So environmentalism is a religion of rejection...As a
substitute for religion, as a metaphysic, however, it is
inadequate. Its obvious defect is that it only offers survival.
The environmentalist may enthuse about the peace of mind he may
attain through correctly green behavior. But at base, his
reasons for that are purely practical. There is no transcendent
rationale. It is a religion of catastrophe. We can only undo the
harm we have done; we can aspire to nothing higher. All we have
achieved is as nothing before the mute, alien spectacle of
nature. And that remains, as in the bleak vision of mechanical
determinism, all that we can ever have, even in the green paradise. - Bryan Appleyard,
Understanding The Present, Anchor Books, 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY. 10036, 1992, p. 129
Global Warming Questions/Answers
The problem with a single dominant dogma, like that
of CO2 and greenhouse-driven global warming, is that it shuts down
alternative, or at the very least potentially complementary lines of
research. Is there anything we KNOW?
1. Is the Earth currently in a period of cooling?
Answer - The evidence strongly indicates that there is no temperature
change for approximately the past 20 years,(2000-2019) and the AGW alarmists have had to
change their terminology to "climate change" and to focus on
a few specific aspects such as polar ice melt.
Are temperatures presently rising along with rising CO2 levels?
Answer - Maybe minimally , maybe not.
During our last cooling phase, from 1940-75, should global warming
have surged if caused by industrial CO2 emissions, according to
the AGW and CO2 climate change thinking?
Answer - Yes, but it didn't.
4. Nine years after its release, can we judge
whether Al Gore's presentation in An Inconvenient Truth was accurate?
Answer - This book makes an emotional and alarmist argument that
has completely failed to be validated.
Should CO2 be considered a major greenhouse gas, a minor greenhouse
gas, or not a greenhouse gas at all?
There is enough CO2 already in the atmosphere to
absorb the minor spectrum of radiation that it does, and any
increase would have a negligible affect. There is no empirical
reason to think that it has any significant effect in developing a
greenhouse mechanism. Methane and water vapor are both double digit
times better as absorbers.
Should a modest increase in CO2 levels be considered harmful or beneficial?
Answer - Probably beneficial because it increases forest and plant growth.
7. Do CO2 increases precede or follow global warming?
Answer - The data show that the increases actually follow
instead of precede global warming.
8. Might out-gassing by warming oceans be a major factor in rising CO2
Answer - No.
9. Have scientists ever successfully tested—by any means other than
mathematical models—the mechanism by which CO2 allegedly causes
the atmosphere to warm?
Answer - No.
10. Should the theory of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus be taken
as a warning of future catastrophe on Earth?
Answer - No, because there is another and unrelated reason for the
metal-melting temperature on Venus. The runaway greenhouse model
doesn't even apply to Venus, much less the earth..
11. What are the implications of extreme cycles of warming in the past
on Earth—some far greater than in modern times?
Answer - Firstly, that pertaining to the issues of AGW and climate change these
have had nothing to do with the activities of Man.
12. Are arctic sea levels rising at the rates predicted by AGW proponents?
Answer - Not even close.
13. Is glacial melting increasing, and if so, is it at the rate predicted
by AGW proponents?
Answer - In some places, yes, and in others, no.
14. What if any connection might exist between cosmic rays and global
Answer - This is being looked at right now by experiments at CERN,
and the initial indication is that there is a connection.
15. Might the decrease in the influx of cosmic rays in the 20th century
have been a factor in the warming during that period?
Answer - Possibly.
16. Is lowering atmospheric CO2 important?
Answer - During the last period of global cooling, 1940-1975
(which prompted Newsweek magazine to print its famous 28 April 1975 cover story about "The
Coming Ice Age"), CO2 levels were higher than they are today.
CO2 is a very small component (0.30 percent) of Earth's atmosphere.
It is not a major contributor to any greenhouse effect that may exist. That role,
whatever its extent, belongs to prevalent water vapor instead of CO2.
"Global warming" (a.k.a. "Climate Change") is a political movement,
not a scientific one. It uses mass hysteria (The world is ending!) in
an effort to gain political power by gaining control over energy sources. Not
long ago I attended a lecture called "The Long Emergency." The
speaker—who just happens to have written a novel of the same name—warned a
frightened audience of about 200 gullible folks that we
are rapidly running out of fossil fuels (this was before the
discovery of gigantic deposits of natural gas in Louisiana) and must
therefore be ready to deal with Mass starvation! Disease!
Riots! We'll have to huddle together in local communities, hoeing
our gardens, riding bicycles and generally learning to cope with our
return to a primitive economy.
For good reason this sort of thing is known as enviro-porn, and it's
a very addictive pastime. I often ask such addicts three
questions: why was the Earth warmer during the Medieval Warm Period
than it is today? Why did the Medieval Warm Period suddenly give
way to the Little Ice Age? Is it possible that periodic changes in
global climate are a "natural" feature of life on planet Earth?
17. Are other emissions
significant in global warming?
Answer - Except for soot, no other emission constituents are
released in amounts considered to be significant in any greenhouse model.
18. Is soot, not GW,
responsible for the polar ice melting?
Answer - Recently soot was shown to be about 50% responsible for the
shrinking ice extent and loss of old ice. The most significant
source of soot is, surprisingly, people burning wood in houses,
especially in India. But unfiltered coal stacks produce heaps of
soot, and much of China's coal stacks are unfiltered.
19. Could we get in or be in a stage of complete polar ice melt at present?
Answer - Something that deserves considerable more attention is that the Arctic ice is unstable
because the overall albedo will continue to lessen as the old sea ice
continues to melt. The reason for this would be that the dark soot
and dust don't evaporate (or sublimate) as does the ice. So as the
water leaves, the accumulated dark material increases
monotonically. Such an effect may very well be catalytic. Once
begun, a tipping point could come into operation, making complete
melting of the Arctic ice inevitable. It is too soon to say.
20. Is the sea level really rising?
Answer - Not to any alarming degree.
21. What happens when economists meddle in climate science?
Answer - http://econ-environment.ca/
22. Can 31,000+ scientist be wrong?
What 31,000 scientists? See:
Global Climate Debate
23. What is the role of the declining strength of Earth's magnetosphere in all of this?
From very straightforward measurements and methods, scientists
have determined that the Earth's magnetic field has declined in
strength by 33% in the last 2000 years. This is an alarmingly
significant percentage and fast rate of decline, and yet the
effect on climate change is unknown.
24. What is the role of charged particles from the
Sun pouring into the upper circumpolar atmosphere?
A few years ago, all geophysicists, solar physicists, and
weather theorists insisted that electrical transactions between
the Sun and the Earth could not occur, and yet they are now confirmed. Given the
neutrality of space, they said, Earth's magnetosphere could not
be penetrated by charged particles from the Sun, just "squeezed
and buffeted" by the solar wind to generate the electrical
effects of the auroras. This was, in fact, a major dispute
separating such electrical pioneers as Birkeland, Alfvén,
Dessler, and Peratt from mainstream astrophysicists, who
continued to cling to Sydney Chapman's dogma on the subject long
after the space age began to deliver evidence to the contrary.
Now that the issue has been definitively settled by studies of
the ionosphere, you'll not see astrophysicists admitting that
the "old" idea (standard view until less than ten years ago) had
to be dropped. So there's no real acknowledgement of the
implications of this, and almost no one talking about global
warming (on either side) has taken up the matter either. It's as
if the uncomfortable shift in ideology never even occurred.
An additional word by Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary, Canada:
from the CCNet 19 May 2009
"It is inconceivable that even after a decade since
global warming ended and seven years into a cooling
trend with no end of cooling in sight, that world
leaders are unaware of these facts and are still
pursuing initiatives to stop global warming.
Something is terribly wrong with the official
international science bodies such as the IPCC who
have not come forward and properly informed the
world leaders of current global temperatures.
"Something is terribly wrong with the individual
government science bodies who did not come forward
and inform their own leaders when it was certain
that global warming had ended, or when there was
sufficient data to claim that we are now in a
"It is not as though this is highly guarded secret
data that can only be accessed by a limited group of people. The global temperature data is in fact
readily available from several public sites and can be downloaded at no cost.
"For the past year Friends of Science has been
maintaining a graph of satellite temperature data
and atmospheric CO2 concentration data on their
This graph is updated every month as the new data becomes available.
The cooling trend that started in 2002 is highlighted by a straight line best fit posted on
this graph. The numerical value for this trend is 0.25°C/decade of cooling!
"By contrast the forcing parameter of the IPCC
climate models would dictate that the effect of the
10ppmv increase in CO2 should cause a temperature
increase of 0.15°C/decade.
"If in fact there is any validity to
the claims of CO2 increases causing warming; the fact that we are
cooling at twice the rate that the climate models say we should be
warming, is a clear indication that natural forces are about three
times stronger than the maximum possible effects from CO2 increases.
"Quantum physics clearly demonstrates that the effect
of current increases in CO2 can have only a small
and diminishing effect on global temperature with
further increases in concentration.
"Since the natural effects dominate, and physics
dictates that the effect of increasing emissions is
only a small fraction of the effect commonly
accepted; it is clear that any initiatives aimed at
reducing CO2 emissions for the purpose of reducing
global warming are entirely without merit and serve
no purpose whatsoever.
"This is not a trivial issue because these
initiatives to stop global warming have caused great
suffering to the poorest people of the world.
Biofuel initiatives have caused a global food crisis
as food crops were forced to compete with biofuel
crops driving the price of basic food staples beyond
the means of the poor. The attempt to replace
inexpensive coal fired power plants with very
expensive and unreliable alternate energy sources
such as wind power, has raised the cost of power not
only affecting the poor, but also industry further
reducing the ability to compete with countries using
inexpensive power to manufacture products.
"Unfortunately the AGW concept is so engrained in the
public psyche through the graphic propaganda of the
last several years that all verbal arguments against
this ideology fall on deaf ears, and get shouted
down by an indoctrinated and emotional crowd. While these people
are deaf they are not blind, and no matter how loud
the shouting, a graphic representation of increasing
CO2 and decreasing global temperatures will be seen
above the din."