Posts Tagged ‘global warming hoax’

Five Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming Questions

November 7, 08

Do you believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is the major cause of global warming that is purportedly threatening the entire planet?

If so, why?

Try and answer these five questions regarding manmade carbon emissions and climate change:

1) Carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.0383% of the entire atmosphere, and the top-20 carbon emitting nations add only 0.00034147% more in one year. How does that miniscule amount of additional carbon dioxide affect the entire global temperature?

2) It is postulated that carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing a certain, narrow wavelength of radiation that is emanating from the Earth into space. The band is so narrow, that it is already mostly covered by other gases – such as water vapour (i.e. clouds). (See page 13 of this PDF or the first graph at here.) So once this tiny band is fully accounted for by carbon dioxide that is already present, how does adding more carbon dioxide affect anything when there is no more radiation of that wavelength to absorb?

3) If carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise, then why is that in thousands of years worth of data on temperature and carbon dioxide levels, temperature rises first and carbon dioxide levels follow 800 years LATER?

4) If carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise, then why did we see cooling during the post World War II industrial boom when carbon emissions rose sharply, and also in these past 10 years when carbon emissions have been increasing?

America cooling 2 years

Above from Gateway Pundit: As Planet Cools– Obama Warms to Hiring Goracle As Climate Czar

5) If human-released carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming and climate change, then what caused the temperature fluctuations for the thousands and millions of years before humans came into existence? (Let alone the mere few decades of the industrial era.)

BONUS QUESTIONS

6) In your opinion, do temperature-measuring instruments such as below report accurate results when they show massive temperature rise that leads to the conclusion that ‘global warming is happening’?

Marysville_issues2

7) If energy use creates carbon dioxide emissions, which really cause so much global warming, and it is such a great threat to the survival of humanity… Then do you agree that Al Gore should be the first to stop using 20 times the energy as… I’m sorry, 22 times the energy as everyone else?

Go ahead and ask your global warming believing friends too. See if they can justify their belief that global warming is really caused primarily by manmade carbon dioxide emissions, or are just parroting what they see on TV or blogs without any attempt to double-check the information.

Or if they can’t, then ask them what evidence there is that global warming doomsday predictions are NOT just yet another large-scale environmental fad/scam/hoax/hysteria.

It’s amazing how little of the actual numbers, facts and science behind the global warming panic people really know.

Read also this piece by a liberal writer who agrees on many of the same points I’ve raised.

NST: Global Warming: Positive Benefits From A Hotter Planet

November 26, 07

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the NST head editors are global warming skeptics. First NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming, and then especially NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind, and now the following. (Although the term ‘positive benefits’ is somewhat redundant…)

The accompanying photo and caption for the latter two, which are chosen by the NST editors, are what really sells the skeptical editors idea to me.

Well, it’s definitely welcome news if at least one of the main local news media has not succumbed to the popular but fallacious consensus myths of anthropogenic global warming.

Kudos to the New Straits Times!

———————

From NST letters (NST removes links after about a week):

   HotterPlanetBenefits1   HotterPlanetBenefits2

2007/11/26

Global warming: Positive benefits from a hotter planet

By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

Antarctic ice  comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world.
Antarctic ice comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world.

A UNITED Nations scientific panel has just released yet another warning about the perils of global warming. This latest report is the most frightening yet, with predictions of massive flooding, droughts, starvation and extinction.

This is actually nothing new, because over and over, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Al Gore and other proponents highlight the negative aspects of global warming while ignoring the positive aspects.

They trumpet melting Arctic ice as a portent of rising sea levels, while ignoring the increasing Antarctic ice that comprises 85 per cent of the ice in the world. They warn that less ice means less sunlight reflected into space, while keeping quiet about the increased evaporation, creating more clouds to block that hot sunlight. Warmer temperatures will lead to more sea evaporation, more clouds and more rainfall.

They lament the struggles of human-beloved species that prefer cooler climes, while turning a blind eye to the spread of other desirable species that thrive in warmer temperatures. After all, the warm tropics have the greatest biodiversity of any ecosystem.

They shed tears over the predicted increase in deaths due to hotter summers, while leaving out the reduction in deaths due to less cold winters in the IPCC reports.

They decry the effects that purportedly drier weather will have on agriculture, while neglecting to mention the longer growing season that will be permitted by warmer temperatures, nor the increased precipitation.Greenland today is frozen in ice, but at one time, it was warm enough to plant vineyards in, hence the “green” in its name.

They hysterically point out fractional rises in recent temperatures, while discarding centuries of documentation that show much warmer temperatures.

So, if the majority of people are afraid that global warming is causing catastrophic negative impacts on our way of life, it’s no wonder at all. Talk about the global warming issue is skewed towards alarmism.

Only one side of the climate coin is ever shown to the audience, as the global warming hucksters seek to manipulate public perception to support their flawed methodologies and politically-biased conclusions.

But just like the rest of the facts that do not agree with the pre-concluded “consensus” on global warming, such revelations are thrown into the dark hole of intentional ignorance.

Time Magazine Interviews Bjorn Lomborg

October 3, 07

Bjørn Lomborg is a climate scientist whose work I’ve blogged on before. He has just released a new book demolishing the global warming hysterical fearmongering paranoia, Cool It.

You may also want to see The Reference Frame, which carries excerpts of an interview where Czech President Václav Klaus is asked in the first few paragraphs about Lomborg and global warming. As the blog says, ‘it is difficult to accept enviromentalism after communism’. I wonder why

Excerpts from Time.com:

TIME: Why did you write Cool It?

Lomborg: Basically I think there’s a need to have two conversations. One is what is the status of global warming. Is it a hoax? Is it a catastrophe? I try to say, well, it’s neither. It’s not a hoax, not a left-wing conspiracy to raise taxes or just natural variation, as many Republicans want to say in the U.S. On the other hand, it’s not a not an unmitigated catastrophe, the end of civilization.

Of course the real fact of the matter is we don’t do very much. We promise a lot, but we don’t actually do very much. And the honest-to-God reason is it’s fairly expensive.

Rich people in rich countries will do a little, mainly for show. But most people in rich countries won’t do very much, and certainly no one in the poor countries will do anything.

My point is — and this is very, very simple — instead of cajoling people into doing something that is very expensive, which is hard, why not actually make it much cheaper? Instead of convincing more and more people to buy expensive solar panels, for instance, why not invest in research and development so that these become much cheaper — competitive with fossil fuels, or maybe even cheaper. If we could get there, we wouldn’t have to have this conversation.

Then why do R&D rather than, say, taxing gasoline so much in the U.S. that it would change consumption patterns now?

Taxing would obviously change people’s behavior. But it still has positive benefits to drive around. We could stop all traffic tomorrow if we just put a $1,000/gallon tax on gasoline. You’ve got to remember that fossil fuels have a lot of benefits. That’s why we use them.

We would make much more headway dealing with global warming simply because we would leave our kids and our grandkids, but especially the Chinese and the Indians, with much cheaper technology. Quite frankly right now they don’t care about global warming because they care about feeding their kids and curing them from infectious diseases and stuff.

People have said you’re ignoring some of the more dire predictions, cherry-picking your data if you will. Why do you suppose that is?

I’m always very, very surprised when people say I’m cherry-picking because I’m taking the median scenario from the U.N. climate panel. A lot of people say I’m consistently taking the most optimistic of points. I mean, by God, I’m saying what is the most likely — the median — temperature increase: 2.6 degrees C or 4.7 degrees F. Now it might get warmer than that. But it also might be cooler than that. This is the most likely outcome, what most people call the business-as-usual scenario. Likewise when I say “a one-foot rise in sea level,” the U.N. says it’s somewhere between half and 2 feet. It seems to me that saying 20, as Al Gore famously said, is cherry-picking.

I really think if it’s an indication of anything, it’s that the public debate has gone so far toward the one extreme that obviously it has to be 20 feet and anyone who says it’s slightly less than that has got to be bonkers.

You talked about the taking the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) data. They put out a report earlier this year that concluded maybe it wouldn’t be all that expensive to combat climate change. How do you take that?

Basically, what they came out and said was not that different from the numbers in my book: that for 3% of GDP you can cut emissions dramatically. Yeah. Hell, yeah.

I thought that it was something like 3% over the next two decades and that the annual GDP change was lower.

Yeah, it’s 0.12%, as a lot of people like to point out. But that’s an annual cumulated and that’s why it accumulates into 3 percentage points by mid-century. The [0.12%] figure is a bit like selling people TVs and telling them what the hourly interest rate is going to be. That’s a little bit of a cheater.

It means we’ll be 3% less rich by 2030. We haven’t spent anywhere near this amount in the last 50 years to do anything good in the world. So it seems a little naive to say now it’s all cheap.

Why do you think people ascribe a political stance to your views? People assume you’re conservative.

Which is so bizarre. For the longest time in Denmark I didn’t want to say what I was politically. I thought it was irrelevant. I’m a self-described slight lefty in Denmark, which probably makes me incredibly left-wing in the U.S., so I’m very, very surprised.

People have accused you sometimes of being a climate change denier, which you’re not. Why do you think that is and how do you feel about it?

Well it’s a curious thing that people react so strongly to me and people will go a fairly long way to make implications about why I’m saying what I’m saying, that I’m really just grudgingly conceding [climate change], that it’s a third-generation denial strategy or something. I’ve always found that when you have to resort to psychological explanations of your opponents it must be because you don’t have very good arguments.

There’s a famous claim that somebody told me from Harvard Law School, that if you have a good case you should pound the case, but if you have a bad case you should pound the table.


%d bloggers like this: