Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period.
Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be they teachers, newscasters, congressmen, senators, vice presidents or presidents -- is wrong.
In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling -- very slightly -- 0.037 degrees Celsius.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days.
Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."
Changes in global temperatures are natural. In fact, much of the recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.
The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even drought on every continent on earth. It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.
How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting? On Election Day, the Financial Times of London carried the hysterical headline: "Arctic Ice Cap Set to Disappear by the Year 2070."
The article stated that the Arctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate. The article is based on a report titled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," submitted by a group of researchers called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessement (ACIA).
It must be understood just who makes up this so-called group of researchers. The report is not unbiased scientific data. Rather, it is propaganda from political groups that have an agenda.
The report was commissioned by the Arctic Council, which is comprised of a consortium of radical envionmentalists from Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. All are nations that possess land within the Arctic Circle.
Many of these countries, through the Kyoto Protocol, have a financial stake in pushing the global warming agenda. One of the groups providing "scientists" to the ACIA "researchers" is the World Wildlife Fund, one of the leading chicken-little scaremongers that create junk science at the drop of a news release to terrify us all into proper environmental conduct.
The report is now being used at the global warming meeting currently underway in Buenos Aires to rally the troops and bully the United States into accepting the discredited Kyoto Protocol.
We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, and America's coastlines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we're warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.
Any change in temperatures, an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a global warming hysteria.
Two kinds of scientists
We are assured by such groups that scientists everywhere are sounding these warnings and that we may only have one chance to stop it. Well, as the debate rages, we find that there are really two kinds of scientists.
There are those who look at facts and make their judgments based on what they see and know. Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called "peer review." It's the only true science.
And then, there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually, you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.
Let's just take NASA, for example -- the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.
At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.
This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992, when a team of three NASA scientists was monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America -- if certain things happened.
True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times, they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so the green zealot.
Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.
Then Sen. Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon -- five years before Congress had intended -- and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush's favorite vacation spot.
Two months later, NASA announced -- on the back pages of the newspapers -- that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as freon was gone forever.
Flawed computer models
Then there are those computer models. Night after night, Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.
But it's well known that even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here, it could blow in a storm. If the temperature drops there, it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.
Yet those who are promoting the global warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.
The truth is that computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than what we have now.
To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large, only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.
So it's an outrage for the World Wildlife Fund or the Sierra Club to tell you that man-made global warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.
Scientists are not on the global warming bandwagon
And so, too, is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact.
What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming.
Today, that figure has grown to more than 4,000 scientists. Americans aren't being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.
And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:
1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."
Obviously, those two paragraphs aren't consistent with the political agenda the U.N. is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world -- bar none.
The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol
Those who have been fighting against the radical green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has little to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.
They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of the KGB and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.
School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction. Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold, all of it for a lie about something man has nothing to do with.
But the lie has grown to massive proportions -- and the game is about to get very serious indeed. Pressure is building again to impose the Kyoto Protocol worldwide.
Only a few years ago, this treaty appeared dead when President George W. Bush refused American participation. Now, however, Russia has signed on, and the U.N. has enough support to begin implementing its dire consequences -- even on the United States.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has called the White House stance on global warming "terribly disappointing." McCain is now using the ACIA report to convene hearings on the "human effect on climate and what to do about it." McCain intends to help build pressure on the president to accept the Kyoto Protocol.
In fact, the Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. This means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, would devastate this nation.
To meet such drastically reduced energy standards would -- in the short run -- cost the United States more than one million jobs. Some estimate it would cost more than seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it would cost even more jobs.
It would cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food would skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product would be reduced by $200 billion -- annually.
To force down energy use, the Federal government would have to enforce a massive energy tax that would drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood, there would be a tax on gasoline -- as high as 60 cents per gallon.
There would be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent -- and gasoline prices 53 percent.
The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Cars banned. Industry curtailed. Housing smaller. Family size controlled.
Every single product that is produced with the use of energy would increase in price. This includes items such as aspirin, contact lenses and toothpaste.
A study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty would cripple U.S. industries, including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.
Global raid on American wealth
But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary -- that those pushing the global warming agenda are truly in a panic over global warming and are just trying to find a solution.
If you are one of these people, ask yourself: Why does the Kyoto Protocol only bind developed nations to draconian emission levels?
Undeveloped Third World nations would be free to produce whatever they want. These would include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Yet 82 percent of the projected emissions growth in future years would come from these countries.
Now ask yourself: If the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment, then how come it doesn't cover everybody?
The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth. The wealth of the United States is, and has always been, the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.
And international corporations that owe allegiance to no nation would bolt America and move their factories lock, stock and computer chip to those Third World countries, where they would be free to carry on production.
But that means the same emissions would be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago. So where is the protection of the environment? You see, it's not about that, is it?
Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws." Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?
And still more looting of the U.S. treasury is planned. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol also want industrialized nations to subsidize poor countries' adaption to global warming to the tune of $73 billion per year. Obtaining such subsidies would be an interesting trick after the U.S. economy had been destroyed by the treaty. Looters rarely have the ability to think that far in advance.
Don't think this devastation can't happen. The U.N. and the European Union have exposed their hatred for the United States. They envy our wealth and think that legalized theft, rather than sound economic policy, is the way to obtain it.
The fact is that one person now stands between the global warming jackals and economic sanity: George W. Bush. Will he stand firm in his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? Or will he capitulate to massive international pressure and sell America's soul?
Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind.
For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.
I fully believe there is no significant man-made global warming. There certainly is some but only on a butterfly effect scale. It's just not what the Godless liberals say. But, windpower is a good idea on it's own merrit.
Global Warming is caused by the Sun, it happens every year in the spring. It escalates in the summer and it goes away every Fall.
Global warming is reversed in the Winter, when we have Global cooling.
It is called Seasons and weather.
YW: "The article is correct based on the existing data.
http://www.iceagenow.com/"
Thanks. I for one intend to check the contents of the site out in detail. I have grossly avoided reading about global warming issues for a number of years. Call it being lazy.
Perhaps others will find some interesting things at this site.
Growing Glaciers anyone? See the article at this site titled:
Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States (Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Shasta, among others)
You may find it rather interesting.
cheers all.
BTTT!!!!!!
You can only make sweaters out of long haired dog fur. The short haired varieties have to be used to stuff pillows. Of course they have to be labeled as an animal product and then Peta would be all over you. Then there is the hypoallergenic coalition.
Thanks. I recommend you read the book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice." What we really are talking about is ocean warming, not global warming. It is part of the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Man has very little to do with it. We are due for another Ice Age, which occurs with almost clockwork reliability for millions of years. All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent.
I put lamb meat in my Peta.
"All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent."
Thanks. I buy the idea about ocean warming, it fits in with ocean climatolical changes we have seen on the west coast in recent times etc.. Of course we cannot expect shows on PBS such as Nova, whatever, to show us documentaries on the expanding glacier systems, increase on pack ice in Antartica, recent trends of colder winters in north/south America etc..
Must keep the masses stupid, so they think GWB is against saving the planet! I keep wondering about where McCains's brains are. Perhaps it is time to send him some emails on this issue with associated reference sites.
Again thanks for the nice site, I am reading articles from it as I pop back the freepers site.
The article presents no data from which it draws its headlines. The article may be true or false but it presents no arguments. Most of the argument is an "argument from consequences" against the Kyoto Treaty; the author doesn't like the treaty (nor do I) but this has no bearing on whether or not the climate is getting warmer. Articles like this are a great setback in fighting against Kyoto; they make it appear that there are no legitimate scientific arguments at all.
I was thinking Mt. K's glacier must be at least 12,000 years old but much older than that; 12,000 years ago was the end of the last ice age. But re-reading the Nat'l Geographic article I found on the web I learn that the oldest ice in the glacier is 12,000 years old. So maybe there wasn't a glacier at that time (there were wild temperature swings in the one or two thousand years following the last ice age). Or maybe the ice in the glacier is only that old because it's been melting from underneath (Mt. Kilimanjaro is a volcano).
At any rate, the next ice age is supposed to be coming in a few tens of thousand of years. One reckons that mountain will have a fresh glacier by then.
By the way, I live on the Ohio River. The terrain here is hilly -- glacial moraine; the Ohio River's course was determined by the ice. A science museum in Clarksville, Indiana, shows a picture of downtown Louisville, Kentucky, with the ice looming above the office towers.
"Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind."
I respect all good science. I wonder how much emphasis is placed on "budding scientist" in all spheres of study as to how important it is to keep a balanced honest viewpoint as how they conduct themselves. Much like the issues revolving around lets say stem cell research, scientfic findings and opinions have such deep ramifications for all. We need a degree of neutrality in science that transends personal gain . How to accomplish this is another thing. To often scientist are given a free ticket to make pronouncments that effect the very lively hood of people world wide.
If it can be found that the spotted owl can live just as well in some human created structure ( I believe it was a Burger King Sign), and is not limited to living in a given species of fir/pine/hemlock, whatever, then is it not the duty of responsible scientist to announce that perhaps the given spotted owl will not perish if we "with wisdom and common sense controls", allow trees to be thinned from given areas of natural forest for a healthier forest floor, a paycheck for a lumberman/women etc..
It just seems like we need more balance in how our enviromental policies are governed. Perhaps with less taking sides, we can at least approach a point where we in America have a win win situation for both humans and our precious wildlife. As for people despising the poor little creatures that they do not understand. This has always been the case. It is tough to try to make someone undertand that a copperhead has every right to exist.
I for one, remember how terriblely screwed up the Delaware River became back in the 50/60s due to un-believable amounts of toxic chemicals poured into it due to the many petrochemical plants in Philly,Delaware, and New Jersey.
I have a older brother PHD staff of chemistry at Villinova University that has worked with some experts in salt marsh studies in Delaware etc.. So I am aware of how dangerouse it is to just let industry dump all kinds of stuff into estruary systems. PCB get eaten by mollusks and worms, flounder eats the worms, fish tissues absorb the PCB's, happy little fishermen catches flounder. Plops the fish in the the oven, hey some herbs, little butter anyone......
Eats these fish for twnenty years. Then wonders why he is dying from liver cancer.
We need honest, balanced, ane wherever possible fair governmental controls to protect both our environment and human beings.
While working at Bell Labs in Allentown PA, for a number of years I can say earlier on, AT&T dumped huge amounts of Cromium salts into the Lehigh River. The damn river turned green after a period of time. People fished this river and ate the fish. For all the good AT&T and Bell Labs has done for the world in the way of R&D over the years it in this case did noone good as it discharged various toxic metals and other chemical "byproducts" from our Integrated Circuit Fabrication operations into that river. AT&T did the responsible thing after being caught and stopped dumping stuff directly into the river. But the harm was already done. Those toxic heavy metals etc., are in the eco system for a long time.
But I tend to side with those that believe there are a number of organizations that take to much for granted in believing they can modify American Industry with findings that are often to one sided. And the issue of global warming is one of them. We need honest regulation based on a solid model in any given situation to balanced the needs of humans verse the environment. So I take sides neither with the far left nor the far right on issues at stake. I believe we need balance.
That is my two cents on this issue of global warming.
This is an EXTRAORDINARILY outdated statement. It was wrong in 1998 and it is wronger now. Four separate analyses of satellite data measuring lower tropospheric atmospheric temperatures shows a lower bound trend of 0.078 degrees C per decade (about 0.8 C per century) to an upper-bound of 0.22 degrees C per decade (about 2.2 degrees C per century). The global surface temperature increase since 1980 is approximately 0.4 degrees C, approximately 1.6 degrees C per century, or just a bit less than three times faster than the warming observed in the 20th century, approximately 0.6 degrees C.
Boris, while I respect you, you may not respect me. With that preamble, I will state with 100% absolute, total, and unrelenting certainty that "global warming" is not a hoax. I.e., the globe/planet is warming, hard data and less-hard enviromental/ecological observations show it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Lest you think that's a radical statement, before you attack with guns blazing: I will fully admit that predictions regarding the absolute magnitude of warming in the next century are highly uncertain; attribution of the amount of warming due to human cause vs. natural cause is also uncertain; and there should be no "scare" involved in the assessment of the issue. There is a radical environmental fringe that is trying to scare governments into unwise action.
But it's not a hoax. The introduction to this article is erroneous. And the implied impugnment of scientic knowledge and veracity that accompanies it almost sickens me.
Ping
To think that man the created can destroy what God the creator created is the highest arrogance.
Isn't it though. Course the ones saying we are destroying it do not believe in God.
Thanks for the ping.
I had a geology and astronomy teacher in college (who was definitely liberal, but very honest) who said something that has stuck with me.
With regard to human's ability to changes the forces of nature...
"Spitwads at a battleship."
End of story.
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.