By Todd Royal, AMERICAN THINKER
When pollsters realized the public and elected officials weren’t buying global warming as a concept or policy, in a brilliant political move, they came up with the phrase “climate change.” This helped sell the theory of man-made global warming. Weather is politicized and computer models are only predictions that have been used as pawns in elections and justifying increased government budgets. The global warming/climate change (GWCC) narrative has made Al Gore a rich man peddling unrealized fear.
In January 2012, sixteen eminent scientists published an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming. If mankind is causing global warming then how do you explain:
“Today’s CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2 the Earth should have been boiling.”
It seems more reasonable to be agnostic based upon this fact:
“According to the Climate.gov website, the current global average temperature is roughly ‘shy of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. About 55 million years ago – just after the age of the Dinosaurs – the era known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) saw average global temps as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit.”
As humans only showed up about 100,000 years ago how do you account for the PETM era? Supposedly, 97% of scientists agree man is the cause of catastrophic GWCC. When in fact that statement is false. Moreover:
“A recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis. A majority of the 1,077 respondents in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent GWCC.”
What if you believe the 97% scientist debate then why hasn’t this information been widely reported?
“The media ignore a petition on the Internet signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, 7,157 with a master’s of science, and 12, 715 with a bachelor of science degree, all of whom dispute the global warming thesis.”
The GWCC narrative also took a hit when a March 2019 NASA study found the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again “after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013,” but is growing the past two years (2016-2018). Past natural variability seems to be the cause instead of vetting the scientific consensus that “demands to prove that rising CO2 is causing an effect like melting Greenland ice.”
Are there other factors that determine earth’s heating and cooling other than CO2? According to Professor A. Balasubramanian from the Centre for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, University of Mysore:
“The climate of a region (or whole earth) is determined by radiation energy of the sun, and its distribution and temporal fluctuations. The long-term state of the atmosphere is a function of variety of interacting elements. They are: Solar radiation, Air masses, Pressure systems (cyclone belts), Ocean Currents, Topography.”
CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends in the 20th and 21st century. Climate scientist Vijay Jayaraj cites these weather facts to make the case the earth is actually in danger of global cooling:
“There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn’t follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.”
MIT atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, also believes CO2 is not the main factor in GWCC and figuring out GWCC is a dicey proposition. He questions whether the earth is warming, cooling or somewhere in between – in other words Dr. Lindzen is a skeptic because he doesn’t know if CO2 is the main driver of weather. Climate scientistsacknowledge life on earth happens because of the Earth’s positioning in the solar system to the sun and “that the sun is the biggest influencer and driver of global temperature.”
NASA’s original homepage accepted, “the sun’s impact on our climate system.” But they succumbed to the GWCC madness and took it down for public consumption. Freedom of speech and scientific debate has been squelched. CO2 is now the leader in the GWCC debate sweepstakes and political discussion while avoiding how the sun affects weather and global temperature. This is a huge mistake for these reasons:
“Central Europe, for example, temperature changes since 1990 coincided more with the changes in solar activity than with atmospheric CO2 concentration. The same has been true globally, and across centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) and Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) – periods of low solar activity – were responsible for the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age. Likewise increased solar activity in the Roman Warm Period (~250 B.C. to A.D. 400) and Medieval Warm Period (~A.D. 950-1250) brought warmer temperatures on Earth. Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers affirm the overwhelming impact of solar activity on Earth’s temperature.”
The question should be asked: are we looking at the wrong phenomenon and should be debating global cooling? A number of climate scientists believe “another major cooling” is likely to happen in this century. Despicably and treacherously GWCC has overtaken all rational discussions about all forms of energy, electricity and the weather. If you question GWCC you are a “climate denier,” or worse you’re viciously attacked without fully vetting the issue of whether or not man is causing anthropogenic GWCC.
Perhaps there s a “bull” in “China”…..kow-tow-ing……(Kai Lung unrolling his mat)..
Someone just passed greenhouse gas.
With such a nauseating example of sycophantic and fawning “Thank you” that I just saw above… perhaps I should get in on it, and thank everybody for …. I don’t know what..
@ dreuveni:
Life has many forms. Some, like animals, thrive on oxygen and emit CO2. Others, like plants, thrive on CO2 and emit oxygen. Others thrive on sulfate, hydrogen, iron, etc. Some life thrives miles below the surfact of the ground, or in volcanic vents.
Besides the tremendous survivability of life under extreme conditions, one important fact is being ignored in this discussion: Humans can MOVE! If it gets too hot or cold, or wet or dry in one location, they can move to another!
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
It’s hard to imagine the massiveness of that kind of volcano. I always believed that Krakatoa and Thera/Santorini were super-volcanos. The Thera eruption destroyed the Minoan Civilisation completely, and created a tsunami type of wave which caused much damage to the Nile Delta also.
By coincidence, (Adam), a Trinity College (your old “stamping ground”) classics professor (and an old cricket foe of mine) was investigating the Thera eruption along with Professor Marinatos. His name was Luce…J.V. Luce…(both a cricket and grass hockey International player). He wrote a few books about it and the area. I have one..entitled “The End Of Atlantis” He spent years investigating the whole myth and attributed it to the Thera eruption and Atlantis to Crete….. Very interesting… you should look it up…you’d enjoy it.
@ dreuveni:
They have a Donald…Donald Duck…Lots of them.. You can almost hear their scrawking all the way across the Atlantic.
@ Fred Alexander:
Fred. Thank you for graduating with honors in Physics and Math. I noticed the same anomaly you did, but I did so with only an MS in Chemistry. Let’s see where our antagonist, Al Gore, is coming from:
“Gore was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[19] but he did not do well in science classes and avoided taking math.[18] During his first two years, his grades placed him in the lower one-fifth of his class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.[18][19] In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs.[18] In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore’s interest in global warming and other environmental issues.[19][29] Gore earned an A on his thesis, “The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947–1969″, and graduated with an A.B. cum laude in June 1969”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Harvard
I imagine he became an expert on watching TV by doing a lot of it himself (while stoned); so he picked a good thesis.
@ Fred Alexander: There is a fairly “simple” explanation for this phenomenon. Supwrvolcanoes, the last one being about 50 ,000 year ago, probably accounted for most of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere before humans began to influence the climate. But the super volcanoes also released a great deal of particulate matter into the atmosphere, and particulate matters tends to have a cooling effect (such as “nuclear winter.”) For thousand of years, the impact of the particulate matter on temperatures was greater than that of the carbon dioxide, producing ice ages. Eventually, however, the particulate matter returned to the earth, while much of the carbon dioxide remained in the atmosphere. Then a warming “interglacial period would occur. We are apparently in one of those periods now.
THese interglacial periods usually lasted about 10,000 years. By that time, increased vegetation caused by rain from melting glaciers had probably reduced the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,leading to a return of global cooling. No, however, the release of carbon dioxide from human sources and the destruction of CO2-absorbing forests by humans may delay this cooling effect by a few thousand years and prolong the “interglacial” period. Of course, we might have another supervolcano thrown into the mix.
@ dreuveni:
@ dreuveni:
Per Jackson Pemberton ·
Brigham Young University
I graduated with honors in Physics and Math and did a lot of research on anthropomorphic warming and found one crucial fact that seems to go completely unnoticed. The ice core data, which covers the last four ice ages, shows that CO2 concentrations continue to rise right into the first few thousand years of each plunge into a new ice age. The data is quite dramatic : temperatures fall sharply as each age begins and meanwhile CO2 continues to rise for 2,000 to 7,000 years. This shows that CO2 concentration does not drive warming otherwise it would track with temperature.
There is no proof of causality as far as CO2 is concerned. Actually, quite the opposite: no CO2 means no life on earth. We need to get both feet back on the carpet and stop dreaming about how the “elite” can charge us for breathing. The discussion on taxing CO2 emissions has picked up momentum in the EU again. The EU needs a Donald too!
Everything Royal said is correct. “Manmade Climate Change”, by any name, is a fraud.
— Michael S
MS-Chemistry