Global Warming and Pseudo-Science (Hawaii)

The forces related to the current global warming debate swirl with political agendas, even on the international scale. As it has evolved global warming has become much more of a political issue than a scientific one. Global warming is badly muddled featuring the exaggerations of the media, Hollywood, and Al Gore would do anything for the environment except take a science course. As a result the media, Hollywood, and Al Gore have not done well in their “science” movies.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been a major power behind much of this, and as we have learned the UN crawls with anti American sentiments. As such it hasn’t performed science very well either. It has been aided, abetted, and misrepresented by the US media, Hollywood, state and federal elected officials, and many environmental organizations.

The global warming “catastrophe” promoted by this movement uses the same template as in years past: manipulating public opinion, scaring the uninformed public, and creating a movement that will help implement their political agenda. Many of these issues have origins in science, statistics, statistical significance, cause and effect, advanced mathematics, quantification, leaving a non-scientific frightened public extremely vulnerable to manipulation of science. Pseudoscience is still not science.

For the politically active this has been extremely useful in promoting destructive political agendas for decades as the world-wide DDT ban followed by the preventable deaths of millions. The 3-step template has been used for years by the environmental movement to manipulate pubic opinion. The first step is to identify a looming catastrophe, the second is to identify the cause, and the third, propose a solution---usually by eliminating the targeted cause.

Mass fear, hysteria, and pseudoscience are essential in converting such issues into a mass movement and political action. To frighten the masses the media have performed heroically in this and are complicit in manufacturing mass hysteria. After all the media for the majority of people is the only source of information they have had since graduation, and are deemed trustworthy by too many. The media, largely untrained in hardball science, betray the public repeatedly and remorselessly.

If one wants to know if the climate is warming ask for the temperature data, not pictures of glaciers calving, not pictures of polar bears frolicking on ice bergs, not movies of tidal waves roaring through downtown Manhattan. Show me the T data, and lots of such data, world wide data, since it varies from place to place.

Consider some of the pillars of the global warming hypothesis. First, there was the “hockeystick”, a graphic reconstruction by the IPCC of the past 1000 years of global temperatures. According to this chart the global temperature trend was unchanged for 1000 years until the beginning of the 20th century when it showed temperatures were increasing dramatically to the present. This chart was featured in the 2001 IPCC report entitled Climate Change 2001 Third Annual Report, as a compelling and urgent sign that such a warming trend was ominous and needed to be reversed.

Later analyses of the “hockeystick” chart showed that it was not a reproduction of actual temperature data for this period, but instead a computer reconstruction of many sources of 1000 years of temperature data from proxies, such as tree rings. The “hockeystick” was shown to be seriously flawed in its data reconstruction. Although gravely flawed the “hockeystick” was a major statistical pillar of the IPCC Third Annual Report (TAR). It omitted the Little Age Warming centered around 1000 AD. It omitted the Little Ice Age centered around 1550 and lasting until the 1800s.

According to insiders the latest IPCC report will not include the hockeystick at all and it won’t be made public for several more months. Honest scientists would have explained why this is being done, and would apologize to the world and the scientific community for introducing it in the first place. This is only one of several acts of strange and unscientific behavior by the IPCC.

According to the IPCC the global temperature has risen 0.6 deg C + 0.2 deg C over the past 140 years (http://tinyurl.com/2vt3ep). This is about 1 deg F. This is not a very big number and no cause for alarm. Much of this increase occurred before 1940 when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were lower. There was a cooling period from 1940 to about 1975, during a period when CO2 emissions were much greater. The rest of the 0.6 deg C warming has occurred since 1975. All of this indicates that the relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is complex, apparently quite weak, and probably not global, if it exists at all. For the record according to Dr. Art Robinson there has never been a single experiment which shows that mankind has had an effect on global temperatures.

For example the temperature records and the South Pole show that the temperature has been declining at the Amundsen-Scott Base for the past 50 years (http://tinyurl.com/y6cyso) while the CO2 air concentrations have increased. We should also doubt that mankind has been the cause of such cooling either.

There are many uncertainties in understanding our climate not the least of which has been the actual measurement of temperature. These uncertainties require caution in whatever conclusions are attempted. The IPCC itself has said “There are uncertainties in the annual data due to data gaps, random instrumental errors and uncertainties, uncertainties in bias corrections in the ocean surface temperature data and also in adjustments for urbanization over the land. Over both the last 140 years and 100 years, the best estimate is that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ±0.2°C." (http://tinyurl.com/2v4vpb). Thus the estimate of 0.6 deg C warming is itself suspect because of the uncertainties in measuring global temperatures. It is only an estimate and well beyond direct measurement and verification with accurate gauges.

Thanks to the great literature work by Fred Singer and Denis Avery we now know that in the past 1 million years there have been 600 warming periods. The CO2 concentrations have varied as well during this time. However, the maximum temperatures usually occurred 600-800 years before the maximum of the atmospheric CO2. This calls into question the true relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Is there such a relationship and what is it? The Sun remains the primary suspect driving these climate forcing functions.

There also appears to be a warming trend taking place on Mars as deposits of ice and solid CO2 (known on earth as dry ice) shrink towards the Martian South Pole (http://tinyurl.com/56lom) and here (http://tinyurl.com/2fj6as). Obviously, the one thing in common with the Earth and Mars is our sun varying in its energy output. There are no man-made sources of CO2 on Mars, nor were there significant man-made sources of CO2 on Earth 1 million years ago.

There have also been about 20 ice ages in the last 2 million years ((http://tinyurl.com/yxqn42). The Vostok Ice core from Antarctica goes back in time 420,000 years. Since that time they found have that there have been 5 interglacial periods including the present one we are in. (http://tinyurl.com/yxqn42). The temperatures in those interglacial periods were all warmer than the current interglacial period by about 2 deg. C. Today’s temperatures simply are not that unusual when placed in historical context.

We are told that the sea temperatures are rising and that more severe hurricanes are on their way. We were told that more hurricanes would hit the US in 2006, none did. As with so many other issues in climate factors our climate system is very complex and poorly understood.

To claim a mastery of climate understanding, let alone claim pending doom, and let alone propose legislation to alter the climate, is simply not science.

Thus the situations with sea water temperatures are also complex and poorly understood, and vary noticeably around the world. In a recent article (http://tinyurl.com/ytrvgw) we have learned that the ocean temperatures have cooled since 2003 to a depth of 750 meters (more than 2400 feet), possibly deeper.

This is a significant heat loss in the oceans which was discovered by better temperature collection equipment, and improved data analyses of past temperature measurements. The actual causes of sea water temperature fluctuations are not well known, but since sea water contains 1000 times more energy than the atmosphere, we’d do well to understand it better and minimize errors in measuring it.

For policy makers to make Draconian energy policy solutions based on such poor understanding is more than a fool’s errand, it is in fact dangerous for our nation.

We have seen the alarmist stories of rapid sea levels rising 20 feet or 200 feet, tidal waves smashing into New York City and islands being submerged. Actual sea level data from around the world tell a more mundane, if not boring story.

According to climatologist Robert Balling the sea level has been rising a modest 1.8 mm/yr for the past 8000 years, perhaps longer. We’d expect this after emerging from thousands of years in a deep ice age.

This is has been affirmed by Holgate and Woodworth who report a 1.45mm/yr rise from 1954 to 2003 (http://tinyurl.com/2tq9rb). Their study also found that;

1. The earth had NOT warmed to a degree that is unprecedented over many millennia;

2. The warming had NOT resulted in an accelerated melting of the vast majority of the world's mountain glaciers and polar ice caps, and

3. Global sea level had NOT risen at an ever increasing rate. The real-world data-based results of Holgate and others clearly suggest that all of these claims are likely to be false. (http://tinyurl.com/3yjxmr) and here (http://tinyurl.com/2tq9rb).

For those who worry about sea levels keep in mind that sea levels have been rising and falling for millions of years. In the Hawaiian Islands there is clear evidence of past sea levels both meters above and below the current sea level.

Finally, there is growing evidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing, not melting, as many have convinced themselves. See (http://tinyurl.com/ymcq6d) and here (http://tinyurl.com/2tq9rb).

The global warmers themselves are in deep denial that there are hundreds of scientific articles produced by hundreds of scientists who are questioning if not refuting their hysterical screams of alarm.

While the global warmers like to say there is a small minority of skeptics who don’t accept the majority view, there is in fact a huge body of literature which does not support the global warmers.

While it is permissible to suppress, ignore, adverse testimony in the courtrooms of the land, and to attack/discredit adverse witnesses, it is most assuredly not permissible in science.

We must distinguish between science and such unprofessional lawyerly tactics. Such courtroom tactics in science is scientific malpractice. The data must settle the disputes, not willful deception.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is retired and living in Kaneohe. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

...Al Gore would do anything for the environment except take a science course.

Algore couldn't pass a gun safety course much less a science course.

Article excerpts...
The temperatures in those interglacial periods were all warmer than the current interglacial period by about 2 deg. C. Today’s temperatures simply are not that unusual when placed in historical context.
According to climatologist Robert Balling the sea level has been rising a modest 1.8 mm/yr for the past 8000 years, perhaps longer. We’d expect this after emerging from thousands of years in a deep ice age.
While it is permissible to suppress, ignore, adverse testimony in the courtrooms of the land, and to attack/discredit adverse witnesses, it is most assuredly not permissible in science.

Some inconvenient facts for Global Warming kooks.

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue.

There are a number of good reasons to promote energy conservation, but Global Warming is not one of them. National security, Balance of payments in international trade, and reduction of individual utility bills are all good reasons for governments and individuals to conserve energy.

Global Warming is not one of these, as the science behind it is questionable at best, and pushing this line of reasoning only destroys the credibility of the entire argument. Kyoto is scientifically questionable, with according to its supporters marginal effects on climate. Kyoto is also an economic suicide pact for the US, thus it was rejected 95-0 in the US senate.

Great comment. Agreed.

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.

FReepmail me to get on or off