Man-made Global Warming: Consensus or Propaganda

Cannot trust those man-made global warming deniers, especially those Harvard astrophysicists. What do they know anyway?

Who Dares Question the Global Warmocaust?

“…But even if CO₂ hasn’t caused changes in the past, couldn’t it still be responsible for the recent warming trend?  Astrophysicists Sally Baliunas and Willie Soon [9] don’t think so.  They believe that the sun has more to do with our climate’s warming than CO₂.  The astronomers among us will know that the sun goes through a magnetic cycle which runs in approximately eleven year intervals.  During this cycle, the amount of energy emitted from the sun varies, along with the strength of the sun’s magnetic field.  Scientists have discovered that the sun’s cycle is not completely uniform; some cycles go on for longer than others, resulting in different levels of light intensity and magnetic forces. [10] 

Baliunas and Soon explain that “the question [of] how the sun affects the climate is unresolved” [[11]] but some studies suggest that differences in the energy output and magnetism of the sun can have effects on cloud coverage, atmospheric chemistry, and circulation patterns, all of which have very significant impacts on global climate [[12]].  Furthermore, their data shows that global temperatures seem to have a much closer relationship with solar variability than with atmospheric CO₂ levels [[13]]. 

Baliunas and Soon must be mad scientists–watch the videos–they must be crazy!

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search=

For a real nut listen to one of the writers of the IPCC report– John Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist . 

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5)  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search

=So what if he has all those awards, he is just a trouble maker and religious nut:  “…1996 Special Award, American Meteorological Society “for developing a global, precise record of earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.”1991 Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, NASA Headquarters. …” ”I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true.” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

Two Sides to Global Warming

Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?

“…With so many researchers in the climatological community apparently convinced of the reality of dangerously rapid man-made climate change, why do I continue to rely so much on the skeptical Christy? Christy is the climatologist who has put together the highly accurate atmospheric temperature data from satellites since 1978. And confidence in his data is bolstered by the fact that they correlate nicely with temperature data from radiosondes, which are a completely independent measure of temperature. Christy’s data show that since 1978 the planet is warming up at a rate of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade. The Arctic, according to Christy’s data, is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet, at a rate of 0.39 per decade. But the Antarctic is cooling by 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

For the nationalistic, Christy’s satellite data find that the lower 48 states of the U.S. are warming at a rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. If temperatures continue to increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. Not much of a crisis. Richard Lindzen says he’s willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

“…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.  …”

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

National Post’s Deniers series:
Scientists who challenge the climate change debate
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”

“…More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies. …”

The series

Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X
End the chill — The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research — The Deniers Part XII
Allegre’s second thoughts — The Deniers XIII
The heat’s in the sun — The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science — The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC — The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us — The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate ‘fluff’ — The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics — The Deniers XIX
Gore’s guru disagreed — The Deniers XX
The ice-core man — The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome — The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic — The Deniers XXIII

“…Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Could not have said it better:”…Does this imply that we should simply dismiss the work of the many hundreds of scientists saying that humans cause global warming?  Of course not.  We would be guilty of a double standard if we said that the plausibility of some alternative theory conclusively disproves the mainstream view.  And even if the sun really does play the most important role in determining global climate, we can’t conclude that greenhouse gas has been completely uninvolved in causing the current warming trend; we have every reason to believe that it plays at least some role.  But it may be wise to reconsider the way we think about the global warming debate.  It doesn’t seem like the scientists who question our responsibility for global warming are indefensible skeptics who refuse to acknowledge what is obviously true.  Rather, it appears that there is still a lot of research to be done before we can consider this case to be completely closed.  Perhaps people like Ellen Goodman should avoid name-calling until they’ve heard all the evidence. …”

http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/shahar/shahar2.html#_edn11

“Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels.

He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?…”

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

Global Warming: Hot Air or Cool Science?

Professor Bob Carter

James Cook Universityhttp://www.unisa.edu.au/nbe/research/seminars/carter.pdf

There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro  

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

Past & Future Climate change – Pt 1of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw

Past & Future Climate Change – Pt 2 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4mYcrd_18

Past & Future Climate change pt 3 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUdDLTLXGU 

Past & Future Climate Change – pt 4 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDiJyr0TK6E

The Past and Future of Climate

David Archibald 

“…What I have shown in this presentation is that carbon dioxide is largely irrelevant to the

Earth’s climate. The carbon dioxide that Mankind will put into the atmosphere over the

next few hundred years will offset a couple of millenia of post-Holocene Optimum cooling

before we plunge into the next ice age. In the near term, the Earth will experience a

significant cooling due to a quieter Sun.

There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is so minuscule that the effect cannot be measured from

year to year, and even from generation to generation.

Our generation has bathed in the warm glow of a benign, giving Sun, but the next will

suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.”

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
of the United States House of Representatives entitled
“Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007

“…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it.

So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp

BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

by David Holland 

“…Unless all important studies are independently verified, it cannot be said that the late 20th century warming was particularly exceptional. And especially so given that no global warming at all has occurred since 1998, a period of eight years over which atmospheric CO2 increased by 15 ppm (4%). It is crystal clear that natural causes are a possible explanation for the entire instrumental temperature record to date. Indeed, beyond that and in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the appropriate null hypothesis for climate research is that the changes in climate that we measure are a result of natural forcing agents unless and until it can be demonstrated otherwise. So far as I am aware, there is no empirical evidence published in refereed journals that invalidates this null hypothesis. …”

http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

You say consensus, I say propaganda.

“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”

~ Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda