Bookmark the Hoax

The last thing I want to do is to revisit the tedious back and forth discussions on global climate change, as each side, pressed for time, simply throws their favorite source links on the table. Unfortunately, because most of us have real lives, we lack the time to undertake the research we would wish to pursue in support of positions that we have learned over time.

 

However, for future reference, I can very highly recommend this link (below), published by credentialed scientists, as a very readable (to laypersons) take-down of the AGW dilemma faced by many scientists who were too quick to jump on the AGW bandwagon and must now confront the consequences to their credibilities. It’s a long article, but can be cherry-picked to address specific issues that (I’m proud to say) many of the commentators on this blog very accurately addressed over the preceding years.  It is also full of new information (and links) of which I was not aware.

Here’s an example:

A recent U.S. Senate report quotes 400+ scientists who originally bought the global warming hoax, and are now confessing that they don’t believe in it any more.” [link is provided]

The article is particularly good at explaining very clearly how data was either misinterpreted or manipulated to support the AGW position. The famous Mann “hockey stick”, for example.

 

So, here’s my advice: bookmark this article and use it as a reference the next time you find yourself in a rhetorical exchange on AGW.

 

Here’s the link:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

If you really feel compelled to argue this issue into oblivion, then I recommend using this as a starting point: argue cogently why it is wrong, using facts …not links.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Mike, you’re right. It’s time to wrap this up. Zach is doing boilerplate again—endlessly repeating his memes—and nobody here is convinced a whit by his pretense at either knowledge or concern.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    On the other hand, burning coal and oil releases carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years. This increases the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. ‘

    Sorta like forest fires and volcanoes. I don’t notice the LEft trying to make them pay for their CO2 cost, however.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Zachriel: Some carbon is fixed in the structure of plants, so tropical forests are large reservoirs of fixed carbon.

    suek: Where did the carbon come from for them to “fix”?

    Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere in the form of CO2. CO2 and water formed the Earth’s primordial atmosphere.

    Zachriel: On the other hand, burning coal and oil releases carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years. This increases the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

    Ymarsakar: Sorta like forest fires and volcanoes. I don’t notice the LEft trying to make them pay for their CO2 cost, however.

    Natural forest fires do return carbon to the atmosphere, but typically the forests regrow over time, so the net atmospheric carbon remains the same. On the other hand, volcanoes are an important source of new atmospheric carbon, but this is usually only important over long time spans. Over short time spans, volcanic aerosols are more important in terms of global cooling. Scientists have to account for all this in order to test their models.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Zachriel: Some carbon is fixed in the structure of plants, so tropical forests are large reservoirs of fixed carbon.

    suek: Where did the carbon come from for them to “fix”?

    Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere in the form of CO2. CO2 and water formed the Earth’s primordial atmosphere.

    Zachriel: On the other hand, burning coal and oil releases carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years. This increases the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

    Ymarsakar: Sorta like forest fires and volcanoes. I don’t notice the LEft trying to make them pay for their CO2 cost, however.

    Natural forest fires do return carbon to the atmosphere, but typically the forests regrow over time, so the net atmospheric carbon remains the same. On the other hand, volcanoes are an important source of new atmospheric carbon, but this is usually only important over long time spans. Over short time spans, volcanic aerosols are more important in terms of global cooling. Scientists have to account for all this in order to test their models.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming: caused by humans or GW relating to humans.

    There is no such thing as Anthropocenic Global Warming. Why does an AGW proponent often forget the distinction. You’ve mispelled anthropogenic more than once over the last few months. Now a completely new iteration of the conjugation behind anthro-. If the only global warming happened to be centered on human bodies, AGW wouldn’t have enough flex to go with their hoax.

    I’m not convinced Z has anything that can be seen as a solution to pollution. And not just because he labels CO2 a pollutant or ignores the impact of carbon credits sold by the Gores of the world on sustainability.

  • Mike Devx

    Charles Martel @ 149 : Mike, you’re right. It’s time to wrap this up.

    Yes, I should have wrapped up earlier actually.  I’d begun repeating myself, which is insulting to others here.  I’d done my best to make my point already!   Lesson re-learned!

  • suek

    >>CO2 and water formed the Earth’s primordial atmosphere. >>

    Without any anthopic input? what percentage of the “greenhouse”, then is due to human causes?

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    suek: Without any anthopic input? what percentage of the “greenhouse”, then is due to human causes?

    The atmosphere has changed a great deal since those days. For instance, there was no free oxygen, which is a product of photosynthesis. (See equation above.) The world has been far hotter and far colder than today, sea levels have been much higher and at other times much lower, all due to natural causes; but you wouldn’t want to live then. 

    Today, most of the greenhouse effect is due to naturally occurring water vapor and CO2. That’s not the problem. It’s the *change* that matters to humans, whether your crops will grow, whether you will have drinking water, whether your coastlines will be inundated. The scientific evidence indicates that the anomalous change in climate occurring today is most certainly due to human activity.