As is apt to happen when I'm involved in a innocent Facebook thread, a recent post by a friend turned into a friendly debate...this time on global warming. I am surprised that after all that has been revealed about the whole "Climategate" scandal, anyone still believes that mankind has any significant impact on the climate...but many do still. For me, the science is settled.
What follows is my Facebook response with links to supporting information. Note: I will admit when I am w... wwwrrr.... wronnnnn.... wrong. (Fonzie impersonation). The volcano example I have been using seems to be unsupported. I still stand by my over-all assertion: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.
I am not a scientist and don't play one on TV. ;-). But I have paid pretty close attention to this whole thing for quite some time. When the theory of "man-made global warming" was first floated, I quickly dismissed it out of hand, in the beginning because of research I had read about a few years earlier. This research tested CO2 levels in polar ice. It showed that the planet has been going through heating and cooling cycles for thousands of years.
As the whole thing heated up, I read more and found out that while the temperature of Earth was rising...so was the global temperature of Mars. Last time I checked, there are no coal-fired electric plants or SUVs on Mars. There are many climate scientists who believe that solar activity has far more to do with global temperatures on earth that anything man could ever do...and the data from Mars would seem to back this hypothesis. The fact that global warming ended in 1998 [The East Anglia guy admits to it ending in 1995] also corresponds to a period of low solar activity.
There are also known, long-term ocean cycles that effect the climate...such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that was in a cooling cycle from 1945 to 1977. In the 70's, climate alarmists were warning of the next coming ice age. So, what happened after the cooling cycle of the PDO...that's right, a warming cycle.
Additionally, while there has been some localized melting of glaciers, over-all, new data shows that the polar ice caps have NOT receded and we now know that the Michael Mann "hockey stick graph" is fatally flawed and that the models that were being used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and others, cannot even come close to predicting actual weather of the past when known data is used. We have also found out that they fudged the numbers and then sought to cover it up.
So while no credible scientists deny that the earth warms, most, who do not have vested interests, see it as a part of natural cycles that man could not significantly effect if he tried. We know that one, decent sized volcanic eruption puts out more so-called greenhouse gas than the whole industrialized world puts out in a whole year [Can't find source for this one...in fact, this argument seems to be untrue. Although volcanoes do emit large amounts so-called green-house gasses, the yearly total is significantly less than human activity]...and there are typically a few eruptions a year...what is the real impact of man?
Yes, I am a skeptic. I have done some reading, and I believe the preponderance of evidence is against the "Man-Made Global Warming" theory. I also follow the money and power of these sorts of things. With pending cap-and-trade legislation, new so-called Green businesses and the U.N. pushing for more control of world wide economy to help avert the "crisis," I see the corrupting influences that are backing the movement. Those who speak out against it are swimming against the popular stream and have very little to gain, and in many cases, a lot to lose.
Additional information that was not in the Facebook threads:
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is man-made. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, 'What else COULD it be?' Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far." ~ Dr. Roy Spencer. PhD., a highly respected climate scientist.
Newsmax.com reported in February of 2011 that a group of scientists blasted “climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of what is happening to our planet's climate," in an open letter in response to a report to congress made by those "alarmists." The letter also asks if the recent reports “provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
“Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.”
“Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.”
National Geographic reported in December 2007 that "after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: 'At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.'"
And yet, Antarctica still has over 162,000 Manhattans of ice remaining. And, over the years, the freeze thaw cycles have remained fairly consistent. It better start melting quick.
And yet, Antarctica still has over 162,000 Manhattans of ice remaining. And, over the years, the freeze thaw cycles have remained fairly consistent. It better start melting quick.
WHAT'S DOWN WITH THE SUN?
MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED -
"A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).""As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all."
"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."
