Thursday, June 29, 2017

Agenda Behind Global Warming Alarmism

Here's an intriguing question for you: In a room 20 feet by 20 feet with a ten foot ceiling, how many matches would you have to light for the air in that room to have the same percentage of carbon dioxide as is emitted into the atmosphere annually by all the automobiles (about 800 million) in the world ? The answer is provided by Ivar Giaever, a Nobel laureate in physics, who says the calculation is relatively simple. The answer is one match. Incredible, isn't it? The number of vehicles is huge. But the atmosphere is so vastly larger that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions are trivial to our survival or that of the planet. Of course, if people understood that, they wouldn't support regulating fossil fuels to prevent global warming. Ergo, the need for global warming alarmism.

The alarmism got a big push in June 1988 when James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute, testified before a senate committee that he was “99 percent” sure that global warming was already underway. He was a very small minority in the scientific community, but that's not the impression the media gave. The same media that scarcely a decade earlier were publicizing warnings of a coming ice age pounced on Hansen's statement and were now filling the public with warnings of the opposite threat and familiar claims that something must be done “before it's too late.”

The scientific community was less impressionable than the public. At the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union a few months after Hansen's testimony, only a single scientist could be found who thought the greenhouse effect had begun. Jerome Namias, who spent 30 years with the National Weather Service before moving to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said other factors explain recent weather “quite adequately without the greenhouse effect.” William Sprigg, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , said, “The case has not been made that greenhouse gases explain what we see.” Andrew R. Solow of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution wrote in December 1988, “Some will say that the scientific establishment demands an unreasonable degree of certainty before accepting a new idea. But in the case of climate change, and particularly with regard to detecting change with existing data, it is not a question of evidence being tenuous. It is a question of there being no evidence at all.” (Italics added.) Yet the media in general continued to discuss the greenhouse effect as though it represented a widely-held scientific opinion, if not an incontrovertible fact.

Then came the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It brought dramatic change in the public's acceptance of global warming. The report had two parts: one was the long text of the research by scientists; the other, the “Summary For Public Officials”—which is the only part most people ever read—was written by persons who received political appointments. They were not politicians but public servants who were taking orders from the governments that signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Summary was supposed to be based on the research—but it was written before the research was done. And the research was then “adjusted” to fit the summary, rather than the other way around. Here is a description of the process by climatologist Vincent Gray, Ph.D., who is the only person to have been involved in all the publications of the IPCC since its inception.

The Environmental Movement is an anti-science pseudo religion which believes that humans are destroying 'The Planet.'... In the 1980s a group of rogue scientists, who supported this dogma, suggested that the public and governments would accept it more readily if it was a 'settled' opinion of a sufficiently large group of scientists. They invented a new pseudo-scientific model of the climate which ignored the scientific understanding of the climate built up by generations of meteorologists. It claimed that climate is controlled by human–related emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.

“They persuaded the World Meteorological Association and their own United Nations Environment Programme to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to gather together scientific material to support this project in preparation for the Rio Earth Summit in 1991 which launched the deception....
“The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent what is alleged to control “global warming” by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. The main mechanism for ensuring uniformity of thought is applied by the presence in all of the IPCC Reports of a “Summary for Policymakers” at the beginning. This is really a Summary BY Policymakers, because it is dictated, line by line by the government representatives who control the IPCC to a group of reliable 'Drafting Authors.'
The Chapters of each Report are arranged in such a way as to promote the idea of climate change caused by greenhouse gas increases. Actual climate observations are either obscured, or 'smoothed,' 'filtered', 'linearized', 'interpolated', with 'outliers' eliminated, in order to try and find 'trends' which can be fitted into the mould decided for them.”
When the final version of the 1995 IPCC Report did not agree with the Summary, Ben Santer, whom the IPCC had appointed as the lead author of the report, was given the task of altering the full report to coincide with the Summary. After the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers were shocked to discover that major changes had been made after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer's changes had reversed the 'climate science' of the whole IPCC report! Here are examples of some of his changes:
 
Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."

Here is a sentence he deleted:None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

Here is a sentence he added: “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here's another he deleted: “no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes.” 

And another he added:  "The Majority of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is [sic] unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system."

There is plenty of other evidence that CO2 is trivial to climate change. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, providing 96 to 98% of any greenhouse effect. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere—and 97% of CO2 is produced by nature, not mankind. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, even insects and bacteria produce CO2 as well as methane, another greenhouse gas. Termites alone emit far more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles in the world (See Science Nov. 5, 1982.) Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. If we could eliminate not only all human use of fossil fuels but all natural sources of greenhouse gases as well, 96% of any greenhouse effect would still remain, because of water vapor.

Carbon dioxide produces only tiny changes in atmospheric temperature; however, all computer models projecting “runaway” global warming are based on the small warming from CO2 being amplified by water vapor. But such an amplification has never occurred even with much higher levels of CO2. At the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was 3 to 5 times what it is today, but there was no runaway global warming. During the Ordovician period, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 12 times what it is today, but the earth was in an Ice Age. If a theory contradicts reality, the theory must be wrong. 

During the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ÂșC higher. From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is determining the earth's temperature is therefore wrong.

The key to the earth's climate is the sun, not CO2. Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, Saturn and even distant Pluto are all experiencing global warming. Is the sun warming them while our warming is due to CO2?

The sun's radiation is varied by 'sunspot cycles.' Magnetic fields rip through the sun's surface, producing violent disturbances and changes in the 'solar wind,' the stream of charged particles emanating from the sun. The solar wind, by modulating the galactic cosmic rays which reach the earth, determines both the formation of clouds and the carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere. Sunspot cycles cause only slight changes in the sun's radiation, but these changes are amplified many fold by interaction 1) with ozone in the upper stratosphere, and 2) with clouds in the lower troposphere. Clouds have a hundred times greater impact on climate and temperature than CO2.. When the solar wind is strong and cosmic rays are weak, the global cloud cover shrinks. It expands when cosmic rays are strong because the solar wind is weak. Or, as scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski put it, rather poetically, “the sun opens and closes a climate-controlling umbrella of clouds over our heads.”

Here is a chart showing a strong correlation between earth temperatures and the sun's magnetic cycle, which is a proxy for its variations in brightness (irradiance). You will not find a chart anywhere showing such correlation between earth temperature and carbon dioxide.