Global Warming

For those of you who don't recognize the name above, John Coleman is a TV weatherman...and the founder of The Weather Channel. He knows that global warming is not happening. Let me explain how we are being misled.

First of all, it would pay many of us to be aware that in the '70s, the environmental scare du jour was "The Ice Age is Coming!" Check out this quote from a Time Magazine article in the mid-70s:

"However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing...Telltale signs are everywhere...Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F...Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." (Emphasis mine)

In less than 20 years, burning fuel went from cause for a global cooling crisis to cause for a global warming crisis. Anyone remember why? I'll remind you. It was 99% the result of this one graphic:



This was put together by climatologist Michael Mann, and it was leveraged by PhDs, politicians, and worried ecologists everywhere into the full-fledged climate panic that we see today. There's just one problem. It's a lie.

The United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said of Mann's work: "In general, we found Mann's articles to be somewhat obscure and incomplete, and the criticisms of them to be valid and compelling."

The tricks that Mann used?

* They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

* The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

* They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

* They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "noise".

* He shows us more than 1000 years worth of temperature variation, but if you read the caption on the left, he compares it all to the average temperature of a 30-year span of that millenium. If it were compared to the average temperature of the entire thousand years, the graph would look much more reasonable.

* He used red, the color of heat, for the data gathered strictly from thermometers, and blue, the color of cold, for the older ice-core and other data. Try using Photoshop to reverse the color scheme, and you'll find the graph produces a much less alarming effect.

* Finally, notice that the black line ends in 1998. That't's because everything from that point onward is simply made up.

Here, for your convenience, is the same graph placed adjacent to the much more conventially-accepted temperature data of the last 1000 years:



The truth is, the cornerstone of the global warming panic is a lie. Most of the early validations of that lie were published by friends and co-workers of the team that originally created the lie, and those same people deliberately spurred their creation on to panic the bulk of the First World for their own fame and profit.

Here is an excerpt from my blog circa May 2008, discussing carbom emissions.

******

I'd just like to rant for a moment about something. It's halfway through May, and the food bank has exactly ONE green leafy vegetable. Any ideas why? Because it's been bloody cold, that's why. The scary thing is that 2006 was the coldest year in the last 20%u2026until 2007 happened*. 2008 looks to be continuing the trend. So what's up, Global Warming people?

Personally, I find the notion that human life has a profound effect on the global temperature to be a rather extreme form of hubris. And of all of the ways in which it's possible that we are doing so, why carbon dioxide? The most significant cause of 'the greenhouse effect' is water, which contributes a full 90% of the temperature change that it produces. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from .029% (pre-Industrial Revolution) to about .039% of the total gas content of the atmosphere.

Here's the kicker: as you add more CO2, the effect of the added CO2 diminishes. Of the temperature change from CO2 in the pre-Industrial Revolution atmosphere, the first doubling of that change came with the first .002% of the atmosphere's content. The second doubling didn't happen until we reached .026% - that means there had to be more than 10 times as much CO2 for the effect to merely double. To double the amount of warming that just CO2 caused in our atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution, we would have to have nearly 9% of our atmosphere be carbon dioxide - which would kill us off anyway, since carbon dioxide becomes toxic at 6%. Suffice to say, we haven't gotten anywhere near that mark - which means that we haven't gotten anywhere near twice the effect that CO2 had before the Industrial Revolution.

Without the greenhouse effect, scientists estimate that the Earth would be 33 degrees centigrade colder than it is now. 90% of that temperature change is from water. That means that if we discard every other greenhouse gas - and there are several that we're ignoring for the sake of simplicity here - 3.3 degrees C is the effect of CO2 on our world's temperature today. Knowing that we haven't doubled that effect since the industrial revolution, that means that, grossly overestimating in every possible stage of the game, our CO2 production has resulted in a grand total of 1.6 degrees C since we weren't doing anything to produce massive amounts of it and flood it into the atmosphere.

That sounds like a lot, until you realize that the gobal warming trend from 1880 (when humans started taking regular measurements) to today is only .06 degrees C. That means that our little thought-experiment above is definitionally horribly inflated. And before you go thinking that that half-degree was all our CO2's fault, check out the change in global temperature over the last several thousand years. The Earth doesn't care about us. Get over yourselves.