Global warming – let’s hear from the scientists

When US politician and energy trader Al Gore marketed “Global Warming” to the world through his authoritative power-point “An Inconvenient Truth,” the media got behind him.  Why didn’t the issue go away when his predictions failed?  What are politicians known for?  I wanted to hear what the scientists had to say.

I’ve been pressed for time this year but I am concerned about those who truly believe in this issue.  In my time off  this year I invested time watching a film by scientists called: “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”

The scientists interviewed report being bullied, harassed, accused of working for oil companies, and threatened with losing their funding.  So-called consensus must never be confused with science.

The film is over an hour long, so I’ve summed up the salient points and time stamps on the video.  Here’s THE most important thing from the film:

Al Gore’s argument about man-made global warming rests on one all important piece of evidence taken from ice core surveys. The first sample was taken from Vostok in Anarctica.  What it found, as Al Gore correctly pointed out, was a correlation between C02 and temperature.  But there was something very important in the ice core data that Gore failed to mention – the link he made between C02 and temperature is THE WRONG WAY ROUND.

Professor Ian Clark is a leading Arctic Paleo-Climatologist who looks back at the earth’s temperature record tens of millions of years.  If you don’t watch anything else – watch what Professor Clark demonstrates from point 18:27 of the movie.

At point 20:40 of the video, Prof Ian Clark explains the ice core sample from Vostok: the red is the temperature coming out of a glacial period. The blue line under it is the C02.

There’s an 800 year lag.  The temperature is leading C02 by 800 years.  There have now been several ice core surveys.  Every one of them shows the same thing. The temperature rises and falls, and then after a few hundred years, C02 follows. “C02 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It’s a product of temperature, it’s following temperature changes.”

At the 21:32 mark Prof Clark sums it up:

“The fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”

The film was produced in 2007.  But nothing has changed in the twelve years since it was released other than a change in marketing slogan from global warming to climate change – since the globe isn’t actually warming.

Here’s the link to the film: The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary HD

The scientists state the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun – which is corroborated by the Cern Cloud experiment.

That’s the important thing I wanted you to know.


The expert’s testimonies:

Dr Tim Ball

Prof Tim Ball believes in global warming, but not human caused.

Nir Shaviv

Climate Scientist Professor Nir Shaviv believed in Climate Change because he listened to what the media had to say. Now he explains why we do don’t need to worry so much about our CO2 emissions.

Lord Lawson

Lord Lawson of Blaby: “The most un-PC thing possible is to doubt this climate change orthodoxy.  It’s a new kind of morality. For many senior climate scientists the actual scientific basis is crumbling.”

Prof Ian Clark

“C02 is not a climate driver. You can’t say it’s a climate driver when it hasn’t been in the past.”

Dr Piers Corbyn

“None of the climate changes over the last 1000 years can be explained by C02.”

Professor John Christy, lead author, IPCC

“I’ve often heard it said there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the Global Warming issue and humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there’s many that say that’s simply not true.”

Prof Phillip Stott

“The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven.”

Professor Paul Reiter

“This claim that ‘the IPCC is the world’s top 1500 or 2500 scientists’ – you look at the bibliographies of the people and it’s simply not true. There are quite a number of non-scientists.”

Professor Richard Lindzen

“And to build the number up to 2500, they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on – anyone who ever came close to them, and none of them are asked to agree. Many of them disagree.”

Patrick Moore

“I don’t even like to call it an environmental movement anymore because really it is a political activist movement and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”

Dr Doy Spencer

“Climate Scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”

Professor John Christy: “We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to Climate Science.”

Professor Richard Lindzen: “There’s one thing you shouldn’t say, and that is; “this might not be a problem.””

Professor Patrick Michaels

Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. “The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now. It’s a big business.”

Nigel Calder

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist: “”I’ve seen and heard them spitting fury at anybody that might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way.”

James Skikwati

James Skikwati, Economist and Author: “”One clear thing in my view of the whole environmental debate is to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop.”

Dr Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace: “The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries.”

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist: “The whole global warming business has become like a religion, and people who disagree are called heretics.”

Lord Lawson of Blaby: – In 2005 a House of Lords inquiry was set up to examine the scientific evidence for man-made global warming. A leading figure in that inquiry was Lord Lawson; “We had a very thorough inquiry, took evidence from a whole lot of experts and produced a report. What surprised me was how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact, there are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a bit frightened to come out in the open who are quietly, privately, some of them publicly, who are saying, “wait a minute, this simply doesn’t add up.”

Little ice ageProfessor Philip Stott: “Climate has always changed. There was the Little Ice Age in the 14th C.  There’s evidence for this from old illustrations and prints.  The Thames froze over. Before that, there was a warm period when there were vineyards in London.  Most of the rise in the 20th Century occurred before 1940.”

Professor Patrick Michaels: “Anyone who goes around and says that C02 is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.”

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, Arctic Research Centre: “C02 in the atmosphere is only 0.054% and is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. Water vapour is 95%, that’s the most important greenhouse gas.”

Sources of C02

So what are the sources of C02?  Volcanoes produce more C02 each year than all the cars and factories and planes and sources of man-made C02 put together. Dying vegetation is another source of C02. The biggest source of C02 by far is the oceans.

Prof Carl Wunsch, Dept of Oceanography, MIT: “The ocean is a massive resevoir into which C02 goes when it comes out of the atmosphere, from which it is readmitted into the atmosphere. The warmer the ocean – the more it emits, the cooler – the more it takes in. Why the time lag between temp and C02?  It’s because of the depth of the oceans. The ocean “remembers” the temperature changes, and any change it shows has happened years before.  The current warming happened before cars or electric lights.

What drives earth’s climate?

If C02 doesn’t drive Earth’s climate, what does? The SUN.
Dr Piers Corbyn, Solar physicist and climate forecaster uses the sun to predict weather. He gambled against the Met Office and won.

In 1991 Senior scientists from the Danish Meteorological Institute decided to compile record as sun spots and compare with the temperature record. What they found was a very close correlation. They went back from 100 and then 400 years.

The sun affects clouds. The earth is bombarded by sub-atomic particles.  When they meet water vapour rising from the sea, they form water droplets and make clouds. This gives a powerful cooling effect. When the sun is more active and the solar wind is strong, fewer particles get through and fewer clouds are formed.

Astro-physicist Dr Nir Shaviv compared his records of cloud forming cosmic rays with the temperature record created by a geologist Prof Jan Veizer going back 600,000,000 years.

What they found was that when the cosmic rays went up, the temperature went down, and vice-versa. Clouds and the earth’s climate are very closely linked.

The politics of Climate Change

34:15 Why are we bombarded with messages about man-made climate change? Doom-laden predictions are not new, e.g. in 1974 we had a scare about a coming ice-age and the world running out of food. Nigel Calder was the man behind that.  They reported “global cooling” – the mainstream opinion at the time.  It was the cooling scare of the 1970’s.

The politicization of the weather started with Margaret Thatcher who wanted to go for Nuclear Power. She went to the scientists and offered them money to prove a link between climate and C02.  Thatcher instructed the UK Met Office which formed the Climate Modelling Unit which became the basis of the United Nation’s IPCC.  The field was awash with lots of money.

Nigel Calder, the science writer for New Scientist, was reporting on it as the time and noticed two things:
1) The IPCC came up with a report which predicted climactic disaster as a result of global warming.
2) The simplicity of the message of doom was very eloquent. It ignored scientific findings including the role of the sun – there was a total disregard for the science. The message didn’t appeal just to Margaret Thatcher, it was also welcomed by the medieval environmentalists who wanted to get rid of cars and return society to the pre-industrial era.  They’re against economic growth. The message could be used to justify a whole suite of myths.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace said, Greenpeace went into environmental extremism.  A lot of the Neo-Marxists from the former Peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement after the Berlin Wall came down.  They used ‘green language’ in a clever way to cloak agendas. They have more to do with anti-capitalism than anything to do with ecology or science. It became a full blown political campaign in the 1990s and the field got even more money.

Nigel Calder said: “If I wanted to do research on the squirrels of Sussex, from the 1990’s onward I would write my grant application on research into nut gathering behaviour with special reference to global warming.  And that way I’d get my money.”

How accurate are the Climate Models?

45:05 mark:  Lots of money went into building computer models.  How accurate are they?

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Member, NASA said; “Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. And they have hundreds of assumptions. It takes just one assumption to be wrong for the forecast to be way off. All models assume that man-made CO2 is the main cause of climate change, rather than the sun or the clouds.

46:07 mark:
Prof Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg said: “The analogy I use is like me car’s not running very well – so I’m going to ignore the tranmission (the water vapour) and I’m going to ignore the engine (the sun) and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human produced C02. The science is that bad.”

Prof Ian Clark said this about the Climate System: “If you haven’t understood all the components: the cosmic rays (particles,) the solar, the C02, the water vapour, the clouds and put it all together – if you haven’t got all of that, then your model isn’t worth anything.”

He has worked with modellers and created models himself. “You can tweak things, adjust math parameters and model anything.”

The reporting

47:19 Prof Carl Wunsch from the Dept of Oceanography, MIT said, “long range 50 year forecasts are only proved wrong long after people have forgotten about them.  As a result, Climate Forecasters may be less concerned about producing a forecast that is accurate than one that is interesting.  There’s powerful bias in the media and scientific community towards results that are dramatisable.  Earth freezing over is much more exciting.

Nigel Calder said it amazes him how the most elementary principles of journalism have been abandoned on the subject. There’s now a branch of journalism called ‘Environmental Journalism.’  If the global warming story goes in the trashcan, so do their jobs.  “The reporting has to get more and more hysterical because there were still (in 2007) a few hundred hardened news editors around who would say “that’s what you were saying five years ago.” They have to keep on getting shriller and shriller.”

It is now common in the media to blame every storm or hurricane on global warming. Professor Richard Lindzen, Dept of Meteorology, MIT: “This is purely propaganda. Every text book in meteorology will tell you the main source of weather disturbances is the temp differential between the tropics and the pole. And we’re told in a warmer world this difference will get less. There’ll be less storms. But that isn’t considered catastrophic! So you’re told the opposite.”

51:29 mark:
Prof John Christy has records from Greenland going back thousands of years. Yet it didn’t have a dramatic melting event. The world didn’t come to an end.

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Research Centre, the world’s leading Arctic research Institute said, “The caps are always expanding and contracting. It’s a natural process. Ice is always moving. It’s an ordinary event.”

The sea level changes are negligible.

Summary

56:60 mark:

The IPCC is a source of hysterical, untrue warning and misinformation.  Prof Paul Reiter is very critical of the IPCC.  Dr Roy Spencer of NASA said, “Very few scientists speak out because they’re afraid of losing their funding. They are accused of being paid by the multi-nationals.”

Reasoned debate is not the only casualty – so is the developing world. The Nairobi Conference had 6,000 attendees and it lasted 10 days.  There are lots of people earning their living off climate change.  It’s an industry.  Dissenting scientists find themselves attacked and vilified like a “holocaust denier.”  Really it is a political activist movement.

“They will impose draconian measures on the third world. James Shikwali, African Economist and Author spoke about not having electricity: “They cannot stay up or keep food or have hot water. There’s a long chain of problems. Their existence is impoverished in every way. Africa has coal and oil they are not allowed to use. If solar power too expensive for us – how can THEY afford it?  Solar is three times as expensive as conventional power.

Paul Driessen, the author of “Green power, Black death,” said “It is morally repugnant not to allow them electricity.”

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace summed Climate Change up as “anti-human.”


Links

Cern Cloud Experiment, Forbes : Sorry, But With Global Warming It’s The Sun, Stupid
Gore admits the the IPCC climate report was “torqued up” to get attention