Saturday, December 12, 2015

Why I believe that “climate change” (CC) is junk science.

1.      The “hiatus” in warming. For the past 18 years, there has been no statistically significant change in the global mean temperature (GMT). When I saw a link to an online article about this (don’t remember what organization posted it, but it wasn’t a CC skeptical one). The article said that there probably wasn’t a hiatus after all – it was just poor recording of temperatures. “Probably”, the recorders measuring sea temperature didn’t dip their thermometers into buckets of sea water soon enough – allowing the water to cool off.
a.       What evidence is there that this took place?
b.      What if the buckets were kept in a place warmer than the water in the buckets?
c.       Why did “global warming” become “climate change”?
                                                              i.      Is it because the globe has steadfastly refused to warm during this “hiatus”?
                                                            ii.      Is it a way to blame me and my 148 tons of automobiles in case global cooling inconveniently occurs?
2.      “Climategate”. The hacked emails of the Climate Research Unit show that its members tried to cover up their own research that might have indicated CC was not occurring or not serious. They also showed attempts to “investigate and expose” skeptical climate scientist Steve McIntire, as well as assertions that they “must get rid of” the editor of science journal for publishing papers contradicting CC.
a.       Are these people hiding evidence?
b.      Are they intimidating skeptics? I’ll answer that myself: the derogatory term “denier” says it all. And I have heard some climate scientists claim that the CC people are doing just that.
c.       Is the “science” of CC so fragile that contrarian articles will debunk it? If skeptical articles are indeed wrong, the pro-CC crowd should be able to show why. Apparently, it’s too hard.
d.      http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html Note first the quote from H.L. Mencken – and then look at all the quotes by the people who want more and more power over us.
3.      Weather-related disasters are more common. But the weather is not any more violent than in the past.
a.       There are more people in areas prone to dangerous weather.
b.      The government is partially responsible because it subsidizes flood insurance.
4.      Two existing, reliable and safe energy sources that already exist can help reduce CO2 emissions.
a.       Natural gas, which is mostly methane, which is mostly hydrogen. Of course, there are many on the left who don’t like the method that has produced much more natural gas – the decades-old and proven safe practice of hydraulic fracturing.
b.      Nuclear power, which is advocated by Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
5       The models used by CC scientists can’t predict the past. Why should we believe anything based on these models?
6       Follow the money and power. Who benefits from the “catastrophe” of CC?
a.       Al Gore and his ilk.
b.      Scientists who get government grants to find more “danger”.
c.       The low-lying countries who are promised “reparations” for the alleged damage caused by countries like the US.
d.   Politicians who get to exercise more power over us.

Labels: , ,

posted by R.H. Timberlake III @ 8:19 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Richard H. Timberlake Jr. guest editorial: Global warming is political, not scientific, issue

This article originally appeared in the Athens, GA Banner-Herald on October 31, 2014.
Dr. Richard H. Timberlake Jr. is a retired University of Georgia economics professor. His most recent book is titled “Constitutional Money: A Review of the Supreme Court’s Monetary Decisions.”
=======================================================
Many global warming proponents have asserted that the science is settled, that global warming is a reality.
And when an inquiring skeptic examines reliable scientific data and research conducted by independent scientists with no government connections, it’s clear the science is settled, but the scientific conclusion is that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming does not exist to any measurable degree, that the carbon dioxide portion of total Earth atmosphere is both trivial and benign, and that what little there is of it is absolutely essential for human existence.
Here are some universally understood and irrefutable meteorological facts:
The Earth’s atmosphere is a sea of gases that includes carbon dioxide — CO2, the villain “greenhouse gas,” plus nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and water vapor. To visualize the relative volume of CO2, let the atmosphere be represented by $100, or 10,000 pennies. Nitrogen is about $78, or 7,800 pennies; oxygen is a little less than $21, argon is $1, and carbon dioxide is $0.04 — four pennies, or four one-hundredths of one percent of the total. Water vapor, the more plentiful greenhouse gas, is between 1 and 100 pennies, depending on location. Methane, the other advertised “greenhouse gas,” is not even one penny.
Additionally, carbon dioxide, which is odorless and colorless, is also very beneficial. Plants love it, and without it, human existence would cease.
What about the extraordinary growth in atmospheric CO2 since the burgeoning use of hydrocarbon fuels since about 1950? Yes, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, from 0.03 percent in 1950 to near 0.04 percent in 2014. Yes, the increase of CO2 — 33 percent — is a large percentage increase. But a large percentage increase in almost-nothing adds almost-nothing to almost-nothing, leaving almost-nothing. More important is the fact that this relatively scarce CO2 is absolutely essential for the existence of both plant and animal life. Optimal public policy should logically encourage it rather than vilify it.
Also, recorded Earth temperatures since about 1850 have increased 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, less than one one-hundredth of a degree per year. So the real trend is that global warming is no more an ongoing phenomenon than global cooling.
So why do the media, government agencies, university foundations and prominent politicians make such a big deal out of such a benign substance as CO2, especially when the sun, by itself, heats everything in the solar system? Several scientific studies have verified that the sun, and its sunspot variations, is a much more probable determinant of Earth temperatures than any puny man-made increases of CO2. Furthermore, just the degree of error in heat-measuring instruments (thermometers earlier and satellite devices later) over 100 years could explain the 1-degree “warming” that alarmists emphasize.
A scientific document on this issue, the “Petition Project,” circulated about 10 years ago. It provided a summary of long-time global temperature variations. It was published in the Wall Street Journal, and was endorsed by more than 31,000 bona fide scientists. The study concluded that CO2 is a benign and useful gas, that the major determinant of global warming is the sun, and that anthropogenic global warming is trivial.
Yet the drumbeat from the media, government agencies and their allied university grantees not only continues, but increases. This counter-scientific movement is very dangerous to both true science and civilized society, and it raises a big question: Why do these institutions propagandize such a non-problem?

Labels: ,

posted by Dick T. @ 10:18 AM 0 comments