Skip to comments.A chemical reaction
Posted on 07/31/2009 9:08:59 PM PDT by Schnucki
When the worm finally turns, it really gets itself into a flat-out spin. More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the consensus on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the groups editor-in-chief -- with demands for his removal -- after an editorial appeared claiming the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.
The editorial claimed the consensus view was growing increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers. The editor now admits he is startled by the negative reaction from the groups scientific members.Poor bewildered soul. He really thought he had written what was undeniably the case. Here are some examples of that negative reaction he produced:
ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to climate change instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?
William E. Keller wrote: However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse themfalselyof nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable,
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.co.uk ...
Yes, chemists aren’t quite as easily snookered as “political scientists.”
Consensus in science is quite reliable. The difficulty is that it’s reliably wrong.
Was this paper ever published? Peer-Reviewed?
Never mind...found it.
ElectronVolt’s link doesn’t work for me (I have trouble with pdfs sometimes) but here is an html friendly version:
I'm an engineer, rather than a scientist, but I went through this myself. For many years, I believed the hype, but someone I respected very much challenged me to reach my own conclusions. It took a couple of years, but I started to develope grave doubts. Eventually I discovered conclusive evidence of fraud.
[For anyone who has some basic training in physics, you have to read “ Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics “. This paper uses the term “Falsification” indicating that scientists know better and are lying. The German physicists who wrote it explain quite clearly why the earth is not a greenhouse and why global warming contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
I have college training as a physicist so I was more than a bit interested to see this paper. A skim through reveals that the author’s claim is not simply that the heat trapping effect of atmospheric gases is not responsible for anthropogenic global warming but that there is no such effect takes place at all, even naturally.
I’m a bit astonished at this - it’s as if one were to claim that not only is the idea of gravitational waves bogus, but Newton’s of universal gravitation is a fraud as well.
I intend to read more deeply into the paper to see exactly what the author is saying.
YES!! IT HAS BEGUN AMONG THE PROFESSIONALS.
Time to kick ass and obliterate the names.
Isn’t the global warming hysteria based on models that predict a warming of the earth a couple of °C due to increases of atmospheric CO2 from say 200 to 400 ppm?
I am very skeptical anyone can develop a model to accurately model such a complex system as the earths climate that can accurately predict small changes in temperature based such very small CO2 concentrations.
Doesnt the current data show a cooling trend over the last few years?
[Isnt the global warming hysteria based on models that predict a warming of the earth a couple of °C due to increases of atmospheric CO2 from say 200 to 400 ppm?
I am very skeptical anyone can develop a model to accurately model such a complex system as the earths climate that can accurately predict small changes in temperature based such very small CO2 concentrations.]
First a little background: Atmospheric gases trap heat through solar radiation hitting the surface of the Earth, being absorbed and re-radiated at longer wavelengths. This re-emitted radiation can no longer pass upwards through the atmosphere and it is trapped as excess heat. The science here is very well established and is not controversial.
Since Carbon Dioxide is more opaque to longer wavelength radiation than either Nitrogen or Oxygen, which make up about 98% of the atmosphere, it means that an increase in the amount of CO2 necessarily translates to a new equilibrium of higher atmospheric temperatures.
HOWEVER. . . . this is simply a qualitative statement that it happens. The mega trillion dollar question is to what extent this happens. According to the UN IPCC 7th ass. report the change (sensitivity) to a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will result in a rise of about 3C. And this is where it pays to be skeptical because if they’re right then 3C is a big increase that would have huge consequences for everyone. But if they’re wrong then they are asking the whole world to essentially turn over control of every country’s economy to a central government co they can “fix” a non-existent problem by making sure 95% if the world’s population is prohibited from using energy (the 5% in charge can use all they want).
The fact is, the process of calculating a number for climate sensitivity is filled with a lot of complexity, a great amount of uncertainty and not a few shortcuts that would normally not be allowed in any proper methodology of science.
If one does check on the methodology in detail (for which you have to read many thousands of pages plus references) it becomes apparent that the IPCC arrives at the figure of 3C by routinely assuming that the answer it gets from many of the step by step calculations along the way are on the high side of the margin of error. All of these build up to a final answer that is certainly too high. It’s telling that if they similarly erred on the low side of the margin of error in their calculations, they would get an answer that there is NO measurable change in temperature.
The author is saying that the Earth's atmosphere does not trap heat like in a glass greenhouse. (True)
He therefore claims that atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide cannot be responsible for warming the Earth. (False) The guy is a loon.
All of the piles of equations and physics he's throwing around in there is a red herring. It's the same thing you see when you find an Internet site where some guy claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine and his explanation is page after page of scientific jargon but ultimately without any point to it other than to make the author look like a scientist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.