NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind

My letter to the NST on global warming fallacies has arrived.  Coming after they printed my letter NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming, it seems the NST editors may not care much for Al Gore and global warming fermongering either! Kekekeke!

Unlike The Star which used a photo and caption that seemingly contradicted the gist of my message in The Star Opinions: Kyoto will Creep Up on Us, the NST used a photo that seems contradictory, until you read the decidedly (and surprisingly frank) supportive caption!

Full letter below.


From NST Letters 1 Nov 2007 (NST removes links after about a week):

InconvenientTruthAnotherkind1   InconvenientTruthAnotherkind2   InconvenientTruthAnotherkind3

Global warming: Inconvenient truths of another kind


A dried-up pond in Hubei province, China. Situations like this have been blamed on global warming. However, the fact is the actual recorded temperature rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius.
A dried-up pond in Hubei province, China. Situations like this have been blamed on global warming. However, the fact is the actual recorded temperature rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius.

FOR all who believe that global warming is caused primarily by humans and is an undeniable threat to our way of life, I would like to clarify three prime misconceptions about global warming and climate change.

Firstly, whatever you may hear about wildly rising temperatures, the actual recorded rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius. This amount is inconsistent with the much vaunted — and yet unproven — computer models that predict a rise of 1.5 degrees due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Doubly inconsistent with the global warming theory is that most of the recorded warming took place before 1940. Clearly, industrial and vehicular emissions were greater in the latter half of the 20th century. So why does the data not show an even greater temperature rise from 1940 onwards?

In fact, highly accurate satellite temperature measurements show a warming of only 0.04oC per decade, while grounded stations show an increase of around 0.17oC per decade.

Why such a discrepancy? Could it be because surface stations are often placed in absurd locations, such as in a blisteringly hot parking lot?

Secondly, of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, carbon dioxide comprises just 0.0383 per cent of the entire atmosphere. In 2003, the top 20 carbon-emitting nations produced a scant 0.00034147 per cent of atmosphere in carbon emissions.

Such a tiny percentage seems unlikely to increase the greenhouse effect in any meaningful way. Global- warming proponents contend that the carbon dioxide absorbs infrared (heat) waves of a certain wavelength that would otherwise escape into space.

Sceptics counter that once that tiny fraction of infrared waves is absorbed, carbon dioxide ceases to play any meaningful role in the greenhouse effect — particularly when all of the other wavelengths of energy it can absorb overlap with other gases, including the ever-abundant water vapour.

More likely, other non-human factors such as the solar cycle are the drivers for climate change. Global temperatures rise and fall for the most part independently of human carbon emissions — as they have for the thousands of years before human industry, and for the eons before human civilisation even existed.

Thirdly, I find it astounding that many people unquestioningly concur when the main proponents of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory, such as Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), advocate taking drastic measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

I am not saying that we should not wean ourselves off fossil fuels and polluting lifestyles. I simply want everyone to get the facts straight on the matter of global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol has already cost Europe multiple billions of euros in higher energy expenses. Yet it has totally failed to curb rising emission levels. Can the developing nations with their fledgling economies afford such ineffective luxuries?

If the threat of climate change is not nearly as impending or dire as the alarmists claim, we would be far better off developing new technologies, building clean wind and solar farms, and gradually shifting to a carbon-neutral lifestyle.

And need I reveal that although Al Gore and the IPCC recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in increasing the hysteria about climate change, the outcome was decided by a panel comprising a mere four politicians and one historian — not scientists?

Meanwhile, after much research and deliberation, the United Kingdom High Court ruled that nine major scientific errors were present in An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore’s influential film on global warming), which it also found to be political and partisan in portraying only one side of the global warming debate.

In conclusion, let me remind you that there are always many sides to each story. Even as some nod their heads in agreement with An Inconvenient Truth’s portrayal of Antarctic ice melting, others shake their heads at the fact that the film focuses on the mere two per cent of Antarctica that is warming, while the other 98 per cent not portrayed has actually been cooling — with more ice today than has ever been recorded!

For those who get their “facts” solely from the IPCC, I would suggest that you give a fair hearing to the sceptic’s point of view.

A quick browsing online will turn up many such sites. Some of them are obviously leaning towards strong scepticism, but many of them are well balanced and researched, such as Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre, the man who recently exposed Nasa’s data on rising temperatures as skewed by the Y2K bug!


Links elaborating on my above points: 

For the mere 0.5 degrees increase in temperatures that happened mostly before 1940, see The Marshall Institute: Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors

For satellite measurements refuting ground based measurements, see Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed (point4).

For surface stations in blisteringly hot car parks, see NST: GLOBAL WARMING? The ‘science’ of a warming world, The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate and Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming

For carbon dioxide levels, see Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed and Carbon Emissions and Percentage of Atmosphere.

For carbon dioxide having smaller and smaller effects as its concentrations increase, see Coyote Blog: Diminishing Return and very clear explanation at Coyote Blog: The 60-Second Climate Skeptic.

For how the Kyoto Protocol is costing billions for no improvements in Europe, see The Star Opinions: Kyoto will Creep Up on Us. For how much it is estimated to cost further, see Star Opinion: Guard Against Kyoto Protocol Hype.

For some clues as to whether Gore is being altruistic in promoting carbon caps and offsets as the way forward, see Follow the Clues: Is Al Gore’s Promotion of Global Warming Hysteria Merely A Scam to Make Him Money?.

For how (dis)honest Gore has already proven to be, see Al Gore: High Commander of War & Peace Hypocrisy.

For my preference for technology as the way forward out of fossil fuel dependence, see The Sun & The Star: Green Carrot Compromise.

For Al Gore and the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize win, see Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons.

For the court verdict against An Inconvenient Truth, see Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda. For even more errors in the film, see 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth.

For Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, go to http://www.climateaudit.org/.

For how he pwned NASA’s data stupidity, see Michelle Malkin: Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium,  Newsbuster: UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research FraudNST: GLOBAL WARMING? The ‘science’ of a warming world,  The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate and Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder.

And for cartoons mocking global warming nonsensory, see of course Global Warming Editorial Cartoons.

Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind”

  1. hakdora » Blog Archive » NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind Says:

    […] here Filed under: […]

  2. Newt Says:

    I’ll take the word of thousands of climate scientists, and maybe a bit of prudent caution, over the incessant ad hominems of rightwing bloggers and energy industry shills, thank you.

  3. hutchrun Says:

    U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism

    A comment:
    What Christy has done amounts to high treason, if not outright apostasy.
    Fortunately, the global warming alarmists don’t issue fatwas or behead people, so I think he won’t suffer the extreme penalty.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    Newt, the difficulty that ‘rightwing bloggers’ (otherwise known as skeptics) have is that the so-claimed ‘thousands of climate scientists’ are mostly paid to get the IPPC-aimed-for results. Many of them are opposed to the alarmist stance of the IPCC reports, which include their names and take their data out of context.

    And some even call for the IPCC to be abolished due to its unsound, politically-beheld, swindle-reminiscent methods of ‘science’!

    As for prudent caution, it would be great if ‘preventing’ global warming through CO2 reduction were costless. Unfortunately, there is a heavy price to pay for even minscule, ineffective reductions.

    This is an especially important consideration when CO2 is probably not even a main driver of temperature.

    And finally, it is mostly the global warming proponents like the IPCC and Al Gore who incessantly smear skeptics as with ad hominem attacks like ‘deniers’, ‘religious nuts’, ‘flat earthers’, and yes – even ‘energy industry shills’ instead of addressing whether the skeptics’ questions have any basis.

  5. Simon Thong Says:

    Newt, right-wing or left-wing or neutral is less important than asking the question, “Says who?” If scientists manipulate data to suit their theory, it goes against the grain to believe them. I’m inclined to ask, “What else have they manipulated?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: