Editor Comment: It appears that there is some irrational bias underlying the argument of those who believe that globsal warming seriously threatens
planet life of all forms. Leaving aside the questionable basis of their claim that "97% of all worled scienists believe that that global warming is a threat to planet life" ---- or that "computer models are accurate predictors of climate change" or "CO2 - not possibly solar flaring, is the cause of global heat rise cycles"
, (see bold underline comments below), who in their right mind believes that a rational approach to explaining ones belief in the validity of their argumant is to start with the statement, if you don't accept my side of the debate - you are a "denier" --- in other words "you are stupid". There is no way that this debate can be settled if the global warming believers continue to emphasize this point.
Source: Fritz -=- whoever he is, he seems to have done his homework which make some sense
I begin to ask myself, “How can you
not believe the narrative on Global Warming and how man-made production of CO2
is the main cause?’ I am not a climate scientist and the world seems to
be clearly stacked in favor of the narrative. Brilliant leaders in Europe
and 200 countries, including, Russia and China agree it is a serious problem
for the planet. President Obama, with all his scientific experts has fully
committed to the idea the man made emissions of CO2 are causing our planet to
warm, ice caps to melt, seas to rise, crop failures, famines and the death of
many species.
Last week on the Fox all-stars, Mara
Liasson said more than once, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on
the human contribution to global warming. Even Krauthammer said he has no
problem with the Paris Climate accord and would support its
implementation. This is a brilliant man, with medial and law degrees to
spare. If asked what support Liasson has for her overwhelming
scientific consensus, I am sure she would say 97% of scientists have supported
the fact humans are causing global warming. No one challenged
Liasson or Krauthammer. Fox did not comment there are other opinions and
the 97% story has been repeated over and over without reasonable vetting.
97% of scientists agree this is settled science. How can I be so stupid
as to challenge those kinds of numbers, the brilliant scientists and leaders of
200 countries, NASA, NOAA and former President Barak Obama. I am a piss
ant compared to their combined mental capacity. I am not even degreed in
climate science, meteorology, physics or several other fields which would
qualify me speak on this topic.
The only tools I have come from
my graduate studies at the University of Minnesota, in Quantitative Analysis
and my work in business as an Operations Research Analyst. This
background gave me a fundamental understanding of such scientific esoteric
tools as correlation, linear regression, trends, causation and data
integrity. The application of these tools continue to have a scientific
validity even 50 years after I completed my coursework.
So what is my point? The basic
underlying foundation of the 97% consensus has serious data integrity and
statistical flaws which almost any scientist examining the study would agree,
produces absurd findings. The 97% consensus is the outcome of a
study by an Australian named John Cook in 2012, in which he says he examined
12,000 papers written on the topic of man’s contribution to Global Warming,
through the emissions of CO2. The statistical techniques Cook used to produce
a 97% outcome, have been examined by others along with his emails to
produce a clear picture of the process he used. Cook started by examining
12,000 papers written on the topic of manmade global warming. First Cook
dismissed 8,000 of the papers, because they did not express an opinion on the
narrative. He then dismissed thousands more for various reasons, and
ended up with 65 papers which supported the global warming narrative.
These 65 papers represented 97% percent of the papers he deemed suitable to be
considered in his study. The 65 papers represented less than 1% of the
12,000 papers he purported to examine. Using 1% of papers written on the
subject he decided 97% of scientist agree human actions are causing
temperatures to rise. A person does not have to be much of a
statistician to understand the flaws in this study. Yet, this study has
become the mantra for the global warming narrative and has been repeated
over and over again, even by the President of the United States, Barak Obama.
Here is a decent examination of the flaws in the study.
Here is a further study of the
emails of John Cook, which uncover the sinister nature of the study and the
conspiracy to produce a consensus from non-consensus material.
I would like to get back to
statistics. Particularly correlation, which is the study of the
relationship measured data points over time. I will not go into the tools
used in measuring correlation, but suffice it to say, if two data series are
correlated, they indicate a relationship in which the knowledge of one data
point in time would produce a reasonably accurate prediction of the other
data point. The techniques of determining the degree of correlation,
can also produce a measurement of accuracy one might expect when
forecasting an unknown data point from a known data point.
In this discussion, the global
warming activists have presented a theory: The theory says as the content
of CO2 in the atmosphere rises the temperature of the earth will also
rise. Al Gore in his famous Inconvenient Truth compared CO2 in the
atmosphere to annual temperature going back centuries and expressed a
very high correlation. Meaning in his view, as CO2 emissions rise the
temperature will also rise. The chart he showed in his movie, was quite
convincing as the two lines representing CO2 and temperature, moved in
unison across the chart for centuries in the past. Gore confidently
declared increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere created higher temperature for
the globe. His chart showed CO2 levels literally going through the
roof. Never mind the real CO2 content is so minute, it is represented by
less then
There was one significant error in
Gores chart which few people understood, Al Gore never revealed and no
competent statistician would have accepted. There was a shift in the data
which was not apparent when seen from a distance on a chart over a couple
centuries. Examining the data more closely, scientist found the
temperature rise or fall occurred on average 4 years before the CO2 levels rose
or fell. This is significant as some might say there is causation, but
not CO2 causing temperature to rise, but temperature causing CO2 to rise.
This is a fatal flaw in the statistical analysis of this data pair. To my
knowledge, there has been no proof of this causation, however, it should
deserve the amount of consideration given the Gore causation theory.
I should note here, the oceans have
a significant store of CO2. In fact the oceans contain many times more
CO2 than the atmosphere. Scientists have hypothesized as temperatures
rise, the oceans release trapped CO2. There has been many cycles of
warming and cooling of the earth over the centuries, and no one disputes the
Medieval Warm Period around 950 to 1200 AD, where temperatures reached levels
found in the late 1990’s or the existence of the Ice age.
Of greater concern was the right
hand side of the chart Gore presented with great fanfare. The chart had
the data pair moving along the bottom for centuries, then suddenly, at the
right side of the chart, it made an abrupt turn upward in CO2 in the
atmosphere. In terms of a time series it was startling and to reach it on
the huge chart , Gore had to stand on a ladder for effect. Putting aside
the mistake of saying CO2 in the atmosphere has never been above 300 parts per
million, let’s look at that number. 300 parts per million is .0003 of the
atmosphere. 1% would be .01 and CO2 at 300 ppm is 3% of 1%. The
charts show in 1950 CO2 in the atmosphere was 300 ppm and in 2015 it was close
to 400 ppm. While that represented a 33% increase it still was only .0004
of the atmosphere. Gore and the global warming alarmists were saying at
the current growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures would rise beyond any
level civilization could tolerate.
Given this prediction, based on
faulty correlation data discussed above, as CO2 has risen temperature should be
also rising. In fact from a high in 1998 temperatures have remained
pretty stable. At first, the response of the alarmists has been to
change the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Then
NOAA came to the rescue. After 18 years of CO2 increases without
temperature changes, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA an
agency of the Department of Commerce, released adjusted readings for ground
based temperature recording devices. These adjusted readings were
overwhelmingly adjusted upward. Amazing and timely to the global
warming theory the flat temperatures for the last 17 years became a steady
rise, even while the satellite temps have remained flat. These were not
minor changes, they were a major shift the climate data, including removing the
highest temp on record from the 1930’s.
I would like to comment on
Climate Models. A predominant part of the CO2 Global warming argument
(sorry it is not settled science), is based on computer models which predict
global temperatures decades in the future. It does not take a
meteorological degree to understand forecasting the weather is a an daunting
task. One just has to watch the local weather forecasts to see,
projecting more than a day or two out has a great variation in accuracy.
Once the predictions are beyond a couple days, predictions on humidity, dew
points, temperature, and precipitation vary in accuracy and frequently are
beyond acceptable accuracy. I ask myself, if accuracy a week or two in
the future is not possible, how can temperatures 50 years from now be
accurate. Well they can’t, and the models have proven this point.
The models at the turn of the century have consistently predicted temperature
increases which were not achieved. The models are adjusted every year and
new temperature predictions are produced and again fail to materialize.
These failures of these models to produce accurate temperatures just a year or
two in the future, should alarm those who think the 50 year out forecasts are
accurate. I say they have no clue as to what temperatures will be in 50
years, even if their estimates of CO2 in the atmosphere are accurate.
Wikipedia has an article on Medieval
Warming period on their website. Its presents the reconstructed
temperatures from NOAA, as if they are now the accurate measurements of global
temperatures.
What makes this page meaningful, it
says possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar
activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.
There is no mention of CO2. To me it is strange the warming trend of the
late 1900’s is attributed to CO2, when other warming periods are attributed to
solar, volcanic and ocean circulation activity. Certainly these
natural phenomenon still exist today. Why are they not considered as
contributors to the changes in temperatures.
Lastly, the Global Warming people
say CO2 is a pollutant. This is not correct. CO2 is a gas and is
the basis of life on earth. Without CO2, plants would not grow, food
would not be produced and humans and animals would disappear from the
earth. CO2 is produced when carbon is converted to energy. People
have confused CO2 Carbon Dioxide with Carbon Monoxide, which is also a
byproduct of combustion. Carbon Monoxide and other byproducts in car
exhaust are already regulated by the clean air act of 1970’s. Calling CO2
a pollutant is evidence of the dishonesty of this Global Warming argument.
So, here I am swimming against the
stream of global warming advocates. Brilliant people like my President
Barak Obama, 97% of the scientists, venerable agencies, like NASA and NOAA, 200
government members of the United Nations, and many successful corporations,
such as Facebook, Google, GE, Exxon, Amazon, Tesla……etc. Is there really
something to be concerned about the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Their case has not been proven, and any dissent is summarily dismissed, with
the argument of settled science and dissenters are chastised. Some
believers have even suggested, dissenters should be prosecuted for their
dissent. I have been watching the show Genius on National
Geographic. It is a multipart series on the life of Albert
Einstein. In addition to his theory of relativity, he posited gravity
bends light in space. He was royally spurned for this theory as it went
against the accepted science of the day. Of course Einstein was right and
it teaches all the undeniable fact science is never settled.
Fortunately time will tell regarding
global warming and the nature of CO2. Perhaps it will only take a decade
more to prove this settled science of global warming is not only unsettled but
wrong. There are those who study the sunspot activity and predict a
cooling period is beginning. I consider their arguments better founded on
science than the CO2 argument.
If the evidence is weak
and consensus does not exist, why would President Obama call this the largest
threat to mankind and 200 world governments agree with him? They have
better statisticians available to them and can read the same material I
read. Why would all dissent be obliterated by a freight train of verbal
and monetary punishment. Certainly there are bigger issues to
consider. Such as Social Security and Medicare funding running out soon,
or the threat of Islamic terror, or illegal immigration overwhelming the
welfare system, or the $20 trillion deficit which amounts to $165,000 in debt per
household. These are not just US problems, they haunt all developed
countries financial stability.
Maybe these items are important, and
the only way the shadow governments of the world see them being solved is to
develop a new revenue stream, by apply a carbon tax to CO2 emissions.
Being a globalist, Obama may see this as a great way to knock down the superior
living standard of the US and a way to solve the world’s largest debt
problem. Who pays for a carbon tax…..yes it is a tax increase on those
least able to pay. Corporations will pass it to their customers in higher
prices and the burden will fall on the bottom 75% of the population, while the
elite will see it as just a minor expense. Is this what global warming is
all about? I was surprised a couple years ago when the Pope started to
preach the global warming mantra. I thought, what has this got to do with
the Catholic religion? Then I remembered Barak Obama had visited the Pope
just a short time before this change in the Papal message. Think
about it. Is this one of the biggest scams we will have seen in our
lifetimes? Why not just raise taxes on the rich? Sure that will do
it! Wait a minute, who owns the politicians of the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment