- Selective Outrage
- Flat Earthers
- Crazy Things People Do
- Why It Is Ethical To Eat Meat
- The Voter I.D. Controversy
- Who are the Socialists?
- Socialism of the Left and Right
- Was Jesus a Socialist?
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 1
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 2
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 3
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 4
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 5A
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 5B
- The Illusion in Attacks, Part 5C
- The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5D
- The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5E
- The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5F
- The Illusion of Attacks, Part 5G
- Who are the Extremists? Part 1
- Who Are the Extremists? Part 2
- Questions for Political True Believers, Part 1
- Questions for Political True Believers, Part 2
- Questions for Political True Believers, Part 3
- Questions for Political True Believers, Part 4
- Attacks of Racism, Part 1
- Attacks of Racism, Part 2
- Attacks of Racism, Part 3
- Attacks of Racism, Part 4
- Civil Rights
- True Civil Rights
- Discrimination in Education
- Religious Discrimination
- The Tea Party
- Game Change – The Romney Obama Debate
- The Fact Checkers
- Where Are The Lies?
- Examining Deception
- The Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting
- School Shooting Comments
- The Root of Evil
- Global Warming/Climate Change
- Gun Control Dialog
All Scientists Do Not Agree
A large part of the argument of the Left concerning global warming lies in these two statements:
“All scientists agree…”
“The science is settled, the debate is over…”
We’ll cover these as one since they are related.
It is obvious the debate is not over, even among Democrats. According to a George Mason University poll (May 2011) only 62% of them think that there is global warming because of human activities. Nationwide the figure is 46% so the debate is not settled for the majority of the people.
In addition The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 British adults interviewed, found 56% believed scientists were questioning climate change.
It discovered there was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money.
Gallup runs an ongoing poll asking this question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, generally correct or is it generally underestimated?
When this question was first asked in 1998, 31% thought global warming was exaggerated. The latest poll in 2012 tells us this figure has risen to 42%. Obviously global warming is less settled today in the eyes of the public than it was 14 years ago.
Only 30%, according to Zogby, of Americans want a cap and trade program to reduce CO2 emissions.
And how about Congress, is it settled there?
A Congressional Insiders Poll asked Congress, “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?”
95 percent of Democrats said “Yes”
2 percent of Democrats said “No”
84 percent of Republicans said “No”
13 percent of Republicans said “Yes”
It looks like there is not much agreement among our politicians.
So how about scientists then do they agree? Let’s check in on a poll of meteorologists
A Gallup poll found that a mere 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions or basically CO2 emissions.
How about other scientists? A project began in 1998 has gathered 31,000 scientists who signed the “Oregon petition,” expressing doubt about man-made global warming and opposing the Kyoto Protocol. thousands of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials. The petition was hosted by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.
Many of the orthodox global warmers discount these 31,000 scientists because few are in that elite group who are endorsed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or have published peer review papers. They claim that the vast majority of these scientists accept climate change.
There are three problems with this claim.
(1) Climategate, the released secret emails of head climate scientists, confirmed the suspicions of skeptics that there was an active endeavor to prevent the publishing scientists whose views run contrary to orthodox doctrine.
(2) Many climate scientists depend on funding to continue their research and that funding will dry up or they could lose their jobs if they do not produce results in harmony with orthodox global warming. Climatologist Tim Ball spoke about this on the Coast to Coast show Feb 6, 2007. He said:
“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s worth our jobs to say anything,’ so what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” He said that every computer model projection on Global Warming has been wrong. Sunspot activity will decrease and the world should be much cooler by 2030.
So how does one explain the overwhelming acceptance of orthodox global warming revealed in some polls of sanctioned climatologists? Surely that must mean something.
Actually it means very little in the actual debate because of the way many of the questions were asked. This brings us to problem number three:
(3) The nebulous wording of survey questions brings questionable results.
Let us take a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago in 2009 that is often cited by orthodox global warming supporters.
Here was the most quoted question:
“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
75 out of the 77 professional climatologists who answered said temperatures have risen.
Obviously this wording was created to get a predetermined answer but you would think a five year old would see through it for everyone who has looked into the matter knows the global temperature has gone up since 1800. There is no argument over this and every skeptic with any knowledge agrees with this as well as the orthodox global warmers.
Anther poll cited from George Mason University in 2008 and again in 2011 asked a similar question except narrowing it down to the last century. 97% of the scientists agreed that it had warmed some in the last 100 years.
I’m surprised that 100% did not agree in both surveys because there is pretty sound evidence the earth has warmed a degree or so over the past century.
Other quoted surveys merely ask if the scientist believe in global warming.
Again, whether or not there has been global warming over the last hundred years is not what is in dispute. Both skeptics and true believers accept this when they look at the data. It is a silly (dare we say dumb) question to ask in this debate.
Here is about as specific of a question as you get from the global warming alarmist crowd.
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
If I were a scientist getting this question I would wonder what they mean by the word “significant.” How much do human activities have to contribute to global warming to be classified as significant? In the minds of many a mere 5 or 10% could be seen as significant. For others it may be 20, 30, 40 or 50%. Who knows? Most scientists believe humans and contributed something to global warming since 1978 but many disagree on the amount. Some estimate it is 5% while others think it is around 50% ore more. Most who have studied it feel the answer is somewhere in between.
The Heartland Institute asked the right type of question to 530 climate scientists in 2003. Instead of using the nebulous word “significant” they asked them if they agreed that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic (man-made) causes!”
By using the word “mostly” instead of the nebulous “significant” they narrowed the answer down to whether the scientists saw humans as more than 50% of the cause of recent warming. The results of using this question created much more skeptical results with only about 50% believing yes and the other half having answering no.
In addition, there is no real consensus on this subject at NASA. James Hansen, of NASA, has been a strong advocate for orthodox global warming and has created the illusion that all of NASA is behind him. This was too much for seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, the ex boss of the Johnson Space Center, the deputy director of the space shuttle program – 50 scientists altogether including Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. They wrote a letter claiming the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.
Wikipedia has listed an impressive list of prominent scientists who are not in agreement with orthodox global warming. Take a look:
Not only do scientists as a whole disagree on global warming theory but the sanctioned IPCC and global warming climate scientists do not agree with each other and often with themselves.
James Hansen of NASA mentioned earlier is a good example.
In 1971, NASA’s Hansen’s research was used to predict an ice age. On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post stated that the temperature was expected to decrease 6 degrees over the next 50 years due to automobile emissions, and the next 5-10 years could trigger an ice age.
The prediction was wrong in both cases. The temperature went up over the next decade, the fifty-year predicted period is almost up, and the temperature is higher still.
Presently, interpretation is totally reversed. James Hansen is now the poster boy for the orthodox man-made global warming theory. Hansen’s calculations are currently used to predict global; warming instead of cooling.
Hansen does not have much of a track record for making predictions. In 1988, he told the U.S. Congress that temperature would rise 0.3°C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1°C), and that sea level would rise several feet. It never even rose an inch.
In 2001, the third IPCC report of the U.N. predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then, in 2007, the fourth report predicted 7 to 23 inches. To top it off, the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet!
Does this sound like guesswork or what? The 2001 prediction of a sea level rise between 4 and 35.4 inches is a variance of almost a thousand percent!
That would be like me saying, “The wind speed tomorrow will be between 5 and 50 miles per hour.” If I predicted such a thing, a person of common sense would look at me cross-eyed and figure I didn’t have a clue as to what the wind speed would be tomorrow.
The 2001 IPCC Report also predicted a steady rise in temperatures from the turn of the century to the year 2100, but temperatures have held steady or decreased since 1998.
Now, look at the change of the minimum and maximums between 2001 and 2007:
Minimum: Sea level rise was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent.
Maximum: The maximum was reduced from 35.4 inches to 23 inches. That is a reduction of 35 percent.
If this wavering and inconsistency sounds like science to you, then I have some new ocean front property I’ll sell you in Idaho.
Actual history does not agree with present CO2 global warming theory.
Between 1850 and 1940, the earth experienced a global warming trend. During this period, the release of human-caused CO2 was insignificant.
Between 1940 and 1976, we had global cooling and many scientists were predicting an ice age. The fact that the earth cooled when we had our first major surge of human-caused CO2 gives powerful evidence that the current alarmist trend is just that — an alarmist trend.
As there is an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a decrease in its greenhouse effect. This fact is often overlooked in computer models.
In addition to this, an alarm is raised by the IPCC telling us that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere 50-200 years. This contrasts with geologists who say the time is more like five to ten years. Big difference. After reading about the deception in the IPCC from the leaked e-mails, I tend to go with the geologists.
Sometimes I think the alarmists do not believe their own doctrine, for most of them fight tooth and nail against the best two current solutions available, which are hydropower and nuclear energy. Instead, they offer us wind and solar power, which are unlikely to ever create a dent in CO2 emissions within the near future.
Conclusion: Who are the dumb ones? Those who are skeptical of wild-eyed predictions? Those who are skeptical of spending trillions because of such predictions? Or those who those who use name-calling and suppression as one of their main presentations of validity? I would say the real dumb ones are those pointing fingers and calling sincere common sense skeptics dumb.
Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey
Register at The Majority Speaks Here
(You do not have to log in to add comments)
Log on to The Majority Speaks Here