A Disadvantageous TruthNew questions about global warming and the human factor

CO2

• Since 1880 we have dumped 1,000,000,000,000 tons of carbon into the atmosphere

• The “Hockey Stick” Graph. Alarming Yes

• Temp in Blue

• CO2 in red

• A little bit less fear inspiring.

• There has been a .073 degree increase over the period of 128 years. (CDIAC)

• Source: GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Why did temperature decrease from 1940-1970, while carbon increased steadily?

The answer: “In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance)

can cause cooling ” (realclimate.org)

I have to agree. There are other real world factors that affect climate.

Global Temp for the Last Ten Years

• Now, at least thirty years are needed to identify trends in the global climate, scientists can agree on that at least, it is still quite interesting that the last ten years have shown a slight reduction in global temp, with CO2 spiraling upward all the while. That means in 40 of the last 120 years there has been no warming. 33 percent of the time.

Just how much CO2?

• Imagine this as our atmosphere

The amount of Total Carbon in our atmosphere

• That’s actually a little bit too thick.

CO2

• Carbon Dioxide comprises .03 percent of our total atmosphere.

• If you used the football field analogy, that would be three inches. In a hundred yards.

• That 1,000,000,000,000 tons? Translates to roughly the thickness of a pencil.

CO2

• Now, I must concede that although carbon does comprise such a small amount of our atmosphere, it could still perhaps make a difference. But the truth is there is no proof for it.

In fact, historical data shows us that CO2 has no precedent for leading temperatures.

Vostok Ice Cores• Project started in 1998 by US and Russia• They extracted the worlds largest intact ice core from Antarctica. It taken

from up to 3263 meters deep.• Ice Cores are the most accurate and informative records we have of the

past climate, you will not find any scientists who disagree with that.• The data gleaned from the vostok ice core revealed that “these

measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations” (CDIAC)

• In layman’s terms, there has been no historical precedent for CO2 causing warming. There have been CO2 flucuations, but they followed temperature increases.

• What this means is that there is no historical evidence that can prove CO2 drives temperature increase.

What Vostok Tells Us

The IPCC• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in

1998 to evaluate the danger and seriousness of climate change.• From the IPCC website:• The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World

Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

• The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.

• The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.

• The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals

IPCC

• To roughly paraphrase the findings of the IPCC, I would say this: “global warming is real, and humans caused it.”

• Almost all people who defend global warming point to the IPCC as “proof” of the phenomenon.

• The IPCC is given much of its credibility because it is supposedly only written by scientists, and peer reviewed by those scientists.

• Yes I said supposedly.

The 1995 IPCC Report.• It was in 1995 that the first IPCC report which confirmed global warming was

released. It also attributed it to human release of fossil fuels.• Shortly after the release there was an outcry by scientists who said the peer review

process had been violated. They claimed that changes were made to the report they approved, the new final version is what was released.

• Among the 15 changes they made:

• --None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed

• [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."• -- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change

observed to date] to• Anthropogenic [man-made] causes."• -- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain

controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

• These sections were either re-worded to close doubt about global warming, or erased completely. Again, these changes were not peer reviewed.

The Truth about the IPCC

• The IPCC is a government organization. Not a scientific one.

• It obviously has an agenda.

• Bias has no place in scientific inquiry, in fact, bias has been shown to skew the collection of hard data. I cite the Rosenthal Study

Rosenthal Study

• Robert Rosenthal is a psychology professor at Harvard. In the 60’s he conducted an experiment that exposed the effect of bias in experimental observations.

• To do this he obtained a batch of identical rats. He gave half of them to one experimental group, the other half to another.

• He told one group that their rats were bred for intelligence, and the other that their rats were bred for below average intelligence.

• Using Skinner Box (maze) tests, the groups evaluated their rats. They found that the “smart” rats were smarter, and the “dumb” rats were more stupid.

• People find what they want to find

IPCC

• The bottom line is that the IPCC has no credibility. Bias in studies is not tolerated at all in the medical community, why should it be allowed for such a charged issue?

• That coupled with the obvious political agenda of the IPCC (edited reports) should cast serious doubt on the validity of their findings.

Hurricanes.

• “global warming causes more hurricanes, as well as more extreme weather.”

• Wrong.• At least according to the National Hurricane

Center. “Any trend we see due to global warming has very little impact, has caused very tiny changes, and might actually be slightly reducing the activity we see in the Atlantic”

• See the graph

• Graph of US hurricane strikes by decade, supplied by the National Weather Service.

• I couldn’t get the decades to copy. I don’t know why. The first one is from 1850-1860. They are in increments of ten following that.

But the Glaciers are melting…

Ice Caps

• Actually some of the glaciers are melting. Ice caps in the northern heimosphere (arctic, greenland) are receding. And some tropical glaciers (Kilimanjaro) are melting

• But in Antarctica, which has 90 percent of the worlds ice, the ice sheets are growing. A 2002 study found that they were growing by 26.8 gigatons per year. It has been growing since 1979.

• The antarctic interior is cooling, (roughly 1.5 degrees over the last 20 years)

• Yes the antarctic peninsula Is warming, but there is still a significant positive increase in antarctic ice.

Historical Scientific Consensus• There was a theory that arose a century ago, and it was widely accepted by

scientists all over the world. It was supported by a vast number of public figures. These figures included:

• Teddy Roosevelt• Woodrow Wilson• Wintson Churchill• Louis Brandeis and Oliver Holmes (supreme court justices)• George Bernard Shaw• Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford Univeristy)

This theory was taught at Universities like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, it was supported by philanthropic institutions such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations.

It was also supported by the most infamous man of modern historyThat man was Adolf Hitler.This Theory was the Theory of Eugenics.

Why?

• Somebody’s got to pay the bill

• “climate change has unleashed the biggest academic gold rush in recent history, with state and federal governments splashing tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars around almost weekly on new projects and research centers”

Fear• Global warming is

propelled by our culture of fear.

• We are scared of everything, the food we eat, the air we breath, the cities we live in, the cars we drive, our schools, our neighbors, “terrorists” the list goes on and on.

• You are over ten times more likely to hear the word “catastrophe” today as you were in 1985

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming

Global Warming

• The culprit?

You and your damn SUV.

• You guessed it…

• Global warming has become the scapegoat for everything bad that happens to us. It gives us comfort, thinking that these random, chaotic acts of nature are understood, and actually to a degree controlled by us. People cannot accept that we are less than ants in the grand scheme of things, and that nature is nearly as unpredictable as it has always been.

• People used to say the gods caused disaster.• Now people blame global warming.

The Data

• You can be certain I cherry-picked my data and made careful arguments.

• You can be equally sure those that argue the opposing viewpoint do the same.

• This goes to show that if you are careful, you can argue for just about anything. This means that we must be vigilant, and not passively accept all that we are told. There is always another side.

What to take away• Global warming is unproven. Yes, there is a large scientific

consensus, but that is not proof.• I am not saying that we shouldn’t take steps to lessen our impact on

the environment, I think alternative energy solutions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil are worthwhile endeavors. But we must be sure to apply cost-benefit analysis to research and policy implementation.

• But absolutist, fear-mongering, environmental claims are not what we need. And more often than not, then are either exaggerated greatly or completely wrong.

• We cannot afford to passively accept everything we are told. The lack of critical thinking and questioning that has become commonplace is disconcerting and extremely irresponsible.

• Mass media breeds ignorance

For more info visit

• Myspace.com/globalwarmingtruth4you

Google “Ron Paul”