The Great Global Warming Scam

[Enron]

The BBC this week coverred the plight of the residents of a number of south pacific islands, stating that because of global warming sea levels were rising and that the inhabitants would soon be homeless if things continued this way.

The solution stated was a worldwide fund would be created that the UN would control to help peoples in these kind of instances. With a tribal elder stating that this would be extremely helpful - despite the fact that it is unlikely to help there situation and relocation is more of a likelihood.

European ministers also have suggested a similar such scheme which would be charged to consumers through their energy bills.

So there you go, there begins of a global tax to supposely help the enviornment.

[vortex]

Climate change: Menace or myth? - earth - 12 February 2005 - New Scientist Environment

This article written in 2005 goes through the idea of Climate change: Menace or Myth

[BADGER 69]

Originally Posted by dave

No offence, but you seem incapable of actually reading anything. Is you argument entirely based on what the media tells you? It seems very much like it.

I did not say that TRL323 has "nothing to do with climate change" I said it was not directly relevant. It is relevant if you care to read it and read between the lines. There is another recent report about the state of the ice shelves in the Artic - I'm sorry, I do not have the name of the report to hand, but a simple piece of research would turn it up no doubt, if you can be bothered. The report stated that contrary to what they expected to find, there was a much deeper ice shield than their instruments had led them to believe. MUCH deeper; in a place where it was assumed to be almost non-existent.

I find it exasperating that you (as most people do) rubbish research made by people simply because you haven't bothered to find, or haven't heard of it on the BBC. Listening to Radio 4 is not research you know.


Collate the global temperature since records began, put them in a database, then collate the information you can glean from the (still operating polar orbit, unencrypted satelites) and map a simple graph in something like MS Excel. You might find that from even such a crude and simple analysis that your views will change.

A lot (not all, I grant you) of this information is still available on the web. If you can't find it there, then trawl the nntp archives. It's there to be found if only you can be bothered.

There are also many readily available reports for you to read. They are NOT published on-line, but can be found in a reasonably sized library.

I'm not sure why you think I should risk infringing the crown copyright and post them here simply because you can't be bothered to look for them yourself. I am simply not allowed to put them here. You seem to view that fact as proof that they don't exist.

Keep taking the tabloids.

The trouble with reading between the lines is that the reader often puts in what they want to see.

[BADGER 69]

The name that alluded me earlier. DAN QUALE

[Enron]

Think that we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Though if the arguement was so persuasive that indeed global warming was changing the world, and not just an excuse to impose a new raft of taxes on people - why are there so many descenting voices here?

[vortex]

I agree, is there an article on the dissenting voices rather than the majority thinking?

[berrti]

Ive been reading this thread today with some interest. The difference in views is quite refreshing considering the propoganda that has been put about by the pro global warming groups.

There are many sources of evidence cited by these groups but their favourite is the climate models which almost always show increased temperatures 20 - 50 years in the future due to man made influences. However all current models (that I am aware of) can be completely discredited by asking them to predict the next El-Nino event. Basically they are asking us to believe that they can predict the future weather patterns far in advance of today but cannot predict what will happen within the next 3 years. I'm sorry but these models are just poor guesses as they are obviously missing at least one major component somewhere.

As far as IPCC reports go they have been roundly dismissed as purely political statements due to the politicians changeing the scientific outcomes to suit themselves.

What has not been widely publicised is that the planets climate throughout prehistory has generrally been wet and warm. At the present time we are actually cold and dry by comparison.

As far as Kyoto goes the estimated net effect of this aggreement would be a reduction in temperature of 0.1 deg C of the increased temperature at that time. (due to nnormal temp fluctuations it is extremely difficult to measure this level of change accurately)..

It has now been widely accepted that the heat island effect (caused by the expansion of towns/cities etc) has been grossly underestimated and even now there is a lot of debate as to whether the new higher estimates of this effect are high enough.

Sea level rises are at present a big talking point but there is very little evidence (if any, I certainly haven't been able to locate any, if anyone knows where to find it can they let me know) to support this that cannot be explained easily by geological mechanisms.

please do not think that I am anti global warming by what I have said above. I am actually unsure about whether man has any influence on the climate or not. However I do believe that before we have the drastic changes to lifestyle that some groups have proposed we must have some good unrefutable evidence to support this theory.

[magix]

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters (see under “Links” on this website).

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens. Last Updated ( Friday, 14 December 2007 )

[Enron]

The mere fact that billions of dollars have been pumped into the scientific research surrounding global warming should say enough.

And of course those disputing that man made global warming is the case are never going to come to light.

When environmental taxes come in that begin to hit you in the pocket I think that will be the time for everyone to stand up and refuse to pay them - as taxation is normally on a sliding scale - i.e. upwards.

[TaxedAndConfused]

Originally Posted by magix

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Where can I find this online ?

[StormWarrior]

Originally Posted by TaxedAndConfused

Where can I find this online ?

Just type Vincent Gray and IPCC into Altavista.

(I Don't like Google )

[TaxedAndConfused]

Aha. nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

[magix]

WHY YOU SHOULD BE SCEPTICAL OF THE KYOTO CLAIMS:


1. There has been a natural warming and cooling of the earth during its evolution (geologic time), and more recently during the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age Periods. The overall warming of the planet over the last 10,000 years has not been caused by human production of CO2.

2. In the last 100 years temperature increased noticeably from 1905 to 1940, with little change in CO2. From 1940 to 1975 global temperatures cooled while CO2 increased noticeably. The lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature change is clearly evident.

3. Astrophysical factors (the variation of solar radiation reaching the earth), and variations in global deep and shallow ocean currents are in large measure responsible for changes in the planet's climate.

4. The supposed main "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, constitutes 0.035 % of the atmosphere. As different scientists have commented, the dominant heat trapping mechanism is water vapour, accounting for 97 % of the so-called greenhouse effect. Moreover, it can be seen in the record of past climates derived from Antarctic ice cores, that increase in CO2 followed temperature increases, rather than preceding them, or causing them.

5. The arguments claiming man as a cause of Global Warming are based on computer programs that are incapable of modelling world climate: many of the millions of parameters can only be defined in ranges with arbitrary skewing.

6. Examination of weather disasters (floods, droughts, etc.) by scientists show no relevance to climate change.

7. Recognition of temperatures recorded by satellites and weather balloons show very minor temperature change in the last 50 years. As well, there is a bias in the geographical distribution of historical surface temperature measurements (so-called "urban heat islands"). It should be noted that the margin of error of temperature field observations is several times that of the average 0.6 degrees Celsius warming that has prevailed since the depth of the Little Ice Age around the year 1700 AD.

8. The Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) with its Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is often quoted as an authoritative source on climate change. However, many climatologists, including scientists working on the IPCC, disagree strongly with some of the conclusions issued in the SPM. It is evident that the SPM information is often political in content. The widely distributed and referenced SPM was compiled by UN bureaucrats that fails to convey the uncertainty of climate change forecasts of the panel scientists.

9. The Kyoto Protocol, by focusing on attempts to curtail CO2 at incredible cost, will not stop or reverse climate change.

[skbuncks]

Originally Posted by magix

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

Originally Posted by magix

5. The arguments claiming man as a cause of Global Warming are based on computer programs that are incapable of modelling world climate: many of the millions of parameters can only be defined in ranges with arbitrary skewing.

Indeed, how can we be expected to give credence to any of the outcomes 'predicted' by these computer models when we cant even say with any real degree of certainty what the weather will be like next week, or even tomorrow. How often have we been promised sun and ended up having a barbie in the rain??

[TaxedAndConfused]

Especially interesting as the "hockey stick" temperature model (which shows temp running along a "normal" path until the late 20th century, thus missing out the warmer and colder periods of the last 1000 years or so) was actually generated by a model based on historical observation rather than the actual evidence itself...

...and now it is used as as a basic piece of evidence of warming...

...even though it has been unreliable predicting historical results.

Hang on, you make an inaccurate prediction of historical temperatures and then use this as the basis for the future ?

Has this come from the University of Makey-Upp.