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…
Evolution, religion and mankind’s impact on climate change
People carry around many misconceptions in their thought processes. They make all kinds of assumptions that have nothing to do with facts, reasons, or observations. Sometimes this becomes evident in such a way as to take one aback and make one say “huh?” I discovered this personally one day when I became involved in a rather boisterous conversation about human driven climate change.
It is interesting to note that this conversation started out as a rather friendly one in which we were all agreeing that government was growing out of control. When the other man mentioned human driven climate change, I opined my view that humans have very little, if anything, to do with climate change and that the sun was a much bigger factor. The look on his face changed from one of jovial jocularity to that of a man who had just witnessed someone kicking his dog. How dare I challenge his beliefs on human driven climate change? He grew huffy and fumed. I was a bit taken aback as I thought this man had exhibited some modicum of free thought, but I too grew huffy and knew I would have to defend my position.
The man spouted something about the UN and thousands of scientists. At least he didn’t cite Al Gore. I mentioned the emails proving that data was falsified and cooked, the fact that carbon dioxide is a life giving gas (plants use it like we use oxygen, for those who don’t know) and not a pollutant, the greater role that water vapor plays in driving climate, and the taxes the elite want to impose upon us for breathing, which produces carbon dioxide.
His face turned red as he fumed. I breathed hard, waiting for his next barb. He mentioned something about the Bible. “Excuse me?” I asked, not knowing what point he was trying to make. He accused me of being a religious zealot. I was aghast. This man believed that if I didn’t believe in the manmade climate change propaganda driven by the collectivist, one world government type agenda that I must be some kind of Bible thumper.
Flabbergasted, I stammered for a moment, then explained to him that wasn’t the case and that I had been a Geology major at the University of Illinois back in the 1980s. I knew of the ice core samples that showed high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long before mankind could have possibly had an impact on the environment because, I explained, mankind had not evolved enough at that time. He quieted down at that point, but I could tell he was still roiling under the surface. I said nothing more, not wishing to cause anymore of a scene than had already been acted out.
Thinking back on this exchange, it occurred to me how good an illustration it is on the human capacity to not only believe stories they’re told without further investigation, but to defend their positions even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I believe much of this phenomenon comes from the trust we put in our sources. It seems to me that as humans we tend to have an unhealthy reverence toward those we hold in great esteem. It seems that many tie their own self worth to the fallible humans or organizations that they put their faith in.
In many cases these same people or organizations are the ones informing them and telling them what to believe and how to behave. When one has tied his own goodness and self worth to another like that, it is only natural to deny evidence that the entity worshipped in such a way is not really as it seems. There is a subconscious equivocation going on that if the person or organization trusted is bad, the person or entity doing the trusting must also be bad. This is not only an untrue equivocation, but one that most probably don’t realize is happening.
This phenomenon was realized by the power elite early on in mankind’s history. For instance, there is much evidence that churches and the priest class knew long ago that the earth was round and revolved around the sun, yet the common folk were taught it was flat and that various gods were responsible for the movements in the sky. Why? Because by keeping that knowledge hidden from common people the priest class was able to better control them. They could tell frightening stories to them to convince them to hand over a portion of the food and wealth they produced to a parasitic class that did essentially nothing.
In many ways, this still goes on today. Substitute the word priest with the word scientist, and then the word church with the word government and you will have a good idea of what I believe is going on with human caused climate change. This is a complicated science with easily manipulated data and beyond the grasp of most common folk to understand, let alone test for themselves. The priest/scientist class has gotten together with the church of one world government to produce a frightening set of circumstances they can use to convince the common folk to turn over a portion of the wealth they produce.
There are many who might find it hard to believe that I could believe in the theory of evolution but not in the theory of manmade climate change. First off, I have my own experiences, studies and experiments that I participated in when I was younger to rely on. I have looked into other theories, like intelligent design, and have found them woefully lacking. Much of their time and effort seems to be spent in an effort to disprove the theory of evolution rather than proving their own case. Just for the record, disproving one thing does not necessarily prove another.
On the other hand, I have looked into the theory of manmade global warming and certain things didn’t add up, even before the deception was made clear by the email leaks that came out more than a year ago. In the late seventies, early eighties the scare was a new ice age caused by global cooling. The geologic record shows hundreds of major climate changes and millions of minor ones across the eons. Mostly, the evidence suggests that these are caused by some kind of natural cycles involving the sun and the moon, but major ones can be caused by earthen activity such as volcanism or cataclysmic events such as meteor or comet strikes.
I can’t say enough how little an effect the feared carbon dioxide has on climate, but how much of an effect water has. But then, it’s a lot harder to demonize water than it is to demonize carbon dioxide, a gas with a much scarier and scientific sounding name. Want to scare someone? Just ask them if they think the government should do something about the dangerous and deadly dihydrogen monoxide and see what they say. Tell them many die from it every year. You just asked them if they think the government should do something about water.
No, I do not kneel at the church of science just like I do not kneel at anyone’s altar. I do not blindly follow along with a crowd just because someone says something is true. I question everything, especially authority, and look into things on my own. I look into not only the science behind things, but the politics behind things and the wealth, power and control that can be derived from supporting certain agendas. It seems to me that big government and world government are quickly becoming like a modern version of “the church” as it existed and exerted its control through the dark ages. It seems that many scientists have become the new priest class and manmade climate change the new terrorizing threat of being damned to hell for all eternity.
One last thing I’d like to point out. Just because I do not believe in manmade climate change doesn’t mean I don’t believe in natural climate change. It also doesn’t mean I support the oil or coal corporations, or any energy corporation. It doesn’t mean the Koch brothers have paid me money to write about these matters. (Although I wish they would. I asked Mr. Branson for the $25 million he offered as a prize over four years ago, but he never got back to me.) In fact, I think the time has come for people to begin changing over to solar and wind energy generation combined with battery storage to power their homes. I think it is time for a viable electric car that can go eighty miles an hour and get hundreds of miles to a charge.
I think it’s time to start to get everyone off the grid and become independent from the energy companies. This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with loosening the stranglehold energy corporations and big international banks have on humanity and the political landscape. I imagine that there are many people who will have trouble comprehending how I can deny manmade climate change and still be against big energy corporations, just like the man in the grocery store who couldn’t comprehend that I could deny manmade climate change without being a right wing religious zealot. It’s too bad so many people have trouble realizing that there are almost always more than two choices in life.
Climate Hoax Scientists Freak Out Over Schoolyard Taunts
These are all personal attacks! It's awful! You freaking deniers, who should be locked up and hung, are just big meanies!
Several Australian climate scientists have released email extracts that demonstrate the vitriol that fills their inboxes daily, saying the number of abusive emails has increased since the carbon tax was proposed.
Climate scientists from the Australian National University, the University of Queensland, the University of NSW and the University of Melbourne have reportedly received emailed death threats, threats of sexual assault and threats of attacks on family members from critics opposed to their findings.
Really? Can we see them?
Now several of the abusive emails have been published on a blog by environmental writer Graham Readfearn, after the scientists agreed to release the poison pen letters.
Most are little more than swearing and insults,
but several correspondents had a more chilling message for the scientists.
“Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT,” reads one email.
“If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you,” reads another.
That's it, folks. That's the best the alarmists can offer as proof of "death threats." Except, for that second one, let's check the full text
If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you. We will not do so if you rightfully argue against our points from a science view. But we will if you choose to stray into attacks on us as people or as a movement. The institution and funders that support you will find the attention concerning.
So, not a personal threat, just one to go after funding.
Jo Nova: To a climate scientist, *swearing* equals a Death Threat (no wonder these guys can’t predict the weather)
And Tom Nelson asks
- Do these scientists notify the Australian Federal Police every time they get the finger for cutting someone off in traffic?
- Do they demand to be rushed to a secure location every time they hear that "monster" making a tapping sound in the basement?
- No wonder these people think every weather fluctuation is a harbinger of global doom...
Personally, I'm not sure why so many "deniers" are upset at scientists who push junk science which could result in heavy taxation, reduced prosperity, more government control over their lives, all so that these scientists can get more government research funding.
Sen. Lieberman believes Congress can control tornadoes
'We've got to do something about this' - 'The run of extreme weather is a real warning to us'
Excerpt from POLITICO Pro:
Extreme weather events like this spring's record tornado activity could be a turning point in the uphill climb to pass climate legislation, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Tuesday.
The Connecticut independent behind nearly every major cap-and-trade bill over the last decade also told reporters that other key preconditions for climate action include an improved U.S. economy and less partisanship.
"The other event that might bring about some climate change action would really be increasingly extreme weather, which just shakes people up so much that they say, 'We've got to do something about this,'" Lieberman said. "I hope we don't wait until then. I've always said this problem is one that challenges our capacity to deal with the problem, which we see coming, before it overwhelms us, and so far we haven't passed the test." .....
"I just think the run of extreme weather is a real warning to us," Lieberman said. "I can't specifically say that about the tornadoes, although it is true that they have been more severe than they ever have been before.
"More objectively, you can see sea levels rising, you can see water temperature rising around the globe," he added. "You can see wildlife species starting to move in response to the climate. The extreme weather is only the most extreme visible example of that."
Australia: Kill a feral camel and claim a carbon credit
LOL! Can you imagine the animal lovers steaming over this idea! How to put yet another group offside
THE Federal Government is considering awarding carbon credits for getting rid of feral camels under an initiative to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the Carbon Farming Initiative has yet to pass parliament, three proposals are undergoing formal assessment, including one to "manage" Australia's feral camel population. The other two options include early burn-offs and inoculating cattle to stop them burping.
Tim Moore, the managing director of Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon who proposed the camel cull idea, said more than 1.2 million camels are roaming Australia's rangelands, covering Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia and NSW.
Already considered a pest produce an average methane equivalent of one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, making them one of Australia's big emitters. One camel produces 45kg of methane a year which is equivalent of one tonne of carbon dioxide. It is the same amount of carbon dioxide produced by a plane on a 7000km flight.
In comparison a cow produces 35kg of methane annually or 0.8 tonnes, while the average car emits four tonnes when driven over 20,000km annually.
"They live anywhere from 30 to 50 years in the wild, there's 1.2 million of them and that figure is doubling every nine years, so it's a huge problem," Dr Moore said.
Under his proposal, camels would be shot from helicopters or four-wheel drives, or mustered and then sent to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.
He estimates that given their lifespan, every animal culled would save around 14 or 15 tonnes in abatement. Dr Moore said one of the best things about the scheme is that it would be market driven, potentially living outside the troublesome political cycle. He added the plan provided real scope to provide real jobs for indigenous Australians.
Dr Moore is confident the unusual proposal, which has already caught the attention of the British press, will get the go-ahead. "We're a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges - this is just a classic example," he said.
Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus said the government was considering various proposals to reduce carbon pollution on the land, including Dr Moore's. It will be waiting until the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee reports back before making a final decision.
Legislation helping set up the Carbon Farming Initiative is due to go before the parliament in the next sitting, which starts on Monday.
Canadian province of Manitoba bans bottled water
THE Canadian province of Manitoba has banned water bottles from all of its offices to encourage drinking of tap water, winning praise from ecologists.
"We believe by taking this step we are leading by example and encouraging Manitobans to move away from using single-use bottled water," Manitoba Conservation Minister Bill Blaikie said.
The new policy bans the use of provincial funds to buy single-use bottled water in plastic containers with less than one litre of water when tap water that is safe for drinking is reasonably accessible.
Ecologists immediately praised the move, saying that the production, transport and recycling of single-use water bottles wastes energy and produces unnecessary carbon emissions.
Manitoba is the second Canadian province to enact a water bottle ban, after Nova Scotia.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here