Climate Change Conference, Cons make Canada laughing stock Options

[Brandon]

CO2 Per person in 2006. The data itself were collected in 2007 by the CDIAC for United Nations.

CODE

1      China     6,103,493     21.5 %     4.57
2      U.S[11]     5,752,289     20.2 %     18.67
-      E.U.[12]     3,914,359     13.8 %     7.84
3      Russia     1,564,669     5.5 %     11.03
4      India     1,510,351     5.3 %     1.29
5      Japan     1,293,409     4.6 %     10.14
6      Germany     805,090     2.8 %     9.82
7      U.K.     568,520     2.0 %     9.26
8      Canada     544,680     1.9 %     16.08
9      S.Korea     475,248     1.7 %     9.59
10      Italy[13]     474,148     1.7 %     7.90

Please note that the EU, with a similar climate to Canada, only produces 7.84 metric tons per person to Canada's 16.08. The only country in the whole world that is worse than Canada is, are you ready?

The good old USofA.

Even Russia make us look just like the Europeans claim we are.

The question is not how much we produce as a whole country but how much we produce per person.

For those interested the world average is just over 4 tons/person.

The fact of the matter is that most of these other countries emit massively larger and more tonnes of carbon than Canada. To use your own chart as a reference, China emits 6,103,493 tonnes of carbon which has far more effect on pollution than the amount that Canada emits, 544,680 tonnes. The atmosphere does not have a gauge that measure and limits the amount of pollutants that each nation or that each person emits. It simply has to absorb the pollutant no matter which of the countries produces the most; and in this case it is China.

But the other point in which you are incorrect is in the assumption that the level of Carbon in the atmosphere somehow acts as a greenhouse gas which causes the earth's temperature to rise. The fact of the matter is that this assumption has been proven to be incorrect and Al gore was discredited because of his assumptions. He and the other climate change proponents were putting the cart before the horse. The temperature has to rise before the capacity of the atmosphere is capable of holding more carbon, not the other way around.

Carbon is a natural substance that is emitted by animal life and industry and released from the seas and oceans and later absorbed by plant life which helps the plants to grow. That basically is how the carbon cycle works; much like the water cycle.

The temperature rise and fall of the climate and its affect on the earth is determined to the greatest extent by the amount and intensity of solar flares and sun spots.

Volcanoes and other eruptions above and below the oceans, release massive amounts of gases from within the earth; massively more that humans produce or emit, yet no one is running around screaming and protesting that we need to cap shut these volcanoes. Rather ridiculous, but that is the sort of sensationalism that we see from protesters and climate change advocates who have beome professional protesters.

These protesters are enouraged by groups such as the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Institute and Greenpeace who are out to raise funds and ensure their own continued existence; funds that are raised from the compliant masses who don't fully understand the issue.

The big industries and money changers are also ringing their hands with glee because they are pleased to see that the carbon trade as a way in which they can soothe their pollution guilt as well as raise billions of dollars from this trade which ultimately will be charged back to the gullible unsuspecting public.

This is the ponzi scheme that I have spoken about in other postings.

El Nino and El Nina are ocean currents that influence the jet streams. When El Nino pushes north we have warmer weather because the jet steam is pushed north. This is not a one day wonder but rather sustains itself for a lengthy period of time so this would seem to be an influence on climate.

The other thing that has to be understood is that the Earth not only tilts on its axis but also has a long term wobble which influences temperatures at the extremes. Normally we speak of the tilt as being about 23.45 degrees. but because of this long term wobble the actual variation can be between 21 and 24 degrees.

Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change
Annabel McGilvray, ABC Science Online

Tilted Out of Ice Ages | Watch videos from Discovery News Aug. 14, 2009 --

Regular wobbles in the Earth's tilt were responsible for the global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages, according to new evidence.

more at: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/08/14/e...le-climate.html

[bebedos]

From the link provided in the Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change article.

Arctic Tundra Holds Global Warming Time Bomb
Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Aug. 25, 2008 -- Locked away in the frozen soils of the Arctic tundra, there lies a ticking time bomb.
Nothing more than accumulated leaves, roots and other plant matter, the unassuming detritus is rich in carbon, giving it the power to dramatically enhance the effects of global warming should it ever get into the atmosphere. But for now it mostly lies dormant, in cold storage in the permafrosts of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

That's starting to change, according to some scientists. The planet has already begun to warm as a result of humans pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The permafrost is starting to melt, and that pent-up carbon is already leaking into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, powerful greenhouse gases.

Even worse, there may be more of the stuff than anyone ever thought.

Chien-Liu Ping and a team of researchers at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks spent the last 13 years meticulously sampling tundra soils across North America. In a study published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, they estimate there may be almost 100 billion tons of carbon in the first meter of soil alone.

That's equivalent to about a quarter of the amount currently in Earth's atmosphere, or 10 years' worth of global emissions from human activity.

It also nearly doubles previous estimates of carbon content in Arctic soil. Despite decades of work, such approximations are rough at best, because land in the far North is vast, remote, and inhospitably cold. Even in the height of summer, soil scientists can rarely dig deeper than 50 centimeters before they hit rock-solid permafrost.

But worst-case scenario climate projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest Arctic temperatures could climb as much as 6 degrees centigrade by the end of the century.

If that happens, the Arctic region, which has already shown signs of thawing, will change dramatically. Already scientists have begun seeing areas where permafrost tundra has melted into muddy bogs called 'thermokarsts.' In other places, steep hillsides, no longer supported by rigid ice crystals, are giving way in landslides.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/w...tic-tundra.html

[teagranny]

The fact of the matter is that most of these other countries emit massively larger and more tonnes of carbon than Canada. To use your own chart as a reference, China emits 6,103,493 tonnes of carbon which has far more effect on pollution than the amount that Canada emits, 544,680 tonnes. The atmosphere does not have a gauge that measure and limits the amount of pollutants that each nation or that each person emits. It simply has to absorb the pollutant no matter which of the countries produces the most; and in this case it is China.

good post... there's a lot more about what is happening and none of it is settled science, the jury is still out with many credible dissenting voices.

How to manufacture climate concensus
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/...ref=global-home

cashing in on fewar
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12182009.html

[Brandon]

From the link provided in the Wobbling Earth Triggers Climate Change article.



http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/w...tic-tundra.html

Read this article:

Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely A Bit Player in Global Warming
Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE

http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Wa...O2_20080124.pdf

Also you have conveniently left out the following passage from the article"

"It's not all bad news though. The warmer temperatures should allow plants to grow vigorously, and they can suck up huge amounts of carbon out from the atmosphere through photosynthesis -- perhaps even enough to cancel out greenhouse gas emissions from the soil.

In fact, many scientists say the jury is still out on whether or not the thawing Arctic could quicken the pace of global warming."

You also failed to read or understand the causes of climate change and warming that were outined in my previous post: Post #41

[bebedos]

Brandon, I did not as you seem to assume by this comment, “conveniently left out the following passage from the article" to mislead. I have great respect for the posters here that are interested in this topic and I know that they will click on links provided to read the entire article and to judge for themselves…. just as I did with the links you provided. In addition, if you note, I did not qualify the article to be the Holy Grail…I posted it as a mean to expand upon the article’s “global warming episodes that interspersed prehistoric ice ages” sentence.

I am unable to find any background or qualifications for Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE.
It does not appear this piece of writing was subject to peer review or was published in any scientific journal. I am not even certain what IEEE has to do with climate change as it appears to be association of electrical engineers…not that electrical engineers are disqualified from voicing an opinion, we all have opinions.

[Brandon]

Richard J Petschauer happens to be a retired engineer.

"As a citizen and retired engineer who has been doing independent research and reading about the science of the role of carbon in the atmosphere, I request that copies of this email be sent to all the senate members of the committee involved and the material placed in the record of the committee."

Even though he is retired he is not brain dead. Most of us on this forum are retired and still capable of discerning judgement and thought.

Not all research requires original scientific research. Many scientists rely on research developed by others and then accumulate this research into a paper that considers all the gathered information. The pharmeceutical industry has developed new uses for previously developed drugs and that sort of research does not involve the reinvention of the wheel.

Richard J Petschauer has provided in his article the references that he has used for his study on the effect of carbon in the atmosphere on climate.

"1 Copyright © (except Figure 1) 2008 by Richard J. Petschauer
2http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image: Atmospheric_Transmission.png#file. By Robert A. Rohde
for Global Warming Art using Spectral Calculator. “98 % of Heat” & circle added by
author
3 Spectralcalc.com of GATS, Inc
4 A New Method to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect Applied to Some New Mexico Weather Data. Found
at http://www.john-daly.com/bsarker/index.htm
5 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods, Beck, Ernst-Georg, Energy &
Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, March 2007, pp. 259-282(24), Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd"

It is not up to Richard J. Petschauer to provide peer review for his research. It is not even his responsibility to publish his research in scientific journals. The distinguished journals have a selective process for publishing articles that usually involve only primary research.

Using his scientific and engineering mind which is still very sharp even though he is "retired" the following simple experiment and anecdotal report typifies his sense of logic:

"Even if the entire Arctic ice cap were to disappear altogether, as it did during the summer in the medieval warm period and throughout the year 850,000 years ago, sea level would not rise by as much as a millionth of an inch, because the Arctic polar ice cap is floating. You can demonstrate this for yourself by taking a large glass, placing a big ice-cube in it, then carefully filling up the glass with water until the water is exactly level with the rim. Now let the ice melt. Even when all the ice is gone, the water level remains exactly the same, and not a drop spills over. I recently demonstrated this experiment at lunch after a talk at Lloyds of London. The brokers and underwriters were fascinated."

[Dennis The Menac...]

I wish alarmists would quit beating a dead horse.. Thinking people know that Humankind is not causing climate change.

The earth has natural systems in place to support human life.

Just ask believers in God and the bible.

[baccalieu]

I am unable to find any background or qualifications for Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE.
It does not appear this piece of writing was subject to peer review or was published in any scientific journal. I am not even certain what IEEE has to do with climate change as it appears to be association of electrical engineers…not that electrical engineers are disqualified from voicing an opinion, we all have opinions.

"Richard Petschauer has a degree in Electrical Engineering, a degree in
Business Administration and was a Computer Engineer for most of his life.
Weather predictions and long-term climate are beyond his expertise, but
he feels the single issue of heat absorption and radiation due to carbon dioxide
is much simpler."

[qbayman]

I wish alarmists would quit beating a dead horse.. Thinking people know that Humankind is not causing climate change.

The earth has natural systems in place to support human life.

Just ask believers in God and the bible.

Why don't we look at the historical record (aka fossil record) on the earth and ask the same question:- "Is the Earth always able to support human life?"

The answer is NO!!!

At least five times almost all animate life forms larger than a bread basket have gone extinct from the planet earth.

CODE

  1. Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (K-T extinction) - 65 Ma at the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition about 17% of all families and 50% of all genera went extinct.[4] (75% species). It ended the reign of dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals and birds to become the dominant land vertebrates. In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The K-T extinction was rather uneven — some groups of organisms became extinct, some suffered heavy losses and some appear to have been only minimally affected.
   2. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event - 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition about 20% of all marine families (55% genera) as well as most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, although it is known from Koolasuchus that the Temnospondyl lineage survived until the cretaceous in Australia. 23% of all families and 48% of all genera went extinct.[4]
   3. Permian–Triassic extinction event - 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition, Earth's largest extinction killed 53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species (including plants, insects, and vertebrate animals). 57% of all families and 83% of all genera went extinct.[4] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land it ended the dominance of mammal-like reptiles, the recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years[5] but created the opportunity for archosaurs and then dinosaurs to become the dominant land vertebrates; in the seas the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life — even before the "Great Dying".
   4. Late Devonian extinction 360-375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition at the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period. A prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 70% of all species. This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period. 19% of all families of life and 50% of all genera went extinct.[4]
   5. Ordovician–Silurian extinction event 440-450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition two events occurred, and together are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct. 27% of all families and 57% of all genera became extinct.[4]

Yes, I know, lots of big, long words that are not commonly used in everyday language but the basis is sound:- five times in recorded history most of the large land and sea animals have gone the way of the Dodo bird.

As per "greenhouse effect" on a planetary scale, all one has to do is look at Venus, a planet that is farther than the earth from the sun. As such it should, and does, receive less solar energy from the major source of energy in the solar system. In theory it should be colder than the earth. However, due to high concentrations of CO2 in it's atmosphere Venus is much hotter than the earth.

This is the problem. One does not know what triggered Venuses CO2 rich atmosphere and we, as mankind, may be triggering the same effect on our one and only planet. Just on the rare chance that this may be the result of our actions, consideration to our collective effect needs to be tempered until more information is known. This is one place where it is fatal, on a planetary scale, to be even slightly wrong.

[Brandon]

The most well accepted theory for the sudden extinction of dinosaurs is an impact event (otherwise known as the asteroid collision theory). Approximately 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, an increase in iridium levels (a chemical, platinum element) was direct evidence of said impact, which not only is said to have caused the extinction of dinosaurs, but many other groups of animals.

To compare our planet Earth with that of Venus is not plausible when considering forms of plant life and levels of CO2. Carbon dioxide is a gas that is recycled through plant life which in turn gives off oxygen. Plant life is present on Earth but most certainly is not present on the planet of Venus.

For years, Venus was called Earth's Sister Planet, and much popular science and science fiction literature was devoted to what might lie below the huge clouds. All that changed once scientists were able to measure what those lovely clouds were made of: Poisonous gases.

Because of those poisonous gases plant life cannot exist and therefore no form of carbon dioxide cycle can exist to convert the carbon to oxygen.

[Dennis The Menac...]

One does not know what triggered Venuses CO2 rich atmosphere

All the outright COLD and the cool women from there..... came to earth
.

BTW, Earth's surface is about 82% water so that alone should explain a LOT to you

[oldbones]

A short video worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I

Man made climate change is a scam of monumental proportions.

[teagranny]

Considering the record breaking cold and snow so far this year I think we could use some global warming..

[Dana]

The earth has natural systems in place to support human life.

Just ask believers in God and the bible.



D

[teagranny]

A short video worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I

Man made climate change is a scam of monumental proportions.

Agreed for the most part, and of course, the science is not settled, nor is there a full consensus on whether or not change is man made, or that man can actually stop earth's cylical process.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91230184221.htm

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

cont..

[Brandon]

A short video worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I

Man made climate change is a scam of monumental proportions.

An excellent video! It explains the concept of why the earth's climate changes and also in simple but very graphic form how the global warming proponents have been misreading the data and in turn misleading the public.

Thanks for bringing it to the attention of this discussion forum.

[qbayman]

A short video worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I

Man made climate change is a scam of monumental proportions.

The basis of this Youtube video is that the long term temperature is correlated to sun activity. Anybody viewing this will understand this concept.

However the co-author of this Friis-Christansen study, Mr Lassen has now said:

CODE

In 1999, Lassen updated his graph with newer data, now able to filter the later solar cycles (Lassen 1999). His conclusion: “It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11- year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990’s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.”

In English, new data has disproven our hypothesis (aka, I was wrong)

The real sad thing would be if this was known when the Youtube video was made.

This is what happens when a nice production company get paid lots of money to produce a "scientific" criticism of Al Gore's non-scientific work.

[Brandon]

Advocates of Global Warming would have us believe if we don’t radically change industry, redistribute wealth to developing nations, and cut greenhouse gas emissions to LESS than pre industrial levels (economically, and socially impossible) that the world is going to end in the next 30 years. They use carefully gathered pictures of polar bears, melting glaciers, and all manner of environmental, and might I add NATURAL occurrences, to gather sympathy for their scientific jihad.

Let's take a look at the science behind the science, and see how they determine global temperatures for at least the last 12 or so thousand years. First off, the only even semi-reliable proxy in the next paragraph is glacial cores, it is the ONLY effected solely by temperature, and solar activity.
Tree growth cannot accurately speak of temperature because a number of things effect tree growth. Nutrient levels in the soil, rainfall that year (which can also be effected by a number of variables), sunspot activity, atmospheric cover and dust levels, and many more things.

Many more factors than those of trees, affect coral growth. Phosphate, hardness of water, salinity, amount of ammonia, copper, nitrites, nitrates, phosphates, calcium especially, and dissolved organics, and how much solar activity there is that year or number of years, corals are very complex and delicate organisms, and are not a reliable temperature gauge. How reliable is the revised data collected by Lassen 1999

"Longer records exist from proxies: quantities such as tree ring widths, coral growth or isotope variations in ice cores. From these, proxy temperature reconstruction of the last 2000 years have been made for the northern hemisphere. However, coverage of these proxies is sparse: even the best proxy records contain far fewer observations than the worst periods of the observational record. Also, problems exist in connecting the proxies (e.g. tree ring width) to the variable of interest (e.g. temperature)."

Graphs and information from wikepedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_r...last_2000_years


Ice Cores are the only semi-reliable source of temperature information, the amount of snowfall and melt can result in different thickness, density, and color of layers of ice, we can also find different preserved micro organisms that exist and thrive in specific temperature ranges, through this method we can track temperature over a VERY long span of time, a span long enough to determine global temperature CYCLES. these cycles peak in an especially hot period, such as that, that occurred in the middle ages, and that which peaked in the mid 90's (1998 is the hottest year on record for the latest upswing) and low periods result in an ice age, according to MULTIPLE sources there have been many of these ice ages, supporting the theory of global temperature cycles, these cycles would debunk entirely the idea of man made global warming. As seen on these charts from different sources, global temps from 450,000 years ago to now have cycled about 5 times ending the last time in recent years, which according to the last 4 cycles has or soon will begin to fall.

Chart found on wikepedia:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautio...nning/New_Data/

Although it DOES show a relationship with temperature going up as C02 goes up, it also DISPROVES manmade global warming by showing that C02 levels rise over time naturally. As you can see on multiple points on the graph, C02 and temperature spikes are not always coincidental, it has something to do with it, but not everything apparently.

Other things that have to do with temperature rise is solar activity, see this graph.
The red line is the level of total solar activity including UV, infrared, and other forms of radiation, the black line represents global temperature, as you can see, solar activity has much to do with global warming.

Now onto something they havn't told you while they aren’t talking about temperature cycles.
Deep under the ocean there are powerfull currents that go from the equator to the poles , something like a giant conveyor belt, when the ice caps melt due to rising temps due to rising C02, these conveyors called thermohaline currents, act like the cooling system of a car, but in reverse, they carry cold water from the poles to the equator, where the water is warmed, the convection from this , evaporates some of the water, and carries the rest back to the poles on the surface area of the oceans. But when a lot of fresh water builds up at the poles due to heating of the planet, these conveyors slow and almost halt, causing temperatures at the poles to go down, and beginning the cooling cycle, then when enough water evaporates, and turns to ice and snow, the saline levels of the oceans go back up, and the conveyors start again and warm things up again, thus we have a large temperature cycle, that happens over extreme lengths of time.

The Vostok ice core graph shows, the more C02 builds up, the faster the temperature rise, most change happens in a less than ten thousand year period, and in fact most takes place in a 800 to 1000 year period. So if you take that into account its understandable that scientists may mistake global warming as a man made thing.

When you combine the data of naturally occurring C02, solar activity, volcanic activity, and many, many other natural factors, man made global warming would be so minute as to be almost unreadable.

The problem, and overall difficulty with proving or disproving man made global warming, is that almost no data is reliable. Since the “climate gate” emails scandal the has arisen as of late, almost no data, for or against has any credibility with anyone.

It is sad to me that people who call themselves scientist, would alter data to prove their theory, in order to keep funding. The purpose of science and the scientific method is to look at something objectively, and through proper scientific method, prove or disprove a theory, not alter data, use “tricks” and silence opposing data to prove your theories, this is not science, this is corrupted farce. No data since the 1960’s can truly be trusted, but I tried for sake of this article to find non-government associated data, and data from private sources, and did list those sources near the data given.

We need to be able to depend on our scientists to provide us with correct data, if we cant trust their data, we may as well throw science itself out the window, and turn our backs on everything we know from science from this point forward.

[Brandon]

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
by S. Fred Singer
EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999

A Geophysicist Looks at Climate Change: Introduction


The principal focus of climate science is certainly atmospheric science and meteorology, but the subject is so complex that it involves many other areas of the earth sciences, as well as different disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and even biology. This complexity makes climate science both fascinating and controversial. It also undergoes rapid change as new facts and analyses emerge. Yet, public interest in the possibility of climate change due to human activities has become so intense that the subject has to be addressed even before final judgments are possible.

The most widely quoted attempt to address climate changes of the past and to speculate about the future is the series of reports produced by the IPCC, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its first Scientific Assessment Report (1990) concluded that the climate record is "broadly consistent" with what might be expected from the human-enhanced greenhouse (GH) effect, as calculated by General Circulation Models (GCMs). The second scientific assessment, published in 1996, no longer made this claim; instead, it found it necessary to introduce a previously overlooked factor, human-caused atmospheric sulfate aerosols, to reach the conclusion that "the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate" [IPCC, 1996, p. 4]. This ambiguous statement in the Summary for Policymakers does not do justice to the vast compilation of data and model results brought together in the report itself by some hundred climate scientists. Their important work (more than 500 pages, but lacking an index) has been largely ignored by the public, while attention has focused on the politically negotiated (5-page) Summary. Those who are skeptical of the IPCC conclusion have viewed the statement about human influence as trivial and meaningless. On the other hand, the media and many policy experts have welcomed its convenient formula, which they regard as scientific proof of a coming climate catastrophe.

In fact, the IPCC statement is in many ways a truism. There certainly must be a human influence on some features of the climate, locally if not globally. The important question is whether the available evidence supports the results of the model calculations. Unless validated, the predictions of future warming based on GCMs cannot be relied on.

much more at:

http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/EOS1999.html

[Brandon]

Assertions made in the film "The Global Warming CO2 Scam"

The film takes a strongly sceptical view of current scientific thinking on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".[3][18]

Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics.

[edit] Evidential issues
The film begins by highlighting what its makers assert are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.

Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.

EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.

Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.

Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))
Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[20] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

Political issues
The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests:

Increased funding of climate science. According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."

Increased availability of funding for global warming research. The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.

Influence of vested interests. The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised as a result of this theory.

Suppression of dissenting views.

According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the theory that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.

Role of ideology.
The film proposes that some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.

Role of politics.
The programme asserts that the theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the National Union of Mineworkers. .

Role of industry.
The film argues that the assertion that global warming sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.

Disputing the global warming consensus

The film argues that the perceived consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist.

Status of IPCC contributors.
The programme asserts that it is falsely stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s reports on the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.

Accuracy of representation of IPCC contributors.
The film argues that IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising. The film highlights the case of Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action.

Suppression of dissenting views.
According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.

The film takes a strongly sceptical view of current scientific thinking on climate change. It argues that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".[3][18]

Using a series of interviews and graphics, the film sets out to challenge the scientific consensus by focusing on what it says are inconsistencies in the evidence, and the role said to have been played by ideology and politics.

Evidential issues

The film begins by highlighting what its makers assert are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.

Variations in warming rate.
The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages.
According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.

EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.

Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes.
The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.

Influence of water vapour on climate change.
According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.

Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change.
The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))

Influence of the sun on climate change.
The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[20] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.

Previous episodes of warming.
The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

Political issues
The programme makes a number of assertions arguing that the integrity of climate research has been compromised by financial, ideological and political interests:

Increased funding of climate science.
According to the film, there has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."

Increased availability of funding for global warming research.
The film asserts that scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.

Influence of vested interests.
The programme argues that vested interests have a bigger impact on the proponents (rather than the detractors) of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidised as a result of this theory.

Suppression of dissenting views.
According to the programme, scientists who speak out (against the theory that global warming is man-made) risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.

Role of ideology.
The film proposes that some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalisation, industrialisation, and the United States.

Role of politics.
The programme asserts that the theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by the British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action in the state-owned coal industry by the National Union of Mineworkers.

Role of industry.
The film argues that the assertion that global warming sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.

Disputing the global warming consensus

The film argues that the perceived consensus among climate scientists about global warming does not exist.

Status of IPCC contributors.
The programme asserts that it is falsely stated that "2,500 top scientists" support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s reports on the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, according to the programme, the report includes many politicians and non-scientists, and even dissenters who demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.

Accuracy of representation of IPCC contributors.
The film argues that IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorialising. The film highlights the case of Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration. It states that the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor and did not remove his name until he threatened legal action.

Suppression of dissenting views.
According to the programme, the concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film (and in subsequent press publicity) that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.