Several Global Warming enthusiasts have read one of my posts (here), then commented on the fact that I only have a few citations of science supporting my position or attacking Global Warming theories. Apparently, no matter how many citations I give, it will never satisfy true Global Warming Believers (Praise Be To Gore).
Oddly enough, when making their comments they never refute the points in my post, i.e., "Was there a Medieval Warming Period, and if so, how did that happen if man is the cause of Global Warming?"
"Was there a Little Ice Age, and if so, if man causes warming, what caused cooling?"
Their only answer is a non-answer; they want me to go to realscience.org, or to some other website, to frustrate me when I find that the answers to my fundamental questions are not there either.
I've gone to those websites, and looked, and so far have not found why there is abundant evidence in history of a Medieval Warming Period that is not reflected in the science of the Global Warming high priests and acolytes. All over Europe is strewn the evidence that it was as warm or warmer a thousand years ago than it is today, and that this warm period lasted about five hundred years (800-1300) compared to our present decade or two. Hell, we haven't gotten back to the heat of the 1920's or 1930's yet. Would anyone like to compare 1935 to 1998; or 1999, 2000, 2001, etc.?
Therefore, what I need is an index of all my sources, with pithy comments to give the reader a feel for what they will find if they take up my challenge to face the Dark Side.
Here they will find science that debunks Kyoto, including Liberal science that admits that if Kyoto is enacted, and miraculously complied with, it will only reduce global temperatures a fraction of a degree celcius. Kyoto will only slow sea level increases by an amount so small that it will be impossible to measure the Kyoto effect conclusively.
After you browse the articles below, you'll be moved to remark, "I didn't know there was so much science debunking Global Warming!"
Al Gore still doesn't know that.
You should be proud you're no longer as ignorant as a former Vice-President of the United States.
Another illustration of the arrogance of the ignorant. Water vapor and clouds are the prime players in the so-called "greenhouse effect," CO2 is a minor player, and we are a minor producer of it.
Have you ever heard an ant break wind in a hurricane? Or a flatulent herring in its school?
Speaking of ants, termites produce large quantities of both methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), but scientists only record the methane produced as a greenhouse gas because: "These CO2 emissions are part of the natural carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory."
(Drum roll!) The dirty science secret is out! As long as CO2 production is "part of the natural carbon cycle," it doesn't count!
It seems our ignorance of nature's contribution to greenhouse gases is courtesy of our scientists.
I wonder how much more they don't include in their "science"?
The following are some of my many sources. I have attempted to excerpt or add comments to each to give you a flavor of the detailed information you will find if you click on the link. Given the time, I would look at the details of each and everyone.
Come to think of it, I already have.
Now it's your turn.
(The bold highlighting in the following are my words, although much of what I have written is just summarization of information from the articles. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I am just the compiler of the information, not its creater.)
Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006
A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:
(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.
Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer, President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change
"We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a 'tiny minority outside the mainstream.' This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see 'no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.'"
Dr. Singer goes on to note that scientists that speak out against Global Warming orthodoxies are subjected to ad hominem attacks for having the courage to defend dissenting science.
I previously posted that some "scientists" and politicians (Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller in the United States, and others in Europe) even want to use the law and political pressure to silence dissent.
The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006
Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:
(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?
There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.
(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?
We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.
Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?
(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?
The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?
Dr. Singer has experience debating radical Left climate mythology. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan said the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere, disrupt the monsoons and lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which essentially put an end to the speculation.
And the threat of ecological disaster. If only all Liberal threatened disasters could be conclusively cleared up in only three days, like this one.
Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
in The Australian
The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.
Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.
Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
* Misleading links between weather events and climate change
Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.
* Misrepresentation of data
Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.
* Exaggerations about sea level rise
Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.
* Misleading claims about effects of climate change
Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
* Reliance on worst-case scenarios
Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.
* False claims about scientific views on global warming
Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.
* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States
(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
* Conceptual errors
Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.
The cows missed the movie, By Debra J. Saunders
I'm not a vegetarian, so I have mixed emotions about including this article. The left want to get rid of red meat so we will all live long enough to bankrupt Social Security (only twelve year to go!). Now they'll want to get rid of cows to prevent Global Warming too.
Two British news reports could not have come at a better time for Fred Singer, a scientist and global-warming denier, who has incurred the wrath of global-warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore.
The Independent reported Sunday that a new U.N. report found that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases. In other words, in the universe of global-warming alarmism, cow gas does more damage to Mother Earth than SUVs. (American cars are responsible for some 6 percent of greenhouse gases.)
Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray
Mr. Murray lists 25; he could have listed many more. In each point he includes a link to the supporting article, so all you Global Warming True Believers -- both of you who don't accept Gore's teachings (Praise Be To Gore) on belief alone -- will have a lot to ponder. The rest of you true believers should hold up your "holy hockey sticks" to protect you from learning inconvenient truths.
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature.
4. The Medieval Warm Period.
5. The Hottest Year.
6. Heat Waves.
7. Record Temperatures.
10. European Flooding.
11. Shrinking Lakes.
12. Polar Bears.
13. The Gulf Stream.
14. Invasive Species.
15. Species Loss.
16. Coral Reefs.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases.
18. Antarctic Ice.
19. Greenland Climate.
20. Sea Level Rise.
22. Energy Generation.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.”
25. Economic Costs.
"Gore quotes Winston Churchill — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: 'The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.'"
Greenland and Sea Level Rise
The Greenland ice sheet cannot slip into the sea since it is resting in a bowl-shaped depression produced by its own weight, surrounded by mountains which permit only limited glacier outflow to the sea.
Changes in Sea Level
Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.
Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?
"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.
"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com
"Well, I heard that carbon dioxide is bad -- it's pollution, isn't it?
"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.
Greenlanders Like Global Warming
For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.
Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.
Al Gore Calls United States and Australia "Bonnie & Clyde" of Global Warming, by Greg Strange, Blogger News Network
When the Kyoto treaty was voted down by the U.S. Senate it was during the Clinton-Gore administration and the vote wasn’t simply along party lines — it was unanimous. That means that not even the most flamingly liberal and rabidly environmental senator thought it was worth a plugged nickel.
That's right. Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and the whole Liberal lot voted against the Kyoto treaty! Even Democrats can recognize that bad science makes bad politics.
Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet
From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber
... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.
Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occured over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occured to date or is credibly forecasted.
* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.
Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.
* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.
These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man. So why do we take all the credit now?
To feed the egos of Chicken Little politicians and scientists, that's why.
Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.