It seems that global warming doomsday alarmists are so desperate to out-fearmonger each other that they are now having difficulties keeping their propaganda on track. Within days, two separate reports blamed global warming for both drying up water sources and causing sea levels to rise.
"A rise in sea levels and other changes fueled by global warming threaten roads, rail lines, ports, airports and other important infrastructure in the United States, according to new U.S. government reports, and policy makers and planners should be acting now to avoid or mitigate their effects," reports the International Herald Tribune today.
Now wait a minute.
On Monday, the Washington Post told me that "Nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could...dry up sources of water worldwide."
Which is it to be? Dry up water sources or cause levels of water sources to rise?
Despite prominent professors, climatologists and experts going public with their opposition left, right and center, we're informed that the debate about what causes global warming is a closed book because a "consensus" has been reached.
However, it seems like Church of Environmentalism preachers and their eco-mentalist flock can't even come to an agreement on exactly what kind of hell we'll be faced with if we don't instantly hand over more tax dollars in the name of saving the planet - completely contradicting each other from one Co2-concocted breath to the next.
The response to the Washington Post article, in which the total eradication of carbon emissions, a move that would all but end humanity, was urged, was characterized by an overwhelming amount of articulate and forthright comments from readers who were outraged at the plethora of distortions and lies contained in the piece. Their reaction was a microcosm of the fact that a significant and growing body of the public are rejecting the propaganda of the climate change cult.
As a homage to the excellent way in which the Carnegie Institute's report, blithely echoed by the Post's Juliet Eilperin, was expertly debunked, the best responses are listed below.
First of all Juliet Eilperin and her editors need to understand that "studies" are not computer models as erroneously reported in this ridiculous article.
Computer models are in effect equations which are basically worthless if they are not confirmed by empirical data and there is no empirical data which confirms these models.
The actual empirical data, or studies as it were, indicate that 95% of the green house gases are water vapor, 4.72% of green house gases are from natural causes and an astounding 00.28% are derived from people like you and me. 00.28% is so miniscule that it barely shows up as a line on a pie chart. If Juliet and her silly editors had to go to the beach wearing something this skimpy nobody would be able to visually discern whether they were dressed or not and they would be arrested for indecent exposure.
So it is time for you readers to ask the question, "where is the scientific evidence that a 00.28% increase contributes to alleged warming at a time when temperatures have dropped 0.64 degrees Centegrade in the past year" Because if you are incapable of asking these questions then you and your children will surely pay through the nose for nonsense like this.
This is beyond belief.
CO2 has never been shown to be other than benign. Our life is carbon based.
The net increase in temperature of the globe, up to 2006, was .6 of a degree.
2007 has shown a total drop in temperature of .6 of a degree.
It was ridiculous to make all of this fuss over such a small increment in temperature.
Of course there were always dire predictions about what would happen in the future, based on climate models, which any scientist knows cannot tell the future. In any case they were wrong.
The temperature did not rise after 1998, and has now dropped.
There is now no net warming, and during all the production of CO2 by human emissions, the planet cooled. The assertion of AGW, so far, is baseless.
We need a few headlines about the drop in global temperature.
I majored in Computer Science and minored in Climatology. While there is almost universal scientific acknowledgement that the earth has been in a warming trend of the past 30 years, there is huge debate as to why. Some theories are about man made conditions others are naturally occurring. Greenhouse gases have gotten a bad wrap because of a widely published but incomplete report in the late 80s. Every study that has ever been published about greenhouse gas effects has been done in a contained space at a parts per million concentration way higher than what is in our atmosphere. No one has been able to create a lab environment that accurately represents what CO2 does in our atmosphere. In the lab there is no stratosphere, no ozone layer, no trees or other plants, oceans, land masses or any of the many things that collectively have a huge affect on sunlight. They shone infrared light into a tank with tap water and then injected CO2. They found that CO2 is an insulator that traps heat.
While I do support the overall goal of producing
less pollution, I firmly believe that what has happened is that some over
zealous environmentalists read the greenhouse gas report and used it to
start a crusade for the environment and it has snowballed since then.
The earth warms and cools naturally. The earth has been a lot cooler and
a lot warmer than it is now and life has gone on.
As a scientist I am trained to be always skeptical of any claim. While there seems to be a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, I also see that the data is very noisy and from experience it is very difficult to draw iron clad conclusions from it. Also, correlations do not prove causality. Unfortunately I have seen bandwagons in science both come and go, and this has all the hallmarks of a bandwagon.
One concern I have is how do the account for the similar levels of CO2 and temperature that occurred 100,000 years ago? Human technology was not burning coal or oil at that time. In fact, after watching one of the proponents of the sky is falling and calling for immediate action, his charts of CO2 and Temperature seemed to indicate a cycling of approximately 100,000 years.
What is being asked is very drastic indeed. These findings need to be debated out in the open with open dialog. Sadly, science like politics also has a way of stifling debate and dismissing participants in the debate. But we cannot have only a handful of scientists, no matter how well intentioned, call the shots. If only a handful understand the models, then they had better be prepared to do a far better explanation of their models.
If anything, the growing challenge to the 'consensus' that 'climate change is overwhelmingly caused by man' is being voiced by climate scientists whose research is funded by government sources, rather than by 'the oil companies' as is most often implied.
Half my family had left from Eastern Europe, and we feel we recognize this 'Climate Change' hysteria for what it really is- the same wealth redistribution scheme that Socialism has been attempting all along.
History does reveal similar climate changes occurring at various periods in the past. There is another side to this story- I would look forward to you exploring this in the future.
Previous commenters have mentioned 'runaway global warming'. This is a concept that is more wish than fact. A short look at the geological history of this planet will show that CO2 levels were at 3-4000 ppmv during the Cretaceous and at around 8000 ppmv during the Ordovician, There was no runaway global warming then so there is some negative feedback mechanism to limit temperature rise. No past runaway so no future runaway. We cannot possibly get up to the high levels by using fossil fuels because 95% of historic CO2 is locked up in rocks like limestone not fuels.
PRISON PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2008 Alex Jones All rights reserved.