global warming

Global Warming – Everything You (Don’t) Want to Know About it!

A wise, cynical, political maxim “Follow the money” – is global warming for real? Global warming and human causation – are they two sequential scientific truths – or do they represent political ideology running amok? Is global-Earth really warming from carbon emissions and a greenhouse effect – and is it a true threat to the planet: oceans on the rise to inundate urban centers? Is it caused by mankind’s flagrant disregard of pollution from fossil fuels – spewed wantonly for almost a century: fireplaces, factories, automobiles, airplanes? Or (per rightist-extremism fears) is it only a “propaganda tsunami” from radical left-wing ideologists, using politicized pseudo-science to “level-the international-industrial-playing-field” by penalizing capitalism and the US?

The shocking reality (to those of casual interest) is the unprecedented recent gathering at Copenhagen of all world leaders in December, 2009 – 193 countries, with entire staffs and entourages: democracies, kingdoms, dictatorships; from first-world industrial nations to third-world consortiums of famine-fighting villages – all of-a-common purpose: to impose severe civilization-disrupting constraints and financial penalties upon efficient industrial activity! What could be the forcing function to organize such a gathering with such an agenda?

Two considerations should give a reasonable person pause – in view of the drastic changes and penalties contemplated – shouldn’t there have been a science-session preamble, establishing unquestionable proof of the premise before such extreme decisions were sought? On the disclosures of leaked emails from Great Britain just prior to the conference – admissions of falsified temperature data – where was a stunned reaction by the scientific-community to this challenge to trust-worthiness; where was a scurrying to reestablish faith in their global temperature-rise conclusion? Instead, what the world saw was “cooked” temperature disclosures swept “under the rug”, a media effort to “shoot the messenger” (email hackers). How can that not be disturbing to objective minds? Absent any preliminary scientific presentation to prove the global-warming scenario, then the media cover-up – is a conclusion of powerful political machinations and agenda not unreasonable?

Consider also, the US House of Representatives has already passed a Cap-and-Trade bill, as if – again -man-caused global warming is proven fact – with hundreds of billions-of-dollar-consequences to American industrial life ($1700 to $2000 per family per year estimated; worth billions to GE, etc.); it awaits only comparable Senate action to be signed into law by President Obama! Or even worse – with the authority of presidential decree, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has now assumed the executive power to establish costly pollution standards for US industry (not even awaiting a US Senate bill)!

On the other hand – if one does accept the scenario of global warming – man-made pollution from industrial nations being a major cause, emerging countries (e.g. India and China), do then have a compelling argument: since everyone shares planet Earth, where heretofore industrialized countries have had a gigantic head-start advantage – using cheap energy and causing emission/carbon pollutants – should not ascending countries be given their right to “catch up”; shouldn’t the US and other industrialized countries pay heavy compensation (perhaps a trillion dollars per year – most by the US)?

The international unanimity of purpose and size of the Copenhagen conference has never before been seen: not world rebellion against military powers; nor against dominant religions; nor political ideologies – only one single objective, to reduce carbon and impose penalties. Right-wingers see an unleashed political ideology in this unprecedented international undertaking: a combination of left-wing governments and media joining with openly communist dictators in every hemisphere. Even thoughtful commentators upon the world scene, like Charles Krauthammer, see something amiss!

So what do true scientist-experts in the specific technical field of Earth’s atmosphere say? Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has written extensively on the subject. His analysis is summarized below in an effort to separate “wheat from chaff” for lay-man understanding – whether global warming is, in fact, really occurring; whether man-made industrial emissions are the proximate cause; and whether the threat to planet Earth is truly imminent. Below are Prof. Lindzen’s talking points:

  • Despite exaggerated emotion-evoking statements, surface temperatures have shown cycles of global cooling as well as warming for over a century: cooling from 1875 to 1910, warming from 1911 to 1943, cooling from 1944 to 1976, warming from 1977 to 1998, but no warming since – we are now experiencing an 8th year of cooling. While all these changes were happening, carbon dioxide levels has continually risen.
  • There are five major world centers which collect global temperature data: the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (where recent email leaks of doctored data occurred); Remote Sensing Systems; the University of Alabama at Huntsville; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. All of these temperature data centers show no warming since 1998, and all show cooling by varying degrees since.
  • Significant problems (for honest scientific projections) arise when using surface temperature records to track global changes: the number of worldwide climate-measuring sites has dropped from 6,000 in 1970 to under 2,000 today; two-thirds of the closed weather stations were in country areas (colder night-time temperatures); whereas those remaining include a high percentage of urban stations (warmer night-time readings due to concrete pavements, buildings and urban sprawl). This fact alone biases the overall temperature record, as urban areas around the world have grown exponentially in the last 50 years – studies indicate that perhaps half of indicated “warming” in the data base during the last fifty years is due to land-use changes – not increases in energy emission. Urban growth is thus the major cause of man-made temperature-increase data.
  • NASA is quoted as stating that the oceans were warmer in the summer of 2009 than ever before – arrived at by subtracting satellite-measured ocean temperatures from ocean temperature base data – however, NASA does not use the (over 3300) ARGO buoys deployed in world oceans – which, contrarily, show ocean heat-content falling ever since the buoys were deployed in 2003.
  • No statistical relationship exists between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and temperatures during the last 150 years – however, a strong statistical relationship does exist between the cyclic Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and global temperature. The PDO shows a 60 year cycle of warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean – in every instance over the last 150 years: when the PDO was cooling, the global temperature cooled; when the PDO was warming, the global temperature rose. The PDO has now shifted back to a cooling phase – as has air temperature.
  • The total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 4 hundredth of one percent (0.0004 of total atmosphere). The total increase by volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is only one hundredth of one percent (0.0001). This has actually benefited agriculture and plant life, which grow faster with more carbon dioxide (the well-known animal-plant symbiosis – oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanges), and are more resistant to drought.
  • Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – everything that grows on earth needs it, the source being irrelevant. If all carbon dioxide were removed from air (which animals breathe), earth would die.
  • Ice cores show that increases in carbon dioxide in the past were the result of warmer temperature, not the cause of it. The laws of nature have not changed. Most of the increases in carbon dioxide in the air are the result of nature, the human component being small, perhaps 3 percent. Also, half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year, is immediately absorbed into the biosphere. Carbon dioxide is 3.5 percent of the greenhouse effect – water vapor is 95 percent. Since human activity only adds 3 percent a year, with half of that absorbed into the biosphere, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect each year is about one-tenth-of-one-percent. Reducing this amount by some fraction will have no significant effect on global temperatures.
  • There is a strong relationship (ignored by pro-warming advocates) between the strength of the solar wind and global temperature. Strong solar wind equals a warmer earth, weak solar wind equals a cooler earth. Variations in cosmogenic isotopes of carbon 14 and beryllium 10 in ice cores prove this. Right now the solar wind is weaker than anytime that NASA has been able to measure it (nearly 50 years) and the earth is cooling. The solar magnetic index is the lowest since measurements began in 1932, and continues to lessen. The Pacific Ocean is in a cool phase and will be so for another 25 years. The Atlantic is showing signs of cooling. The heat source of the sun is weak and will likely be so for the next two solar cycles. We are heading for colder temperatures, not warmer.
  • The downward cyclic trend in the amount of ice remaining in the Arctic at the end of summer has ended. Polar-orbiting satellites clearly show the extent of arctic ice, which is increasing – there is 25 percent more ice today than two years ago (dramatic Arctic photos of drastic ice reductions over very many decades are misleading – probably intentionally).
  • Satellite measurements show there is more ice in the Antarctic than 30 years ago – news media report only shrinking ice in the Arctic, never about ice growth in Antarctica.
  • The melting of glaciers is not new. The “Little Ice Age” was from 1400 to 1850. The coldest temperatures were in the 1600s. Global temperature has been rising unevenly for 300 years. Glaciers have been retreating unevenly for at least 250 years.
  • Data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite show outgoing longwave radiation (heat) increased by 4 watts per square meter in the 1980s and 1990s, while the oceans were undergoing a cyclic warming. Computer models predicted outgoing longwave radiation would decrease as oceans warmed. All the models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were wrong. (Note, more on IPCC later.)
  • Indicating a clear intent to present a political viewpoint on environmentalism rather than honest fact, an April 2009 Time magazine article, with major input from environmental groups, reported there were “only” 25,000 polar bears remaining in the arctic today – omitting the fact that in the 1960s, the number was but 5,000,

Some significant comments by Dr. Lindzen get to the heart of his concerns about the scientific accuracy of the global warming “sellathon” and its possible motivation – with “follow the money” considerations; his specific quoted words are;

  • CO2 – what is it? Not a pollutant, CO2 is a product of every living creature’s breathing; it’s the product of all plant respiration; it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis; it is a product of all industrial burning; it is a product of [automobile] driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from human exhalation to travel, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.
  • Large environmental groups, political “leaders” and eco-activists believe: just reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can regulate the world temperature. People who think this way are far more dangerous than global warming itself (if it were true), because some of these people wield great power.
  • Computer models say that there should be a rapid warming of the upper troposphere – between 30 degrees north and south of the equator – if global warming is proceeding. However, measurements with weather balloons over the last 50 years show no such warming. This proves the computer models do not predict how the climate system works – [predicting] the climate 50 to 100 years in the future. Computer model forecasts of warming are not evidence of climate change. They are marketing tools for research institutions and universities to continue their funding from our government. Despite concerns re motivation, this means the models make wrong assumptions about how climate-complexity works, and are scientifically useless in making any climate policy.
  • The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in the late 1980s to “prove” human burning of fossil fuels causes global warming – from its beginning it was never a scientific organization – it was formed with a biased political agenda. The true goal is to capture political power from dominant countries through climate treaties (Kyoto)- partly to insure the institutions own survival. These treaties give the UN the legal power to redistribute the wealth of developed nation. The concept of “climate debt” owed to third world countries is justification. The debt would be retribution for the industrialized nation’s sin of “polluting” the climate with carbon dioxide – using all the available carbon space in the air. It is the UN’s goal to use global warming to extract money from developed nations without having to work for it. Recently the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, announced “We’re at a stage where the warming is happening at a much faster rate.” Apparently, he does not look at real world data.
  • As for Al Gore, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 – his message of fearing global warming has the third world now demanding “climate reparations” for damage that the western world has inflicted on climate over the last 150 years. They now say we owe ‘Climate Debt’ because we have used up all the carbon space in the air. This is not promoting peace, it is causing tension and anger in the developing countries towards the west – Gore’s “peace prize” is having the opposite effect. As for Gore’s financial investments in green companies, “beware of prophets seeking profits”. The urge to save the world is always a cover for the need to rule it.”
  • The “climategate” emails prove that there is at best, blind ambition among some of the worlds leading climate scientists – and at worst, criminal activity. The reaction of much of the mainstream media in the United States is proving to be very revealing. They either don’t report the story or they defend the actions of the climate scientists. Some of these leading scientists were caught intimidating scientific journals to keep skeptics prom publishing, and altering data to make the case for man-made global warming. The emails also reveal that these scientists have deleted data or refused freedom-of-information requests; and have deleted emails relevant to those requests, a criminal offence. NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has also been stonewalling freedom-of-information efforts. It is clear from the emails that a small but powerful group of leading climate scientists have used their lofty positions to pervert the science of climate change.

Beyond the realm of of hard scientific data points such as temperature, velocity and direction; air and sea; locations and dates, Dr. Lindzen extrapolates his knowledge of the limitations of atmospheric mathematical modeling into conjecture as to motivation for weather-scientists proclamations of man-caused global warming. The phrase “Follow the money” has often proved reliable as a roadmap to explain otherwise puzzling activities. Many powerful groups and organizations have strong financial interests in American belief that carbon dioxide is pollution: domestically this includes influential environmental groups, brokerage houses, corporations, universities, media outlets and political parties, as well as third world governments. The evidence is widespread – cash-strapped states and cities, with hundreds of millions of federal monies earmarked for “green energy” development, decades away from practicality – while essential infrastructure programs, such as water mains, highways and bridges, are unfunded. On the UN scene, conscience and liberal guilt have become the means to international spreading of the wealth.

Some of Dr. Lindzen’s observations warrant notice:

  • On the day the Copenhagen conference opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions in the US – flatly declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.
  • Since the US has an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA is thus claiming authority to regulate practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of C02 a year will be beyond EPA control – over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises.
  • This naked assertion of vast executive (presidential) power in the name of the environment becomes the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism. Going into the possibility of even darker motivation, Dr. Lindzen points out a world socialistic scenario – the conceding of US sovereihnity to the UN, with the domination of the UN by ultra-liberal groups and (numerically controlling) Islamic-Arab oil controlling countries.

Similar grave concerns are expressed by other scientists, including charges of U.N. “fraud”on climate change – Dr. Philip Lloyd, an honorary research fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, has been a coordinating lead author for the United Nations IPCC. According to Dr. Lloyd, the IPCC should be dismissed as an authority on global warming – in an article that appeared on South Africa’s BusinessDay Web site. Dr. Lloyd writes about the “flaws behind the whole process” of the IPCC:

  • The IPCC “claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers producing their reports.” However, Lloyd says there was no review “in the accepted sense of the word – there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.”
  • Another problem cited by Lloyd is that the IPCC issues a Summary (for Policy Makers) four months or more before the scientific report (on which it is supposedly based) is published.
  • Lloyd concludes: “It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policymakers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed, that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”
  • Lloyd’s article was before the so-called climategate scandal, which has called into question the validity of some of IPCC’s science that supports the conclusion of man-made global warming.

In a related note, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the eruption of the climategate controversy, acknowledged that the science supporting man-made global warming may not be “as certain as its proponents allege.” Even common-sense commentators on the world scene, like Charles Krauthammer, trying to find explanation for the global warming phenomenon, describe it as “Environmentalism – the new religion of the liberal left”.