Why I am skeptical of CAGW even before I look at the Science

CAGW - Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change due to Human Induced CO2

There are many reasons to be skeptical about the CAGW claims before you even look at what the climate is doing.

It is a politicized issue. When politicians are involved in a scientific issue it immediately becomes suspect because special interests will get involved that may not have the public interest at heart and may be more interested in using the government to line their own pockets with taxpayer money.

Subsidies and laws directing taxpayer money to solar, wind and biofuels can create new industries and new millionaires who may be the political contributors or friends of elected politicians. Subsidies raise suspicions about the motives of those receiving them. Subsidies are rarely recovered if the company goes bankrupt as often happens when government tries to pick winners.

Hypocrisy among the champions of the issue who do not lead by example. They expect others to "do as I say and not as I do". They preach sea level rise and the future flooding of coastal cities and then buy seaside mansions. Do they buy Chevy VOLTS that their programs subsidize? Do they engage in more electronic meetings rather than flying around the country from conference to conference?

Claims that the science is settled, the debate is over and that their is a scientific consensus should immediately activate the skeptical radar and be treated as a ploy to manipulate public opinion and stifle objections. Look closely, for someone is trying to start a gravy train with their pockets as a destination. Guardians of the sacred knowledge don't want you to see it.  

"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell

Launching ad hominems at those who respectfully disagree with the accepted (PC) viewpoint initiates the BS radar. Robert Kennedy recently call Sen. Inhofe a Prostitute: Big Oils top call girl. Good argument, Bob. Will win over no one but will provide a chuckle for the converted. Also called Sen Inhofe a traitor who should be executed in previous years. Sen. Inhofe thinks prostitute is an improvement.

Appealing to authority as if counting heads is how science works. It took two hundred years but eventually the conventional wisdom of Newtonian physics was overturned by one guy named Albert. Science is filled with such examples. Alfred Wegener comes to mind. So what if all the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations agree that CAGW is real? Not all of the scientists within those bodies will agree. And then there is this from the American NAS.

Focusing on who made a claim. Ask not who made the claim, ask whether or not the claim is true. ~Aquinas

Focusing on how many make a claim. Ask not how many make a claim,  ask whether or not it is true. ~Me

Focusing on who funded a claim. Ask not who funded the claim, ask whether or not it is true. ~Me

When those responsible for reporting on the State of the Climate seek immunity from prosecution should our skeptical radar not  become acticated?

Appeals to world government (global governance) as part of the solution to the problem smells of people control and nothing else. "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome  

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." ~ H.L. Mencken

Pinky: Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tonight?
Brain: Same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!

Predictions of disaster (PoD) if the policies for CO2 reduction are not followed. When has a disaster of global proportions ever happened as a result of human action?  PoDs are used to scare up money for preferred projects and policies and to frighten people into acquiescence. Scare tactics are immediately suspect and crackle the skeptical radar. Remember weapons of mass destruction? Now we have: Earth has a fever.

 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken

How much pain have they caused us, the evils that never happened. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Efforts of scientists to stymy the request for their data from other scientists. This suggests data manipulation and a cover up. Contrast this with the behavior of the scientists who thought they had found particles that went faster than light. They invited other scientists to look at their data.  See Climategate I and II emails.

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” ~ Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

When the 'humanity is the problem' paradigm is present so is an agenda. And the humanity that is the problem is often those carrying the placard proclaiming 'humanity is the problem'. They have an agenda. If there is a real problem then technology is probably our best bet to resolve it.

 "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." ~ Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official    

When scientists become activists and insert themselves into a political 'cause' it can become a self-serving exercise as research funding can be manipulated to flow their way. Politicians can be swayed by their authoritative demeanors backed by data that supports a scary scenario. But just as a lie can spread around he world before the truth has a chance to tie its shoes so can preliminary data 'spark an urgent need' to do something about an issue before cooler heads prevail and all the evidence is weighed in the court of scientific peer-reviewed journals. Politicians love a good crisis for they get a chance to play savior and to demonize dissent. The mainstream media (MSM) love a good scare because it sells advertising because readership goes up.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

— Dwight David Eisenhower

Farewell Address as U.S. President (1961). In Diane Ravitch, The American Reader (2000), 538

These are some reasons to be skeptical of  the claims of those who support the idea that human induced CO2 in our atmosphere will lead to CAGW before we even look at the science that is alleged to bolster it.

 "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”  ~ Bertrand Russell

PS: more support for the skeptic.

When a scientist predicts 20C warming

you know that the CAGW crisis is nearing its end. They do admit that they do not know when that milestone will be reached. Perhaps they should have added 'if that milestone is reached'.

Now they are really trying to scare us. The quote below was made on Earth Day 1970.



“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
~ Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Guess the trends didn't continue. At least Kenneth was wise enough to use that CYA hedge. It would have been  really useful if Kenneth could have peered into the future about 6 years and seen the PDO shift that was going to take place with the resulting step jump in world temperatures. But he didn't use that crystal ball. Wonder why? 

Guess Matthew Huber is not watching the current temperature trends.


I feel quite safe in saying that the 20C rise due to increasing CO2 concentrations will not occur.


We'll see who is correct.



                                                      




 

Scientists get it worng

Perhaps climate scientists should keep their end of world predictions to themselves. Their continued failures are giving them a reputation similar to the Harold Camping's of the world or the USGS with their predictions regarding the supply of oil.

Remember Paul Erhlich's prediction about our impending starvation. We are still here.

Here is the settled science on snow.

Here is an Australian study on rain. Here is Tim Flannery, Australian of the year in 2007.

Here is Hansen on sea level rise. Will he be wrong? Will we be in heaven in 2027?

And from Obama an expert on unemployment.

Can we conclude that when scientists predict disaster for humans that we are safe to ignore them because they have never been correct.

How could this be? Corals survive CAGW?

 The study of corals and coral reefs turn up some surprising facts that do not support the conventional wisdom or the theory of man-made global warming. Thanks to C3.

Florida Keys corals were zapped by cold snap in 2010. Aren't corals supposed to be upset by global warming?  Gee, does this mean that CO2 has nothing to do with it? Or maybe CO2 is beneficial?

Warming beneficial to coral bleaching expert says.

When did coral bleaching start? Only after huge increase in human CO2 emissions? Nope.

Caribbean coral responses to warming. More on Caribbean corals.

Corals are remarkably adaptive to climate change.

Another alarmist prediction that didn't come true. 40% of world's corals gone by 2010. Oh, Oh!

Coral reefs help to disprove climate predictions. Better not let this get out.

Another contradiction to an IPCC prediction. Climate variability greater from 1850-1920 than now.

Corals adapt well to global warming. See here and  here and here and here and here and here

Corals adapt during MWP

Corals like a less alkaline ocean.

Corals help prove that sea level rise precedes CO2 rise?  Tell me it ain't so!

No damage from increased CO2?

Can corals recover from bleaching?  Yes they can.

They are resilient. They confound the experts.

What causes coral bleaching? Not CO2? Not global warming? Whaaaat!

It's the SUN ! Whaaaat!

Have any of the fearful forecasts we have heard about corals been true? Or is this just more green fear mongering to further an agenda.

Finally, a human impact on corals. Local. Problem

Tic, Tic, Tic

Apparently, warm winter weather is good for ticks but not so good for the animals they prey on. Moose could suffer. This report accepts the connection between warm weather and CO2 without citing any evidence. I guess they just know it is true  because they have heard that it is.

However, over at Isle Royal the winter ticks are in decline which is allowing the moose population to recover.

But in 1996, in a severe winter on Isle Royal the moose were plagued by a heavy infestation of ticks.

So which is it? Does warm weather produce more ticks or does cold weather produce more ticks? Seems the moose are doomed no matter what the temperature. They can't get any relief. And all this is due to CO2 that keeps changing the climate?

Give me a break!

Thanks to Tom Nelson for the fun times with CO2. It is truly an amazing gas.

Chicago, Chicago, That Toddlin' Town

Nice weather makes President Obama nervous. "When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On  the other hand, I really have enjoyed nice weather.” See, President Obama prefers warm to cold too. But let's see if it should make anyone nervous let alone the president of the United States.

Let's say we go find days in the past when temperatures were over 80 in March in Chicago. And here are some, compliments of Marc Morano over at ClimateDepot.com.

'Chicago has had seventeen March days over 80 degrees, including two in 1907, five in 1910, 1928, 1938, two in 1939, 1945, 1981 and three in 1986. All of those years had CO2 below 350 ppm'

Hmmm. Two days in March 1907 that were over 80 in Chicago. Then is it not difficult to claim that the March temperatures in 2012 were unprecedented? This was also at a time when CO2 concentration was much less than it is now. So it is possible to have warm temperatures at differing levels of CO2. Would you not conclude from this information that CO2 probably has very little to do with influencing temperature?

Does anyone see a trend toward more March days with temperatures over 80 in Chicago? Even without plotting those numbers on a graph it is easy to see that there is no accelerating trend.  So we can't find evidence of accelerated warming in Chicago in March. But  according to CAGW theory, shouldn't we?

Humans keep records because our memories are so poor. How could Obama know these facts?  Rather than saying “It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures", in his leadership role, he might have expressed his ignorance by pondering questions that most of us might have had and wondered how unusual this was for Chicago. Then, people who do know or who are able to find out, could provide the president with an update.

One of the items provided in the above 'update' is the story of the blooming cherry trees in Washington which are showing their resplendent beauty early this year due to the mild winter in the Capitol. However, at the same time, Japan's cherry trees will be blooming later this year because of the cold winter experienced in that country. Is it not difficult to explain these two opposing conditions in terms of a human induced CO2 driven climate change model? Surely, at the very least, we would have to conclude that influences other than CO2 must be at work in temperature determination. Winters are supposed to be getting warmer as CO2 increases in our atmosphere are they not? And if we look hard enough will we not find that somewhere in the past that Japan's cherry trees bloomed earlier than those of Washington because Japan had a milder winter than Washington? Just to quell the panic that we are about to spontaneously combust if we don't stop putting CO2 into our atmosphere in 1946 the cherry trees bloomed earlier than in 2012. See the update above. That also happened in 1941.

If a Montreal reporter, who, while observing the early blooming of the tulips at Churchill Downs where the Kentucky Derby is run, can ask: Can you say global warming?, then is it not also a valid to point out the late blooming of the cherry blossoms in Japan and ask : Can you say global cooling? If one is valid so is the other. But, of course, neither proves either warming or cooling. In fact, these opposing observations for the same time of year in the same hemisphere suggest that CO2 has nothing to do with either situation.

If CO2 concentration is so important to temperature determination then how come we don't have a CO2 index to tell us important weather information? We have a humidex. We have a UV index. Why no CO2 index? Could it be that that index would not tell us anything useful about what the day's temperature will be?

Could it be that CO2 is a rather anemic contributor to temperature? Could it be that all the hoopla over human induced CO2 is just a red herring for the implementation of Agenda 21? 

Pinky: What are we going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world.

While North America basks in balmy weather we talk as if the whole world were experiencing what we are experiencing. We need to look around.

So if CO2 has nothing to do with our mild weather what caused it? Here is what a meteorologist says. Which explanation makes more sense to you? Well documented movements of the Jet Stream or wild speculation about CO2? To quell the hysteria, here is some more history on warm winters in the US.

What will convince you that CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric temperature?

What will convince the MSM and CAGW crowd? Nothing? Then it is not a scientific theory; it is a religion.

 

 

 

Acceleraing? Unprecedented? Unequivocal? Global?

Really? On what planet?

• Are modern global warming temperatures accelerating?
• Are modern global warming temperatures unprecedented?
• Are modern global warming temperatures unequivocal?
• Are modern global warming temperatures really "global"?

In Response to Rose Murphy

The responses to this article take the temperature of  2012 feelings regarding CAGW.  My own contribution follows.

Rose, look up the predictions that were made on the first Earth Day, 1970. How many would you say came true? And some were made by Phds. You will love the one about global cooling. Here is just one:

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

Lucky us.
Conventional wisdom in 1970? Settled science in 1970? Consensus in 1970?
Or BS: Bad Science

As Yogi said: The future ain't what it used to be.

Sometimes scientists over estimate their knowledge. Or is it that some are particularly good at self delusion like Harold Camping? Bearing in mind that we are still here: how many predictions of calamity do you know that have come true? We love to scare ourselves to death. It is an MSM game.

One day we will be laughing at CAGW predictions too. I think my kids are safe from CO2 but probably not from scientists who make fearful forecasts.

Huuray for CO2!

Now why aren't we hearing about this which I stumbled across on Mar. 18, 2012.

"...a doubling of the air's CO2 concentration will likely ameliorate all of the ozone damage likely to otherwise occur to earth's crops and trees by the year 2100."

Supporting information can be found here.


CO2 - a trace gas essential to life on Earth. 

Whenever you take a breath thank a tree,
Fed by CO2 exhaled from you and me.

Anchorage winter 2012

Anchorage Alaska may set a record for snowfall this winter. Predictably this has been blamed on global warming. And without any evidence that this represents an increase in the frequency of weather extremes it is concluded that because it is an extreme event global warming is involved.

So in 2000, because of global warming we aren't going to see less and less snow but when we get lots of snow 12 years later it is also because of global warming. The alarmists certainly know how to cover all their bases. If the theory doesn't work out just ignore the failed prediction and carry on with a revised explanation. CO2 is such a magical gas. It can produce less snow and more snow depending on whether it snows or doesn't snow. But CO2 is definitely responsible and that is baaaaaddd.

More likely, all their CO2 went south for the winter. We are told that CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Take away the gas and it is going to get cold.

Hey, I can make stuff up too.

Can you trust the Consensus?

 One of the main arguments that the MSM and CAGW alarmists like to make is the fact that most of the major scientific organizations in most countries agree that climate change is happening and that human activities are responsible. Bodies like the NAS in the USA, the Royal Society in Britain

There is an interesting and disquieting post on that issue here.

This argument is a variation of the argument ad populum or the argument from authority. If there was one question on a logic exam concerning the validity of such an argument and you answered in the affirmative you would flunk. 97% agree therefore it must be true. Maybe, maybe not. Independent verification is required.

Earth Hour: Ignite the Light

 The hydro electricity that warms my apartment and provides light at night to save my shins from unwelcome coffee table encounters is my responsibility. Hence, turning lights off and lowering the electric heat when I go out have become automatic money savers for me. Some people engage in what has become an annual show of solidarity in what they believe to be an act of protection for the planet. A little less CO2 is good for you and me. For every breath you take hug a tree fed by CO2 exhaled by you and me. Hmmmmm.

This article asks if Earth Hour is worth the effort. The comments are worth reading.

Here is another that suggests renaming Earth Hour to Energy Hour.

Darkness is an appropriate symbol for the Green movement as they seek to curtail the use of  fossil fuels that power our economy. It serves as a reminder of what life was like before electricity and could be like again when all we have are wind farms and solar panels to depend on. Black is the new green. Darkness has always been a symbol of ignorance, evil and death. Turning off our lights for an hour is like a symbolic return to the dark ages, a period of extreme cold (snow fell in summer),  famine and disease. Is North Korea, an oppressive regime, a poster child of the Green movement as satellites regularly record the lack of light in the country at night? I am being facetious, of course, as AGW alarmists want the good life just like everyone else but they seem to want it to cost more green to go green. It is interesting that their attack on human induced CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, can also be construed as an anti-life crusade. Ironically, CO2 is green as it contributes to enhanced plant growth - which means increased food production and forest prosperity. The policy objective of reduced CO2 emissions appears to be a counter-productive move for those concerned with providing biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. CO2 is needed to grow them and the more the merrier but Greens want to reduce the CO2 needed to raise them. We now grow food to burn in our vehicles. How will people who cannot get enough to eat respond to this news? Does this make sense to you?


Every night is Earth Hour in North Korea

Greens like alternative energy sources because they believe that human induced CO2 is causing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. In addition to biofuels they champion wind and solar as preferred energy sources. Those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it and I guess we will have to relearn why wind was abandoned in the past as a viable source of power. It is unreliable and expensive. It is only available when the wind blows and then only when it doesn't blow too hard. The wind farms often have a gas powered backup in case the wind isn't blowing or is blowing too hard when the power that they are supposed to generate is required. They have also become known as 'Cuisinarts of the sky' for their penchant for slicing birds and sucking bats into their twirling windmill. Although they do not advocate the killing of our flying creatures it is a consequence of green policy. Ideas do have consequences. Modern wind turbines use rare earth elements which must be mined in ever larger quantities as the world adopts more wind power. China is the main source of rare earth metals. Apparently, the mining of rare earth is not environmentally friendly.

Both wind and solar must be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer as their disadvantages in comparison with fossil fuels make them an uneconomical alternative. These alternative energy sources remind me of the Luddite response to the loom. Like wind solar has some disadvantages. While solar can be used in small portable appliances fossil fuel remains Nature's best battery. It is portable and machines that use it can be easily recharged. We have control over it while we cannot control the wind or the amount of sun that we will get at any given time. We can plan for fossil fuel use and have it present on demand. This is a great advantage over wind and solar.

As we have learned over the years the predictions of CAGW alarmism have failed to materialize so CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth,  has been exonerated as a modern demon. This should be good news for now we can turn on our lights, turn up the heat, enjoy our a/c in the summer, fly to our preferred vacation destination and drive our SUVs without guilt. CO2 will help to ameliorate ozone damage to crops. Sounds like CO2 is our friend.

My preference during Earth hour will be to honor the scientists and engineers who have made our lives better by learning to harness Nature for the benefit of all mankind. They have brought us from darkness to light. Light is an emblem of knowledge, warmth, growth and a prerequisite for human progress. In the past, the winter solstice was celebrated with a festival of lights to signal an end to the long darkness and the beginning of longer days as the sun moved higher in the sky and stayed longer above the horizon.. In the past, this was seen as a boon to humans who could be more active and accomplish more than they could in the cold season. Choosing to celebrate contemporary life during earth hour my desired lights and appliances will be in use. Please join me and push back the darkness. During earth hour, ignite the light for better insight. Do not kid the grid. The planet is fine.