Global Warming Refuted

Here's a clue as to how to predict 'bad science documentaries'. First, pick VERY few scientists, in this case we have FOUR. Out of all the scientists in the world, out of all the people doing research, pick just FOUR. It also helps to have 'scientists' who aren't even working in the field. In one case, in the video, we have a man and a woman who are ASTROPHYSICISTS. I've got news for you, astrophysics has very very verly little to do with climate. Then, pretend the argument you are attacking is saying all kinds of things that its not. Tell people that it is saying that there have NEVER been climate changes. Tell people that the theory is ignoring climate differences like the little ice age and the midieval warming period. Then, pretend the scientific theory is based on ONLY one element, namely, climate science. Ignore the fact that climate chemistry, like how CO2 is studied showing how it produces heat, also plays a part..but don't ever mention that, because you haven't got a scientist on hand to refute. Make sure your scientist says things like "yup, I'm a lone cowboy trying to tell you the truth cus I'm not in a popularity contest". Yeah sure, I remember the Simpsons line about "all those scientists driving around in their ferrari's". I've got news for you, if a scientist is outside the mainstream, chances are they're a BAD scientist. And make sure, above all else, that everything the scientist says sounds like the opposite of 'real science'. Make it sound like its 'common sense' as opposed to what all those 'book learnin geeks' do. So, for example, the idea that "sea levels aren't rising because local villagers TOLD me that this tree has been here for fifty years". What could be simpler? Well, gee, if the TREE says so who can argue with a tree right? I'll cut to the chase, the woman said it herself. These people are 'observationist' scientists. They can predict what has happened, they know squat about what IS happening, and even less about what WILL happen. Scientists have a VERY narrow range of expertise. So let's look at what the 'observations' show. First, the one critic did a study where he found that the ATMOSPHERE hasn't changed temperatures. First, we can't recheck that data or corroborate it, we have to take it for granted that his choice of satellites work (satellites designed by the same idiots who come up with computer models). Second, guess what? We don't LIVE IN THE ATMOSPHERE. That may be shocking to hear, it may be amazing, you may want to check more sources, but I'm a renegade, I"m going against the grain here, those other scientists won't like me saying it, but we do not live in the atmosphere! If we DID, then our climate situation would be very very different. But guess what, I'll bet there may not have been temperature changes outside the globe as well! In fact, think about it for a second, and it tells you that proves the case even moreso. His other claim is that CITIES mess it up because its warmer, well again, guess what, temperatures are typically recorded nowadays by satellites and temperature beacons outside of cities for that very reason. And gee, its not like climate scientists ever noticed that a city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Duhhhh! I could go on and on, but unlike those scientists, I'm not funded to. It all comes down to what was said right at the very beginning and once at the end. At the beginning EVERY SINGLE one of those scientists said "any changes we'd make would be EXPENSIVE". Aha. Now, why exactly would a scientist be talking about that. let alone EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? It's one thing to say 'this is bad science', but they don't say that. EVERY one of them says 'its too expensive'. So these 'impartial scientists' are now turning into economists? A scientist wouldn't give a rats ass what the COST was, that is completely irrelevant. And at the end, it comes out even more clear. The woman astrophysicist, in what she thinks is a mind boggling critique, says "its as if they are using the precautionary principle as a policy aim". Bingo. That's it EXACTLY. And that's why an observational scientist and astrophysicist are useless. Try this experiment, email any one of those scientists and ask "so your recommendation is that we continue to pump as much CO2 and other greenhouse gases as we have been and nothing will happen?" Notice how they didnt' ask THAT question. Oh yes, and one other thing, when you are doing a documentary like this, make ABSOLUTELY SURE that you NEVER give any opponents an opportunity to respond to the criticisms. That one is key.

OK so one documentary out of the many available didn't cut it for you, what about the many papers, articles and other videos?

What I gave was a 'method' for finding junk science, apply it yourself. I took a quick look, but no meteorologist can even predict the weather let alone make comments about climate change. The National Post 'theory' is that 'deniers' are some little camp who are 'being ganged up on' by the big thugs at the UN. However, some of your other links PROVE that exactly what those at the UN are saying is true. Elsewhere I made an extensive critique of the fir tree theory that is paraded at the "friends of science" website, which IS funded by oil companies (surprise). Those in the media though want you to believe that those who accept climate change are the ones being dogmatic and 'anti scientific' because 'they won't admit they might be wrong'. That, once again, is BAD SCIENCE. Because most people have no idea what is meant by a scientific 'fact' and a 'fact' to everybody else. No scientist EVER will maintain that 'there is no possibility they are wrong'. A scientific fact is simply an established theory that explains ALL the variables better than any other theory. Observational scientists, of course, don't make theories, which is why, as that one scientist said, they are considered the 'weak sister' scientists. Einstein didn't make a gigantic contribution by simply looking at gravity. Which is why those observational scientists have no understanding of what makes any theory more valid than any other, which is why they make the same bad rebuttal as every other critic-which is that 'it would be too expensive to change'. Something, of course, that is roundly and patently false, the problem is not that 'it would be expensive', it is that 'WE won't get the money', meaning oil companies, and meaning because it involves GOVERNMENT growth. It requires the kind of public spending that might mean they'd have to pay more taxes and lose customers. But back to the science, an article by the "viscount of Moncton", you've GOT to be kidding. I didn't even look at that. The National Post article also has the story that "yes warming is coming and its great". So here we have them accepting that it IS true, so that debate is over, but trying to state that its good news, once again because of the plants, again something I've criticized in the past. It's interesting that 'climate science' is in its infancy so can't be believed, but the effects of CO2 on plants, something that hasn't even hit the infancy stage is considered gospel. Finally, the idea that all the lead climatologists at the UN were sipping coffee and said "well, heres a paper by a Michael Mann fellow so let's just use this". That's again because most people know as little about the UN as they do about science. The idea that all the worlds climatologists would pick up some american scientist's research and say 'this is good enough' is just ludicrous. Like I said, I listed a method, its easy to apply. Always be suspicious as soon as somebody says "here's what they are saying" because that's almost NEVER true. What is true is that "this is what I want you to think they said because I can easily dispute it", sort of like listing axis rotation as something that no scientist at the UN ever thought of (oh man, we're SOOOO embarassed, we forgot to look at anything else that may be causing global warming!! Is our face red!). Sorry for the sarcasm.

OK, I'm procrastinating work so let's take a look at some of those links. First, here's another thing to look for, namely, bad art on a PDF file that says "congressional working paper". Yeah, right. The first link is from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute", which ADMITS that it is funded by Exxon, it just says 'thats a coincidence'. The paper is written by Mario Lewis Jr, who isn't even a scientist of ANY kind. Doesn't even seem to have ANY credentials. So we can expect some humour, but I didn't think it would be THIS funny: "The book impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, carbon trading commissions, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming." Oh yes, those billionaire 'direct mail income' people are just SO evil! Who knows who they'll strike next! However, having never seen Al Gore's movie and don't give a rats ass about him I can't comment on what he might claim. However, we can easily refute a main gist, namely by looking at polar bears. The effects on polar bears are by now quite extreme and alarming and there are numerous studies and much research on it, certianly not "based on a single report of four bears drowning". Another link is to a bunch of bloggers, which is not science, their big beef is that 'NASA is wrong' and 'won't release their source code'. Big surprise. Of course this must be a conspiracy. Everybody knows that NASA, funded by Bush, is a bunch of liberal hemp smoking enviro-fascists. Their 'science' is based on a buddy who finds strange things going on with his air conditioner. Ignoring the Viscount of Monckton just out of the principle that people who go out of their way to sound stupid shouldn't be given much credence, lets' look at the Wall Street Journal editorial. First, lets notice that NONE of articles that are posted there come from PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. Of course, that is all the more reason 'they must be true', because its a conspiracy you see. But in the Journal, we once again see that 'bad science', namely "If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator." That is painted as a causality, and it is NOT true. However, by SAYING that its true the author can go ahead and show how the conclusions of climatologists must be wrong. In fact, as research in the arctic shows, in many causes the 'difference' between the poles and equator can grow. That's because there are numerous variables in temperature. So in the arctic we have seen that the MAIN glacier at the pole is actually increasing in height because of the cold, however, the width and size of the glaciar is shrinking. There is just too much other stuff there. The main one, the 'Gore thugs' running around I don't know anything about, I'm interested in science, not politics. Once again, go to pubmed.org that should be the FIRST recourse as it is the listing of all scientific journals. There is tons of stuff on 'whether climate change is happening', contrary to what the Wall street Journal editorial states. That scientific journals are NEVER 'political' is of course not true, and everybody from 'intelligent design' to 'homeopathy' theorists have been calling them 'out to get them'. I suspect that in this case it may well be true that those with political connections are being extreme, becasue of course it is the fate of the planet that is at stake. I can argue the science up and down, but even if it were garbage the thinking of everybody outside of oil company execs should be to push for all the changes ANYWAY. Of course that is then the hue and cry, that anybody who says that therefore 'has an agenda'. At the end of the Journal opinion piece he decries that the National Research Council opted to 'focus on impacts' rather than 'research the sensitivity models', that's not a big surprise. There is a narrow window of opportunity given here, so its not surprising that research isn't on wasting years of research to satisfy every critic, since critics of science can NEVER be satisfied anymore than religious critics can. Plus, of course, studying impacts is literally the same thing. Take that video again, studying hte impacts means studying exactly those things mentioned in the video. Water rising or cirrus clouds is an 'impact' and as those facts come to light, theories change, and if necessary, would even be disputed. However, studying whether climate change occurs, which essentially means adopting computer modelling as the main criteria, means all those effects are ignored. Ask that Swede who travels to the Maldives on the taxpayer dime, or that Greenland researcher or that weather guy just how much they'd like to see their funding axed because they are no longer researching the right sorts of things (thats not really relevant I know). Since this is getting long, I'll put an article in another post, which pretty much does as it says, sums up the situation so far..

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. [email protected] In the four years since my original review (Keller[25]; hereafter referred to as CFK03), research has clarified and strengthened our understanding of how humans are warming the planet. So many of the details highlighted in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report[21] and in CFK03 have been resolved that I expect many to be a bit overwhelmed, and I hope that, by treating just the most significant aspects of the research, this update may provide a road map through the expected maze of new information. In particular, while most of CFK03 remains current, there are important items that have changed: Most notable is the resolution of the conundrum that mid-tropospheric warming did not seem to match surface warming. Both satellite and radiosonde (balloon-borne sensors) data reduction showed little warming in the middle troposphere (4-8 km altitude). In the CFK03 I discussed potential solutions to this problem, but at that time there was no clear resolution. This problem has now been solved, and the middle troposphere is seen to be warming apace with the surface. There have also been advances in determinations of temperatures over the past 1,000 years showing a cooler Little Ice Age (LIA) but essentially the same warming during medieval times (not as large as recent warming). The recent uproar over the so-called "hockey stick" temperature determination is much overblown since at least seven other groups have made relatively independent determinations of northern hemisphere temperatures over the same time period and derived essentially the same results. They differ on how cold the LIA was but essentially agree with the Mann's hockey stick result that the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 25 years. The question of the sun's influence on climate continues to generate controversy. It appears there is a growing consensus that, while the sun was a major factor in earlier temperature variations, it is incapable of having caused observed warming in the past quarter century or so. However, this conclusion is being challenged by differing interpretations of satellite observations of Total Solar Insolation (TSI). Different satellites give different estimates of TSI during the 1996-7 solar activity minimum. A recent study using the larger TSI satellite interpretation indicates a stronger role for the sun, and until there is agreement on TSI at solar minimum, we caution completely disregarding the sun as a significant factor in recent warming. Computer models continue to improve and, while they still do not do a satisfactory job of predicting regional changes, their simulations of global aspects of climate change and of individual forcings are increasingly reliable. In addition to these four areas, the past five years have seen advances in our understanding of many other aspects of climate change--from albedo changes due to land use to the dynamics of glacier movement. However, these more are of second order importance and will only be treated very briefly. The big news since CFK03 is the first of these, the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions. Thus, while uncertainties still remain, we are now seeing a coherent picture in which past climate variations, solar and other forcings, model predictions and other indicators such as glacier recession all point to a human-induced warming that needs to be considered carefully. A final topic touched on briefly here is the new understanding of the phenomenon called "global dimming." Several sets of observations of the sun's total radiation at the surface have shown that there has been a reduction in sunlight reaching it. This has been related to the scattering of sunlight by aerosols and has led to a better quantification of the possibility that cleaning up our atmospheric pollution will lead to greater global warming. Adding all these advances together, there is a growing consensus that the 21st century will indeed see some 2 degrees C (3.5 degrees F) or more in additional warming. This is corroborated in the new IPCC Assessment, an early release of which is touched on very briefly here.

Finally, the above hopefully deals with the observational aspect up to the present. The second and third parts are of course 'predicting' what happens. Keep in mind though that that in incidental. Once the observational science leads to what is happening, THAT is what should determine policy decisions. There is the argument along the lines of 'how much' humans contribute and IF we cut back, will it be enough. Those aren't questions easily answered, but once again, when it is the fate of the planet at stake, I would think more people would use the 'precautionary principle' as their policy point. As for effects, that comes down to the computer models, and we can go to the expert who is 'outside the pale' as mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article: Hendrik Tennekes. First, lets quote him: "I cannot bring myself to accept any type of prediction paradigm.... It goes without saying that I abhor such dogmas as various claims to Manage The Planet or Greenpeace's belief in Saving the Earth. These ideologies presuppose that the intelligence of Homo sapiens is capable of such feats. However, I know of no evidence to support such claims." So essentially, Tennekes is useless. He simply believes that science and humans in general aren't equipped to deal with such things. However, that is NOT science, and even scientists are not always scientists. Greenpeace, of course, HAS 'saved the planet', at least for whales. That is demonstratively and empirically true, and there is nothing complex about it. On the one hand we can't assume that humans are SO smart (after all, we MAY be seeing the wiping out of our civilization but are bickering over how much driving we can do), on the other, we can't assume we are completely stupid. Energy used to be a massively complex system that we had no real grasp of, but now have it tamed to an equation. But say he is correct, say the models aren't good enough. Once again we get back to the root of his complaint, which we've heard before: "We only understand 10% of the climate issue. That is not enough to wreck the world economy with Kyoto-like measures." So once again a scientist is turning to an economist. We, of course, only understand about 10% of our galaxy, but astrophysicists and astronomers make predictions all the time. However, we see that it is NOT a science issue, even for Tennekes, it is an ECONOMIC one. That is a whole other issue. Just check out the environmental section of your local library and there are numerous books on how green energy can spur investment and growth, in fact far more than the measly 3% we currently see. But again, it means getting off oil, which a LOT of people don't want to see happening.

Marcarc, let's tackle your points one by one, first off, what's your main thesis? Preferably in one paragraph...

Anyone else viewing, if you haven't done so, try taking this straightforward and informative Global Warming multiple choice test. It takes about 5 minutes:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobW ... start.html

Marcarc, here's a petition against the UN IPCC saying that the UN theory of increasing CO2 concentrations causing a rise in global temperatures is observably wrong:

http://petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/G ... ticle.html