I am a heretic in the new religion. I reject the Church of Global Warming and it’s High Priest Al Gore. This has resulted in more than one disciple telling me that I should, well, die. I can accept that. Here are the first five of just ten reasons why I can’t accept anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
- It hasn’t gotten warmer in the past seven years. That’s not just me saying that, but former science editor of the BBC, David Whitehouse. He wrote in the New Statesman last month:
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming â€“ the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. Itâ€™s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. Itâ€™s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
If CO2 drives climate change, and CO2 continues to increase, why is the temperature not increasing as well?
- It might just be the sun that is making us warmer. I know that sounds a little crazy, that a ball of fire, “which by itself accounts for about 99.8% of the solar system’s mass,” could have such a profound impact on the temperature, but there are people who think that may be the case:
“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”
The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate — that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”
There is more evidence of solar influence on the global temperature.
The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark’s study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun’s magnetic field — quite apart from greenhouse gases — could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures.
It has even resulted in climate change on Mars:
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
“Could be natural phenomena?” What else would it be? There isn’t anything else on Mars to change the climate. Triton and Pluto are warming too, along with Neptune and Jupiter. From the article:
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world’s leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun’s activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, “a near-perfect match.”
- There is a lot of money in global warming. There have been charges laid against companies like Exxon/Mobil for paying for climate change research, however, there is more money involved in proving the theory than debunking it.
For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization with a history of left wing positions, accepted over $2 million between 2000 and 2004 to study the effects of climate change and promote renewable energy. Would they continue to get money if they announced that global warming was not man-made? Or are they also influenced by where their bread is buttered?
In 2004, the United States spent nearly $2 billion (Warning: PDF) to support climate change research. Private foundations spend between $35-50 million a year on climate change and related projects. Are we to believe that only scientists who study against anthropogenic global warming are motivated by greed, or is it possible that proponents of AGW have a dog in the money hunt as well?
As Warren Meyer of CoyoteBlog notes in his book “A Skeptics Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming”:
If AGW theory is proven correct, the likely political response might cut Shellâ€™s revenues by 20-30%, at most. If AGW theory is proven incorrect, then university climate research funding might be cut by 100%. Directionally, all the incentives in academia are to inflate global warming projections. No one is going to make the news, or even continue to get funding, if they argue that warming will only be a degree or two in the next century. The guys that get the fame and the grants are those pushing the numbers higher and higher.
- Kyoto isn’t about reducing carbon. Don’t take my word for it. Behold the words of the European Union’s Environment Commissioner:
Margot Wallstroem says Kyoto “is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious,”
Then French President and liberal darling Jaques Chirac added the Kyoto Protocol is “the first component of authentic global governance.”
Aside from that, the Kyoto Protocol is an utter failure. From the L.A. Times:
Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those — members of the former Eastern bloc — can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.
China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.
And the biggest polluter of all, the United States, has simply refused to join the treaty.
That leaves Western Europe, Canada, Japan and New Zealand to do the work of the world. Their emissions are rising despite their commitment, starting next year, to reduce them by an average of roughly 8% from 1990 levels.
It has been a success in one area. Fines.
The rich countries who joined the Kyoto Protocol are paying billions of dollars in fines for their failure to meet their commitments. “Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.” According to the article by Bloomberg, the reason for the increase in emission was because “they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities.”
Ireland is facing huge fines as well.
“TAXPAYERS face having to fork out more than â‚¬270m so that Ireland can “buy its way” into meeting the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions.”
So, if the rich, aka capitalist, country’s economy grows, it results in fines. Or, the rich countries buy carbon credits from the poor countries, who have their commitments so high they can pollute at will. Sounds like an attempt leveling of the playing field to me.
- Regardless of what really happens, the alarmists fit reality into their predictions. Or they just ignore reality completely. John Tierney of the New York Times notes:
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At yearâ€™s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record â€” it was actually lower than any year since 2001 â€” the BBC confidently proclaimed, â€œ2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.â€
When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm â€” by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades â€” the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).
If things were going like they predicted, they would just report how they were right. But since they can’t do that, we get spin and a switch of the focus. Makes me wonder.