Falling for Junk Science - the tale of Global Warming

Is it an "Inconvenient" or "Unlikely" Truth?

Below are some of the elements that comprise the conjectures of those who
advocate taking action to mitigate the damages that are predicted resulting from
the presumed warming of the Earth.

1. The global temperature, over the last hundred years, has trended upward,
with the actual increases subject to dispute, depending on which “expert”
findings are being used.

2. Terrible consequences will result, including a rise in ocean height (ranging in

magnitude from 18 inches to 20 feet, depending on whose predictions are
in play), which will make shoreline population centers uninhabitable, cause
animal species to disappear, generate massive storm systems, and other
phenomena, all of which reduce the quality of life on earth.

3. These consequences will occur at some unspecified time in the future, years
from now.

4. This rise in temperature is either exclusively or primarily, due to an increased

presence of Carbon Dioxide, caused by man-made pollution from cars,
power plants, and other industrial sources.

5. To have any chance to intervene in these changes, all of the world’s

inhabitants must begin immediately to reduce this pollution.

Notice that the likelihood that each assumption is absolutely dependent on the
accuracy of the previous assertion. If any assumption is false, or questionable, those
following cannot be valid.

Temperature Trending Upward?

Suppose for a moment that, based on temperature measurements during the 20th
century, advocates of the global warming hypothesis predict that the 21st century
will see the following rise in the average yearly global temperature beginning in
2000 with the prediction ending in the year 2100.
Certainly, if we accept this graph, it clearly shows that global temperature is
climbing, and at some point, it will rise to a point that will significantly effect the
Earth’s climate.

Now, let’s jump ahead to our long removed descendants, assuming they have hung
around the Earth, instead of migrating out to the Sun’s planets, or far beyond, to
other galaxies.

In the year 3750, scientist track the measured rise and fall of the Earth’s
temperature, since 1900. Supposing this graph represents their findings:

The difference in the two graphs represents the most severe of the problems in the
calculation of trends. Taken against the age of the earth, or for that matter, the
length of time that human beings have inhabited the planet, one hundred years is a
co mple tely u nreliable ba se (sample ) upon which to premise future
predictions.
The Consequences of Global Warming

Given that the trend demonstrated in the first graph is accurate, the rise in oceanic
levels is the most devastating of the hypothesized consequences. The cause is
presumed to rest with the melting of glaciers throughout the world. Yet, while
advocates assert temperature is rising, and polar glaciers are receding as predicted,
other studies report Antar ctic glacier s t o be gr owing . That this is occurring,
would seem to reduce the probability of a direct casual relationship between
temperature and oceanic height. Moreover, views of Mars and other planets suggest
that similar changes are occurring on their surfaces, suggesting that other forces
(such as the Sun’s temperature) are the primary determinant of planetary
temperature change.

A second problem associated with predictions of the magnitude of the change

which is forecasted. With a range of 18 inches to 20 feet, (over an undefined period
of time) there is obvious disagreement among those making these predictions.
There would seem to be several possible reasons for the disparity: (a) investigators
are using the same data, with differences in conclusions resulting from the use of
varying mathematical models; (b) investigators work from diverse raw data sets,
leading to the variances in findings; (c) some combination of (a) and (b). Given this
variance, on what is strategic planning to be based?

There is also the problem of establishing a cause-effect relationship between

events. The permafrost is liquefying throughout Alaska and much of Russia. This
presents serious problems, as the frost line goes to deeper levels of the ground. Yet,
while this change is definitely occurring, are we able to say that there is a direct
causal linkage between this event and the hypothesized rise in temperature?

Time Frame for Consequences

Earthquakes are a known danger for those located along the Pacific rim – a
substantial portion of the world’s population. Scientists can predict the magnitude,
the damage that can occur, and the geographic areas likely to suffer loss of life,
injury and property destruction. No one doubts that destructive quakes will occur,
since there has been much to verify that they do, and excellent data describing their
past effects. What cannot be predicted is precisely when quakes will happen. Yet,
time probability predictions have been made. For those affected by the San Andreas
fault, there is a 70% probability that a magnitude 7.0 or greater quake will occur
within the next thirty years.

There is a 1 in 10,000 chance that an asteroid will strike the Earth between 2034
and 2036, causing severe regional damage. A specific impact point is unavailable
as of this writing.

Not so with the dire predictions of Global warming. Neither time, nor the extent of
damage or destruction have been specified, let alone having any probability
estimates attached to such predictions. Yet, we are told that we must take action
immediately to prevent the occurrence of this phenomenon.

Ordinarily scientific findings are presented with a confidence level. Thus, we would
expect to find a statement such as this: “By 2110, Ocean levels will rise from
current height by an average of 2 feet, 6 inches with 95% confidence that this rise
will be within 6 inches of the mean.”

No such predictions and associated probability statements are available, so we can

have no expectation of the accuracy or likelihood that this range will occur.

The Cause

This is among the most difficult of the methodological assumptions regarding

global warming. Again, assuming that the temperature trending posited by
climatologists is correct, we come to the most challenging task – that of
determining the correct explanation for this trend.

While the primary (and clearly conflated with political considerations) explanation,
an increased presence of Carbon Dioxide is offered as the direct cause of
temperature rise, with this increase in level posited to be linked with man-made
pollution. Efforts to offer alternative explanations have been subject to enormous
political pressure, directed at diverting attention from these alternatives.

The party line is that there is “consensus” among scientists, and thus, this single
explanation represents “settled” science. Consequently, investigators seeking
funding to explore theory which question the validity of this explanation, receive
little consideration. Yet, many competing theories have been advanced, some of
which are listed below:

• Temperature change is cyclical, tied directly to cyclic heating and cooling of the
Sun. Significant empirical data exists to correlate these changes with historic
changes in long term temperature history.
• Cosmic ray activity is also cyclic in its behavior, again well documented and
correlated with temperature.
• ·A recent (within the last 50 years) increase in CO2 can be linked to deforestation
caused both from logging activity, and a number of large wildfires. The result of
this reduction of total trees on the surface of the planet naturally increases the
CO2 percentage in the atmosphere.
• ·Cow flatulence, while not the primary cause of for CO2 presence is a contributing
factor.
• · An increase in the world’s population during the 20th century certainly adds to
increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, directly attributable to the exhalation of
CO2 by this enlarged population
Note that none of these explanations eliminates any of the others. Rather they point
to a far more complex set of interactions, ruled out by the simplistic unitary
explanation of man-made pollution.

“It’s Our Fault.”

In what has to be one of the largest scams ever foisted on the American public,
we have been told that:
• ·global temperatures are rising, which at some unknown time in the future will
severely impact on the quality of life of the planet’s human inhabitants.
• Since this temperature rise is due to the increase in CO2, this increase is directly
attributable to man-made pollution.
• ·With the United States being the leader in industrialization and economic
activity, individuals and businesses are, if not the greatest, certainly a significant
contributor to man-made pollution.
• Therefore, to save the planet from the effects of global warming, Americans,
whether individuals or businesses, must substantially change their behavior. The
only way this can be done is at great cost, and consequent reduction in our
standard of living.

That there is substantial public willingness to accept such a prescription is puzzling.

The probability that all described above is entirely correct is probably in the same
range as the chances of winning one of the major state or national lotteries. Those
who invest major components of their assets tend to be those who can least afford
such investments, and who are tempted by the rewards, rather than giving reasoned
consideration to the chances of achieving them.

Lottery participants, if nothing else, know the potential award that could await
them. In this instance, participation in this prescription provides no tangible reward,
is uncertain as to whether any results will be achieved, and is certain only of the
costs.