Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Knowing the truth about Global Warming. Fire and Rain edition!

Dear friends,



All of you who are running for office or voting for those running for office or just want to have a clue about what is going on need to read this editorial.   James Taylor is not the same guy who wrote "Fire and Rain" but he knows a bit about the Sun and the climate.   What the IPCC and the CRU have tried to pull off is a scam and the data proves it.   Even if the leaked emails and the phony Michael Mann "Hockey Stick"  and the I-have-no-training-in-climatology-but-I-invented-the-internet Al Gore's completely boneheaded predictions that didn't happen didn't clue you in, the actual temperature plot of the last ten years should make us all step back and think.   Maybe the global warming frenzy was nothing but a political ploy?   Maybe it has done a lot of damage to American industry and had a lot to do with higher prices and fewer jobs?   So maybe we should elect folks who don't buy this particular version of the Brooklyn Bridge?  James Taylor in Forbes Magazine:







James Taylor





Op/Ed



Image by  Marion Doss via Flickr

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.


The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.
Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
Oh well, back to the old drawing board…

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News

~~~~~~~~~

CO2 is actually plant food.   Right now we have approximately 380 PPM (parts per million) in the atmosphere and an increase will help plants grow bigger while requiring less water.  Furthermore, if the temperatures do rise then growing season will be lengthened, the practicial limits North and South for raising crops would move outward and we MIGHT be a little less prone to tornadoes, as it is the collision of hot air with cold fronts that spawn them.  The relationship between cooler temperatures and tornado activity is still under study but the preliminary reports indicate hotter summers have fewer massive storms.   Even if that is not the case, a warming planet is helpful to all and carbon in the atmosphere is welcome news for plants.   So if the globe does begin to warm again, don't buy an electric car, go outside and plant more tomatoes!

A version of this post is also found at NWI Politics blog.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

My comment was removed again Radar. Please retrieve. It looks like Blogger views any post with a link in it as SPAM. Maybe you can fix this.

Here it is again, just in case Radar doesn't get around to retrieving the original (although I have to admit, he's been pretty good about it so far). So, here we go again,

Um, perhaps you should take a look at this wiki page before throwing all your trust behind this corporate shill.

http://
en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/
The_Heartland_Institute

"The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3)non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism."

Hmmm... "tobacco policy", that's interesting. Now lets take a look at the "Funding section of the wiki page... Notice anything? Money from Philip Morris in the 90's and they produce documentation playing down the risks of smoking and more recently money from Exxon and they oppose consensus on global climate change. Do you trust these companies implicitly as well?

http://
www.independent.co.uk/
environment/
climate-change/
tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html

Dude, these groups are not who you think they are. You are being used by major corporations to promote propaganda that positively impacts their bottom lines. Why can't you see this? Do you enjoy being a pawn for these millionaires? Wake up, Radar, wake the Eff Up.

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Comment removed. Twice. Apparently not allowed to post links. Please retrieve one of them Radar.

- Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

I will go look after work. Funny that you guys will call me names but ask me to help you make comments meant to make me look like a dumbbell, probably. Nevertheless, after work I will look for and free you from the Spam pile.

Anonymous said...

I do not disagree entirely, although I'd say that I rarely call you names. Mostly, I just describe your behavior (lying, prejudging, acting hypocritically, etc.). So I'll admit that it's a bit weird for me as well. Thanks Radar.

-Canucklehead.

AmericanVet said...

And you are always wrong. But I will be leaving work in a half hour to an hour so the world will not long wait for your link.

radar said...

So I had to go drag myself into spam to free an ad hominem argument?

The actual readings taken of the temperatures of the EARTH for the last ten years show NO WARMING!!! Good grief, do you understand that it doesn't matter if a guy is from Heartland or Greenland, if the temperatures are not going up then there is no global warming. How can you argue against that?!

radar said...

BTW, Canucklehead, Heartland cannot control the readings taken by satellites and controlled by NASA. A few posts ago I presented a graph showing that the recent temperatures had been pretty steady if not slightly declined. Also the history we have available shows us that the temperatures of the Earth will go up and down and people are not causing these changes. What caused the Little Ice Age? What caused the Medieval Warming Period? The most logical answer is the Sun. Solar activity is the only variable that seems to be in step with warming and cooling, with the exception of the occasion huge volcanic event, which causes cooling independent of solar activity.

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,

I don't understand how you can keep arguing day after day with people who just don't care about FACTS. You're just wasting your breath (or in this case electrons). They are part of a cult. They worship their god, which is "nature".

Think I'm kidding? Observe: the enviro-nuts (or "green weenies" as I prefer to call them) believe that trees, animals, and the planet itself are the height of (dare I say it?) creation. Mankind is the destroyer, a plague, or a virus...

Humans A Virus

We Christians are like Morpheus, constantly being bullied by the Agent Smiths of this world. They completely flip the order of creation on its head (as only Satan could do), making fish, snails and rocks the height of creation while assigning mankind the least importance.

They want to give trees and animals "rights" equal to humans...

Cass Sunstein, named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), believes that animals ought to be able to bring lawsuits against humans...

Sunstein's Animal Rights

John Holdren, Obama's science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, believes that newborns are NOT human, and that trees ought to be able to bring lawsuits against humans...

Holdren's Bizarre Quotes

In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children...

Holdren and Forced Sterilization

These people are total looney-tunes, brother! But I admire your tenacity to continue plodding the same ground over and over again. I couldn't do it. It's like banging my head against a wall. It feels good when I stop.

(:D) Best regards...

AmericanVet said...

Hawkeye, you made a blogpost out of that comment! That was one of the best comments of the year!

Kingsas was the verification word. I hereby declare that Hawkeye is King Sass, cutting off the greenbats at the knees...

Hawkeye® said...

PS--

We have been friends (and neighbors) for 25 years with a couple who are musicians and personal acquaintances of James Taylor (the one who DID write "Fire and Rain"). They even named their son "James" because their favorite song was "Sweet Baby James". Their son James grew up with our daughter Ginny as friends and were nearly the same age.

Oddly enough, I am now living in Tennessee (and my bride will soon be joining me)... my daughter Ginny is living in Tennessee too (less than an hour drive)... and "Sweet Baby James" is also living in Tennessee (and playing as 'first clarinetist' for the Nashville symphony orchestra)...

Principal Clarinetist

Coincidence?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Hawkeye's post contains a bunch of links. Maybe blogger just goes for anonymous posts with links.

"So I had to go drag myself into spam to free an ad hominem argument?"

If it's like Canucklehead's comment above, then it's not an ad hominem argument. "Ad hominem" is not synonymous with "insult". "Ad hominem" means that you dismiss an argument not because of the quality of the argument itself, but because you dismiss the person making the argument and don't address the argument itself.