Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Radiative Equilibrium
The average atmospheric mixing ratios of CO2 increased approximately 70 ppmv between 1958 and 2006.
(a) with only natural forcing (solar, volcanoes) (b) with also anthropogenic gases and aerosols
POLAR ICE
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it." - Hal Lewis, emeritus professor of physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
About two weeks ago, I wrote to one of your colleagues named as an addressee above. I asked for a short period of time in a UCI classroom where I could present to UCI science students what seemed to me to be a terribly misleading practice. Your colleague did not bother to respond to me. How many of you completely ignore a question from a student in your classroom? In my many years beginning with elementary school, through high school, college, and graduate school, I cannot recall one single instance of being completely ignored by any teacher, in any classroom.
Now, as a well-educated, well-traveled, well-read taxpayer, I get this rude treatment from someone who is responsible for teaching our youth. It is troublesome. I have but few points to make. First, it is misleading to give students and the public partial information, particularly when the clear intent is to guide them in the desired direction of a political agenda. This graph, or something very much like it, is so widely heralded as to be almost a trademark of the "Pseudoscientific Fraud" known as Global Warming:
Accurate, informative, purely scientific, who could possibly take issue with it? Me.
However, insofar as anthropogenic carbon dioxide is said to account for something like 3.4% of the total, why don't we show that component instead of the total? Here is how that looks: