The great obsession of the present time is “Climate Change”, really an each-way bet lest “global warming” turn out to be the furphy that it is – for all to see!
We are constantly told, “The science is settled! We have consensus.”
Really! Is man-made global warming indeed an established fact of science? Or is it really “junk science”?
Consider Al Gore’s movie (more below): one does not need to get past the advertising poster and introductory frame to see how this “documentary” begins with an egregious error, viz. a row of factory stacks allegedly venting off polluting gases, in turn building up the “greenhouse layer”.
Likewise, so often the mainstream media portray images of factory chimneys and cooling towers (such as in the Latrobe Valley), supposedly belching off airborne “pollution”, to warn of the apocalyptic prospect of CO2 heating us to a devastating doom, and over-full oceans drowning us all in metres of water, making the 2004 tsunami look like a gentle lap.
However, a scientific reality check: as even a lower-form high school science student should tell you, CO2 is invisible! It is both colourless and odourless.If you can see it then it’s not CO2. What you see coming from factory stacks is for the most part steam – water vapour! Yes, there are a few other gases such as sulphur dioxide, plus airborne micro-particles, but the main one is ordinary old steam. Yet I don’t hear anyone branding steam as a pollutant which endangers our planetary climate!
You don’t believe me? You will see the same phenomenon on a cold winter’s day: water vapour condensing from your own breath. Then look at the photo (left) from the ABC’s own website, showing the cooling towers near Morwell in the Latrobe Valley, whose caption admits that it exhibits clouds of steam arising from the stacks.
Global warming is perpetrated by the Left, whose various organisations (Club of Rome, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc.) concocted this scare campaign in the early 1990s in the wake of the collapse of Communism. Where was the Left to go with no Communist monolith by which to attack capitalism and consumerism, engineer big government, and move towards global totalitarian rule? Answer: “climate change”.
Conspiracy theories have their hazards, indeed, but this time it should be clear that the Left IS engaged in a massive scare campaign by which to achieve their goals as stated above. Jacques Chirac, then President of France, concluded his address to the UN Framework on Climate Change on 20th Nov. 2000 as follows: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance (i.e. the fight against global warming), one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
The rhetoric is similar from all sections of the left.
As for bogus scare campaigns, remember “the ozone hole”? Y2K? Or further back the “global energy crisis” of the 1970s, and the fear of “global cooling”? And the left-wing media dutifully beating up the scary scenarios? How dumb so many were, yet the media just as quickly drop something that might harm their credibility, e.g. after the Y2K fizzer that very quickly vanished from the media radar screen!
And now we have “global warming”! And promoted by apocalyptic scientists - and non-scientists such as Al Gore! When will the nonsense end? In the nineties it was called “the greenhouse effect”. It should be called instead “the greenhoax syndrome”.
The Al Gore Movie “An Inconvenient Truth”
This movie is so riddled with lies it is nothing more than tawdry propaganda:
1. The scene which purports to show giant ice walls breaking up because of global warming (so runs Gore’s added commentary) is in fact borrowed from the movie “The Day after Tomorrow” (admitted by its producers), which in turn was not filmed in the wild, on location in the Arctic, but was computer-generated from Styrofoam models in a studio!!! See here for the vidclip.
2. The famed “hockey stick“ curve, which in 2001 launched the GW “crisis“. It became “Exhibit A” for the GW scaremongering campaign. At best this showed a statistical link of temperature rise to carbon dioxide emissions. But the statistics were shoddy and contrived from the start, and its author, Dr Michael Mann, was criticised from very early on: first by a low level Canadian scientist, Stephen McIntyre, who recognised its flaws from his background in the mining industry. Few took any notice of McIntyre, however, but when world-renowned statistician Dr. Edward Wegman weighed into the debate and confirmed all that McIntyre had been insisting the IPCC quietly dropped the “hockey-stick” curve from its Summary for Policymakers in 2007. Moreover, the “Mediaeval ‘Warm Period“ of c.950 to 1300 A.D. was deliberately omitted; likewise the “Little Ice Age“ of c. 1350 to 1750. Warm-mongerers have tried to deny the historical existence of the Mediaeval Warm Period, but the evidence is too strong in its favour. For example, the Vikings settled Greenland and grazed stock there for some 300 years until the ice-sheet expanded and the settlements were abandoned (c.1300). The remains of these Greenland settlements are still to be seen, and archaeological work on graves at the site show no evidence of permafrost at the time of burial: quite the opposite. That is, there was a Mediaeval Warm Period! Then finally the upward shoot of the curve at the end of the graph is gratuitous extrapolation. The warmest year in recent times was 1934 (verified by NASA), and following the warm year of 1998 the earth has cooled, or at the very least levelled out.
3. The movie fails to mention that CO2 is NOT a major greenhouse gas, but is only a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere (between 300 and 400 ppm and stable), and that water vapour is far more significant. Lower-level high school science should have informed Mr. Gore of these facts. Another factor in this connection is that CO2 DOES NOT stay in the atmosphere for decades, even centuries, on end. Its lifetime as an atmospheric gas is at most 12 years (See L. Solomon, The Deniers, pp.82-83).
4. The movie fails to mention that global warming has been verified for Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and even Pluto through observations from both visiting spacecraft and the Hubble telescope. This is powerful evidence that if global warming is real it is due to astronomical sources, such as solar activity and/or cosmic rays, and not CO2.
5. When Gore appeals to the planet Venus he reveals his ignorance: the incredibly dense Venerian atmosphere is composed mostly (around 97%) of CO2 (not a mere trace gas!), plus liberal amounts of sulphuric acid, while its surface pressure is enormous: 90 atmospheres! Besides, it is one third closer to the Sun than the Earth (67 million miles as opposed to 93 million miles), and there are no oceans of water to act as a global “thermostat”.. Between the Earth and the planet Venus there is NO comparison! Yet Al Gore, undaunted, continues to repeat this argument.
His invocation of Mercury is likewise invalid since the innermost planet has a very tenuous atmosphere (mostly sodium vapour and helium) - and thus no “greenhouse gases”. Its surface is baked to something like 300degC on the sunlit side, and then descends to minus 180degC on the night side. There is no comparison here either.
And there’s more; much more! In all, there are something like 35 errors in the movie, nine of which were identified by a senior British judge, Michael Burton, in 2007, who instructed that the movie should not be shown to schoolchildren without mentioning these caveats. In his his finding Justice Burton commented that Al Gore’s film is “not simply a science film...it is a political film”, and further, “The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
See here for Al Gore’s scientific credentials, or the total lack thereof.
The Oregon Petition, which voices the concerns of qualified scientists (a large number of them in the climatology or related fields), rejects the theory of man-made global warming. This petition now has in excess of 31,000 signatories! There are similar declarations from other centres expressing the same views from scientific communities.
Here are the pics (Remember that Kilimanjaro is right on the Equator, so the time of year does not matter much):
Above: mid 1970 Above Jan. 2008
POLAR ICE SHEETS Are the polar ice sheets really receding, as warming zealots grimly warn? On the contrary, they are expanding, especially in the Antarctic. But the Arctic ice, Al Gore’s preoccupation, is increasing too, as shown by these satellite-generated pictures showing the extent of the Arctic ice sheet on two corresponding days in consecutive years. Mid-October is an appropriate time, as it comes just as the winter freeze is about to begin.
Here’s an even better contrast: the North polar region in Nov. 1998 (the peak warm year), and the corresponding date in 2008. Note the increased extent of land ice cover:
Note: snow levels are not shown in these pictures; land ice appears solid white, while purple areas indicate sea ice.
UPDATE At least at the Alaska end, the Arctic ice sheet and glaciers have to with ocean currents, a phenomenon called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the the El Nino/La Nina effects, and not global warming and greenhouse gases. See here.
UPDATE II The latest measurements indicate that the Arctic Ice Sheet, as of the close of 2008, is now back to the levels and extent of 1979. See here.
SOME CHOICE QUOTATIONS FROM PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS:
“When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.” Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
“AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.” William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).
“[There is] an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. …The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science” David Packham, former CSIRO principal research scientist, Senior Research Fellow in a climate group at Monash University, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
“It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. …As an example, consider the Garnaut Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’ s modelling programs.” Dr. Art Raiche, former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion. …I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself.” Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.” Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
“Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific.” Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.
“What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading—they’re going to lose their money!” Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor at Monash University.
Notice a common factor about most of these scientific brains? They are former tenants of office at universities or research organisations. That is, only when they leave their positions do they feel able to speak their minds, e.g. about the CSIRO.
GENERAL See the recently published book by Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, Richard Vigilante Books, 2008.
SUMMARY You think it’s all really an argument about science? Then if you share the position above try declaring your hand to a warm-mongerer: the response will be not a reasoned discussion and appeal to evidence (what science is all about), but much foaming at the mouth and volleys of abuse. In other words, it is a religious agenda: there are believing green “saints”, and unbelieving redneck “sinners”. Likewise, it is also a very political agenda.
Hence when you hear the mantra, “The science is settled! There is consensus”, you are not really hearing a scientific statement. “Consensus” is not a scientific term, but a political one. The history of science is replete with examples of a scientific consensus being overthrown by a researcher who dared to challenge the consensus and blaze a trail of new discovery. Indeed, this has always been the path of scientific progress. Hence in this mantra what you are hearing is intimidatory rhetoric designed to silence opposition and bludgeon you into submission. “Consensus”, scientifically speaking, is a furphy. As Einstein once remarked, “It takes only one person to be right!”
STOP THE MAD RUSH FOR EMISSION TRADING SCHEMES! THEY WILL ONLY BANKRUPT OUR COUNTRY, AND THROW MULTITUDES OUT OF WORK!
AND FOR WHAT?
IT’S THROWING GOOD MONEY INTO A BOTTOMLESS PIT!
REMEMBER PREVIOUS SCAMS: GLOBAL COOLING (1970s); Y2K; THE OZONE HOLE!
EXPOSE THE SHAM – AND SCAM - OF GLOBAL WARMING HYPE!
For some real agents of climate change, as opposed to the current hype, see here (in preparation).
Likewise, for indications of climate change in antiquity, which of course can have nothing to do with industrial CO2 emissions, see here (in preparation).
You don’t believe me? You will see the same phenomenon on a cold winter’s day: water vapour condensing from your own breath. Then look at the photo (left) from the ABC’s 
This movie is so riddled with lies it is nothing more than tawdry propaganda:
