Inconvenient Truth: The “Global Warming” Conundrum
In the early 1990s, scientists forecast that the coral atoll of nine islands – which is only 3.5 metres above sea level at its highest point – would vanish within decades because the sea was rising by up to
4 cm a year.Contrary to these dire predictions about the effects of man-made global warming, the sea did not rise as we were warned. In fact, a just released expert tide gauge station analysis out
of New Zealand confirms the current global sea level rise is barely noticeable, contradicting IPCC predictions over the past two decades.The biggest name to reverse his position on global warming is James Lovelock, best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.
Five years ago, he had claimed: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”But in an interview with msnbc.com, he admitted: “I made a mistake.”He said: “The problem is we don’t
know what the climate is doing… We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened… The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a
frying world… [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”Lovelock said he is not the only one who got it wrong, suggesting other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore and Tim Flannery, also thought the impact would have been seen sooner.
John L. Petersen, who produces the Arlington Institute’s FUTUREdition, recently discussed the factual problems making the case for global warming, whether man-made or by some other mechanism. One of his researchers looked at all the research and gave him 20 reasons why we
should “do nothing about global warming.”
A few of the points he made are: “The world is not warming as fast as predicted. There is no scientific reason why it ever will. Even if the world warmed as fast as predicted, it would be many times more cost-effective to adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of future warming than to spend any money now.” “A generation ago, the IPCC’s first Assessment Report in 1990 provided high, medium and low estimates of how much warming would occur by today. The real-world, measured outturn is below the IPCC’s lowest model-based estimate. The models, and the ‘consensus’, got it wrong.”“The models and the ‘consensus’ get it wrong because all 7 of the key parameters in the fundamental equation of climate sensitivity – the CO2 radiative forcing, the Planck sensitivity parameter and five ‘temperature feedbacks’ – are unmeasured, unmeasurable, unknown, and unknowable. The models that are the basis for the ‘consensus’ are expensive guesswork.”
“If we are told the experts believe a thing is so, that is no evidence their reputation is deserved, still less that they are acting in accordance with it, still less that what they assert is true. Science is not based on the speculations of ‘experts’, however profitable, but on hard evidence.” “The third Assessment Report in 2001 said there was no medieval warm period, but the IPCC’s ‘hockey-stick’ graph of 1,000 years’ temperatures has been exposed as a scientific fraud. Papers by 1,000+ scientists from 400+ institutions in 40+ countries provide hard, real-world evidence that the medieval warm
period was real, global, and warmer than the present.”“Over the six decades since 1950, the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century. Yet the IPCC predicts 3 C°
over the 21st century. That is thrice what is observed.”“Sea level in the past 8 years has risen at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches/century.”
“The 50 million ‘climate refugees’ the UN confidently and loudly predicted by 2010 do not exist.”
“Arctic sea-ice loss is largely matched by gains in Antarctic sea ice, for Antarctica has cooled.”
“The failed draft of the UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty, using climate as the pretext, would have established an unelected world ‘government’ with vast powers. The Cancun agreement created almost 1,000 worldgovernment bureaucracies.”In the face of contradictory information and egos on both sides of the debate, it’s difficult to determine what is true. Ultimately it depends on predictions that prove to be reasonably accurate, which so far seems to be the problem. Or is the whole global warming scare being used as cover for a larger agenda to reshape our world?
(Sources: “‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change”, msnbc.com, 23 April; http://co-2science.org/articles/V15/N17/C1.php; www.futuredition.org)
4 cm a year.Contrary to these dire predictions about the effects of man-made global warming, the sea did not rise as we were warned. In fact, a just released expert tide gauge station analysis out
of New Zealand confirms the current global sea level rise is barely noticeable, contradicting IPCC predictions over the past two decades.The biggest name to reverse his position on global warming is James Lovelock, best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.
Five years ago, he had claimed: “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”But in an interview with msnbc.com, he admitted: “I made a mistake.”He said: “The problem is we don’t
know what the climate is doing… We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened… The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a
frying world… [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”Lovelock said he is not the only one who got it wrong, suggesting other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore and Tim Flannery, also thought the impact would have been seen sooner.
John L. Petersen, who produces the Arlington Institute’s FUTUREdition, recently discussed the factual problems making the case for global warming, whether man-made or by some other mechanism. One of his researchers looked at all the research and gave him 20 reasons why we
should “do nothing about global warming.”
A few of the points he made are: “The world is not warming as fast as predicted. There is no scientific reason why it ever will. Even if the world warmed as fast as predicted, it would be many times more cost-effective to adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of future warming than to spend any money now.” “A generation ago, the IPCC’s first Assessment Report in 1990 provided high, medium and low estimates of how much warming would occur by today. The real-world, measured outturn is below the IPCC’s lowest model-based estimate. The models, and the ‘consensus’, got it wrong.”“The models and the ‘consensus’ get it wrong because all 7 of the key parameters in the fundamental equation of climate sensitivity – the CO2 radiative forcing, the Planck sensitivity parameter and five ‘temperature feedbacks’ – are unmeasured, unmeasurable, unknown, and unknowable. The models that are the basis for the ‘consensus’ are expensive guesswork.”
“If we are told the experts believe a thing is so, that is no evidence their reputation is deserved, still less that they are acting in accordance with it, still less that what they assert is true. Science is not based on the speculations of ‘experts’, however profitable, but on hard evidence.” “The third Assessment Report in 2001 said there was no medieval warm period, but the IPCC’s ‘hockey-stick’ graph of 1,000 years’ temperatures has been exposed as a scientific fraud. Papers by 1,000+ scientists from 400+ institutions in 40+ countries provide hard, real-world evidence that the medieval warm
period was real, global, and warmer than the present.”“Over the six decades since 1950, the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century. Yet the IPCC predicts 3 C°
over the 21st century. That is thrice what is observed.”“Sea level in the past 8 years has risen at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches/century.”
“The 50 million ‘climate refugees’ the UN confidently and loudly predicted by 2010 do not exist.”
“Arctic sea-ice loss is largely matched by gains in Antarctic sea ice, for Antarctica has cooled.”
“The failed draft of the UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty, using climate as the pretext, would have established an unelected world ‘government’ with vast powers. The Cancun agreement created almost 1,000 worldgovernment bureaucracies.”In the face of contradictory information and egos on both sides of the debate, it’s difficult to determine what is true. Ultimately it depends on predictions that prove to be reasonably accurate, which so far seems to be the problem. Or is the whole global warming scare being used as cover for a larger agenda to reshape our world?
(Sources: “‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change”, msnbc.com, 23 April; http://co-2science.org/articles/V15/N17/C1.php; www.futuredition.org)
Comments
Post a Comment