web analytics

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMNG SCAM….

By ATWadmin On January 18th, 2007

795151-636683-thumbnail.jpgAs the MSM becomes increasingly hysterical  about global warming (Have you seen ITV’s tub thumping nightly reports from Antarctic? It’s the end of the world, I tell you!!) I think it is important that at least the blogosphere provides space for those who do not agree with EVERYTHING that is being rammed down our throats in the name of so-called science. I came across Melanie Phillips thoughts on the Stern Report and was impressed by the following

The British government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of science into ideological propaganda.

 

Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the ‘causal link’ between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate.

To take a few examples from Sir David’s litany.

1) Sea levels are rising. This claim is not the result of observable data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer modelling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, , sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise.

2) Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren’t. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing. The bit of the Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria among eco-doomsters, won’t increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own weight in the sea.

3) The hottest years on record started in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in Northumberland, for heaven’s sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get excited about.

4) The causal link is well established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted. Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the — literally– millions of variables that The problem we face is the lack of scientific reason. Global Warming has become a religion for some. It has transformed itself into a doomsday cult endorsed by the liberal intelligentsia, the tenured scientific community, and politicians on the make.

 

By all means let us debate this topic, but surely the closed minds of the apostles of global warming constitute every bit as much a threat to our future as their outlandish claims of global meltdown?

43 Responses to “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMNG SCAM….”

  1. there are two problems with the anti-global warming position.

    1/ it tends to aimlessly drift from ‘global warming doesnt exist’ to ‘it sort of exists, but its causes are natural’. in the fervour to attack the subject both are employed, often at the same time. often in the same breath, as shown above.

    2/ the ‘anti-‘ lobby has been compromised by its links to the energy industry. carbon industries are spending millions to ensure the mere notion of GW is attacked from all angles, constantly.

  2. Daytripper,

    So the mere notion of Global Warming is being attacked from all angles, constantly? When did you last see a television programme which took a sceptical view of global warming? Such a viewpoint as also extremely rare in the National Press

    Meanwhile, in America, it is reported that a Prominent Climatologist has suggested to the Weather Channel that Meteorologists who broadcast should have their scientific certification removed if they report a sceptical view of man made global warming. (Junk Science.com)

  3. Daytripper

    I call them trench one and trench two.

    Trench one is to hold the line that global warming is not happening at all. With new temperature records being broken virtually every year, trench one has now been abandoned by most of the deniers, though not by Melanie Phillips.

    Trench two is to admit the obvious fact of global warming but deny that man has anything to do with it.

    Melanie’s diatribe is a classic mixture of both trench one and trench two. It contains a succession of highly misleading claims, most of which are dealt with by a Royal Society paper (see link below), but I’ll hit the most obvious ones here:

    "Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren’t. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing…"

    This statement implies that it’s a 50/50 situation with ice caps. The truth is that nearly all of the ice caps are melting worldwide, from the Alps to Glacier Park in the USA and of course the Arctic. Some ice caps are growing in Antarctica, but overall they are in retreat there too.

    "sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise."

    LOL! Water expands when it is warmed – check it out with a saucepan on the cooker Melanie! During the last ice age, Britain was joined to the continent and Ireland was joined to Britain and water was locked up in land-based ice caps, so obviously sea levels were much lower in this part of the world anyway. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank

    Royal Society paper:
    http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

  4. I agree with Melanie. I concede that global warming MAY be happening and that our activities MIGHT be a small contributing factor, but as she says, all the "conclusions" we are continually told to accept as fact, are based merely on computer modelling, with only a tiny percentage of known data going into those models.

  5. I think hysteria about global warming might be a coping mechanism for not dealing with global jihad. Some sort of substitution coping mechanism. Jihad is truely frightening and therefore we collectively seek to avoid it.

    Most people instinctually know that global warming is overstated and the crisis is bogus. Because the crisis is bogus, global warming is not frightening and we like to embrace it.

    On an individual level this is like enjoying a scary ghost story over and over while denying, say,the real horror of an abusive stepfather.

    For the sake of Western civilization’s survival, I think the positions should be reversed: hysteria about jihad and indifference to global warming.

  6. Notme: I suppose that your scenario would allow us to hope the desert gets too hot due to global warming for the jihadists to do anything other than seek shade.

  7. Tom:
    No-one is saying it’s fact, just a persuasive theory, which may indeed turn out to be wrong. But when it was first stated in the 1980’s it took the form of linking expected increases in carbon emmissions to predicted rising temperatures, and what has happened since has been remarkably close to the original predictions.

    Notme:
    Total nonsense from start to finish.

  8. How ironic that Daytripper talks about the ‘sceptics’ being somehow in hock to the energy industry – the scientific Global Warming lobby is owned financial body and soul by the Green lobby and the governments that fund it. Its hilarious hypocrisy to imagine that its only the sceptics who might be just a tad biased by their funding depending on their findings…

  9. "even if [CO2] were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible;"

    Gee – let’s see. Could we say about this claim that it is:

    " […] either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate […]"

    Or could we say:

    " This claim is not the result of observable data"

    Or all of the above and worse?

    It would appear that Melanie Phillips is a blithering idiot.

  10. Frank

    Melanie used to be on the left but has travelled steadily rightwards for 15 years to the point where she is now a fully paid-up neo-con. Her world-view will never let her accept global warming, even if the theory is proved to be 100% correct in the future.

    Which is not to say that she’s wrong about everything. Her views on the threat from militant islam are well argued and sane, to me anyway.

  11. If the Government really believes its line on the imminent threat of global warming, the ‘science’ behind it, and the immensity of the UK’s contribution to it (2% of CO2 burden??), then they should simply ban the activities which are contributories such as cheap flights, freely-available fuel and especially imported goods from China and elsewhere. The last point is valid when one considers that any goods or product manufactured in the UK would certainly have consumed less energy in the process of manufacture and distribution than the same product as imported from China. Has the Government given any indication that it is serious, or is it merely using green politics as a cloak for the intention to fleece us with more tax?

  12. Peter,

    I don’t care whether she is right or left, I just read what she wrote. In fact the only two things I have seen from her are things that David quoted here – both of them have been self-contained BS.

    I know she has written a couple of books which may be worth a read but I’m not impressed with the stuff above. And I don’t have any particular views on global warming, although I am highly amused by the type of antis who talk about the behaviour of melting ice (as if 100s of scientists might have overlooked this) and then segue into denying evolution without skipping a beat.

  13. Frank

    My point is that there is an almost 100% overlap between global-warming denial and right-wing politics. This is especially true in the USA from where Melanie gets many of her ideas.

  14. Does anyone here know enough about physics to tell me that: if a piece of ice floating in water melts, does the level of the water rise or will it stay the same as the ice has alredy displaced its own weight, as Melainie claims.

  15. Peter,

    "My point is that there is an almost 100% overlap between global-warming denial and right-wing politics. "

    I guess although not all right wingers – there is certainy a form of right wing warblogger who is generally ready to deny any evidence that conflicts with the ideology. That is why you see them "debunking" everything from evolution to GW to Iraq mortality estimates (where "debunk" = loudly contradict).

  16. ‘Global-warming denial’!? Looks like the fruity left are already attempting to shape attempts to argue with them as an offence.

  17. Moonbat warning….

  18. Frank – surely George Bush is exhibit one for debunking evolution.

  19. mahons, I don’t think that’s what they mean by GW denial.

  20. LOL

    Allan
    >>attempting to shape attempts to argue with them<<

    And that’s really all you can do: ATTEMPT to argue with them.

  21. Oops, misread the sentence.

  22. OK Cunningham – what is ‘global warming denial’ and what penalties would you use against it?

  23. and what penalties would you use against it?

    Should read – penalties against those who argue against global warming, or man’s role in it.

  24. David,
    is this the same Melanie Phillips who is in hoc to the oil and tobacco companies?

    Is this the same Melanie Phillips who was educated at Putney High School and has no scientific knowledge whatsoever?

    I’ll treat her views with the weight they deserve so: nothing.

    I am surprised you are impressed by such as her.

  25. Should be should as she I believe.

  26. Ms Phillips is correct about the sea level remaining the same if all the free-floating icebergs were to melt. A given mass of ice is approx. 10% larger by volume than the same mass (amount) of water. However, the ratio of the volume of ice which floats above the surface (compared to the volume underwater) is precisely in proportion to the different densities, so that if it melts, the overall water level remains the same.

  27. And what percentage of the world’s ice mass is free-floating Tom?

  28. Good question. I have not yet found out the answer, but if you think about it, it seems logical to assume that the answer is along the lines of "a very large majority".

  29. Sorry, I mean that a very large majority of the ice is underwater, even if it’s not free-floating but at some point "anchored" to rock.

  30. And what about Antarctica Tom?

    It is a continent under ice. This ice is on land, not under water.

    Antarctica is twice as large as Australia and contains 70 percent of Earth’s fresh water resources.

    The ice sheet covers about 98 percent of the continent and has an average thickness of about 6,500 feet.

    What effect do you think all of this melting would have?

  31. Tom, if the ice were held underwater then melting it would cause sea level to drop. What makes you think that 100s of scientists have not thought of this?

    "While the breakup of the ice shelves in the Peninsula has little consequence for sea level rise, the breakup of other shelves in the Antarctic could have a major effect on the rate of ice flow off the continent. Ice shelves act as a buttress, or braking system, for glaciers. Further, the shelves keep warmer marine air at a distance from the glaciers; therefore, they moderate the amount of melting that occurs on the glaciers’ surfaces. Once their ice shelves are removed, the glaciers increase in speed due to meltwater percolation and/or a reduction of braking forces, and they may begin to dump more ice into the ocean than they gather as snow in their catchments. Glacier ice speed increases are already observed in Peninsula areas where ice shelves disintegrated in prior years.
    [….]
    More importantly, the warmest part of the giant Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a few degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the same kind of retreat process. The Ross Ice Shelf is the main outlet for several major glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains the equivalent of 5 m of sea level rise in its above-sea-level ice."
    http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

  32. Err…higher taxes, most likely.
    Let’s see now. I wonder how much of the world’s actual oil and gas reserves we have used up over the past 150 years? Many say there is only enough proven reserves to last another 30-40 years at current consumption rates, and yet all that vast consumption to date, even if we assume it to be totally responsible for GW, has only managed to produce a mean global temp. increase of 0.6C in the past century.
    Any idea how much oil/gas consumption it would take, and at what rate, to induce the sort of tempearature rises necessary to melt all of Antarctica!! It just ain’t gonna happen! There’s (a) not enough fossil fuels to do it, and even if there was, there’s (b) not enough global population to consume it all at the required rate.

  33. Two points: First, I did not know (until now, just found out) that indeed, the land-mass upon which the Antarctic ice sits, is indeed high above sea level. I stand corrected on that point (not that I thought for definite that it would not be, but that I saw no reason why it necessarily had to be the case. Irrelevant – it is the case). Still, I think what I just said above still stands, as it’s a different argument.

  34. Second, Interesting what FO’D just said, and I can see that there would be a "domino" effect, but ONLY given an outside power-source, heating the climate. There is no "tipping point" in the long-term unless GW itself continues to accelerate, for that would contradict the principle of conservation of energy. Warming water will make the ice around it melt, allowing warmer waters to flow deeper into other areas, BUT NOT BY ITSELF, not indefinitely, without an outside heating influence. Given a constant temperature then sooner or later the ice will rearrange itself.
    You can’t melt an area of ice, and say "there’s no stopping it now, it’s a self-sustaining chain reaction", unless you continue to apply the heat source.

  35. "Interesting what FO’D just said, and I can see that there would be a "domino" effect, but ONLY given an outside power-source, heating the climate. There is no "tipping point" in the long-term unless GW itself continues to accelerate, for that would contradict the principle of conservation of energy. Warming water will make the ice around it melt, allowing warmer waters to flow deeper into other areas, BUT NOT BY ITSELF, not indefinitely, without an outside heating influence. Given a constant temperature then sooner or later the ice will rearrange itself.
    You can’t melt an area of ice, and say "there’s no stopping it now, it’s a self-sustaining chain reaction", unless you continue to apply the heat source."

    You’ve just igored a 6,500 foot high iceberg twice the size of Australia in your previous global warming analysis. A not insignificant lump of water.

    So I hope you don’t mind if I ask for salient facts and demand what you base this premise upon?

  36. Tom,

    "but ONLY given an outside power-source, heating the climate"

    Like that big yellow thing?

  37. "You’ve just igored a 6,500 foot high iceberg twice the size of Australia in your previous global warming analysis. A not insignificant lump of water.

    So I hope you don’t mind if I ask for salient facts and demand what you base this premise upon?"

    Huh? Thought I’d just explained clearly why Antarctica isn’t about to melt, at 12:20. Don’t get your point.

    Frank, well if the sun is the heat source, then it ain’t manmade GW and theres nothing we can do about it. The sun has behaved well so far, there’s no reason to think it’s about to fry us all of a sudden.

  38. Tom,
    "Huh? Thought I’d just explained clearly why Antarctica isn’t about to melt, at 12:20. Don’t get your point."

    how can I take your 12:20 post seriously when, for example, your 12:36 states that you didn’t even know that Antarctica is above sea level?

    My point is could you please tell me on what scientific evidence you base your 12:43 post. Otherwise, I can’t take it seriously.

  39. Tom,

    "Frank, well if the sun is the heat source, then it ain’t manmade GW and theres nothing we can do about it."

    No you misunderstood – you described a problem that could exist with an outside heat source. Well, there is an outside heat source.

    " The sun has behaved well so far, there’s no reason to think it’s about to fry us all of a sudden.""

    From what I have read GW cannot be put down to the sun alone.

    The part that I question is whether they can really predict what will happen if we reduce emissions. For all we know GW is all that is keeping us from another ice age, or stopping yellowstone from erupting, or some other calamity that we haven’t noticed etc…but still I would rather have climate scientists working this stuff out than the likes of Melanie Phillips.

  40. Okay, one at a time. Addressing Garfield’s 1:34 first.
    Asks me to explain my 12:43.
    Perhaps my wording was misleading. I meant (and I assumed you’d understand that I meant) "given a heat source in addition to, over and above that of the sun". We’ll take the sun as a given, right? What we’re trying to argue here is that MAN-MADE g.w. (Not the sun) provides the tipping factor. Because the sun, by itself, has sustained the earth without causing total catastrophe. So read my words as "Warming water will make the ice around it melt, allowing warmer waters to flow deeper into other areas, BUT NOT BY ITSELF, not indefinitely, without an outside heating influence – OTHER THAN, IN ADDITION TO the sun". Now conflagrate that with my assertion that we have measured a mean temperature increase over the last 100 years of just 0.6C, and some of that must be due to the influence of the sun, or other natural, not man-made factors, OK? But even if we assume that this increase is TOTALLY due to man made factors, then given our knowledge of fossil fuel reserves, and given the human population, there is nowhere near enough of either of those factors, to be able to melt Antarctica. is that clear enough?

  41. Alas, my pillow calls me, tempting me like opium, to oblivion. I cannot resist. Goodnight.

  42. Tom,

    your post of 12:20 is flawed because you are asuming that because oil and gas reserves are projected to last until 30-40 years from now (I think it’s longer than that but anyway) and these reserves were first produced 150 years ago, that there are only relatively little reserves left. This is wrong, we (worldwide) are just coming to peak production now, meaning that there are around the same volume of reserves left as have been produced. The point is that the remaining reserves will be used much faster than the previous reserves. This could lead to a tipping point as mentioned above, but it is very difficult to predict exactly what will happen.

  43. >>>This could lead to a tipping point as mentioned above, but it is very difficult to predict exactly what will happen.<<<

    john, china and indias growth can only accelerate any tipping point.