By Ted Belman
The Main Stream Media and the Internet media are all covering the COP21 Climate Conference in Paris.
I sent an article by a skeptic to a leftist I know and received in return a diatribe attacking the claims and motives of the skeptics. The leftist adamantly asserted that the the science is well settled and that there is a huge majority of scientists who agreed.
I finally decided to learn about it and to see what is settled. Currently this is where we stand.
Science has enabled us to determine both past temperatures and past readings of CO2 going back many tens of thousands of years. Both sides agree that the past rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 are linked. The skeptics say that there is a CO2 lag which is a name given to the fact that the rise in CO2 follows the rise in temperature after a lag of about 800 years. Thus the temperature rises before the CO2 does. Put another way, the increase in CO2 did not cause the rise in temperature in the first place. The proponents, at first, said they move in tandem. Now they all accept that the temperature rises first but they try their best to get around that fundamental fact. Increasingly more and more believers are abandoning the cause.
I wrote to Francisco Gil-White to see what he knew about it because I vaguely remembered that he had written about it. In fact resorting to him was a good idea. He advised “I have a PhD in evolutionary theory, a sister science of geology, which is the science that studies the history of climate by examining sedimentary deposits, and I have zero problem understanding the scientific claims on either side, which I explain in my pieces. That does not mean that I am right. I could still be wrong. So could the people I disagree with.”
He referred me to a article he wrote entitled The Antarctic Ice Core and GLOBAL WARMING which consisted of 6 parts.
A brief introduction plus table of contents for this HIR series, which discusses why the Antarctic ice-core evidence is so important to a proper evaluation of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, which holds that human production of CO2 is responsible for current global warming.
2 How do Al Gore and IPCC scientists reply to the ice core evidence? 9 June 2014
Science thrives on debate, so a good way to gauge the strength of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is to examine how its proponents reply to the challenge posed by the Antarctic ice-core evidence. This is what we do here.
3 Nature (magazine), Antarctic ice cores, and the CO2 lag 9 June 2014
If climate science exhibits system-wide pathologies when the topic is global warming, there is no better place to look for them than the world’s most prestigious science journal: Nature. We will show here that something has gone terribly wrong with the peer review process atNature.
4 The Antarctic ice cores and the media 30 June 2014
We document that the Western mass media appears to have zero independence from the IPCC, for it repeats whatever it reads in RealClimate, a blog set up by IPCC scientists.
5 Climategate: Are IPCC scientists guilty of willful deceit? 17 July 2014
The Climategate scandal erupted when thousands of emails of important IPCC scientists were hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. These email exchanges are troubling, for they appear to confirm what many skeptics had charged: that IPCC scientists are playing a political game, rather than doing science.
6 Who holds the balance of power? The skeptics or the IPCC? 6 August 2014
‘Orwellian’ is an adjective reserved for a media-imposed total inversion of reality, plus indifference to absurdity equal parts boldness and nonchalance (so powerful in the rash assertion of its plausibility as to convince the innocent). Loudly claiming that the Antarctic ice-core evidence supports the AGW hypothesis—when it in fact refutes that hypothesis—is Orwellian. The same goes for the manner in which IPCC scientists describe themselves as the supposed persecuted party. We will argue here that the balance of power is unequivocally on the IPCC’s side.
I further investigated and found the articles of other skeptics.
The Burden of Proof on Climate Change by S. Fred Singer on American Thinker
Twelve Reasons Why the Paris Climate Talks are a Total Waste. by James Delingpol, on Breitbart.
Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit by Mark Marano on Canada Free Press.
In this article the author refers to a new documentary film which is,
“The film is the first climate documentary to profile scientists who have reversed their views from supporting the so-called “consensus” position to a conversion to skepticism. The film also profiles politically left scientists who have now declared themselves skeptics of man-made global warming and United Nations scientists who have now turned against the UN for “distorting” climate science.”
President Obama’s Pursuit of a Bad Global Climate Deal by Joseph Klein, Canada Free Press.
NASA SAYS ANTARCTIC ICE NOT RECEDING by Jeff Dunetz, Yid Blog.
Many on the left stubbornly cling to their dogma. They call the skeptics, “deniers” of their dogma. They can’t accept what to me and these authors, is crystal clear.
Their embrace of this hoax reminds me of their embrace of the Palestinian hoax.
@ babushka:
If you don’t understand that air pollution effects the weather, you don’t understand air pollution and you don’t understand weather. These are not incongruous issues.
At this point, heat emission alone from human activity is effecting the atmosphere. Will this change the atmospheric temperature beyond what is possible based on our orbit around the sun? No, of course not. But it does effect the weather.
Air pollution is not just effluents, it is also dust. One of the worse ecological disasters in the history of this country was the collapse of the Great Plains ecosystem. The cause? Farming. History says that it was caused by a drought, but that’s not true, it was farming that caused the drought. The Dust Bowls of the thirties were a weather nightmare causing huge changes and dramatic consequences for weather we continue to suffer from.
Dust continues to be a problem as the planet becomes completely defoliated from deforestation and encroaching land use for farming and housing.
The reason the temperature rises in the first place is that the most significant “greenhouse gas” is water vapour; at least three times more emissivity than CO2, depending on relative humidity.
My input (right or wrong) is that when solar activity increases, the first effect is an increase in evaporation from the oceans and other bodies of water. This essentially causes an increase global warming and this is in no way related to CO2, especially the anthropomorphic type, which according to the pundits, has only manifested since the Industrial Revolution.
According to energy scientists (as distinct from climate scientists), a 0.1% fluctuation in energy radiating from the sun, has the same magnitude as 2X the amount of energy produced in one year by all burned hydrocarbons on Earth.
You are conflating incongruent concepts. Industrial pollution is very real, and must be addressed by a combination of strict law enforcement combined with technological advancement. The air in most of America is less polluted than it used to be as a result of these factors, whereas the air in most of China is more polluted because in their rush to modernize the Chinese have cast aside environmental concerns. Global pollution must be addressed.
Climate change is absurdly childish. We live in a solar system, therefore our climate is heliocentric. Ditto Mercury. And Venice. And Mars. And the Jovian planets. When the sun gets hotter, so do the planets. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic activity, and believing that it does is primitive ignorance or – to the extent they differ – leftist connivance.
Wanna fight pollution? Crucially important. Count me in.
Climate change? Crock of shit.
Is the “Climate Change” debate a fraud? Yes, of course.
Has human activity been effecting the atmosphere to the point where it threatens our existence? Yes, of course. It’s a problem as old as the industrial age (and probably older) with a long history of bitter debate with people who don’t care about dumping crap into our air, water and land.
Is there any point in arguing about it?
At this point, no.
If anyone cannot decide that our atmosphere has been changed by human activity, there is no point arguing with them and the whole “climate change” debate serves to obscure the issue better than any opposition to environmental concerns has ever done in the entire history of the debate.
Go ahead, keep polluting the rivers, the air the land. I give up and any rational person would. You get no argument from me. There is nothing left to protect.
Ted, you might consider that Trump is the most politically hostile opposition to environmental concerns anywhere. If he were to get real about Israel, he would be your guy for sure.