THE GOOD NEWS IS …
IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT !
Global
Warming : is Carbon the Culprit? by
Donald Auchterlonie July 2008
What we are dealing with is the Greenhouse
Effect, a natural phenomenon. The so-called 'greenhouse effect' is a layer of
gasses encircling the globe and keeping the temperature at 15C; without the greenhouse
effect the temperature would be -23C, yes I said minus 23 degrees Celsius.
This
canopy of gasses is not impervious, it has "windows", or I think it
better to say "chimneys" in it. It is to do with the way the molecules
of each gas vibrates, (the scientists who worked on this were W.D. Sellers and
Stephen Schneider in the 1960's and 70's). "The Greenhouse Trap" P.
163.
Yes, there is a debate going on about 'Global Warming' - but it is rather
one-sided. All the big guns seem to be promoting panic over 'global warming' but
a number of independent scientists are saying that man-made CO2 is not the problem.
There
is a difference between science and 'forecasting':
Science is a philosophy
of knowledge. John Daly in his book "the Greenhouse Trap" says that
"what has made science so spectacularly successful is its ... ability to
distinguish truth from falsehood". By doing repeatable experiments the truth
is established. Daly says the behaviour of CO2 is well settled. CO2 is the best
plant food available.
David Attenborough says in his DVD The Life of Plants:
"As soon as a plant puts forth one leaf it can feed itself. The more CO2
in the atmosphere the better plants grow." Yet, we are told there is a food
shortage looming, and we are told to lock up CO2 ! Present-day
scientists rely on grants from governments or multi national companies. It is
very, very, unlikely that a scientist wishing to study a critical view of global
warming would get a grant. Pro-'climate change' scientists wrote the famous International
Climate Change Committee's (ICCC) recently released report.. The ICCC is a political
body - not a scientific body. (The Australian 13.12.07) Climate predictions depend
on computer models - the same models used to predict next week's weather. They
feed in more CO2 but fail to recognize all the other factors. Financiers
like global warming because they see opportunities for their trade. Ziggy Switkowski
said in The Australian 13.6.07: "The nuclear and renewable energy sectors
would become economically viable with CO2 priced between twenty dollars and fifty
dollars a tonne. At these prices Australia's 560 million tonnes per year of CO2emissions
would cost between 11 billion dollars and 28 billion dollars, generating a market
worth between four billion and nine billion dollars. He went on to say "this
would throw up extraordinary returns for those who financed, traded, and structured
the carbon market." Al
Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth:
The British Government planned to
distribute Mr. Gore's film in schools, but legal action was taken by a Mr. Stewart
Dimmock. The High Court ruled that the guidance notes drafted by the Education
Department served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In
order for the film to be shown the Government, said the High Court, must first
amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear:
1. The Film is a
political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2. If teachers present
the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the
Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3. Eleven inaccuracies
have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The
inaccuracies are:
§ The film claims that melting snows on Mount
Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede
that this is not correct.
§ The film suggests that evidence from ice
cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.
The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2
lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
§ The film uses
emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by
global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible"
to attribute one-off events to global warming.
§ The film shows the drying
up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's
expert had to accept that this was not the case.
§ The film claims that
a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It
turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned
and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
§ The film threatens
that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age:
the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
§
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.
The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
§ The
film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to
rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
§
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was
that it is in fact increasing.
§ The film suggests that sea levels could
rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence
is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years
and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
§ The film claims
that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to
New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed
that this appears to be a false claim.
(Published in The Evening Standard
www.Standard.co.uk 13.10.07) Newsmax Online,
21.11.07 stated:
"former vice president and environmental activist
Al Gore is joining forces with a venture that's seeking to profit from the move
towards clean technology in the sixth $ trillion global energy busy. He is becoming
a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers which is investing in technologies
that seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Asked why he is combining his environmental
advocacy work with profit motives Gore who is already an advisor to Google and
a Director at Apple Inc. told Fortune: "we all believe the market must play
a central role." Mr. Richard Pratt, famous
for advocating a population of 50 million in Australia, has (The Australian 26.12.07)
said: "I've always been in favour of ratifying the Koyoto Protocol."
He goes on, "I've long seen climate change as a global obligation and a business
opportunity … During the next decade or so, say by 2020 we should be able
to build at least 100 businesses, each worth $1 Billion or more which deliver
climate change solutions." Now on the
side of caution are:
Barry Marley (The Australian 18.12.07) who writes
"unjustified fear is stampeding us in directions that court disaster. …
It is common ground that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect that makes the
planet liveable and that natural processes are responsible for much of the CO2
in the atmosphere. But water vapour and clouds are much more important, constituting
up to 90% of the greenhouse effect."
A Howard Government committee spent
13 months investigating global warming and reported that global warming is caused
by human activity. The Dissenting Report by four members of the committee said
"the committee did not take any evidence of human related global warming."
At
the Bali conference in December 07 a letter signed by 103 scientists was sent
to UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon. It says: "It is not possible to stop
climate change, it is a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through
the ages." It goes on to say: "The IPCC has issued increasingly alarming
conclusions about the impact of CO2, a non-polluting gas that is essential to
plant photosynthesis."
They also said "it is not possible to significantly
alter the global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions".
The letter stated "leading scientists, including senior IPCC representatives
acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate… there has
been no net global warming since 1998". Professor
Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Paris wrote the following in the UK Daily
Telegraph:
"Sir, I have seen Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth,
read the book and read the Stern Report; as a scientist I am appalled. Both authors
present myriad dangers as truth-no doubts, a 100% consensus. Yet a glance at the
professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes, etc. confirms that this consensus
is myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics not of science".
The
Australian 1.2.08 reported:
"Major Australian greenhouse gas
emitters believe that emissions trading costs of about $65 a tonne of carbon are
inevitable, forseeing household electricity prices to rise by almost 100%. If
you look on your power bill you will see an amount in tonnes of greenhouse gas.
Mr. Hitchens, Director of Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said "The
price of emissions in Australia will very likely be set in Europe… The EU
has estimated a price of about $65 per ton of carbon, with European banks predicting
a price of between $60 and $80 per ton". What have banks got to do with it?
I guess they are the ones who produce the money." To
return to the temperatures, Lorne Gunter in the National Post 13.8.07 remarks
that:
"Al Gore claims nine out of the ten hottest years on record
have occurred in the last decade. About 10 years ago the US government changed
the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures
with the old ones, until in 2003 Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrik did so. NASA
then made corrections but did not publicise the fact. The hottest year since 1880
becomes 1934 instead of 1988, which is now second and 1921 is third. Four of the
hottest ten years were in the 1930's and only 3 in the last 10 years. T he fifteen
hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before
atmospheric CO2 began its recent rise, seven occurred afterwards. These temperatures
are for USA only. Available surface temperature readings cover only half the planet
even today. The majority of temperature recording stations are in cities, many
are at airports. Cities are always warmer than the surrounding countryside because
of the "heat island" effect. Concrete and bitumen retain more heat.
Biologist Jennifer Marohasy (The Australian
22.3.08)
in discussing the temperatures from the NASA Aqua satellite
says: "the satellite collects temperatures and information on cloud formation
and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got
warming from additional CO2, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're
going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating.
What
this is actually showing from the NASA Aqua satellite is just the opposite, that
with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually
limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive
feedback". She went on " the meteorological community at the moment
is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and
(climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published,
is work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point." Finally
let me quote Professor Rob Carter from James Cook University in Townsville:
"Water
vapour made up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, CO2 was a minor greenhouse
gas responsible for 3.6% of the total greenhouse effect, of this only 0.12% could
be attributed to human activity. The climate had always changed and always will,
the sensible thing to do is to prepare for it."
# For more information
off the internet, type the following into a good search engine: "The Hockey
Stick" or "Still Waiting For Greenhouse". Global
warming cyclical, says climate expert:
Philip Hopkins in The Age
13 June 2005 writes: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas and has helped
produce the "green" world agricultural revolution, according to an Australian
climate expert. Professor Rob Carter, from James Cook University in Townsville,
said the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent decades had
boosted agricultural crop yields.
"Carbon dioxide is the best aerial fertiliser
we know about," he told the Victorian Farmers Federation in Morwell late
last week. Professor Carter, a marine geologist, is research professor in the
university's Marine Geophysical Laboratory.
He said the Kyoto Protocol would
cost billions, even trillions, of dollars and would have a devastating effect
on the economies of countries that signed it and "It will deliver no significant
cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050."
He continued:
"The
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger
for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific
body." To understand climate change,
it was necessary to look at the longer record:
Professor Carter explained
that through an examination of material taken from deep below the ocean floor,
marine geologists could study layers of earth's history similar to the way a tree's
age could be determined by tree rings. "We are in a relatively warm period
today," he said. "But 20,000 years ago, it was as cold as it has ever
been - that was the peak of the last glaciation."
Professor
Carter said that over 2.5 million years there had been 50 glacial and interglacial
periods. Of the past 400,000 years, the earth had been colder for 90 per cent
of the time, with briefer warmer periods of about 10,000 years.
He said the
earth was now at the end of a warmer period, and reputable climate-change scientists
agreed that the climate was going to get colder. The debate was whether it would
take tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to occur.
On a shorter time
scale, Professor Carter said the earth had broadly got warmer in the modern period,
from 1860 to 2000, although it had also been warmer in Roman and medieval times.
There had also been a Little Ice Age between 1550 and the 19th century, when the
Thames used to freeze over. A cooling trend
took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching
a peak in 1998. "This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century,"
he said. However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University
in Britain had shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998.
Professor
Carter said greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were not causing the earth
to warm up. On both annual and geological (up to 100,000-year) time scales, changes
in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide, he said. This was true even
in the famous 1960-1991 graph showing rising amounts of carbon dioxide. Professor
Carter said that without the natural greenhouse effect, the average earth temperature
would be minus 18 degrees Celsius, compared with the average of plus 15 Celsius
that had nurtured the development of life and civilisation.
Water vapour made
up about 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide was a minor greenhouse
gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect. Of this, only
0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity.
Climate had always changed and "always will", he said. "The only
sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it."
WRONG,
WONG, WRONG !
"If
you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please
present a graph of it"
the scientists challenge. Scientists
call on UN Climate leaders to admit they are wrong and renounce Global Warming
claims and 'devastating policies'. The UN's Climate Committee leadership and policies
were today challenged by four scientists, including one Nobel Peace Prize winner,
from around the world to admit that CO2 centred Global Warming theories are now
disproved by observations and to renounced that theory and associated 'devastating
policies' which are weakening the world economy and increasing food shortages
and destruction of forest across the planet. Their
bombshell letter includes a graph by Joseph D'Aleo, (Certified Consultant Meteorologist,
Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Executive Director Icecap.us)
based entirely on official figures which shows that while CO2 has risen dramatically
for the last ten years world temperatures have been falling contrary to the UN
(IPCC) predictions.
The writers directly challenge the IPCC to produce
observational evidence for the UN's CO2 driven Global Warming theories which are
now being used to justify anti-CO2 measures and taxes all over the world: The
letter:
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization 7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P.
2300 CH -1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland 14 April 2008 Dear
Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC,
We are writing to you and others
associated with the IPCC position - that man's CO2 is a driver of global warming
and climate change - to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support
from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational
evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that
CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures
or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory
in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention
to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more).
Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that
temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate
Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included
in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world
temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while
CO2 levels have risen dramatically. The up-dated
temperature measurements have been released by the NASA's Microwave Sounding Unit
(MSU)
[1] as well as by the UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature
v. 3, variance adjusted -Hadley CRUT3v)
[2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii
[3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D'Aleo
[4], and
are shown http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consultant
Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive
Director Icecap.us These latest temperature
readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological
stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings.
They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative,
since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation
nor observer error.
What is also clear from the graphs is that average global
temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary
to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets
fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already
leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy
of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices
which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to
increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria,
Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5]. Given
the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised
will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there
be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated
with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC
policy.
Yours sincerely,
Hans Schreuder
Analytical Chemist, mMensa : Piers Corbyn Astrophyisicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com
: - Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology Australia : Svend Hendriksen, Nobel
Peace Prize 1988 (shared) Greenland
hans@tecch-know.eu : piers@weatheraction.com
: dnp@networksmm.com.au : hendriksen@greennet.gl Cc:
IPCC's yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com
Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President
Royal Society)
Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP Footnote
1:
Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation,
respectively in February and December last year, are:
Most of the observed
increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely
that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged
over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and
The 2007
IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally
concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90%
certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide
in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years,
and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted
soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat
waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by
rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious
danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7]. Footnote
2:
"Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have
actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor
upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely
contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange
the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic
CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a
position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed "well settled
science." Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.
References:
1. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
2. https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
3. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consultant
Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive
Director Icecap.us
5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm
6. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment
report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
7. https://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/
Source:
https://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/indexd.html +447874811849 & |
