Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race

solidspine · 05-02-2008, 10:54 AM

Oops another fraudulent scam for making a quick profit gone south.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

By Steven Milloy

Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam?

A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased.

RelatedColumn Archive
Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race Junk Science: Anatomy of a Chemical MurderJunk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count BeginsJunk Science: Why Isn’t Gore Hounding Olympic Torch?Junk Science: Bush Beats Gore on Climate? Full-page Junk Science Archive
Global temperatures remain well below an El Nino-driven 1998 spike despite ever-increasing atmospheric CO2. Global warming hysterics purport that manmade emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of global climate and that controlling emissions will favorably affect climate. While this is obviously not so since it virtually supposes that without human activity climate change would not occur, it nevertheless remains their viewpoint.

The Nature study, however, reasserts Mother Nature in her rightful place as our climate dominatrix. Although there is no evidence that manmade CO2 emissions play any detectable role in climate change, the very idea that Mother Nature may cool the planet despite humanity’s furious output of greenhouse gases should be even worse for the climate alarmists’ way of thinking.

It would mean that greenhouse gas emissions are actually beneficial, since without them, Mother Nature’s cooling could be quite damaging. The last time the Earth significantly cooled was during the 14th to 19th centuries — a period known as the Little Ice Age.

Among other things during that period, the Vikings were forced to withdraw from a freezing Greenland and cooler Northern Hemisphere temperatures were responsible for, and or contributed to, numerous famines and much-related social upheaval. So will the Nature study dump climate alarmism into the ash can of history? Doubtful.

Just this week, Al Gore drummed up $683 million for an investment fund that aims to profit from government-subsidized global warming-related technologies. A few weeks ago, Gore launched a $300 million global warming ad campaign. Do you think he’s at all interested in returning that money to investors and contributors? Or that he and the IPCC are interested in returning their Nobel Peace Prizes?

The federal government has been doling out more than $5 billion annually for research into climate change and alternative energy. A generation ago, there were only a handful of climatologists around the world; now there are legions of taxpayer-funded climatologists, scientists and public health professionals from many disciplines also hooked up to the climate gravy train.

What about the private-sector profiteers? Will the carbon footprint industry give up its CO2-offset ATM? Will companies that have been lobbying to receive trillions of dollars of free carbon credits from Congress — including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and Dupont — stop pushing for all that free money?

How many outspoken politicians and celebrities will be willing to acknowledge that they have made fools of themselves? I suppose that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Madonna and others could at least jet on back to their hypocritical Green lifestyles with a clear conscience of sorts.

Finally, there’s the environmental movement that is now just a November presidential election away from its dream of turning the United States into a centrally planned Green state where under the guise of saving the planet, the Green elites would get to pick and choose who gets to use how much energy and at what cost.

The bottom line of global warming — and that is why so many are behind it — is that its many vested interests are on the verge of a financial and political bonanza, something that scientific facts and climatic realities are likely only to spoil.

So when global temperature doesn’t behave as predicted, excuses and explanations must be found to prevent the almost-mature golden goose from being roasted for dinner. The spin on the Nature study provided by its authors to The New York Times is that, "We’re learning that [natural] climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change. In the end this gives more confidence in the long-term projections."

The attempted logic here is that even though the alarmists have been wrong in the past — been there, done that — their failure somehow sets them up for more certain future success. We look past this logical fallacy at our own peril. I can’t wait for their Orwellian pronouncement that global cooling is the new global warming.

For the next 10 years, while alarmists ram through their misanthropic agenda, their time-buying story line will be "aren’t we lucky that Mother Nature has given us a temporary reprieve."

This will no doubt be followed 10 years later by "Whew, aren’t we glad we spent trillions to prevent catastrophic global warming?"

Meanwhile, for trained observers, it will simply be a matter of realizing that the global warming apocalypse never materialized because it was simply never going to happen anyway.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

solidspine · 05-02-2008, 10:57 AM

If al gore can not cheat and defraud,

what is he going to do?

He may have to get a real job?

That sucks.

Tweak · 05-02-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solidspine

If al gore can not cheat and defraud,

what is he going to do?

He may have to get a real job?

That sucks.

Do you ever listen to Jason Lewis? He's a local talk show host here in Minnesota BUT he occasionally subs for Rush Limbaugh when Rush is out of town.

He has been talking about this stuff for YEARS and how much money people are making off scaring people with global warming, and with pushing ethanol for farm subsidies, etc. Environmentalism and government restrictions/mandates are hugely responsible for how expensive food and gas have gotten.

Here's Jason's website:
FM News Talk 100.3 KTLK-FM, 100.3 K-TALK

Blut Wump · 05-02-2008, 11:20 AM

I think that much of this topic revolves around the ever-dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The research into alternative fuel sources just might keep us away from a return to the Dark Ages. The alternative is a much-reduced and heavily repressed populace as the wealthy find themselves with few alternatives to having to enforce their privileges.

Tweak · 05-02-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blut Wump

I think that much of this topic revolves around the ever-dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The research into alternative fuel sources just might keep us away from a return to the Dark Ages. The alternative is a much-reduced populace as the wealthy find themselves with few alternatives to having to enforce their privileges.

We have more oil than we know what to do with. The problem is that we aren't being allowed to drill for it and we don't have enough refineries. In the 80's we had 340 operating oil refineries in the US. Now we only have about 180. So the demand has gone up but our capacity to produce has been cut in half due to government and environmentalism. It's ridiculous. It's 100% fixable.

Of course the media doesn't talk about most of this because it doesn't fit into their agenda.

We just found a ton of oil in western North Dakota and eastern Montana in the 2.5 weeks and environmentalists are already trying to stop us from drilling for it, even though it would pretty much instantly solve the gas prices. This doesn't include the billions of barrels of oil we have off the coast of Anwar.

North Dakota-Montana Oil Well Has 4.3 Billion More Barrels Of Reserves | May 2, 2008 | AHN

NewsOK Mobile

FOXNews.com - Huge Oil Reservoir May Lie Under Northern Plains - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

They just found a brand new oil reserve in Brazil that has about 2 billion barrels of oil:

Brazil Goes Investment-Grade

Will oil last FOREVER? No, probably not. But we're not going to run out anytime in the foreseeable future. By then we'll likely have more efficient alternative energy sources. For now they're inefficient and too costly.

Blut Wump · 05-02-2008, 11:42 AM

World consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels is in the region of 100 million barrels per day. 2 billion barrels is enough for about three weeks.

Tweak · 05-02-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blut Wump

World consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels is in the region of 100 million barrels per day. 2 billion barrels is enough for about three weeks.

You have a point there, and I guess I don't know enough about world consumption yet, but still-- I'm not sure what people propose we do?

I live in Minnesota-- there is literally a law prohibiting our state from building another nuclear power plant even though it's cleaner and more economical.

solidspine · 05-02-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

I think that much of this topic revolves around the ever-dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The research into alternative fuel sources just might keep us away from a return to the Dark Ages. The alternative is a much-reduced and heavily repressed populace as the wealthy find themselves with few alternatives to having to enforce their privileges.

Have you ever heard of Saudi Arabia, no I mean Anwar, Alaska?

There is nothing there and no one goes there so we will not drill there, good thinking got to protect all that ice.

solidspine · 05-08-2008, 01:11 PM

Yeah real warm it is fricken May and the high today in Newport Beach is only 68 degrees,

I have the heat on, and a fire in the fire place, there is ice on my surf board,

It is all al gores fault too, and those crazy Eskimos, Eskimos and gore, sounds like a Japanese movie to rent.

05-02-2008, 10:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
solidspine Retired Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,622 Rep Power: 0	Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race Oops another fraudulent scam for making a quick profit gone south. Thursday, May 01, 2008 By Steven Milloy Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam? A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing. When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased. RelatedColumn Archive Junk Science: The Great Global Warming Race Junk Science: Anatomy of a Chemical MurderJunk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count BeginsJunk Science: Why Isn’t Gore Hounding Olympic Torch?Junk Science: Bush Beats Gore on Climate? Full-page Junk Science Archive Global temperatures remain well below an El Nino-driven 1998 spike despite ever-increasing atmospheric CO2. Global warming hysterics purport that manmade emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of global climate and that controlling emissions will favorably affect climate. While this is obviously not so since it virtually supposes that without human activity climate change would not occur, it nevertheless remains their viewpoint. The Nature study, however, reasserts Mother Nature in her rightful place as our climate dominatrix. Although there is no evidence that manmade CO2 emissions play any detectable role in climate change, the very idea that Mother Nature may cool the planet despite humanity’s furious output of greenhouse gases should be even worse for the climate alarmists’ way of thinking. It would mean that greenhouse gas emissions are actually beneficial, since without them, Mother Nature’s cooling could be quite damaging. The last time the Earth significantly cooled was during the 14th to 19th centuries — a period known as the Little Ice Age. Among other things during that period, the Vikings were forced to withdraw from a freezing Greenland and cooler Northern Hemisphere temperatures were responsible for, and or contributed to, numerous famines and much-related social upheaval. So will the Nature study dump climate alarmism into the ash can of history? Doubtful. Just this week, Al Gore drummed up $683 million for an investment fund that aims to profit from government-subsidized global warming-related technologies. A few weeks ago, Gore launched a $300 million global warming ad campaign. Do you think he’s at all interested in returning that money to investors and contributors? Or that he and the IPCC are interested in returning their Nobel Peace Prizes? The federal government has been doling out more than $5 billion annually for research into climate change and alternative energy. A generation ago, there were only a handful of climatologists around the world; now there are legions of taxpayer-funded climatologists, scientists and public health professionals from many disciplines also hooked up to the climate gravy train. What about the private-sector profiteers? Will the carbon footprint industry give up its CO2-offset ATM? Will companies that have been lobbying to receive trillions of dollars of free carbon credits from Congress — including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and Dupont — stop pushing for all that free money? How many outspoken politicians and celebrities will be willing to acknowledge that they have made fools of themselves? I suppose that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Madonna and others could at least jet on back to their hypocritical Green lifestyles with a clear conscience of sorts. Finally, there’s the environmental movement that is now just a November presidential election away from its dream of turning the United States into a centrally planned Green state where under the guise of saving the planet, the Green elites would get to pick and choose who gets to use how much energy and at what cost. The bottom line of global warming — and that is why so many are behind it — is that its many vested interests are on the verge of a financial and political bonanza, something that scientific facts and climatic realities are likely only to spoil. So when global temperature doesn’t behave as predicted, excuses and explanations must be found to prevent the almost-mature golden goose from being roasted for dinner. The spin on the Nature study provided by its authors to The New York Times is that, "We’re learning that [natural] climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change. In the end this gives more confidence in the long-term projections." The attempted logic here is that even though the alarmists have been wrong in the past — been there, done that — their failure somehow sets them up for more certain future success. We look past this logical fallacy at our own peril. I can’t wait for their Orwellian pronouncement that global cooling is the new global warming. For the next 10 years, while alarmists ram through their misanthropic agenda, their time-buying story line will be "aren’t we lucky that Mother Nature has given us a temporary reprieve." This will no doubt be followed 10 years later by "Whew, aren’t we glad we spent trillions to prevent catastrophic global warming?" Meanwhile, for trained observers, it will simply be a matter of realizing that the global warming apocalypse never materialized because it was simply never going to happen anyway. Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Helpful links suggested by members
Cycles for Pennies a day by DC	The original thread by Dogg Crapp aka Dante
Pubmed	National Institute of Health Public Library.
Real Sports Report on Steroids	The truth about steroids that only HBO would present. MP4 Large file. Use Real Player
Merck Medical Manual	Merck manual of medical information
AAS: Mechanism of Action and Effects on Performance	Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine and Science California State Univ. Explanation of AAS effects on athletes
Carlorie King	The world's largest food database
ExRx Exercise and Muscle Directory	Exercises by muscle parts and vice versa. Includes video of popular exercises.
Wholesale Hair Products	Nizoral and other hair products
USDA National Nutrient Database	The nutritional value of all foods.
Fitday.com	Detailed Nutrition for 1,000's of foods with macro breakdowns
List of brand names for drugs	What various drugs are called by name brands around the world.
Getpinz.com	Medical and lab supplies
Health Tests Direct	Blood tests by mail without a prescription

05-02-2008, 10:57 AM	#2 (permalink)
solidspine Retired Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,622 Rep Power: 0	If al gore can not cheat and defraud, what is he going to do? He may have to get a real job? That sucks.

05-02-2008, 11:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
Blut Wump The Venerable Wump Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: UK Posts: 7,155 Rep Power: 283112	I think that much of this topic revolves around the ever-dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The research into alternative fuel sources just might keep us away from a return to the Dark Ages. The alternative is a much-reduced and heavily repressed populace as the wealthy find themselves with few alternatives to having to enforce their privileges.

05-02-2008, 11:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
Blut Wump The Venerable Wump Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: UK Posts: 7,155 Rep Power: 283112	World consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels is in the region of 100 million barrels per day. 2 billion barrels is enough for about three weeks.

05-08-2008, 01:11 PM	#9 (permalink)
solidspine Retired Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,622 Rep Power: 0	Yeah real warm it is fricken May and the high today in Newport Beach is only 68 degrees, I have the heat on, and a fire in the fire place, there is ice on my surf board, It is all al gores fault too, and those crazy Eskimos, Eskimos and gore, sounds like a Japanese movie to rent.