Skip to comments.WWU scientist debunks myths about CO2, climate change
Posted on 04/18/2013 10:57:16 AM PDT by Twotone
Barely a day after the Washington State Senate voted to fund a study that would explore ways to enforce tougher greenhouse gas emission standards, a respected academic spent nearly two hours presenting scientific evidence suggesting the assumptions on which that legislation was based were wrong.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, on Tuesday told the Senates Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee he was relying on an old maxim in science: In God we trust; everyone else bring data.
Well, Im bringing data, he said. Youll hear very few opinions from me. When Im finished, you wont be asking what my opinions are.
(Excerpt) Read more at theolympiareport.com ...
This is from March, but I didn’t find it in a search of recent or older articles. It’s one that folks interested in the climate change/global warming hoax will want to see.
Then we are not dead again.
Data? We don’t need no stinkin’ data!
Unfortunately the people pushing global warming (AKA "climate change") have only their opinions and don't want to hear about data.
The EPA is a political tool of the Left and has nothing to do with science - unless, of course, it's created.
Thanks for posting. Ping for later...
yea, well... he showed up the day AFTER they voted for their wacko provisions...
The green weenies had already won.
Bump for later
The bill passed in the Senate. I don’t know if the WA House has heard it yet. Hopefully, this will give everyone reason to go slow.
Oregon is also trying to pass a bill for some form of carbon tax. We just need to keep pushing the truth in front of their noses.
Mark for later.
Thinking with his brain rather than his tuckus.
Don't confuse me with the facts . . .
From the article you linked.
I assume the idiot Govenor signed it...?
I guess I didn’t get that far in the article. The video was so excellent I didn’t bother to read the whole thing. No doubt the gov signed it. But...if they had any smarts they could rescind.
Theres not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to do much of anything, he said. Then you add to that the fact that CO2 only accounts for about 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect, and you discover that carbon dioxide by itself is incapable of having any real effect on climate change.
A great book to read on this subject is “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher Horner...GREAT book.
One of the things he talks about is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and how small it is, and he also talked about the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) crowd who view the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as being like a window that someone has whitewashed.
AGW people liken the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere to that of a window that has been whitewashed and its effect on incoming light.
They make the comparison that if you use a weak whitewash on a window, some light will still come in.
Then you put another coat, and less light comes in.
Then you paint another coat and even less light comes in. As you keep adding coats, eventually no light comes in through the window.
This comparison, in their minds, is directly analagous to the warming effect of CO2.
Except that it doesn’t work that way. Warming can be slightly increased by increasing levels of CO2, but you reach a point where it isn’t linear. They think it is linear, you increase CO2 by this much, the insulating value goes up by this much.
In reality, as the concentrations increase, the insulating value increases by less and less until the curve flattens out.
Now, if you have an atmosphere like Venus, that is a different thing because CO2 is no longer a trace gas, it is predominant. But Earth isn’t Venus.
It is indeed excellent. Excellent charts & graphs. Only thing he should have added would have been samples listings of the current cooked data from NASA et. al, compared to the previous cooked data . . . . and finally compared to the original data.He mentioned the Climategate emails/FORTRAN programs only tangentially. I recognize that he had a limited amount of time scheduled for his presentation - but in fact (if only in hindsight, but IMHO it was predictable) questions about why the data he presented differed from the cooked data the committee Democrats wanted to rely on took a lot of his time and he should have prepared a presentation on that issue.
The reality is, of course, that journalism is inherently biased in favor of the virtue and importance of journalism. Which, as you could infer from Theodore Roosevelts Man in the Arena speech, directly correlates into criticism of those who try to actually get things done. Throw in Adam Smiths warning about monopolyPeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.and the fact that the AP newswire has been a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets for over a century and a half, and you have an explanation of why journalism is left-wing propaganda. Its not that journalism is in the pocket of the Democratic Party, its that the Democratic Party is in the pocket of AP journalism.
Thanks for the ping.
If anyone wants to be on or off the Agenda 21 ping list, please notify me by Freepmail. It is a relatively low volume list in which we have been exploring the UN Agenda21 and related topics. We have collected our studies with threads, links, and discussions on the Agenda 21 thread which can be found here:
NEW ACTION THREAD:
Post 128 of the Action Thread is a summary of the history of Agenda 21, what they are doing, what to do about it and a good bibliography for further reading.