad was all about the coming ice age. Newsweek reported in 1975 that the earth was cooling and the effects on food production would be catastrophic. Farmers in Northern Europe could expect the growing season to shrink by two weeks by the end of the century. That didn't happen.

    Well, nobody's perfect. But our scientists were aware of their modest gifts then. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climactic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1975. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." They should ask Al to explain this. He could take them to the movies.

    for full article:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060411-011718-9709r.htm
     
  3. bobn
    Offline

    bobn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    It turns out they are as bad at propaganda and word games as those they accuse of doing likewise. 1998 contained a strong el nino which made it uncharacteristically warm. Hence why they used it to start the trend. Of course they don't mention that important fact.

    Here's the data they are talking about (and probably don't want anyone to see) http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl2v.dat:

    0.308 <---1990
    0.251
    0.116
    0.179
    0.233
    0.373
    0.227
    0.411
    0.580 <---1998
    0.340
    0.291
    0.423
    0.475
    0.477
    0.458
    0.485 <---2005

    From this data it is at best misleading to claim that "Between 1998 and 2005, global average temperatures actually went down". The opposite is in true - there is a clear warming trend within this period.
     
  4. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Funny, I met an meteorologist once that was with the U.S. Air Force and he told me that the instruments they were using were a joke, that they were constantly having to be recalibrated and they just figured on a plus or minus of 5 degrees. I imagine those instrument used in 1856 were really accurate(sarcasm). Keep taking the word of "scientists", they couldn't possibly be wrong.
     
  5. bobn
    Offline

    bobn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +13
    Even the article you quoted said it was a fact that global temperature have risen about a degree over the last hundred years.
     
  6. cranston36
    Offline

    cranston36 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    71
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Many North American species that were abundant at the time of settlement in the 1800's are no longer able to survive in the changed and warming environment in our northern states.

    Hurricanes and tornadoes have worsened in our southern states over the same time.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something has gone wrong.

    Only those ignorant about the history of our nation or who are living off the problems themselves will not admit the problem.

    Those folks are just not important enough to pay attention to and the rest of us Americans have to do what we have always done - get to work and leave the lazy ones laying on the street corners and at home in their beds while we do what needs to be done. :chains:
     
  7. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    Oh...Oh...I know....pick me..pick me!!!!!

    Then answer is:

    Bush was elected President.
     
  8. Darwins Friend
    Online

    Darwins Friend Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Wonder if the drowning polar bears in the Arctic think itÂ’s a "scam"?
     
  9. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Such as?

    Mind you, this is with resepct to "global warming" as a consequence of human impacts on the environment, affecting natural ecosystems, dependant on tempurature etc. Not loss of habitat due to impacts occuring through natural warming phenomena.......over the last 150+ yrs.
     
  10. theHawk
    Online

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,915
    Thanks Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    Glaciers used to cover North America during the Ice Age.
    The last Ice Age ended over 10,000 years ago. The ice has been receding all the way from North America up to the north pole since then.

    But lets just ignore these facts and say its caused by man. :wank:
     

Share This Page