A few of the reasons I don't believe in man made global warming

 

 

I was speaking with one of my poker playing buds the other day and the subject of man made global warming came up. He initially indicated he believed but said he would keep an open mind on the subject. I said I would email him some info.

Now to be fair I’m not gonna load up his email account with a a ton of data. Instead I’m going put the info here and he can go to the blog address and have it all.

So here goes.

I begin by noting that newspapers, and all media for that matter, have a saying, “If it bleeds it leads.” That’s short hand for “Bad news sells.” And it does. No one clicks on a line that says, “Everything is fine.”

The genesis of the latest kerfunkle goes back to the mid 70’s when various “scientists” decided that the world was cooling and that we were in imminent danger of starving and along with starving and freezing we were going to run out of all kinds of raw materials.

One of the proponents, perhaps the best known, is Paul Ehrlich who is a strong believer in population control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

“However, he always has been a strong advocate of government intervention into population control.^{[citation needed]} In Population Bomb he wrote, "We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.”

That should give you a flavor of his views. Plus, as we have now, the media, following “If it bleeds it leads” sounded the clarion call for surrounding our rights and changing our life style. One of the more infamous examples was published in Newsweek in 1975:

“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”

Snip

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Of course none of that has happened and that is just one of many blatherings that said we must turn ourselves over to government or freeze and starve.

Now, to be honest, I really wasn’t paying much attention. My life was focused on making money and taking care of my family. And cable TV was for Earl Flynn and “Captain Blood.” CNN was far in the future and Fox made movies.

Besides, what little I heard made sense. Too many people, falling temperatures, shortages of oil, etc., etc.

Then the story changed. The new problem was global warming caused by man’s automobiles and power plants. And the solution wasn’t dumping coal dust on the arctic, one of the supposed solutions for global cooling. No, the solution was changing our lives.

The main man in this was a guy named Michael Mann and he had studied the tree rings and other sources and determined that earth had not be cooling but actually warming. And even worse, the rate of change resembled a hockey stick.  The warming was going to come faster and faster and the world would burn if we didn’t change our life style, give power to the UN and transfer a lot of money to various agencies that could spend it more wisely than we ever could.

 But I digress. Let me return to Mann’s hockey stick. That it achieved its purpose of scaring people there is no doubt. But there were a lot of questions that Mann, and others, didn’t want to answer. It was a simple question.

“Can I see the code??”

The answer was no and the debate raged on. But then, after a while, there came this.

 “We have seen above that one of the chief criticisms of the hockey stick was the fact that its author, Michael Mann, had withheld the validation statistics so that it was impossible for anyone to gauge the reliability of the reconstruction. These validation statistics were to be key to the subsequent story. At the time of their press release Wahl and Amman had made public the computer code that they'd used in their papers. By the time their paper was submitted to Climatic Change, McIntyre had reconciled their work with his own so that he understood every difference. And he therefore now knew that Wahl and Amman's work suffered from exactly the same problem as the hockey stick itself: the R² number was so low as to suggest that the hockey stick had no meaning at all, ….

Wahl and Amman's response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear flouting of the journal's rules.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

 One of the most basic requirements for any scientific claim is peer review. And when the originator rejects that then my bull shit sensors start to flash.

 And there was lots of other stuff back and forth. The Mann faction claimed that the reviewers were  (1) not qualified, (2)biased, (3) paid by the Big Oil Companies and (4) all of the above.

Matters not to me. The facts would speak and if the man made global warming people’s claims were true then it would be self evident. 

 And it was obvious the hockey stick theory would not stand up to the light of day.

 Now all of this didn’t happen in a few months. It was years and years and along with the hockey stick brouhaha there was the issue of how accurate the measurements were.

 That was kind of important because if NOAA’s temperature measuring sites weren’t giving out accurate readings then what could we depend on for the truth?? And the truth was that over the years the sites had changed. Concrete and asphalt was poured, buildings were built, and some with air conditioning vents that dumped warm air. Here’s a link to what I’m writing about.

 http://tallcotton-ppjakajim.blogspot.com/2009/06/global-warming-fake-information.html

 The result was that 64.4% had errors of +/-  3/6 degrees F and 6.2% had errors of 9 degrees F.

 http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

 Think about that. The UN and a host of other agencies and people were telling us the world was ending yet their measurements had wide variations. No wonder none of the predictions by the UN’s IPPC have came to fruition.

 

“A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.”

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/?test=latestnews

And that’s important because to be accepted as a Scientific Theory, it must:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”

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

Now let that last sentence roll off your tongue. Note the “…for PREDICTIVE…” Yet  none of the predictions have been met.  And nothing has been “…confirmed…” much less “repeatedly so.

 

BTW, have I mentioned that five years ago on December 13 Al Gore said the ice cap would disappear in five years??

 <sup>http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/#!

Of course it hasn’t. What this is just another example of predictions to try and scare us into doing what they want.  “They” being an unholy loose alliance of environmental wackos, greedy and power hungry politicians and many “scientists” who have found out that they can get research money by always tying whatever they are doing to man made global warming. Indeed, MMGW is the cause of flat feet, bad breath and the heart break of psoriasis

 Now I didn’t reach these conclusions over night. It took time and a lot of reading. And old retired guys don’t have a lot of time, the reaper is peering around the corner, but I was able to focus a bit on things.

And, along with Mann’s resistance to allowing his peers to see all of the information, I started to pick up on some other stuff. Like this:</sup>

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)

 Now anyway you cut it that is an invitation to lie. And he didn’t stop there.

 “Dr Stephen Schneider is perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks, and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster.

For example, in a TV interview in 1990 to Britain's Channel 4, he remarked -

"The rate of change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems."

http://www/John-Daly.com/schnedier.html

 Now that causes a bit of head scratching, eh??

 As I wrote, none of this happened over night, but the longer I studied and thought the less convinced I became. Perhaps the final straw was the infamous Dr Phil Jones email.

 And it is helpful to understand who Jones is. He is the head of the prestigious Climate Research Unit – CRU – at England’s East Anglia University. And he has been a vocal proponent of man made global warming. But from time to time he has let his guard down. This is from what Jones thought was a PRIVATE email that became public when the email system was hacked in what became known as climate gate.

 “….The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.”

 Now the date of that email was July 5 2005.

It is now 8 years and 5 months later and the cooling continues. I wonder at what point the time frame will be “statistically significant.I also want to note in the strongest possible way Jones’ comment, “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998” (Emphasis added)

 That is a flat out admission that he knows the bias of his fellow “scientists.”

Then we get to the good stuff.

Jones wrote:

“As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.”

“As you know, I'm not political.”

This is a statement in which Jones is trying to establish his philosophy. He is trying to describe himself in a manner that puts him above the fray. Remember this because I will come back to it.

Jones then wrote:

“I would like to see the climate change happen”

There can be no “out of context” nonsense in this statement. It is a clear statement of what Jones wants to happen. He then goes on:

“so the science could be proved right,”

And the above clearly states his reason.  It hasn’t been proven, but he wants it to. He concludes with a strong ending.

“regardless of the consequences.”

This is a very emotional statement. He doesn’t care if the seas rise and the earth burns and millions die. He wants it to be proven. He closes with:

“This isn't being political, it is being selfish.”

This is a repetition of him trying to claim he is non-political. What it does his give the personal reason. He is “being selfish.”

Now, remember, from above:

“As you know, I'm not political.”

This is a statement in which Jones is trying to establish his philosophy. He is trying to describe himself in a manner that puts him above the fray.

Also remember that the email was thought  to be PRIVATE. That means he could speak his feelings.

 http://www.di2.nu/foia/1120593115.txt

But the proponents had their claims. Mostly it was that everyone agreed and that it wasn’t necessary to have any further discussions.

Of course consensus isn’t science. Learned men once thought the earth flat. Doctors did not believe in germs and “bleeding” was an acceptable treatment for pneumonia.

Of more recent times we had Phrenology. The science of feeling for bumps on the head to determine the intelligence and character of the patient.

So don’t tell me about “consensus.” And don’t tell noted science philosopher Karl Popper.

“Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument truthness of which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable.^[1]

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.^[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.”

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

 Of course the MMGW proponents had their web sites. One that is often mentioned is Skeptical Science. Kind of a funny name given that opponents of the fake consensus are the skeptics. Anyway, after I had seen a few dozen times and watched it refute everything while attacking the credentials of the  MMGW’s opposition I decide to ask, “Who is this??”

 “Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science’

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

 And go to the above website to get the credentials of some real scientists.

 So we come towards the end. We started with cooling that became warming that has become cooling and science that was never proved and admissions that MMGW has not happened. The question that we haven’t really touched is “why.”

 The answer is, like all things, power and money. I’d guess that Mann started out with a theory and has become sucked into the whole thing. He probably has received more attention and more money than he ever thought possible.

 “Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.

Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.”

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee

 But that is chicken feed.

“The COP-18 environmental conference held in Doha has come and gone. In the wake of high expectations for a successor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate – and several countries have withdrawn from the process or signaled their intent to do so.

Moreover, many observers believe the decision to extend the Protocol was primarily the result of countries not having the courage to stop or scuttle it outright, and not actually knowing what to do next. So the easy way out was to just extend Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for “climate mitigation,” which is a sort of apology from the first world for having allegedly messed up the planet in the first place with their fossil fuels and economic development.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/#more-77696

The money. Always follow the money.

 

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

daly.com/schneidr.htm http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm