The Catastrophic Global Warming Myth

Capitalism Magazine ^ | Aug 16, 2002 | Steven Brockerman

[The Raven]

Last month, the Bush White House, citing a “new” study, revisited its position on global warming. The media went into a feeding frenzy and, like an e-mail scam that won’t die, the global warming debate has again been resuscitated. Unfortunately, the “new” study is based on the same old studies – chief among them the 1996 IPCC ‘s “Summary for Policy Makers” -- whose conclusions rest on three fallacious claims:

1) Based on historical weather data, average global temperatures have risen dramatically in the latter half of the 20th Century.

2) Scientific research indicates that the cause of such rising temperatures is man made.

3) There is a consensus among scientists supporting both claims.

The first claim – that global temperatures have risen dramatically since 1940 – finds its source in the

approximately 100 year-old temperature record of the National Weather Service. According to the NASA report, Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data, though, the NWS record is based strictly on surface temperature readings. When weather balloon and satellite records are examined one finds temperatures either stayed the same or actually declined by as much as 1 degree F during that period.

What if we step outside the NWS box?

Data extrapolated from tree ring, ice core and lake sediment indicate that in the 18th Century the average world sea and surface temperatures were 71 degrees F. Climatologists refer to this period as “The Little Ice Age.” Such data also show that in 1000 BCE the average global temperature was over 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F. By comparison, the average global temperature in 1999 was 73.5 degrees F. The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer, on the surface, (whose reading will be highly inaccurate due to urban hot spots) or in the atmosphere (the most accurate readings). Second, the significance of the data depend upon the historical climate record of the planet. Here, as with any kind of scientific data, context and perspective is everything.

Of the second claim, that the cause of global warming is man-made, environmental activists point to the correlation between recent global industrialization and the sweltering summers of 1998 and 1999. A correlation, though, is not proof of cause. If global industrialization were the cause of planetary warming, the satellite and balloon temperature record from 1940 to 1980 – a period of far greater worldwide

industrialization – would show a marked increase in average global temperatures, which it does not. Indeed, such data show temperatures declining.

A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that “global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity.”

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus – the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn’t any.

In 1996 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC -- released a document titled, “Summary for Policy Makers,” which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as “a political tract, not a scientific report.”

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ”

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world’s most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is “based upon flawed ideas.”

Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong – our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens.”

In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I’d be hard pressed to find a better one.

--Steven Brockerman is an assistant editor for Capitalism Magazine, www.capitalismmagazine.com

[RudeJude]

BUMP

[The Raven]

>>I think if this data was matched to the 11-year sunspot cycle, the result would be a much better

The errors in the models they use have large variances due to the sun's brightness. The effect is larger than the effect they are trying to measure...the effect of CO2.

[sparkydragon]

Personally I'm still trying to figure out how a chemical that is heavier than air (freon) is getting up into the ozone layer in the first place.

sparky

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The conclusion to reach about the claim of dramatically rising global temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century is clear. First, it depends on where you stick your thermometer...

I think I know where Gore stuck his thermometer.

[The Raven]

Am I seeing things or is it cycling???

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ”

They didn't take into account the body heat level of booing fire fighters and police when they see Hellery. Causes a hot day every time.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ok. Anomoly. That is pretty vague. What's the average temperature? I mean, I know they are trying to say now that any change is because of cars. Even cold weather is America's fault now, for goodness sakes. Is that what anomoly stands for, in this instance?

[The Raven]

Looks like it cycles every four years (elections?). Could it be liberal tampered data?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Clinton tampered with the ground-based data. [for example, measuring water temperatures by the bilge water temperature in the ships.] As for the space based data, that I haven't heard. It would be more difficult to tamper with space based data. It's more cut-and-dry. However, if Bubba can tamper with economic figures, making the economy appear 30% better than it really is, then I'm sure he could have tampered with this. I doubt, however, that Carter would have promoted global warming. If I'm not mistaken, they were still talking about an ice age in '79.

One thing that bugs me, there is no clear meaning to what kind of anomalies are being charted. I guess it means temperature deviations. It almost looks like this chart was made to trick people into thinking that the temperature was going up.

[El Gato]

I think I know where Gore stuck his thermometer.

And we don't even have to think about where the Sinkmiester stuck his, nor do we really want to.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Hm.... anomalies went way down at the end of the Bush [Sr] administration. Our space technology was getting pretty good right about then. Then it really starts going up, even though our technology is supposed to be getting better.... and shoots down during the '96 election. Clinton didn't need the global warming issue, really. Then it spikes at the end of 98. Could that be related to the Kyoto Treaty? Very clever hypothesis you have there. Freegards....

[kissoldspot]

I read an article during the change of freon composition that stated that Dupont held the patent on the old style and it was about to expire. It said Dupont spent untold millions lobbying for the new style....which they just happened to hold the patent for. Coincednce....?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Sinkmiester-- LOL! A man a head of his time, and a new hairdoo every month. Literally a jerk.

[07055]

Even cold weather is America's fault now, for goodness sakes.

Yes, when we have a hot day---its because of greenhouse gases causing global warming.

When we have a cold day---its global warming too because greenhouse gases have "made the weather unstable."

Since when has the weather ever been stable? (unless you live in San Diego).

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Speaking of Dupont, just imagine the power they have now. They determine when their plastic items deteriorate. Car parts, as a very annoying example. Everyone's alternator corrodes now. Hoses corroding. It's driving a frugal guy nuts! How DARE they decide that car parts should deteriorate so fast. Then again, how easy would it be to stop them?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Those Euro-Peons think that their floods are OUR fault. "The US is flooding us." Oh? My cheap gas making them mad, huh? I think I'll go for a long drive this weekend. Real long drive, in a gas guzzling monster SUV. [Wish I owned one.]

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Read the real truth about enviromentalist whackoisms

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
by Bjorn Lomborg (Author)

see larger photo

List Price: $28.00
Our Price: $19.60
You Save: $8.40 (30%)

Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $49. See details.

Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours

Edition: Paperback | All Editions

THIS BOOK IS GREAT IF YA WANNA LEARN THE REAL STATS AND REAL MYTHS ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Before the terrible events of Sept. 11 nudged our national mood towards nouveau-earnestness, skepticism was the disposition of the day. Bred in the swamps of transparent consumer manipulation, untrustworthy political leaders, and information overload, skepticism stamped a permanent question mark onto the brows of Generation X and seemed poised to become the watchword of our nation.

The cultural tides may have turned somewhat in recent months, but skepticism remains central to our national character. In the opinion of Grist Magazine, that's a good thing: No mind should be above changing, and no precept should be protected from scrutiny. Hence this special issue on Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Lomborg, an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus, applies the doctrine of doubt to environmentalism and concludes that most of the movement's sacred cows are, to put it bluntly, bull:

We will not lose our forests; we will not run out of energy, raw materials, or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. ... Nor is waste a particularly big problem. ... The problem of the ozone layer has been more or less solved. The current outlook on the development of global warming does not indicate a catastrophe. ... And, finally, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive.

Lomborg claims that these and other worries are "phantom problems" created or inflated by the environmental movement for its own ends, with the result that time and money are diverted from other, needier causes.

That is a serious charge, and as such it must be taken seriously. To date, the mainstream media have done just that -- but they have also taken the book at face value, with little or no critical analysis. A Washington Post reviewer raved about its "magnificent achievement"; the New York Times, the Economist, and others were equally gushing.

Grist wondered how the book would hold up under more rigorous scrutiny, and asked respected scientists and leaders in their fields to address the allegations in The Skeptical Environmentalist. By bringing a healthy dose of skepticism to Lomborg's own claims, the resulting compilation fights fire with fire; we leave it to our readers to determine who gets flambeed.

[epow]

. Coincednce....?

Is it also a coincidence that I could buy the old Freon for $.99 a can at the discount stores in the 1980's, and the replacement stuff costs over $6 now? I know inflation made up some of that increase, but not 600%.

However, I think Dupont invented Freon way back in the 1920's, so I doubt it still had a patent in force. Personally, I think the anti-Freon campaign was just another scam (big lie) put out by the eco-freak community. Real dyed-in-the-wool eco-freaks don't want anyone to have A/C, cars, outboard motors, lawn mowers, barbecue grills, or probably even heated homes. I believe they are also responsible for the non-existent "global warming" scam. There have been temperature variations throughout all of Earth's history, many of them were far, far, larger than this one. If there really is one that is.

The eco-freaks can have my air-conditioned pickup when they pry it from my cold dead hands.