Climate Change
Man-made climate change due to the "pollutant" carbon dioxide (CO2) will destroy civilization! We must take drastic measures to save the planet now! This has been the multi-decade international campaign of some scientists, Hollywood types, leftist politicians and the media, popularized by the 2006 documentary film with Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth". The upcoming 5th Assessment report [AR5] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is being trumpeted as further proof (they are now 95% sure of man-made global warming). The Gray Area actually believes that humans are doing harm to the environment, but the facts don't support that climate change is affected by humans. This is not just from the 2009 "climategate" scandal, but a growing number of scientists also agree. This will come as heresy to the leftists who have built their belief systems or careers on this campaign, but it is nonetheless true - facts don't support the claim. The Global Warming Primer, Second Edition, by the NCPA provides counterpoints to the film's message. "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today." The Earth has had cyclical weather patterns since its creation. Ice sheets covered and retreated around the globe four times. We are currently in the 5th warming cycle over the last 400,000 years, and it is the least severe, according to "The Big Picture" at www.climate4you.com. There is scientific data ad-nausea-um on the subject of climate change at that site. So why the high volume messaging that man-made climate change exists - follow the money and the political advantage that comes from it. Government funding for academic research, growth of government bureaucracies, excuse for raising taxes, tax payer funded subsidies and a big lure for charitable donations. So, as you read the left and right positions on climate change below, remember, the truth is "petroleum saved the whales", "coal saved the forests" and "wealthier is healthier".

Science Fact or Science Fiction?

6/15/19
from The Gray Area:
6/14/19:
Roy W Spencer is Ph.D in meteorology, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. Dr. Spencer has written many books on the Climate Change issue: An Inconvenient Deception, Inevitable Disaster, Bad Science & Bad Policy, The Great Global Warming Blunder and Climate Confusion, among others. His latest carries a tongue in cheek title, Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People, yet includes substantial valuable information inside. I will summarize a few of his concepts and concerns from 'Busy People' here, so that you might take a look at any of his books in more depth.
  • Since 2008, the debate on 'Climate Change' has gotten worse.
  • Rampant "fake news", decreasing scientific literacy and increasing political polarization have led what was mere confusion over the 'global warming' issue to degrade into what Scottish journalist Charles McKay in 1841 called a "popular delusion".
  • This polarization has, unfortunately, in 2018, degraded to the point that Google down ranked many skeptical websites in an attempt to counter what they consider "fake science" It also attaches links to more favorable sources or YouTube videos. In fact, the first ten results from a Google search on the phrase 'climate skepticism' are for webpages arguing against it!
  • Though Google is worried about 'fake science', it apparently has no trouble with Bill Nye's faked global warming-in-a-jar experiment, titled "Climate 101 with Bill Nye". It is NOT possible to demonstrate atmospheric warming effects of CO2 in a laboratory by putting CO2 and a thermometer in a jar! Apparently 'fake science' is okay if it supports a politically correct point of view.
  • "Climategate", the publication of thousands of email from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009 was perceived to have given skeptics credibility and made more.
  • The publication of bad science is one problem, another is the active suppression of good science.
  • Scientists like me who do not dispute some of the human influence on climate are called "climate deniers', degrading the scientific debate and feeding the biases of extremists.
  • While Al Gore has stated, " the climate crisis is now the biggest existential challenge humanity has ever faced", the most recent 2018 Gallup poll of issues most worrisome to Americans revealed that only 2% of those polled listed any issue under "Environment/Pollution" as their top concern.
  • Satellite data over the last 40 years suggest that global warming of the atmosphere has progressed at a snails pace, +0.13 C per decade, with no attendant increase in severe weather. Surface warming has been somewhat greater, but is still too weak for anyone to notice in a lifetime.
  • Even this modest warming may not be entirely our fault ... claims of human fingerprints on recent warming are at best unproven, at worst untrue!
  • I am considered a 'lukewarmer', a believer that billions of people can have some warming influence on the climate system, but that our influence is rather small and probably benign.
  • The forecast of serious climate change impacts does not depend upon the well-known physics of most atmospheric processes, it instead depends upon poorly known and obscure "feedback" processes.
  • Climate change is a matter of faith - not science. Another way to phrase it is, the scientific support for a small portion of predicted warming is pretty good, while for strong warming is extremely speculative.
  • These scenarios are better described as science fiction.
  • How is it that warming between 1700-1950 is considered normal, but warming since 1950 is not?
  • How could 97% of scientists be wrong? Only a small fraction of the published studies actually involved research ... instead the papers simply assumed human causation. Scientist assumption can be useful, but it is far from decisive. 97% of the medical profession used to believe that peptic ulcers were caused by spicy food and stress. They were wrong.
  • Climate change papers and proposals are heavily biased toward the assumption of human causation.
  • Some scientific problems are exceeding difficult and slow to progress. The complexity of weather and thus climate makes scientific progress exceedingly slow and uncertain. Potential causes of climate change are entirely debatable.
  • Meddling by political influences can actually retard the scientific progress.
More From Dr Roy Spencer:


365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )