|
PEACE & JUSTICE
CALENDAR
compiled
by
Jean Buskin
August
September
October
All
Months
Cartoons of
Dan McConnell
featuring
Tiny the Worm
|
|
posted July 24, 2009
NASA climate scientist James Hansen in 1988 issued three well known predictions of world temperature. “Hansen A” is temperature based on unbridled increase of greenhouse emissions, whereas “Hansen C” is temperature with a drastic cutback in emissions ("Hansen B" represents an intermediate scenario). These graphs compare Hansen’s 1988 predictions with actual temperature data since then. The left-hand figure compares NASA's GISS global data (as compiled by Hansen), while the right-hand figure compares the satellite-based temperature data as processed by RSS. In both cases, the actual temperature measurements correspond most closely with the Hansen C prediction, despite the fact that actual atmospheric CO2 levels have increased since 1988. This implies a problem with the models. Figures are from Steve McIntyre www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354.
These graphs show the greenhouse gas emissions predictions used by Hansen (the first three boxes: Hansen A, Hansen B, and Hansen C) as well the observed emissions in the fourth box (which contains 1988 – 2008 actual data, plus projection based on scenario B). The already observed CO2 emissions are closest to the Hansen B prediction despite the fact that observed temperatures are closer to scenario C output. This indicates another problem with the models. Figures are from Steve McIntyre www.climateaudit.org/?p=3354.
Cashing In On Earth’s Cycles
Part 3 (conclusion) — The Future: Recurrent Cycles
By Alan Cheetham & Richard
Kirby
While I don’t share the authors’ skepticism on the environmental movement itself, there is a strong resonance to their view that there is an authoritarian element in the climate change movement. Wars occur when there is a convergence of idealistic concern, economic interest, and a pro-war manipulation of news. A similar convergence seems to be jelling for a “war” regarding climate change. As an environmental idealist myself, I’m concerned about getting dragged into a battle that professes to be green, but turns out to be destructive hucksterism.
The below article
was originally published in the newsletter of Mensa of Western Washington.
The previous two parts are readable at wafreepress.org/96/issue96.pdf
and wafreepress.org/article/
Numbered references appear at the end of the article.
The Enlightenment and scientific revolution in the 17th and 18th centuries were based on empirical and sensory verification of phenomena and resulted in a freeing of ideas from the shackles of religion. That period was also the end of the little ice age—most of the world’s glaciers have been receding ever since.
Now a new religion
is rising and creating a bondage of science to what is deemed the acceptable
discourse. The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, recently
said:
I know that its propagandists
have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational
arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science.
It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal,
extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology
of environmentalism.... The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive
and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the
future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing
evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of
scientific hypotheses.... I consider environmentalism to be the most
effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating
large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of
human freedom at this very moment. [1]
One of the tenets of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable. Unfortunately, the proponents of the anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming theory (AGW) blame everything on it—even cooling. The only way of testing the hypothesis is to see what the future brings.
In 1988 NASA’s James Hansen (an avid AGW doomsday promoter) published model predictions of future temperatures under three CO2 scenarios. Comparing measured temperatures over the last 20 years to his predictions show that the warming has been less than the modeled scenario of “drastically reduced gases between 1990 and 2000” [2]
Of course models are periodically revised to reflect new knowledge, but the dire doomsday scenario is never called off—just postponed slightly. The IPCC models are misrepresented in the media—the extreme models are generally portrayed as likely. Western Washington University geologist Don Easterbrook has made a much more realistic projection of future temperatures based on oceanic cycles—but without a doomsday. Easterbrook postulates that there are alternating warming and cooling cycles that last 25 to 35 years, and that we’ve recently entered a cooling cycle.[3]
(Easterbrook’s website
contains fascinating analysis regarding the possibility that we could
in fact be headed for a very cold cycle. See <www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/
The dire consequences promoted by the media are contained in statements with the word “may”. For example, although their numbers have greatly increased over the last couple of decades and their populations recently appear to be stable [4], the polar bears “may” become threatened. None of these scare stories are supported by empirical evidence.
There has been no warming now for the last decade—but it hasn’t slowed the rhetoric—some AGW promoters are getting more desperate and are promoting the feeling of western guilt.
At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change event in Bali (December 2007), NGOs were open about their missions. According to the Climate Action Network web site: “A common theme was that the ‘solutions’ to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice.... a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources” [5].
That ethos may have prompted Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to refer to the Kyoto accord as “essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” [6]
The population of polar bears
is essentially stable, according to recent data. Since the late 1960s,
the population has actually increased from a low of about 12,000 to
approximately 25,000 today. The bear was recently added to the Endangered
Species List on the basis of climate modeling and its projected effect,
not actual population declines (see <www.doi.gov/secretary/
Even the American Psychologists Association (APA) wants “to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint... stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.”
The 148,000-member APA will now participate in the brainwashing, trying to turn grey matter green. The article also notes: “News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people’s beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad” [7]
We essentially have a dichotomy in the world: the “developed” world is divided between those promoting global warming as a justification for societal change and those promoting it for money; the “developing” world is divided between those who say it is nonsense, and those who want to receive money for it. In all camps, the motivation has little or nothing to do with actually reducing CO2.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced a measure to deal with CO2 trading: “This landmark legislation will not only significantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets—with annual values of approximately $300 billion—are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.” [8]
The vast sums that will be generated by transferring money from consumers to credit traders will also increase government. In the case of the (non-elected) EU government:
“The EU plans in their current shape will not lead to any more CO2 emissions savings, as those are capped, but bring sky-high new carbon taxes.... Power prices would increase by 50 percent after 2012.... the auctions will bring the government 15 billion euros ($21 billion) of additional annual income which would have to be borne by consumers.” [9]
The October 2008 credit crisis bailout revision contained tax provisions for CO2 sequestration which were not part of the original bill. [10]
The development of alternative energy (solar and wind power, etc.) may be a desirable goal, but these should be developed for honest reasons, not as part of a false-science political scam. The future of scientific ideas and their freedom from ideological chains is dependent on learning and spreading the truth. We must not let our scientific future succumb to the autocratic trend that has taken over climate science.
References
[1] www.hawaiireporter.com/story.
[2] www.appinsys.com/
[3] www.appinsys.com/
[4] www.appinsys.com/
[5] www.climatenetwork.org/bali-
[6] www.appinsys.com/
[7] www.usatoday.com/news/nation/
[8] www.appinsys.com/
[9] www.reuters.com/article/
[10] banking.senate.gov/public/_