Arctic Sea Ice Scam

Ever been had? The Observer of July 26 under the engaging title Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide makes the following claims:

Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.

Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global warming in the Arctic have been released by the US military…The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One particularly striking set of images – selected from the 1,000 photographs released – includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.

Here are the images

barrow_640x480
We will show in this post that this is a hideous piece of lies and propaganda. It is very revealing since not only does it show the biased propagandizing of the Guardian/The Observer stable, but also demonstrates the crude and shameless progagandizing of the Obama Administration (which also confirms the case made in the post All who hate Me love Death that Obama was dissembling when he claimed that he wouldn’t interfere with science). We will show in this post, with additional evidence from the air and the ground, that the satellite pictures have been deliberately selectively cropped and chosen for maximum propaganda effect to mislead the public (and politicians, no doubt). It is akin to taking beach photographs of low tide one year and of high tide the following year, and putting them side by side in an argument about sea level rise. Put on the finishing touches about a Bush conspiracy and Obama’s openness and you are home and dry with something the Nazis would have been proud of.

Even the University of Alaska, Fairbanks felt compelled to comment:

Annual break-up of landfast sea ice off the coast of Barrow, Alaska received international media attention in July 2009 after the USGS made available high resolution-satellite imagery that show inter-annual variability in coastal ice conditions…However, unlike suggested by some, comparing summer ice conditions in July 2006 and July 2007 is not sufficient evidence to verify a trend.

In other words, all they show is that one year differs from another and no trend can be inferred. In the nicest possible way, this says that someone is up to no good here by distorting the science. Shame on the US Geological Survey for being prepared to become the mouthpiece of propaganda.


Firstly, it should be noted that the breakup and melting of ice around Barrow, Alaska happens every year, once a year, and it typically occurs around early July. The timing varies from year to year due to the weather. The timing depends on many factors, including solar radiance and cloud cover, wind speed and direction, and sea currents, as well as air temperature. In extremes, breakout can occur in mid-June and it can take until as late as early August for the coastal sea to be ice free. But in a typical year, in July it is possible to see landfast ice at the beginning of the month and ice-free sea at the end of the month: July is the month the sea ice disappears from the north coast of Alaska!! Now, note that the photographs do not specify the date in the month. They could easily have been taken only three weeks apart in the same month of July in a typical year. So for example, here are shore pictures from Barrow showing the disappearance of the ice over a period of three weeks in July 2002:

Barrow20020701Barrow20020721

Since these are both from July of the same year, then two satellite images taken in ‘July’ of different years suddenly look perfectly ordinary and expected, don’t they? We would find the same with all sorts of other phenomena that happen once a year – such as the blossoming of cherry trees in April: we can find them in blossom or not in blossom at different times of the month in any given year, or in different states of blossom on the same date or on different dates within the same month in different years.

Secondly, note the years selected. For the record, the dates of shore-fast landfast ice break/drift/melt out at Barrow for the last ten years are as follows:

July 10, 2000; July 5, 2001; June 30, 2002; June 25, 2003; June 18, 2004; July 8, 2005; July 6, 2006; June 27, 2007; July 8, 2008; July 11, 2009.

In 2006 the ice breakup was rather earlier than in 2007. This is a gift for the propagandist because he can show a difference between two consecutive years and so con the unwary into a believing in a trend rather than natural variation. Of course, two can play at that game because in 2008 the breakout was even later than in 2006. So if we were to choose the years 2007 and 2008 instead then we could easily produce an ice-free picture from July 2007 (breakout June 27) and an ice-bound picture for July 2008 (breakout July 8). Using the same spin and propaganda we could falsely assert rapid global cooling. We will show some examples of this propaganda method below.

Thirdly, the satellite pictures have been very selectively sized and cropped. If the pictures had been extended to show a larger area, rather than just a mile out from the Barrow shore, the supposedly ice-free 2007 picture would have revealed ice to the north. And if the 2006 picture had been similarly extended it would have shown that the ice in the picture was a thick bank of ice near the shore, beyond which was some ice-free water. But that would simply have weakened the propaganda, so such an inconvenience has been avoided by judicious cropping and hiding the evidence from the reader. We don’t expect our readers to take our word for this though, so here is the proof.

Here is an aerial photo of Barrow on July 10, 2006

Barrow20060710

And here is an aerial photo of Barrow on July 13, 2007

Barrow20070713

In both pictures the ice has broken away from the Barrow shoreline and is drifting along the coastline. In the 2006 photo there is a bank of ice left near the shore after the main ice has broken away. We can now see how very crafty the US Geological Survey has been to crop the pictures and select the dates as they did.

Here are photos taken from the shore showing the same thing around the turn of the month. Firstly, 2006, with ice close to shore

Barrow20060703

Then in 2007, with ice more distant:

Barrow20070630

Finally, on the very same day the following year (2008), and a lot more ice:

Barrow20080630

Shock horror! Evidence of rapid global cooling!

We could do the same for the years 2001 and 2002, with a parody of the Observer article, to propound dangerous global cooling:

“Photos from US webcams not classified by the Bush White House provided graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are advancing in the summer. The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating.

“Graphic images that reveal the devastating impact of global cooling in the Arctic have been released by webcam users…The pictures, not classified by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, are now a source of embarrassment to the Obama White House since President Barack Obama is currently trying to dupe Congress and the American public.

“One particularly striking set of images – from a webcam not classified by George W. Bush, but now highly embarrassing to President Obama who would like to stop such material being in the public domain – includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2001, shows the coastal waters entirely ice-free. A second image shows that by the following July sea ice is still nestling close to the shore.”

Barrow20010708Barrow20020701

Wow! Advancing sea ice! Dangerous global cooling!

It should by now be obvious that the media and the Obama administration are indulging in some of the crudest forms of propaganda

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Arctic Sea Ice Scam”


  1. 1 Ed Darrell July 31, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    What the hubbub shows is that denialists will do anything, no matter how hypocritical to their past claims, to deny global warming.

    The photos were not retouched. The photos were not planned to distort reality.

    The caption on the poster showing the two photos notes that it’s seasonal variation demonstrated.

    However, if one looks at the 500 photos released, one sees a clear trend to less ice, much earlier in the season.

    The scam was in the claim that there is no evidence confirming the decrease in ice. That’s the hoax that was exposed.

    What is obvious is that denialists (are you included in that category?) will deny anything, no matter how accurate, will spin anything, no matter how innocent, in order to try to avoid the reality of climate change and the disastrous effects it will produce if we do nothing, and the disastrous effects it will produce if we do too little.

    For example, there is absolutely no evidence Obama did anything to distort the science. He ordered all the photos to be released as had been agreed in the Bush administration. Bush withheld the photos; Obama ordered they be released. How can the release of scientific data be considered anything other than opening the books?

    ScientistForTruth responds:

    It’s not the release of scientific information that’s the problem, but what is done with that information. There is such a thing as propaganda you know, even using unretouched photos.

    The purpose of the article in the Observer was clearly propaganda. Yes, you are right, it shows seasonal variation, natural variation and nothing more, but there’s no storyline there is there?

    I’m not interested in hysteria or propaganda one way or the other, which is why most of what is on my blog is an expose of bad science and propaganda. It’s a sad fact that a lot of ‘mainstream science’ has become propagandist – I have been making that point since I read physics at the University of Oxford in the 1970s.

    ‘Denialist’ is a term used by those who can’t tolerate people having an opinion about the evidence that is counter to their own. My position is that climate change has been occuring naturally for thousands of years, and there is no evidence that man is having anything but a negligible effect on that; so negligible, in fact, that it cannot be distinguished from natural variation. So, if you like, I affirm climate change but ‘deny’ that man is the driver. That’s where the evidence leads to date.

  2. 2 Ed Darrell July 31, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    If you’re not interested in propaganda, why not just note that you were premature in judging Obama’s actions here.

    “Denialist” is a term I use for people who deny the facts before them. Climate change denialists started out a decade ago denying there is warming (and some have resumed that claim), and now argue against the evidence that humans don’t contribute. Humans have contributed to climate change, generally in local climes, for at least 7,000 years. Now we contribute globally.

    The best evidence we can muster against human effect is the gap of information we have at global levels for greenhouse gases and potential mitigating effects of the planet. It’s similar to the gap we had in the contributions of automobiles to smog. It’s similar to the gap we had in the contributions of soot to scrotum cancers. In those cases, we got the connection evidence in two ways: The research for solutions led to new discoveries which confirmed the links, and the cleanup of the suspected causes reduced the problem with a direct correlation.

    The harmful effects of global warming strongly hint that we need to work to mitigate the effects, now. Perhaps in mitigation, we will discover human activities are not a major contributor.

    I’ve never met a someone who denies the human contribution to warming who will agree to mitigate the effects, however. While claiming we can’t afford to save our planet for our children, they actually fear being wrong, I suspect.

    Have you got posts talking about solutions? I didn’t find any in a quick search.

    ScientistForTruth replies

    I’m not denying facts, but you need to differentiate between facts, interpretations and opinions. Look at the history of science. What people once thought were ‘facts’ are almost all discredited now, which only goes to show that they weren’t facts in the first place, but misguided opinions. Every generation thinks it knows things as ‘facts’ only to find that it was mistaken. What facts are there to support the proposition that humans are causing significant climate change? Don’t give me climate models – those aren’t facts!

    I have no problem at all with mitigation. My concern is that if CO2 is not causing climate change (it isn’t) then we won’t mitigate climate change by adopting hugely expensive cuts in CO2 emissions. That would be no mitigation at all, but a misguided waste of money. Far better to spend the money mitigating any effects when you know what they are. Currently, neither you nor I have the slightest idea whether it will be warmer or cooler, wetter or drier in 20 years’ time. We will get a far bigger bang for our buck mitigating the effects of climate when we know what those changes are – because we’ll be experiencing them. If you want to spend your money planning for what you speculate will happen in 20 years’ time – fine. Just don’t expect me to contribute to what appears to me to be the greatest scam of all time with my money.

  3. 3 Ed Darrell July 31, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    It’s not the release of scientific information that’s the problem, but what is done with that information. There is such a thing as propaganda you know, even using unretouched photos.

    Then, you agree you jumped to a conclusion about Obama’s involvement that was at least not supported at all by the evidence, if not completely wrong, yes?

    ScientistForTruth replies:

    No. Read the original Observer article. The journalist intends these two sentences to be linked:

    The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    The purpose of the release of the information, which the Observer article says was “the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide”, was to support Obama’s bid “to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change”. Since the photographs actually only show natural variation (as you yourself affirm) they cannot support his bid unless presented in a propagandist way. They are indeed presented in a propagandist way, as I have shown on my post. I’ve shown how it is possible to present the evidence as propaganda to ‘support’ global warming or global cooling, whichever the propagandist chooses.

    I’m sorry, but Obama is a propagandist in the classic mould, his appointment of John Holdren reinforces that, and the first ‘scientific’ report to come from his presidency on the effects of climate change in the USA is unadulterated propaganda. See the posts Growth of Crops, Weeds, CO2 and Lies and All who hate Me love Death

  4. 4 James Kessler July 31, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    SFT, I have one simple question for you.

    What if you and all the other denialists are wrong? What if you’re wrong and global warming is real and it causes various catastrophes? What then? What are you going to say then?

    ScientistForTruth replies

    You should not use the word ‘denialist’ as I’m not a denialist. But since you use that term, I presume you will be happy for me to call you ‘an alarmist’.

    I will answer your question with another question:

    What if you and all the other alarmists are wrong? What if you’re wrong and we find no significant anthropogenic causes of climate change but various catastrophes occur through natural causes? What then? What are you going to say when you’ve utterly wasted all your hundreds of trillions of dollars, and compelled and cajoled everyone else around the globe to waste theirs, on a big white elephant and there’s nothing left to help people who are still suffering from the natural catastrophes? What are you going to say then?

  5. 5 Warratah August 2, 2009 at 2:37 am

    To Scientist For Truth,

    I have to tell you that you have marshalled the evidence very effectively and drawn conclusions with such logical force and clarity that you have totally convinced me.

    Why is it, do you think, that the folk who are creating the Man Made Global Warming scare are so resistant to any evidence that we are not, in fact, facing the great catastrophe? You would think that if they had truly been worried about the condition of the world that their children and grandchildren will inherit, then they would welcome any evidence that the threat is nowhere near as bad as they had supposed. You would have thought that they would be glad that their children will be able to enjoy prosperity, mobility and leisure as much as they. You would have thought that they would welcome the news that their kids would not have to choose between medieval poverty and total desolation. How do you account for this?

    ScientistForTruth responds

    Thank you for your encouragement.

    The answers to your questions are manifold, and you will find useful clues in the other posts on this blog, and in some of the comments and replies. As one commentator has noted, there are a lot of vested interests: some people stand to make a fortune by manipulating economies and perceptions to invest in companies and instruments in which they already have an interest (e.g. Al Gore). It also gets pushed by the media: there is simply no story in the fact that things will pretty much continue as they are, and we can easily manage to accommodate small changes. Much of the appeal is to those who are unable to think and weigh evidence for themselves – if you read the comments on this blog you will see that there is a lot of bluster and thinly-veiled ignorance and anger by those who are climate alarmists. They denigrate true science, but are unable to see what fools they look by doing so.

  6. 6 Peter Simmons August 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    ScientistForTruth says

    The following comment, from which I have made deletions for reasons of propriety, is given as an example of the nasty and ill-informed invective that must be endured by those who question the ‘scientific consensus’. As such, this comment is useful as a bad example, and amply proves the points made elsewhere on this blog.

    By way of background, this commentator, Peter Simmons, describes himself as an ‘anarchist/environmentalist dreamer-photographer’. He celebrates ‘wacky, alternative, hippy, green festivals’ where he has run vegetarian cafes. According to Simmons, ‘Anarchists…were and are the original greens’. He is an offensively anti-Christian atheist who thinks that Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion ‘should be a set book in all the schools’.

    Peter Simmons writes

    If any of this gumph were believable, then we would all welcome it. Problem is, it’s unscientific twaddle, dressed up for the hard of thinking to swallow, but utterly unbelievable to anyone who knows and understands the science.

    [Two paragraphs deleted because they are unacceptable personal attacks on a previous commentator]

    A clue: if the whole thing is a hoax, how come the only people who see this hoax are a bunch of sad losers with no scientific understanding, barely literate, and surfing the denial websites for their ‘information’ from their bedsits? When you think of the tens of thousands of highly trained scientists who have been working on the issue for decades, and all governments across the world who have accepted their findings, it would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever. And all orchestrated by Al Gore!

    ScientistForTruth replies

    There are thousands of eminent scientists who challenge the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, who certainly cannot be described as ‘a bunch of sad losers with no scientific understanding, barely literate…’ This particular commentator appeals to the authority of ‘thousands of highly trained scientists’ and the acceptance of ‘all the governments across the world’. An appeal to authority is not a scientific argument. This is a mighty strange and inconsistent argument from an atheist and an anarchist! This commentator shows that he himself hasn’t a clue about science. It doesn’t matter how many ‘highly trained scientists’ believe a certain hypothesis. History is replete with examples of the scientific consensus being wrong, and those who challenge it being subjected to persecution and abuse. Advocates of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis have not yet been able to provide us with a single piece of factual evidence that warming is anthropogenic, even though they ‘have been working on the issue for decades’. The whole hypothesis is based on models, and models are not factual evidence. A person who cannot distinguish between models (which for earth’s climate are very incomplete, and make huge, unproven assumptions) and reality should not dare to think he ‘knows and understands the science’.

  7. 7 Dr Peter Naylor August 6, 2009 at 7:27 am

    Warratah asks:
    Why is it, do you think, that the folk who are creating the Man Made Global Warming scare are so resistant to any evidence that we are not, in fact, facing the great catastrophe?

    I would say: power, money, vested interest.
    Many individuals see the AGW doctrine as an opportunity to make money and control whole populations.
    They have too much invested in it to let go – not least, public reputations.

  8. 8 Dr Peter Naylor August 6, 2009 at 7:34 am

    From Peter Simmons’ comment:
    “When you think of the tens of thousands of highly trained scientists who have been working on the issue for decades, and all governments across the world who have accepted their findings, it would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever. And all orchestrated by Al Gore!”

    The argument from authority is invalid. “I have a Ph.D in science and therefore I am right” is not a sound argument.
    How many times has a foolish majority been corrected by a small minority.

    And:
    As far as I know, not all governments have accepted their findings.

    And:
    Don’t forget how much Al Gore stands to profit from his part in this.

  9. 9 Ed Darrell August 6, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    There are thousands of eminent scientists who challenge the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, who certainly cannot be described as ‘a bunch of sad losers with no scientific understanding, barely literate…’

    Well, maybe as many as two dozen. But they are obscured by the Jennifer Marohasys, Lord Moncktons, and other certifiable notevenwrongs.

    ScientistForTruth replies

    What nonsense! The US Senate report dedicates 255 pages sharing the views of over 700 scientists who dissent over anthropogenic climate change, and of course that’s not exhaustive.

    Thousands is the correct figure. Two dozen is ludicrous.

  10. 10 Ed Darrell August 6, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Don’t forget how much Al Gore stands to profit from his part in this.

    If you have any evidence that Gore is profiting personally from telling the facts, you have an obligation to bring that information to the attention of the SEC or FTC, whichever agency has jurisdiction.

    Of course, they’ll ask you to verify your claims. Last I checked, there have been zero complaints filed with both agencies combined.

    ScientistForTruth replies

    Do you think the SEC and FTC are interested in all the people who are profiting personally from things? Did that commentator suggest Gore was unlawfully manipulating markets? I don’t think so. For a start, Al Gore is not ‘telling facts’. Let’s be clear about that. But lots of people make a lot of money from promoting things that are not factual – fantasy films, pop music, sport etc. Gore has made a lot of money from An Inconvenient Truth and promoting it for fees, and from promoting the companies he has invested in.

    Let’s see

    1. Gore sets up a company that invests in other companies that would benefit from a global warming scare.

    2. Gore gets investors to invest in production of a movie about anthropogenic global warming, which is an unproven hypothesis.

    3. Gore tours the world promoting the movie and charging huge fees for appearances.

    4. The media give Gore loads of free advertising.

    5. Gore gets co-opted onto the boards of lots of companies and gets shedloads of fees.

    6. Scared citizens, and those who can smell the direction of markets, invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore has already invested in. Huge capital growth.

    7. Governments invest in alternative energy programs driving up the revenues of companies Gore has already invested in. Huge dividend stream.

    It may be within the law, but the commentator is perfectly right to point out that Gore stands to make a fortune out of this wheeze of his. He’s going to make money out of you, believe me! If you had his public profile, you might be able to do the same, but would it be ethical?

  11. 11 Ed Darrell August 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    If the company is as you describe it, yes, it’s subject to supervision from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    I’ll call your bluff. You don’t know enough about any end of this to know what Al Gore is doing, and you’re not going to risk the criminal penalty of making a false report.

    Here’s the general SEC toll-free number:
    1-800-SEC-0330

    You may file a complaint on-line here:
    https://tts.sec.gov/acts-ics/do/complaint

    Time to put up or shut up. Put your cards on the table.

    ScientistForTruth responds

    I’ll call your bluff. You don’t know enough about any end of this to know what Al Gore is doing

    Well, we obviously know a lot more than this commentator. Readers might like a bit of background material (and some more recent material here) to get themselves up to speed.

    Al Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management is a limited liability partnership registered in London. Sorry – that’s outside the supervision of the SEC. How convenient! Their website describes him as “The Honorable Al Gore”, with biography thus:

    The Honorable Al Gore
    Chairman

    Former Vice President Al Gore is co-founder and Chairman of Generation Investment Management and also a co-founder and Chairman of Current TV. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc.

    GIM has billions under management. GIM’s partners wield considerable influence over the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and CCX in turn owns half of European Climate Exchange. This gives Al Gore a vested interest in promoting global warming control through the issuing of carbon credits.

    The funding and production of An Inconvenient Truth came from Participant Productions, created by the billionaire eBay founder, Jeff Skoll, who thus bankrolled the movie. But one good turn deserves another, so Gore’s GIM bought eBay stock, and currently holds over $40 million of the company’s shares.

    Here are a few other bits and bobs:

    New York Times, March 11, 2008

    The sustainable investment firm run by Al Gore, the former U.S. vice-president, is about to be closed to new investors, having raised close to its $5 billion target.
    Generation Investment Management will probably restrict inflows into its main Global Equity Fund next month, Gore and David Blood, co-founder of the company, said at a news conference Tuesday.
    Blood said the firm could not manage more than $5 billion in assets. While assets under management did not yet correspond to that figure, he said, commitments were in that range.
    He declined to name clients, but said that they were typically institutions, with 45 to 50 percent coming from Europe, 25 percent from Australia and the rest from the United States.
    The private Swiss bank Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch, which started selling the fund in Europe last year, is now the biggest investor in it, said the bank’s senior partner, Thierry Lombard.
    The fund’s largest holding is the 7 percent of assets invested in Novo Nordisk, the world’s largest insulin maker. Gore and Blood have also invested in Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, and Johnson Controls, the largest maker of automotive seats and batteries.

    The Guardian, March 14, 2009

    Gore is in the capital [London], as he is every few months, to spend a couple of days meeting with his partners at Generation Investment Management, the “sustainability-driven” asset management firm he set up in 2004 with David Blood, who, as the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, once managed investments worth $325bn (£232bn). As is the case everywhere, the numbers are somewhat smaller these days, but the firm they both wanted to call Blood and Gore (sadly, it was overruled by the rest of the board) still manages a pot of investments worth billions, according to Blood.

  12. 12 Demesure August 15, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    The irony I’ve noted is the way the hysterical media elevate any futile meteo variation (and ice breakup date is one, even if it has been hysterically sensationalized with usual suspect Bush conspiracy stuffs) to the statute of “proof” of AGW when it’s a warming but dismiss any signs of cooling as meteo vaguaries irrelevant to climate change.
    Just that flagrant bias in reporting should ring the BS alarm of anyone with some neurons left.

    BTW, SFT, I like what you do. Keep on with your good work. Thanks and greetings from France.
    Jean Demessure.

  13. 13 JER0ME September 5, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Quote:
    James Kessler July 31, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    What if you and all the other denialists are wrong? What if you’re wrong and global warming is real and it causes various catastrophes? What then? What are you going to say then?

    This is a good question. I was discussing this with my son last night, and although he agrees with my view, he put this question.

    My answer was along the lines that in 100 years we have absolutely no idea what technology we will have. Technology accelerates so fast that we cannot keep a good view. All the Sci-Fi predictions, even when right, were way to slow in most cases.

    In 1900 we couldn’t manage heavier than air flight (in fact it was thought impossible). In 1969 we landed on the moon.

    Telephones did not come about (I think) until the 1910’s, and only for the rich. By 1990 every Tom Dick and Harry could buy a disposable mobile phone for peanuts.

    In 100 years time? No-one can begin to predict. I’ll put good money on there being plenty of ways to deal with any warming or cooling, anthropogenic or natural, and with probably very little cost.

    So the answer would be, in that future time, should it turn out to be the fault of CO2:

    “Well, at least our economy and technology have advanced to the state where we can fix the problem. Thank the gods we didn’t bankrupt ourselves by prohibiting the use of fossil fuels!”

  14. 14 JER0ME September 5, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Warratah August 2, 2009 at 2:37 am

    To Scientist For Truth,

    I have to tell you that you have marshalled the evidence very effectively and drawn conclusions with such logical force and clarity that you have totally convinced me.

    I have to agree, although I was already convinced, these arguments are very clear and pretty unbiased.

    Why is it, do you think, that the folk who are creating the Man Made Global Warming scare are so resistant to any evidence that we are not, in fact, facing the great catastrophe? You would think that if they had truly been worried about the condition of the world that their children and grandchildren will inherit, then they would welcome any evidence that the threat is nowhere near as bad as they had supposed. You would have thought that they would be glad that their children will be able to enjoy prosperity, mobility and leisure as much as they. You would have thought that they would welcome the news that their kids would not have to choose between medieval poverty and total desolation. How do you account for this?

    Very true. I am constantly amazed that ‘good news’ is denounced as ‘denialist lies’ and worse. It is crazy behaviour. Someone put it as your mother being taken to hospital for a cancer operation, and being told that the tumour was benign, and then you rant and rave at the doctors screaming that they are lying or incompetent. That would appear as though you had no love for your mother, would it not? So do these people have no real love for the planet or humanity? I fear that is the case.

  15. 15 Ed Darrell September 21, 2009 at 8:21 am

    What nonsense! The US Senate report dedicates 255 pages sharing the views of over 700 scientists who dissent over anthropogenic climate change, and of course that’s not exhaustive.

    By the way, that’s not a “Senate Report.” You won’t find it indexed among senate reports in any library. Sen. Inhofe’s staffer put it together without authorization from the committee.

    But the fact that it’s the view of one crank senator isn’t crippling, not so much as it doesn’t list climate scientists, nor in many cases scientists at all.

    ScientistForTruth responds

    The report is available online on the official website for the US Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, on which Senator Inhofe served as Chairman 2003-7, and of which he is the ranking member for the Republican minority.

    With good reason Inhofe claims that anthropogenic global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” and that “natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change”.

    Senator Inhofe is an Evangelical Christian (Presbyterian) who desires government in accordance with Biblical principles. Thus he opposes abortion, ‘gay’ marriage and other liberal agendas. It comes as no suprise, therefore, that he is labelled a ‘crank’ (and worse) and is a figure of hate by those who would seek to subvert the USA.

    As for the claim that the report “doesn’t list climate scientists, nor in many cases scientists at all”, I would encourage readers to view the document itself, which shows what arrant nonsense that claim is. The list contains hundreds of highly qualified scientists, who have served in positions of high responsibility, including the following climatologists, among others. Readers will not find it difficult to determine whether Ed Darrell is a trustworthy source or reliable witness.

    Dr Richard Keen, climatologist, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
    Dr Robert Balling, climatologist, of Arizona State University, the former head of the university’s Office of Climatology, has served as a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
    Dr Marcel Leroux, climatologist, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon.
    Robert Durrenberger, climatologist, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
    Dr John Maunder, climatologist, past president of the Commission for Climatology
    Dr Roger Pielke, Sr, climatologist, former Colorado State Climatologist, presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado
    Dr Jim O’Brien,State of Florida Climatologist
    Dr John Christy, Alabama State Climatologist
    Dr Roy W. Spencer, climatologist, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Dr Charles Wax of Mississippi State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
    Dr David R. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware
    Dr Robert E. Davis, climatologist, Professor at University of Virginia,
    Dr Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist, University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences,
    Dr Elwynn Taylor, Iowa State Climatologist, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University
    Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist
    Dr Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska

  16. 16 hunter November 27, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Keep up the good work.
    Punching through the lies of the AGW promotion community, and the ridiculous unfounded faith of the true believers is not easy.
    Fortunately, reality is catching up, as much as the AGW true believers may deny it.
    Remember, in the post-normal science world, to disagree with the AGW theory is to no longer be a climate scientist.
    Orwell wrote extensively about how easily led people take to the sort of definitional clap-trap AGW depends on like ducks to water in a book called ‘1984’.

  17. 17 hunter November 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Ed Darrell,
    Your question about Gore profiting from ‘telling the facts’ contains the important and false assumption that Gore is in any way telling ‘the facts’.

  18. 18 John Neeting November 30, 2009 at 8:50 am

    All this political banter is meaningless unless you take the time to see both sides from a scientific empirical data that just won’t go away because its fact.
    Google professor Bob Carters video ‘7 torpedoes’ and take the time to WATCH IT !!!. It answers all your questions and then some.
    “Attack the man – repeat the mantra’

    “Any 5th grader can tell you that CO2 cannot possible promote temperature change in the atmosphere and you can prove it in 5 minutes in your own kitchen. Take a cold bottle of soda water, take off the cap and leave it sit in room temperature. It goes flat because WARMING the bottle releases CO2 [ Gas dynamics ].
    The release of the CO2 does NOT warm the bottle.

    Those of you worried that the sea will turn to Carbolic acid, don’t panic. You are drinking it in a concentration 1000 times over what the sea could ever become in millions of years. It’s called soda water.

    ScientistForTruth responds

    I sorry I couldn’t see the relevance of the experiment you proposed with the cold soda bottle. Those who promulgate the greenhouse gas theory don’t rely on gas dynamics but on absorption and emission of CO2 to long wave radiation (which doesn’t appear in your experiment).

    A soda bottle goes flat because carbon dioxide has the unusual property that it dissolves less in cold water than warm (so, yes, warming it makes it less able to hold its CO2), and because the CO2 partial pressure in the water is much higher than in the atmosphere, so CO2 escapes to equilibrate. If atmospheric CO2 was not increasing but the oceans were warming then there would be a flux of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere. The waters near the poles contain more CO2 because they are colder, and consequently their pH is a little lower.

    One small typo on the other part – it’s carbonic acid, not carbolic. Now, you really would NOT like to be drinking carbolic acid in your beverages!

  19. 19 John Neeting December 1, 2009 at 3:35 am

    In the news recently … Indian Prime minister has said bluntly and assuredly they have not, nor will they in the future curb their CO2 emissions … China said the same thing BECAUSE their scientific advisers who have done investigations using empirical data sets show it’s all [snip].
    Don’t believe me ? google it.

  20. 20 peter oneil December 30, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I agree with all your reasoning with respect to the scam that calls itself mgw and am driven crazy when i see expressions like *consensus*written or spoken by advocates of this nonsense but would take issue with you when you use the adjective atheist in a derogatory manner. I am an atheist for the same reason that i am a climate sceptic, because in my opinion there is no evidence for religion and i base this opinion on much research into the subject. I do think that both subjects are comparable. I will be interested in any comments that you would care to make with regard to my opinion. Meanwhile, keep up the good work. We, the ordinary people of this world, need people like you who are prepared to take up the challenge and help prove that this MANN made global warming threat is post modern science in all its ugly reallity.

    ScientistForTruth replies

    Thanks for your encouragement. With regard to atheism, I’m not ignorant of it as I was once a strong atheist myself. My ‘beef’ with atheism is its attempt to institutionalize science into the service of atheism, which is destructive (as it is with Islam etc as well). There is no conflict between science and religion, but in my experience many atheists have opposed science and religion (just look at the comments by some atheist commentators on this blog, for example ‘Kunochan’). Natural science is not the preserve of any religious viewpoint (and atheism is a religious position), and whenever it becomes so, it is weakened. As far as pursuing natural science is concerned, even a theist would hold to methodological naturalism (i.e. phenomena occur by second causes, not direct miraculous intervention), and methodological naturalism is the default position – when I do experiments, I very much expect the laws of physics to apply and not be suspended. This is different from epistemic or philosophical naturalism, however, which asserts that the natural world is all that there is. This is a religious viewpoint – at the very least a pre-supposition, an axiom or a dogma, for which there is no evidence. So if you are sceptical of religious viewpoints which are unproven, or for which you think there is no evidence, you should also be pretty sceptical of atheism. Unfortunately, this is an area where most atheists are not very consistent!

  21. 21 1personofdifference May 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Hey did you hear the one about the dyslexic agnostic? He always wondered if there was a Dog up in heaven.

    Oiii it’s easy to see now in 2010 how people like Ed were so led astray with their religious belief of global warming.

    the Alarmists had so much truth at their disposal but they have twisted, and maligned, and re-invented in so many cases.
    The blind ignorance of the followers of ACGW is amazing.

    On a side note, It’s is not very critical thinking for one to say they have empirical evidence that there is no God simply because they have never seen God physically. That is more blind faith than those who believe, they believe because they have invested time and brains to read the Bible and study history.
    For a man to stand and deliver the facts against God merely as “I have not seen him therefore, he does not exist!” is as openly moronic as saying…

    I have never seen the wind, some would hint that it is real because clouds move and trees and plants sway. I say I haven’t seen wind, so I believe it is large invisible pink polkadotted bunny rabits blowing the clouds away and jiggling the trees and bushes to make ignorant, weak minded cave dwellers believe in an Almighty being.And having now said so it’s is ipso facto empirical truth, and has been peer reviewed and now is fact.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


%d bloggers like this: