Green Myths On Global Warming — Debunked

1       MYTH        Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT        Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

2       MYTH        Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT        In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn’t reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3       MYTH        Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT        Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

4       MYTH        Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT        96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5       MYTH        Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT        A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

6       MYTH        Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

FACT        The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7       MYTH        The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through ‘global warming’

FACT        Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

8       MYTH        The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT        As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are ‘just another tax’ on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9       MYTH        Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say ‘global warming’ is real and that we must do something now.

FACT        Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ’spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10     MYTH        There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT        There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.

Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said “the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

Global Warming Debunked

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:20 PM

By: Philip V. Brennan      Article Font Size  

Despite the oft-repeated claim that the science is settled that man-made global warming is threatening the planet and that a there is a consensus on that contention among most scientists, a number of top members of the scientific community across the globe vehemently disagree.

Their voices however, go largely unheard thanks to the mainstream media that worships at the altar of Al Gore and promotes his global warming hysteria, refusing to report on any opposing views, no matter how scientifically sound they might be.

That has once again become obvious with the media's treatment of Sen. James Inhofe's, R-Ola., two hour speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate on Oct. 26, debunking fears of man-made global warming. Although Inhofe effectively demolished the "science is settled" canard, citing numerous examples of studies debunking the global warming scam by some of the world's most respected scientists, the media decided that the truth must be kept from American people and ignored his groundbreaking speech.

Inhofe began by saying "We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

"We have witnessed Antarctic ice grow to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970s. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 — not 1998 -— the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.

"These new developments in just the last six months are but a sample of the new information coming out that continues to debunk climate alarm."

You'd never know that, however, if the media has its way.

These new developments, Inhofe pointed out have prompted many scientists to declare that the scientific basis for fears of catastrophic man-made global warming are collapsing.

"I agree with [former Vice President Al] Gore," Inhofe said. "Global warming may have reached a ‘tipping point.' The man-made global warming fear machine crossed the ‘tipping point' in 2007. I am convinced that future climate historians will look back at 2007 as the year the global warming fears began crumbling.

"The situation we are in now is very similar to where we were in the late 1970s when coming ice age fears began to dismantle. We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists and the media-driven "consensus" on man-made global warming."

Even leftists, Inhofe noted, have become disenchanted with global warming activism. He quotes Denis G. Rancourt professor of Physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, who believes the global warming campaign does a disservice to the environmental movement. Rancourt -- a committed left-wing activist and scientist -- believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a crisis. Wrote Rancourt "Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures."

The media, which weeps copious tears for the plight of the poor, ignores the terrible price the poor will pay for symbolic climate measures: "What few Americans realize is that the impact of these policies would not be evenly distributed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in Congress, known as cap and trade, that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions."

He quoted from the CBO report: "Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

The media has enshrined the Kyoto Protocol which the Senate has refused to ratify and wept bitterly over America's failure to sign on to it.

Said Inhofe on the treaty's attempts to control global temperatures: "First, going on a carbon diet would do nothing to avert climate change. After the U.S. Signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Al Gore's own scientist, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated that Kyoto would reduce emissions by only 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050. That's all. 0.07 degrees. And that's if the United States had ratified Kyoto and the other signatories met their targets. But we didn't and they won't.

"Of the 15 original EU countries, only two are on track to meet their targets. And even one of those, Britain, has started increasing its emissions again, not decreasing. Simi

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here.  The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Good thread Grendal.

11. Myth - kyoto

Fact - fools voted for the populist rudd and it will cost us a packet

Grendel,

Now that you've cut and pasted articles from Internet denialist sites, take a look at some of the so called facts presented and scratch beneath the surface a little. Do a little research yourself before you regurgitate crap.

Steve Schneider has an excellent website that sets down the basics in a reasonably easy to understand form.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html

That's a reasonable start. Actually there is another excellent site put out by the US EPA. That is very easy to follow. Don't be offended by the fact that it's a kids' site.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Now if you're prepared to discuss climate change, I'm happy to oblige (at least for another week or so), but be prepared for some questions to test your knowledge.

Talk about dodgy. Take the first one for example. A decrease in temperature over 2 or 3 years does not disprove global warming. It just demonstrates the bleeding obvious - that temperature does not increase smoothly. It's just as stupid as saying there was a frost this morning so global warming isn;t real.

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 9:02am:

Talk about dodgy. Take the first one for example. A decrease in temperature over 2 or 3 years does not disprove global warming. It just demonstrates the bleeding obvious - that temperature does not increase smoothly. It's just as stupid as saying there was a frost this morning so global warming isn;t real.

Yes but the last ten year of non-warming/ cooling is predicted to last another ten years. In this case it will come close to matching the length of warming in the late 20th century which we are supposed to be so alarmed about!

Also if there is an underlying warming trend from our CO2 emissions it would appear to be easily overidden by natural forces.

Yes but the last ten year of non-warming/ cooling is predicted to last another ten years.

So you accept that prediction, but not the prediction that the warming trend will continue despite the occasional frosty morning?

freediver wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Yes but the last ten year of non-warming/ cooling is predicted to last another ten years. So you accept that prediction, but not the prediction that the warming trend will continue despite the occasional frosty morning?

I'm just quoting the latest predictions. If true then we will have 20 or more years of non-warming / cooling. That would raise some questions regarding AGW would it not?

Not really. It doesn't mean we have 20 more years to spare. It just means we will see more of the impact after 10 years time than before. The CO2 we are emitting stays in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so a 10 or 20 year cycle is not some kind of reprieve.

It's like if the weather man predicts a few really hot days coming up, but it will still be cool at night. The fact that he predicts a cool night does not somehow negate his prediction of a warm day.

AGW theory does not predict a steady year on year increase in global average temperatures. It predicts an increasing trend with all the normal cyclical and random behaviour suprimposed on top. It's the underlying trend that matters. Variations about that trend do not disrpove the trend, any more than a frosty morning does.

pjb05 wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2008 at 9:37pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 3rd, 2008 at 8:34pm: Yes but the last ten year of non-warming/ cooling is predicted to last another ten years. So you accept that prediction, but not the prediction that the warming trend will continue despite the occasional frosty morning? I'm just quoting the latest predictions. If true then we will have 20 or more years of non-warming / cooling. That would raise some questions regarding AGW would it not?

It would, barring any events such as major stratospheric volcanoes. If you think it's more likely that we'll get global cooling over the next 20 years, you have an excellent chance to make some money.

Here 's the link:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html

You can join Dave the Rocket Scientist and put your money where your mouth is. Now's your big chance.  ;)

Your the one who is absolutely certain as to what the future climate will be Muso (things are always crystal clear to activists). Why don't you put a bet down?

pjb05 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 4:00pm:

Your the one who is absolutely certain as to what the future climate will be Muso (things are always crystal clear to activists). Why don't you put a bet down?

I'm not absolutely certain - nobody is. It all depends on a range of factors including how quickly we act on reducing CO2 emissions.  Even the IPCC report gave a range of possibilities, depending on how quickly we act.

There are of course some uncertainties. Maybe there will be another super volcano like the Mount Toba eruption that will throw us into an ice age for the next 1000 years. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible. The last one was 70,000 years ago.

Maybe some advanced civilisation will come along with a cosmic vacuum cleaner and fix up our atmosphere for all I know. "Hello we're from Andromeda. We've come to clean your atmosphere"

The only thing that's for certain is that the consequences of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture and changes in tropical land use continuing as they have done at an ever increasing rate can not be good.

PJ the only thing we are certain of is that we have rational justification to take action to reduce greenhouse emissions. The denialist camp tends to go on about certainty, whereas rational people consider it from a risk management perspective. You have to be able to handle uncertainty in an objective manner.

There is no rational justification for what you believe...  just scaremongering based on faulty modelling.

What do I believe Grendel? I don't think I made this a matter of faith. I defer to the scientific community on matters of science, rather than people I meet on internet forums. The rest is basic risk management.

There is no scientific concensus on this matter.

The only risk is the risk of being finally found out to be totally wrong.  unfortunately we'll have spent billions for no real reason appeasing the scaremongerers and Gore.

So will you be laying a bet to display your confidence on this matter Grendel?

I will be putting money into solar power for my new house, because real or not, one thing is certain, energy ain't getting cheaper.

Our energy bills, especially in NSW, are going up and up and more so when this ETS is introduced.  Why are governments then still pumping so much cash into the coal industry - it's defeating the purpose of this scheme.

We should all be encouraged to get solar power and for those who can't afford it outright, we could be given a low interest loan to be repaid quarterly on our energy bill - which with solar, we could afford to pay back - even at a reasonable interest rate.

We paid extra in our rates for years - and are still paying - for sewerage infrastructure - the same could be done for solar/water.

I'm beginning to believe the ETS scheme really is a farce.  If they were serious - they would be using other alternatives instead of propping up the fossil fuel and oil industries.  

I started out believing the GW thing but now Im keen to learn about the other side to the arguement..so Ill be reading along with  interest.

carry on.

Well put your money there for a real reason Mozz...  

Not some hokum

According to "scientists", the globe has warmed up and cooled downm many times in the past, with associated GHGs.
WELL before oil, cars, pollution, industry, bicycles, ovens, ships, planes, wars or even people !!!!

And the GHGs humans produce are insignificant in the entire picture.

The most disastrous greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Can we ban water vapour? Or at least severely restrict it?

easel - don't mention water vapour !! Ruddy will levy a tax on it, to subjugate us all

oceanz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 9:30pm:

I started out believing the GW thing but now Im keen to learn about the other side to the arguement..so Ill be reading along with  interest. carry on.

Oceans, there is no other side to the argument, and there is consensus by those qualified to speak on the subject.  It's about as certain as the theory that next summer will be hotter than next winter.

:)

Water vapour is the major Greenhouse gas, but it's a feedback not a forcing. It increases as a result of increasing temperature. Drop the temperature and you drop out the water. Basic stuff really - you get clouds then rain. Drop the temperature and the CO2 remains the same.  

It's good to take time to learn the basics first before taking sides based on emotion. It's not an emotion or faith based subject - it's based on facts.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

According to "scientists", the globe has warmed up and cooled downm many times in the past, with associated GHGs. WELL before oil, cars, pollution, industry, bicycles, ovens, ships, planes, wars or even people !!!! And the GHGs humans produce are insignificant in the entire picture.

Well maybe you're right. People are insignificant. The planet was there before they existed and will still be there after they have gone.

If you don't think that 6.8 billion people are important then it's not an issue.

Of course the two main difference between the dark distant past and now are 1. The 6.8 billion people now  and 2. The vast forest and abundant ocean life that existed before the 6.8 billion people were here.

The past is not always a guide to the future, especially if you change the planet 'just a tiny bit'.

The earth has also seen mass extinctions etc, doesn't mean we want it to happen to us.

Driving global temperature changes via sudden CO2 emissions as we are doing now is unprecedented.

"Driving global temperature changes via sudden CO2 emissions as we are doing now is unprecedented. "

ROTFLMAO

This from the person who keeps protesting we don't know what he thinks, he's just looking at it from a "risk management" position.

Oh me oh my....

Nose getting longer FD,

None of what you obviously really believe has been proven.  Scaremonger.

Grendel wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 9:40am:

"Driving global temperature changes via sudden CO2 emissions as we are doing now is unprecedented. " ROTFLMAO This from the person who keeps protesting we don't know what he thinks, he's just looking at it from a "risk management" position. Oh me oh my.... Nose getting longer FD, None of what you obviously really believe has been proven.  Scaremonger.

Care to share with us what you believe,Grendel? but only what has been proven.

I tend to agree with grendel ..we very well could just be a in a natural cycle of heating and warming..which has been happening since the year dot..

It is largely understood that Scientists dont seem agree on "scientific" data..one study say in 50 yrs we,ll  be "in trouble"..another says its too late already..They sound like a bunch of doomsdayers .

So who is right and if it is scientific fact..why all the mismatching information involving timelines etc?

Unless they can all find a common point of agreement..how will they get anyone to listen to them. Because this is what they have to do to effect any kind of change.

Grendel wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 9:40am:

"Driving global temperature changes via sudden CO2 emissions as we are doing now is unprecedented. " ROTFLMAO This from the person who keeps protesting we don't know what he thinks, he's just looking at it from a "risk management" position. Oh me oh my.... Nose getting longer FD, None of what you obviously really believe has been proven.  Scaremonger.

Tell me what is the solubility product of carbon dioxide in ice at minus 40 degrees C, and what is the significance of the question?

I very much doubt if you'll be able to Google it, but it will test your real knowledge of the subject, which I suspect is practically nil.

oceanz wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 11:02am:

I tend to agree with grendel ..we very well could just be a in a natural cycle of heating and warming..which has been happening since the year dot.. It is largely understood that Scientists dont seem agree on "scientific" data..one study say in 50 yrs we,ll  be "in trouble"..another says its too late already..They sound like a bunch of doomsdayers . So who is right and if it is scientific fact..why all the mismatching information involving timelines etc? Unless they can all find a common point of agreement..how will they get anyone to listen to them. Because this is what they have to do to effect any kind of change.

To be completely honest, I'm not even close to understanding all but the most elementary scientific arguments in this topic. I can understand however that there is a general concensus amongst eminant and respected scientists that it is real, and it is coming and previous earth models are no guarantee for optimism. There is disagreement as to the severity but to me it seems that the most optomistic models are the ones that are the most fairytailesque.

Just a reasonable, non scientific look at the world would suggest that something must give, and give in a way that a small crack in a dam wall in the morning turns into a explosive runaway disaster by the afternoon. 6.8 billion people, the world's lungs (forests) a mere fraction of their former glory and whats left suffering from emphasemia, populants and toxins being pumped into the air and the depletion of the biodiversity bank that is usually associated with mass extinctions. Even optimistically, it does not look good. I look at my baby son's face every night, and would rather err on the side of caution and what my intelligence tells me when when I put simple observation to a reasonable test.

Nothing is more important than his future happiness and wellbeing. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt than a cartel of billionaire coal miners etc.

The cycle may very well be natural but we have sabotaging the planets ability to recover.

Just a quick common sense example.

IF there were to be a dramatic rise in sea level. there would likely be a series of overlaping events that would imediately effect both the land based and ocean based food pantries.

The shallow areas of our oceans are the feeding/grazing and breeding area for much of the fish we catch and eat. These fish are in turn preyed upon by deeper water fish. The grazing areas will not be able to immediately respond to radical change in sea levels. It must migrate to the new shallows, the land recently occupied by terrestrial plants, cities, dumps. They are trying to gain a foot hold in an alien environment. Habitat change lowers their abundance, lowering the shallow water fish abundance, lowering the deeper water fish abundance. etc etc.

All at a time when there will be a mass migration of people further inland competing for room with food producing areas and already strained natural areas. Bangladesh alone = 150 million people have to go somewhere. Conflict, disease and the politics of the hungry. All bad news.

rotflmao

at what pressure Muso?

Solubility product depends on several things and pressure is one of them.

Gotta think all the way back to Chemistry for it but seems you never did Chemistry.

Oh last time I looked it up locu...  bangladesh had gained 20sq miles.

:) Interesting - I did not know that. Thanks for the info. Is it the only place rising faster than the water ;) Could be prime real estate in 50 years.

Sorry, but seriously

Where was this information from Grendal? Did it have global statistics?

They are not talking about land recovery through the use of dykes or anything are they?

google... bangladesh landmass larger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm

many more articles

satellite proof etc, etc, etc.