The Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 6
Isfjord, Ilulissat, Diskobay, West Greenland (Credit: Michael Haferkamp)
Continuing the discussion of climate models opened in Part 5, we see that those who utilize the models stack the numbers, especially concerning human contributions of CO2, so that it’s no surprise that they predict (again, based on the assumption that CO2 causes heat and not the other way around) lots of man-made warming…more warming than is actually occurring.
These long range forecasts have the virtue, though, of only being proved wrong long after people have forgotten about the flimsy prediction in the first place. This is even more beneficial toward those predictions of global apocalypse 100 years out or more.
Also, like any news cycle, a more “interesting” (i.e. apocalyptic) prediction will garner far more media attention than one that predicts, well, nothing out of the ordinary.
Former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder says, “The thing that has amazed me as a life-long journalist is how the most elementary principles of journalism seem to have been abandoned on this subject.”
Have you noticed how every natural disaster that comes along (even earthquakes!) are now blamed on global warming? And “journalists” don’t even bother to wait for any science or scientists to weigh in on the topic; they just throw out the speculation and we’re off to the races.
And while all the textbooks in meteorology tell us the main source of weather disturbances are due to temperature differences between warm and cold across the globe, which would indicate that if the entire globe became warmer, climate would become even more stable and sedate. Yet the sensational media reports predict cataclysmic outcomes from theoretical warming.
Professor John Christy of the IPCC points out that Greenland was much warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today, yet there was no cataclysmic “melting event” back then.
Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director of the International Arctic Research Center (the world’s leading arctic research institute) says that over time the ice caps are continually and naturally expanding and contracting.
Professor Akasofu says that while this has always happened, now that we have satellites to measure and observe chunks of ice falling off the leading edges of the ice caps, some people seem to get more excited about it. Yet that same satellite data shows the caps expanding and contracting cyclically.
Professor Philip Stott of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London says sea level changes across the world are governed fundamentally by two factors. The first is the relationship of the land to the sea, and he says this more often than not has to do with the land rising or falling rather than the sea. Eustatic sea change (i.e. global) happens through thermal expansion of the oceans, and has nothing to do with melting ice. This is an enormously slow process that takes place over many years.
Of the predictions of massive growth in tropical diseases in a global warming-affected world, Professor Paul Reiter of the IPCC and the Pasteur Institute in France says that even things like malaria are not confined to tropical areas as many people believe. Mosquitoes, he says, thrive in cooler areas. He points out that one of the worst epidemics of malaria happened in the Soviet Union in the 1920s where there were millions of cases a year and hundreds of thousands of deaths. These cases reached up to the arctic circle.
Professor Reiter says it isn’t just sloppy journalism from the media that is behind these sensational reports of apocalyptic events on the horizon. He says some of the misinformation comes from the scientific community itself, including the IPCC.
In 1996 Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal exposing the slanted reports from the IPCC (a political, not scientific body of the UN). He said that IPCC officials had censored statements from actual scientists in their reports:
But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.
Come back tomorrow for Part 7 of The Great Global Warming Swindle.
If you missed them, you should also watch Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.
