Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
| February 6, 2007 | Posted by Dave S. under Culture, Education, Global Warming, Off Topic, Science |
Great informative article by Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.
Excerpts follow. Read the whole article at Canada Free Press.
This is what happens when good science goes bad. It’s the same story with orthodox evolution theory.
This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
…
“It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
…
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970′s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990′s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
…
Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
…
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices.Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
…
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
64 Responses to Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t hold any definitive stand on global warming, but assuming that the environment of earth is fine tuned for life, tampering with it via introduction of excessive amounts of various gases probably isn’t desirable.
There are many scientists who say that we (humans) are responsible for global warming. Perhaps we are not, as you say, but either way, we humans were not given the earth to abuse it. We should fight to cut down on environmental pollution, global warming or no global warming. Of course, if we caused global warming environmentalism would be more urgent.
Global warming (GW) relies on mathematical modeling and on “origins†sciences, so it is not really off topic. It is related in the sense it being pseudo or rather “quazi†science, the same labels the ID gets labeled with by the mainstream (evolutionary) science.
As the graph of CO2 in the geological past indicates (link by DaveScot message 56), the CO2 levels were 7000 ppm, or 20x higher compared to 2005, and, interestingly, are co-related with the Cambrian explosion, which started 542 million years ago. It was in this period that the life on earth arose as if by an explosion of new lifeforms, creating a huge variety in the fossil record that gave Darwin a lot of grief. If the earth could tolerate so much life and CO2 levels so high in the past, why couldn’t it tolerate them again? (From a theist’s point of view, if God allowed so much life to flourish at one time, why are we so worried about human overpopulation breathing out or making CO2 now?)
The question of the accuracy of the mathematical models of GW is an interesting one, as even the US Senate Sceptic’s Guide points out, (link by DaveScot message 9). GW as science is basically all about “weather” modeling, and it is highly ironic that the environmental agencies which have been criticized for decreasingly accurate weather forecasts, use their modeling “skills” to forecast the GW doomsday scenario. For example, as Dr. Tim Ball pointed out, Environment Canada, which provided one the 19 IPCC models, has been criticized for doing a very poor job with their primary business, which is basic weather forecasts.
A study was completed 2-3 years ago, which compared the forecast with the actual weather. Basically, the conclusion of the study was that the modern technology & forecasters can reasonably accurately forecast 1 day ahead, (but so can any knowledgeable “quack” who can look outside the window, and observe goats or sheep as one TV station in the US did some time ago). The 3-day forecast is basically akin to a 50-50% coin toss, (really, totally useless as a forecast), and the 5-day forecast is just plain garbage without any meaning at all. I am not sure if the study addressed seasonal or longer term forecasts, but I have a feeling that the pros would badly loose to Farmers’ Almanac which supposedly relies on its secret Sun-spot formula. (Surprisingly many people and business, like in construction, rely on Farmers’ Almanac.) Now, if they cannot accurately forecast 3 days ahead, what are their 300 year predictions worth?
—
I tried to Google the original University of Manitoba study, to give a link, but it must have been pulled. However, I found some interesting info on their Weather Central blog (perhaps run by the same people who did the weather accuracy study):
#1. Verification has shown that value is added by the forecaster to the initial SCRIBE set of weather concepts but only for the first 24 hours. Beyond this period (day 2-3) little or no value is added to the forecast.
#2. The performance of the automated forecasts was found to trail closely to that of subjective forecasts under an objective verification scheme.
#3. The question of who is the best forecaster in a particular media market is one that the public frequently asks. The authors have collected approximately one year’s forecasts from the National Weather Service and major media presentations for Oklahoma City. Diagnostic verification procedures indicate that the question of best does not have a clear answer. All of the forecast sources have strengths and weaknesses, and it is possible that a user could take information from a variety of sources to come up with a forecast that has more value than any one individual source provides. The analysis provides numerous examples of the utility of a distributions-oriented approach to verification while also providing insight into the problems the public faces in evaluating the array of forecasts presented to them.
#5. And my favourite: “The accuracy of temperature and precipitation forecasts for Toronto was studied for the 20-year period 1960-1979. For temperature forecasts, the record indicates a significant loss of skill over the 20-year period in the prediction of maximum temperature for the first day. This was observed not only for the Bloor Street observing station for which the entire 20-year record was analysed, but also for observing stations at Toronto Island, Downsview and Malton. The loss of skill over the years is greatest in winter when temperature is consistently predicted too low at all stations.”
There are many more…
( http://wxcentral.blogspot.com/.....ou-so.html )
This article comes to a similar conclusion:
Science Makes A Move Toward Omnipotence
“Junk science would be funny it if wasn’t trying to be omnipotent. But as it is, it’s just plain scary.”
…
“Science has migrated from the examination of phenomenon through the scientific method of experimentation to the realm of metaphysics by claiming absolute knowledge about everything. And if you are a member of the scientific community who disagrees with the new politically correct official positions you will be considered worse than a Fundamentalist Christian.”
Most climate scientists have only studied thermodynamics and meteorology and because of that favor greenhouse gases as a cause for global warming. They are very good at lobbying.
Much talk, but how many look at the actual data.