The Great Global Warming Swindle (1Hr 15Min.)

[White_Male_Canada]

A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation.

Problem is , lies don`t hold up to the facts. That`s why algore won`t openly debate anyone.


To distil this to the inescapable, simply note that the demanded response is exactly the same for both the "scientific certainty" of catastrophic man-made global cooling in the 1970s and the "scientific certainty" of catastrophic man-made global warming, both of which we have been falsely assured of. The same movement and even same people drove both alarms. Yet although every single bill on Capitol Hill and even the UN's Kyoto Protocol is demanded in the name of 'it's-real-it's-bad-it's-here-now-it's-our-fault-we-can-impact-it-but-we-must-act-now-it's-a-moral-issue', not one such proposal would under any scenario, under any set of assumptions, according to any champion, actually have a detectable impact on that which it purports to address: the climate. Seems a bit odd. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that this agenda isn't really about the climate at all, but instead about the one thing that we all agree would result, which is the attainment of longstanding policy objectives of making energy more scarce and moving energy sovereignty to a supranational body -- something called the UNFCCC (www.unfccc.int).



And those longstanding policy objectives are held by the constituent parts of the Kyoto Industry, environmentalist pressure groups who seek to radically redistribute wealth, move the decisions of governing to the least accountable levels, all in the name of dramatically reducing that which they view as pollution: any global human population above 2 billion.



And the only way to have the agenda escape scrutiny is to scare the dickens out of people and shriek both that the debate -- which no one can recall having -- is over and, as is ritual now on all such "greatest threats", "we must act now!"

A belief in both the certainty of catastrophic man-made global warming and the horrors of capitalism are matters of faith, which tend to be held in tandem. No society in its right mind is going to wilfully do to itself what the environmentalist industry, at its core, desperately seeks: massive diminution of individual liberties and ceding of most decision making to the least accountable level of governance possible, in the name of creating an Edenic world, a Goldilocks world, where man's population, growth, energy use and impact is "just right"; this, by the way, is to be judged in the eyes of people who believe there are just enough of them and way too many of everyone else. In the meantime, environmentalists insist that wealth is the root of all evil; capitalism is the root of such wealth; ergo, capitalism must go. I quote them to this effect, in my book, in their moments of candor. No evidence, no data, no observations are sufficient to disown such people of the faith, despite the unavoidable reality that wealthier is healthier, and cleaner, that only wealthy societies impose the expensive form of showing that one "cares", that is environmental regulations; and that only healthy growing economies agree to layer on more and more. They just cartoonishly scream "big business" and the ritual, accompanying rants.

The biggest-ticket item is that which underlies Al Gore's movie and every proposal offered in the name of averting climate catastrophe: that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive temperatures. This is absurd. Al Gore even shows this -- without focusing on it -- in his movie. Just look closely at the data he shows in chart form as he rides the hydraulic lift upward to where, on the wall, he claims that temperatures will go unless we agree to the "World War II-style" commitment that for some reason he refuses to provide the details of. This data was published in Science magazine in June 2006 and quite plainly reveals that temperatures drop before CO2 concentrations drop, and that the intimated cause-effect relationship actually doesn't exist. Which is precisely why Gore elected to not superimpose the two charts. Further, the other famous data set, with better historical resolution in the data, also shows that temperatures historically increase before CO2 concentrations increase.

If you want correlation over any period of time that might actually be meaningful -- that is, more than a convenient couple of decades when things might match up -- then look at the sun, and cosmic waves. They correlate over the 20th century -- which is when we have the best data, that is observations and not "proxies" but also in prior centuries -- and CO2 quite plainly does not correlate. After all, as emissions rose it cooled from the 1940's thru the 1970s sufficient to start a "global cooling panic", then as emissions and contributions continued to climb, temperatures reversed. One can only try to be clever -- or ignorant -- with the "it's warmed since the 1970s and emissions have risen since the '70s" syllogism, as one declared Republican presidential candidate confidently informed me when I was given the opportunity to brief him. Yes, and cell phone use has gone up since the 1970s, too. Correlation, however, doesn't mean causation of temperatures in that example any more than it does with a very tiny timeframe with CO2 and temperature. Move your baseline year to 1940 and the whole argument implodes.


Christopher C. Horner, an attorney in Washington D.C. specializing in environmental policy and regulation, particularly international agreements and "global warming". He is affiliated with classical liberal think tanks in Washington and Europe, in which capacity he has testified before U.S. Senate committees and spoken on numerous occasions in the European Parliament and before policy leaders in numerous EU capitals from Madrid to Warsaw.

[White_Male_Canada]

Nice chart,

proves the factual point that co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around.

[trish]

Nice chart,

proves the factual point that co2 doesn`t cause temps to rise.

It`s the other way around.

We've all nailed you on this a dozen dozen times before. You're a slow learner, professor white-male-canadian. The causes of temperature variation are manifold. CO2 concentrations can drive Earth's annual mean temperature up...but sometimes it happens the other way (as in the chart above) when the Earth's secular motion causes the temperature to rise and the extra heat releases CO2 from terrestrial sources and increases its concentration in the atmosphere. Imagine, Professor, if you will an Earth for which your favored 15 micron band is not saturated and then imagine the geological processes that vent enough CO2 into the atmosphere to saturation that band making it opaque from space. Sure THAT would cause a lot of warming. I'm not claiming this scenario is historical, only that this scenario should convince you that the causality CAN go both directions. Perhaps, as you claim, current warming isn't caused by increased concentrations of CO2 (a theory that doesn't have my support as you know) but given that each can cause the other, the above chart has no bearing on the question.

[guyone]

Sun spots.

[trish]

Sun spots.

I'm sorry, you say you're breaking out with a case of acne?


Real sun spots are a cyclic phenonmenon with a periodicity measured in decades not centuries. They ARE responsible for fluctuations in the energy flux of the sun incident to Earth, BUT that flux has NOT shown any statistical increase or decrease for since we've learned to measure it more than a century and a half ago. The current statistical increase in the mean annual temperature goes back two centuries.

[guyone]

...One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of sunspot inactivity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots were measured during this timeframe, although the more detailed, daily measurements began in 1749. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So the question remains, do solar minimums help to create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its "average" 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of sunspots alone do not alter the overall solar emissions much at all. However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.


FROM:

[trish]

Climate models are computer simulations which are used to examine understanding of climate behavior. Some models use constant values for solar irradiance, while some include the heating effects of a variable Sun. A good simulation by GCMs of global mean temperature over the last 100 years requires both natural (solar; volcanic) and human (greenhouse gas) factors.

In 2003, Stott et al found that "current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models." and concluded that "The best estimate of the warming from solar forcing is estimated to be 16% or 36% of greenhouse warming depending on the solar reconstruction."


from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

(boldfacing mine)

[trish]

oh, for those you like visuals

[guyone]

Yeah I can make up graphs too!

[White_Male_Canada]

Yeah I can make up graphs too!

Here`s one I just made up:

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the
previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time
to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study
showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last
8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions,
which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these
phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.


Max Planck Society
for the Advancement of Science