Is man-made global warming proved?
The answer is a resounding 'no'. There is no convincing scientific evidence for man-made global warming outside of computer models, which do not agree with actual climate data. There is, however, overwhelming evidence to show that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide rises, so carbon dioxide levels cannot be a cause of global warming and any steps taken to reduce emissions are futile.
Computer models as used for generating future scenarios have been unable to reproduce actual climate patterns, and are unreliable in the extreme. As the following chart shows, these GCMs, an abbreviation which has been translated as general circulation models or global climate models, predict uniform warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere as a result of man's emission of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, actually a minor greenhouse gas. This man-made warming is predicted to be particularly marked in the last 25 to 30 years, yet actual measurements from satellites and radiosonde balloons show no warming, but slight cooling instead.
In the Beginning
An infamous UN-backed statement, that the balance of evidence suggests man has definitely had an impact on climate, has had numerous repercussions. Newspaper headlines, the school curriculum, political careers, and taxes on car drivers have all felt the aftershocks of this proclamation. Yet the chapter and report from which it derives were described by former President of the American Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, as the worst abuse of the peer review process he had seen. Dr Sherwood Idso, then of the Water Conservation Laboratory in Arizona, commented on unauthorised changes made to global climate reports post-review, up to 16 per document. Today the same process continues, in order to present the facade that there is credible scientific evidence to support man-made global warming theory when there is not, and that the human influence brigade reflect the consensus of scientific opinion, which they do not.
Climatology professor John Christy is a Lead Author with the IPCC, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike many other Lead Authors he was not appointed by his government, and he considers that this situation arose most likely because the remainder were willing to adopt a particular viewpoint on causes of climate change not dissimilar to the views of their political appointees. Describing a gathering in New Zealand prior to publication of the latest IPCC Report, he mentions how discussion at a meeting was cut short when serious objections were raised to a pet theory of the scientist leading the discussion. Such is the quality of open debate in IPCC circles.
Christy also points out that, in the IPCC's third annual report, a future scenario involving a 6 degree C rise in temperature in the next 100 years was added to the report at a late stage in the review process at the request of a few governments. As is evident, political interference, not scientific reasoning, was responsible for the scary headlines the politicians required in order to justify their plans for taxes on energy and mobility. This extreme 'storyline', labelled A1F1 was one of 245, but it grabbed all the media attention. It required the most extreme outputs of greenhouse gases barely imaginable, the least possible countermeasures, and an atmosphere of the highest sensitivity to these factors. It was described by Christy as "the one that's not going to happen". No wonder that Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany, commented that the IPCC's output of 'storylines' might be more aptly termed 'fairytales'.
Underhand activity has also been reported in print, where it seems that IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are not in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not normally choose an author's colleague as a referee. The IPCC has previously assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer — who it is reported based much of his conclusions on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals, definitely non-standard practice. Graphs of temperature have shown incomplete data prior to circulation, in order to strengthen the case for a particular viewpoint, that of man-made global warming. Data sets from dangerously unreliable sources have been included in measurements used for modelling purposes. In some cases the integrity of surface temperature data has been shown to be compromised, with no resulting exclusion from data sets. The list of non-standard practice in the world of IPCC climate 'science' appears to be inordinately lengthy.
Wider problems were revealed when in May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and colleagues published an article in the journal Science showing the fertilising effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on trees. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, who happened to be the first head of the IPCC, wrote: "In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behaviour of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care..." Translation by US scientist Patrick Michaels: "Scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss." We examine the Kyoto Protocol shortly. Objective science appears to be a casualty of Summary injustice. However the science to be found in the Technical Sections of IPCC reports is largely sound, and unlike the Summary for Policymakers there is less of an attempt to brush over shortcomings.
Boundaries between science and religion are blurred in some treatments of climate change. The IPCC's former chief scientist Sir John Houghton wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue." He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches, "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [i.e. Kyoto again], and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences." The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Houghton says, will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." Michaels comments: "This is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organisations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy".
The IPCC suffered a personal casualty when a recent Chairman, Robert Watson, was ousted by a vote of 75 nations to 49. This was widely reported to be self-inflicted, the result of outspoken advocacy of the environmentalist agenda at odds with the views of thousands of independent scientists worldwide.
Thus the IPCC is by no means an infallible source of wisdom on climate change, nor is it apolitical, and nor are its projections (now called storylines remember) worth paying much attention to. After all, the IPCC relies on computer models that Harvard climatologist Dr Sallie Baliunas describes as "not reliable as tools for explaining past climate or making projections for future trends".
Global Warming, Colonialism and the ICE
Are environmentalists the new imperialists? This question was asked by Prof Deepak Lal in his inaugural Julian Simon Lecture at the Liberty Institute in Delhi, where he made a spirited attack on the new cultural imperialism of international Greens and their local networks. Professor Lal believes that the Green movement is a secular religion filling the void created in the West by the retreat of faith in traditional religions. Its aim, he says, is to create a new 'white man's burden' and impose its values on the world. The former religious crusades for saving souls has given way to new green crusades for (supposedly) saving the planet. The professor added that in his view this new imperialism needs to be resisted — its claim is to save the environment, but its practical effect in many instances will be ruinous for poor countries. The attitude of environmentalists these days is suggestive of the comment by H L Mencken that the desire to save mankind is almost always a false front for the desire to rule it.
Former US presidential candidate and green luminary Al Gore, who as a member of the U.S. Senate participated in the 1992 UN-sponsored Earth Summit, is a highly visible exponent of what appears to be an environmental cult built around the concept of reverence for planet Earth. Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship. He also seeks the obliteration of the internal combustion engine (ICE), a curious quest and one which has no justification whatsoever.
Climate change clearly has its disciples for whom objective scientific evidence is a mere inconvenience to be ignored. In this new world order, those who prefer science and evidence are to be demonised and marginalised by any means possible. Mobility and industry, energy consumers both, are to be taxed off the face of the planet, or at least until the pips squeak. One tool for attempting to do this is the aforementioned Kyoto agreement.
-
Kyoto
The Kyoto Accord seeks to reduce supposedly harmful carbon dioxide emissions, reducing output to below 1990 levels by 2010. As a result, if implemented, the necessary reduction of emissions would cost industrialised nations between 3.5% and 5% percent of their annual gross domestic product (GDP). To illustrate this in hard financial terms, this amounts to $350 billion per year out of a USA $7 trillion-plus economy. A report warning of these implications, by the economic and energy consultancy DRI-WEFA, outlines the damage that Kyoto will also impart to the economies of European Union (EU) nations. Compliance with the Kyoto protocol will cost Germany and Britain about 5 percent of their GDP and increase unemployment by 1.8 million and 1 million respectively. The Netherlands could lose 3.8 percent of its GDP and 240,000 jobs, Spain 5 percent and 1 million jobs. And these DRI-WEFA findings assume best-case outcomes, in which efficient and widespread carbon dioxide trading limits the burden imposed by emissions reduction policies.
Furthermore, all European nations may see rising heating fuel, gasoline, diesel and electricity prices. By 2010, prices will have risen by between 10 and 20 percent. The UK currently has the highest levels of fuel duty and taxation in Europe, and the situation is likely to deteriorate. Spain has a large trucking fleet, which could be seriously harmed by a 25 percent increase in the price of diesel. Electricity prices are estimated to more than double for Germany, Britain and the Netherlands, with the expected economic consequences.
Yet the impact of Kyoto on climate change is, even within the disreputable climate models used to indicate warming where none exists, totally insignificant, amounting to a minuscule one-twentieth of a degree, for which industrialised nations are expected to accept a return to the middle ages. Kyoto's irrelevance has been recognised as an embarrassment, and these days it is touted by environmentalists as a 'first step'. Presumably, a first step on the pointless transition from a healthy global economy capable of tackling real environmental problems, back through the middle ages, to the stone age if at all possible.
While Kyoto would do nothing useful, the EU has set out a course of action with more serious potential consequences. The Car Free Cities (CFC) network, set up by the European Commission's DG XI directorate, proclaims the following as part of the Copenhagen Declaration: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility". So we must know our place, and stay in it. Except that one gets the distinct impression that only mobility involving the car will be targeted, and already so-called 'car free days' are a sign of things planned for us.
Apart from noting that such days pass with few people aware of their existence, and little different happening on the roads, when any car driver next hears of these things remember this — our freedom to use a car is under serious threat. Car free communities have been set up already, but if they all have the same success as the one brought to the attention of the ABD, then we need have less fear. Set up in a former military base in Germany, it became very unpopular with its neighbours as the car free people kept parking their cars in nearby residential areas.
Our ability to point out the drawbacks and failures of schemes like these may itself be under serious threat. The EU has apparently considered adding the offence of 'seditious libel' to EU law, which could make it an offence for a citizen to say or do anything that might harm the interests of the EU. Presumably the EU self-appointed elite would decide what was and wasn't in the EU's interests. One can only speculate that the document bearing this proposal, should it ever emerge, would bear the symbol of a face with its mouth tightly gagged.
READ MORE HERE : ABD - Climate Change Truths:
No comments:
Post a Comment