Don’t shoot the messenger but…
AGW, a belief that humanity causes dangerous climate
change, has gone from plausible to
possible to not even likely.
It has all been pretty fast. The, Only Constant in Nature is Change, according to Joe D’Aleo. And, when it comes to weather and by extension the climate we have also noticed some natural cyclical patterns along the way.
Shall we get logical? How about, climatological, geological, biological, technological, meteorological, ideological, sociological, philosophical? The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that logic was the science of judgment. How shall we judge the science of AGW after years of a cooling trend?
Using the IPCC’s logic, how credible is a continued belief that AGW is ‘very likely’ (the IPCC thought there was a, greater than 90% likelihood, that global warming was caused by human CO2) but after 17 years of no warming at all the IPCC just raised its statistical estimate that global warming is caused by human CO2 to 95% likely. That is illogical: AGW was falsified by reality because human CO2 went up and global temperatures did not; and, some scientists believe a cooling trend may continue until 2030.
We have a situation where everything is presented out of context in space and time. Natural events are identified or presented as unnatural. Normal events are identified or presented as abnormal. ~Dr. Tim Ball
Let’s set the stage: why did George W. Bush say, ‘No, no, no’ to Kyoto? Bush explained as follows: “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide” and because Kyoto, “exempts 80 percent of the world… from compliance.” AGW theory has never been anything more than a hoax and a scare tactic that the Left believed it could use to fleece America and they still are having a difficult time accepting that their big plan was thwarted by “W.” Bush was never anti-Europe: Bush was pro-America; and, that is all it takes to earn the hatred of the Left.
Here’s an example of real ambition: as people of every nationality, race and ethnic background around the world set out every day to do the heavy lifting, working in the oil fields, the coal mines, using gas-fired furnaces to smelt iron ore, flipping burgers on hot grills, etc., the Left was busy conjuring up its big plan of sitting back on their stealthy, wealthy, fat arses and trading carbon permits… until… George Bush defeated the Eurocommie’s pick for president.
Thankless Euros had tried to back-stab and game America. France had a pass from the beginning based on being mostly nuclear. Germany had built-in protection from ever paying a dime because the plan would provide credits for replacing all of the dated communist-era energy production facilities in East Germany (which is what Germany would have done irrespective of an anti-America carbon-trading scheme). Bush called BS on the plan to save Western socialism and that is why Europe and the Leftists hated Bush.
The Left howled that while the U.S. has but 6% of the world’s population it produced 25% of the carbon dioxide. There was never more science to it than that: only that America’s economic system of free enterprise capitalism made dead and dying Europe and Eurocommunism look very bad.
What are the odds that the elderly in the UK will be forced to burn books to keep warm this winter…? Isn’t it amazing that Leftists feel so politically correct proposing energy restrictions to save the planet when the only effect of such policies would be to keep the developing world in poverty? What fractional part of the atmosphere will enjoy a fractional increase in CO2 enrichment as a result of more CO2? Trees and plants everywhere want to know.
What is happening outside the West? “China alone,” according Nigel Lawson (The economics and politics of climate change), “embarked on a programme of building 562 large coal-fired power stations by 2012 – that is, a new coal-fired power station every five days for seven years… China will overtake the United States as the largest source of emissions. India, which like China has substantial indigenous coal reserves, is set to follow a similar path, as is Brazil.” Even the arch Leftist billionaire hypocrite George Soros now invests in coal mining operations.
Few peer-reviewed authors have taken more heat from the Left than Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner whose 115-page paper, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, was published in 2009. Certainly the way it was introduced was like waiving a matador’s muleta over a herd of red bulls. The introduction of an “approved non-technical summary” by Hans Schreuder, provided as follows:
The authors express their hope that in schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly, not by using shock-tactic ‘Al Gore’ movies and not misinforming physics students by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves. (24 June 2008)
G&T then proceeded to falsify AGW theory by demolishing the Left’s atmospheric greenhouse conjecture: “an idea the authors trace back to the traditional works of
Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896, but which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism by which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.” Given, “the second law of thermodynamics,” G&T show that, “such a planetary machine can never exist.”
Despite its impossibility, “in almost all texts of global climatology and in widespread secondary literature,” according to G&T, “it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.” Among other things, G&T showed that reality does not support the assumed physical properties underlying mental image that the popular conjecture known as the “greenhouse effect” conjures up — i.e., “there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.”
“In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage.” The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations… Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed.” ~Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
The most, “reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable for hundreds of millions of years,” is provided by Willis Eschenbach (The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: How Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth’s Temperature). “Since we only use 70% of the sun’s energy,” says Eschenbach, “it is clear that the sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about 20% of the sun’s energy back to space, and the surface reflecting back another 10%. As near as we can tell, this system of cloud formation to limit incoming solar energy has never failed… The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging response of wind, water, and cloud to changes in temperature. It is not based on losses or forcings.”