AGW Today: Playing Politics And Burning Questions
Posted on June 10, 2009
Long have I maintained that the majority of the anthropogenic global warming craze is like some sort of political pet rock love. Let’s compare and contrast statements, shall we?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.
Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.
The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”
IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”
As the article points out, and we have seen previously, 2,500 scientists have resigned from the IPCC in protest. Compare that with the 2,500 scientists who have worked on the IPCC reports. And the 31,000 who signed the petition that says there is no convincing evidence that Man is to blame.
What of those burning questions?
What has startled (Steve Fielding, a big time Aussie politician) out of merely accepting we’re heating the world to hell with our carbon dioxide emissions is one fact in particular.
While our emissions are increasing fast each year, satellite measurements show the world’s temperatures have still not risen above the 1998 record, and have actually fallen since 2002.
The big deal with this is that Fielding can not only ask questions, but force answers, which, as the article points out, has the Rudd administration scrambling in panic.
But Fielding, an engineer, is now insisting he be shown the proof that the world is even still warming, and the Government must at last justify its plan’s most basic assumption.
See the Government is now frantically wondering how to answer. Climate Change Assistant Minister Greg Combet yesterday would not even say if he’d allow Fielding to consult Government scientists.
Amazing. Is science now so political that its findings must be restricted?
Yes. AGW took a legitimate occurrence, a warming period that had been going on since the 1850’s, part of a larger warming trend that has been going on for 18,000 years, and turned it into being Man’s fault. Why? Control. Control of countries, control of economies, and control of people. If AGW is so real, then why do so few of the Believers change their lifestyles to match their rhetoric?
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Anti-Capitalism, Communism, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Fascism, Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Marxism, News, Politics As Usual, Propaganda, Psychology, Revisionism, Science/pseudo-science, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxes, Totalitarianism, UN, environmentalism, liberalism
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “AGW Today: Playing Politics And Burning Questions”
Leave a Reply
From Pundit and Pundette: “Pundit, who knows from science, was talking the other day about the irrational “belief” in global warming and the “denier” label that’s applied to those who don’t “believe.” Talk of belief has nothing to do with science, and the words belief and denier have no place in scientific discourse. Science is about data.”
Where do I get the numbers for that graph? I just want to check the trend line because it looks completely wrong at the end. I want to put the data into a spreadsheet and see what comes out. Don’t start telling me I’ve been brainwashed, if you won’t let me examine the data you’re using to back up your assertions then you’re doing exactly what you accuse the IPCC etc. of.
Ian
On the one hand you request more info. But at the same time you start making baseless accusations. I suspect that if you merely wanted data, you would not have launched into an argument before you even get the data.
No, you’re just predictable. Now, can I have the data? If it proves what you’re saying, then you have nothing to worry about. If you won’t release it, then I’ll have to assume the graph is fudged.
I have to find the link, Ian. I have it somewhere on my personal laptop. Expect it later tonight.
Whew! Took a while, Ian, didn’t have the link saved, but, here: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
The information comes from Don Easterbrook, you can read more of his stuff here: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm
Thanks for the links, but I couldn’t find the graph in your post or the figures used in it. You should know that a number of the theories championed by Easterbrook have been examined and shown to be lacking.
For example- Mid century cooling- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php – CO2 isn’t the only thing controlling the planet’s temperature, during this period the global dimming effect of particulates overwhelmed it. Various other of his arguments, such as that it’s a natural cycle or all down to sun spot activity- and several other points- are addressed in articles linked to on this page- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
But back to the graph at the bottom of your post. I wanted to address it because it just looks wrong. Not the numbers are wrong or it’s wrong because I don’t agree with your position, but wrong as a graph. Look at the red trend line. Before 2005 it’s steady, the wild variations of individual data points don’t make it jump around. After 2005 it’s following the data points almost exactly. The red line is based upon average anomalies over a given period, but it looks like the averaging was done over a far shorter period post ‘05 than pre. If the average reacts that drastically to a dip in the recorded anomalies then it should also have kicked sharply up for the El Nino year of 1998 and less sharply down for 1985 (La Nina) and 1993 (Pinatubo volcano).
Basically I think someone has fudged the post 2005 trendline. Or, more bluntly, I think that graph is a lie. I’d recommend checking it’s provenance before using it again. For graphs of temperature change created from publicly available figures you could try http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery