Monday, January 15, 2007


Questioning the Baseline

In the recent past, as I began once again to explore the evidence supporting the theory of Global Warming (caused solely by human activity), I was willing to grant a rise in CO2 from 1850 to 2005 from 280 to 350 ppb. I am no longer willing to do that. Here is the reason--an article by Polish scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski which points out a lot of problems with establishing a baseline of pre-industrial CO2 in the atmosphere. We obviously did not have CO2 sniffers around in 1850 (the Mauna Loa observatory, whose data is the bedrock uderlying the central, Warmie belief, only began sniffing CO2 in 1958--although, to be fair, it does show an increase in CO2 from 315 to 377 ppb between 1960 and 2004). Absent instrument readings, we have to rely on other sources to establish how much CO2 was in the air of the past. We have to rely on air 'trapped in amber' (not really--that was a metaphor) and the first choice of scientists has been ice cores drilled out of deep ice around the world. Unfortunately, ice cores are useless for what the air contained before a certain date (because deep ice has no bubbles--the pressure squeezes them out), and ice cores often are contaminated by extraction and processing, and the data shown from ice cores are often fudged by the scientists and the results published are sometimes just plain fraudulent.

Zbig says global CO2 concentration in 1870 was probably just as high as it was in 1970. Yet the Warmies say average temperature globally increased about a whole degree Fahrenheit during that time. If the CO2 was the same at the beginning and end of the period during which the temperature rose, CO2 concentration could not have caused it. QED. Yet CO2 concentration increasing as temperatures rise is the sine qua non of Warmie dogma.

And then there's this data from Lawrence Hecht. If he's right here, the growing consensus the Warmies crow about is becoming an increasingly tattered tissue of lies.


- Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)
- A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
- Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
- From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.
- Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere.

The statement that there is no dispute about Global Warming (caused solely by human activity) is bunk in the casual observers and a lie in the mouths of those who know the science.

Nice find on those articles. How is it that both sides of the global warming issue are able to manipulate scientific data to their advantage (i.e. Al Gore's whole "An Inconvenient Truth" business)... someone has to have their science wrong. However, I find it interesting that the science behind why global warming could simply be a hoax more compelling and intricate than the science, as you put it, the "warmies" so strictly adhere to. For example, compare the article by the Polish scientist you found to the basic science behind Al Gore's documentary, The slogan at the top of the page reading "The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable" is rather ludicrous, considering the ambiguity of particular statements such as "Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year".

Who claims that the current apparent warming of the globe is due "solely to human activity'? Not me, boy. But, as human activity is the only process we may modify, it might be wise to do so, in case such does exacerbate the problem.
86 Evagelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major intiative to fight global warming saying: "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."

Say "Hallelujah!" Brothers and Sisters.

Avoid temptation. Abjure Satan, Roger, my brother. It is the Tempter, himself, that whispers the falsehoods and lies in your ears and twists your mind to espouse there is no connection between human activity and global warming. It is Satan that tells you, "This is juist a progression of natural climatological change. Don't worry."

Why does Satan tell you this? Satan tells you this because he wants to make the earth resemble Hell. It is not enough that he foments war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is insufficent that he sponsors genocide in Darfur. Satan is not satisfied in insinuating into the minds of the leaders of Iran and North Korea that they need nuclear weapons, the detonation of which would bring the fire and brimstone of Satan's kingdom to earth.

No my friends, Satan is working overtime and so he says to you: "Buy that Hummer; trade your pollution credits on the free market; nothing that you do is responsible for global warming."

Yesterday, we celebrated the life and works of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today, we must remember the words of Martin Luther, who, in "A Mighty Fortress is our God" reminds us about Satan:

"For still our ancient foe,
Doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great;
And armed with cruel hate.
On earth is not his equal."

And I say to you now, Roger, repent. Join the crusade against global warming.
Get behind me Satan!

Does anyone really argue that it is 100% caused by humans? I figure we are not helping.
Mary and Mike, yes they say it is caused by human activity, not 100% just the normal meaning of "cause" and I'll write on that in my next warmie posting. In the meantime, can anyone tell me if Sister Sharon Falconer exists and was being serious. I can't tell. Vade retrome, I say.
If sister Sharon is real, I am extremely pleased. I know by now how the Christian right has been against reasonable measures that would go to lessen our negative effect on the climate change. Knowing also the power these "fundies" have in your society, it would be heaven sent (pardon the pun) to have them on side. After all, we somehow must convince you, the Americans, to stop choking our common home. We only have one.
Jaworowski's theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.

Laurence Hecht is Editor-in-Chief of 21st Century.

Many regard La Rouche as a political extremist, a conspiracy theorist, a cult leader and/or an anti-Semite.

LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations. Hecht was also convicted of the same charges.
Thanks for the skinny on 21st Century. I didn't track it down. During my last trip to Germany, a well spoken German national, whose English was much better than my Deutsch, talked to me for half an hour about what a great guy LaRoche was. I thought he was looney. I still do. None of the dire predictions he stated (about 4 years ago now) came true. Still, Jaworowski is a real scientist and I would love to find out if the things he is saying are backed up by other scientists. He does footnote. Same for Hecht(desire to know--not footnotes). No doubt denying Global Warming (caused solely by human activity) must somehow fit some nefarious right wing plot to live just as we choose to.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?