GLobal warming junk science
Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere
Thursday , February 01, 2007
By Steven Milloy
The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on global warming. It's unfortunate for the climateers that this week's climate science doesn't live up to all the hoopla.
The week started out with a Congressional hearing in which Rep. Henry Waxman accused the Bush administration of trying to squelch the science about global warming. Rep. Waxman seems to have overlooked the fact that, if silencing debate was the administration's goal, there was a far better way to go about achieving that goal - that is, by cutting off the alarmist's financial support.
The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate- and alternative energy-related research over the last six years. Many of the beneficiaries of this taxpayer largesse, particularly NASA's James Hansen, have become media darlings.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing during which, as the Aberdeen American News (South Dakota) put it, "presidential contenders for 2008. expounded - and at times tried to outdo each other - on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases."
And those were some of the more tame circus acts.
Al Gore was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his global warming alarmism. Paris officials announced that the Eiffel Tower would shutdown its 20,000 flashing light bulbs and go dark for five minutes on the eve of the release of the UN report. The National Football League announced that it would plant 3,000 trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions caused by this week's Super Bowl. A California state legislator introduced a bill to ban regular (incandescent) light bulbs and to mandate fluorescent lighting in homes and businesses by 2012. The bill is called the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act."
These hijinks also extended into the science community.
First, the UN isn't releasing its full report this week - just the curiously edited "Summary for Policy Makers." The detailed report on the science won't be issued until May or so because it's not finished.
If you're wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that's not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made "to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." The UN process - akin to shooting first and asking questions later -is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method.
In an apparent effort to either out-shine or to add urgency to the UN report, a new study co-authored by NASA's James Hansen (Science, Feb. 2) claims that the UN's climate models have under-predicted actual climate change, particularly with respect to sea level. Hansen's study reports that the climate models: (1) slightly underestimate actual global temperature increase; and (2) greatly underestimate actual sea-level rise.
Hansen and his co-authors conclude that their findings show that previous projections have not exaggerated, but may in some respects have underestimated, the extent of climate change. But Hansen's global temperature claims are questionable since the locations he relies on for temperature measurements are as much as 1200 kilometers (720 miles) apart.
As an example of what this means, a temperature taken in New York, N.Y. (where the average February high is 42 degrees Fahrenheit) would be assumed to be representative of the temperature data from as far away as Atlanta, Ga. (where the average February high is 57 degrees Fahrenheit). That can obviously be quite a large (and uncertain) assumption in a game where the alarmists make their gloom-and-doom predictions based on average global temperature changes on the order of a few tenths of a degree over several decades.
Moreover, NASA's own data indicate that there appears to be no significant change in temperature trend since the early 20th century. No doubt this is why Hansen and his co-authors admit in their study that the time period they considered for their temperature analysis (1990-2006) is "relatively short," rendering it "difficult to establish the reasons" for this warming.
Not mentioned, however, is the fact that Hansen's claim of greater warming during 1990-2006 is driven in large part by a brief spike in warming (caused by an El Nino event) that occurred during 1997-1998. The spike is over and subsequent temperature data indicate that the warming trend is back to normal.
With respect to sea level rise, according to another new study, the mean level of sea-level rise has not accelerated recently and was more than 30 percent greater during 1904-1953 than during 1954-2003. As with the temperature data, Hansen and his co-authors acknowledge in their paper that the time periods are too short to draw conclusions: "Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy."
Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes, there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al Gore and the mainstream media.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Thursday , February 01, 2007
By Steven Milloy
The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on global warming. It's unfortunate for the climateers that this week's climate science doesn't live up to all the hoopla.
The week started out with a Congressional hearing in which Rep. Henry Waxman accused the Bush administration of trying to squelch the science about global warming. Rep. Waxman seems to have overlooked the fact that, if silencing debate was the administration's goal, there was a far better way to go about achieving that goal - that is, by cutting off the alarmist's financial support.
The Bush administration, after all, is by far the largest funder of global warming alarmism, pouring about $30 billion of federal dollars into climate- and alternative energy-related research over the last six years. Many of the beneficiaries of this taxpayer largesse, particularly NASA's James Hansen, have become media darlings.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing during which, as the Aberdeen American News (South Dakota) put it, "presidential contenders for 2008. expounded - and at times tried to outdo each other - on why they believed Congress must act to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases."
And those were some of the more tame circus acts.
Al Gore was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his global warming alarmism. Paris officials announced that the Eiffel Tower would shutdown its 20,000 flashing light bulbs and go dark for five minutes on the eve of the release of the UN report. The National Football League announced that it would plant 3,000 trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions caused by this week's Super Bowl. A California state legislator introduced a bill to ban regular (incandescent) light bulbs and to mandate fluorescent lighting in homes and businesses by 2012. The bill is called the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act."
These hijinks also extended into the science community.
First, the UN isn't releasing its full report this week - just the curiously edited "Summary for Policy Makers." The detailed report on the science won't be issued until May or so because it's not finished.
If you're wondering how the UN can issue a summary of a report that's not even finished, fear not. The UN has announced that changes to the full report shall be made "to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policy Makers." The UN process - akin to shooting first and asking questions later -is the exact opposite of the traditional scientific method.
In an apparent effort to either out-shine or to add urgency to the UN report, a new study co-authored by NASA's James Hansen (Science, Feb. 2) claims that the UN's climate models have under-predicted actual climate change, particularly with respect to sea level. Hansen's study reports that the climate models: (1) slightly underestimate actual global temperature increase; and (2) greatly underestimate actual sea-level rise.
Hansen and his co-authors conclude that their findings show that previous projections have not exaggerated, but may in some respects have underestimated, the extent of climate change. But Hansen's global temperature claims are questionable since the locations he relies on for temperature measurements are as much as 1200 kilometers (720 miles) apart.
As an example of what this means, a temperature taken in New York, N.Y. (where the average February high is 42 degrees Fahrenheit) would be assumed to be representative of the temperature data from as far away as Atlanta, Ga. (where the average February high is 57 degrees Fahrenheit). That can obviously be quite a large (and uncertain) assumption in a game where the alarmists make their gloom-and-doom predictions based on average global temperature changes on the order of a few tenths of a degree over several decades.
Moreover, NASA's own data indicate that there appears to be no significant change in temperature trend since the early 20th century. No doubt this is why Hansen and his co-authors admit in their study that the time period they considered for their temperature analysis (1990-2006) is "relatively short," rendering it "difficult to establish the reasons" for this warming.
Not mentioned, however, is the fact that Hansen's claim of greater warming during 1990-2006 is driven in large part by a brief spike in warming (caused by an El Nino event) that occurred during 1997-1998. The spike is over and subsequent temperature data indicate that the warming trend is back to normal.
With respect to sea level rise, according to another new study, the mean level of sea-level rise has not accelerated recently and was more than 30 percent greater during 1904-1953 than during 1954-2003. As with the temperature data, Hansen and his co-authors acknowledge in their paper that the time periods are too short to draw conclusions: "Again, we caution that the time interval of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability could cause much of the discrepancy."
Showmanship, rather than facts, is driving the climate debate - and, yes, there still is a raging debate despite pronouncements to the contrary by Al Gore and the mainstream media.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
0
-
Gee I wonder how all these sientists and Al Gore who are blameing all this stuff on us for global warming get around for transportation?
Cars, Planes, Deisel powered ships. Do thet use any products that may be causeing pollution while being made? Were any of the products they use transported by a truck?
I guess we should just go back to living like cavemen!
Oh wait! I saw a Gieco commercial! Even the cavemen are flying on airplanes and such now![:D][:D][:D][:D]0 -
CO2 emissions will change the climate, be it slightly that changes the equlibirum a little bit on some people s favr, or alot, to everyones dsitress.
"measurements are as much as 1200 kilometers (720 miles) apart.
As an example of what this means, a temperature taken in New York, N.Y. (where the average February high is 42 degrees Fahrenheit) would be assumed to be representative of the temperature data from as far away as Atlanta, Ga."
1,200 apart in latittue is not the same as longitute. 2 Places near the arctic circle will not be as different as a place by the pole and equator, I think this is an intentioal attempt to lead away from the reality of the post, 1,200 different in lattitude is not much, longitude is alot, that they try to disrexit this study without discussion of this fact, leads me to discredit them.
"no significant change in temperature trend since the early 20th century"
By all scientific accounts, this trend started with industrialization, in the mid 19th century.
It is real, it is human caused, to me the main debate is, if it benefits us or not. Alot of studies have implied northern countries will benefit, ie Russia, Canada, northern US.
To the US, will the damage due to florida offset the incresed crop yeilds due to warmed temperatures nad higher CO2 in northern climes.
Human causeD or not, we need to start planning for the changes, and making sure we are ready for the 22nd century. Luckiy due to our mid lattitude location, we should be able to succeed0 -
I do not fear global warming. Now the UN that is another story. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by PC800
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Would this be the same Competitive Enterprise Institute that is funded by Exxon/Mobil? LOL! And you believe this propoganda? I guess you didn't read the story in the news yesterday about Exxon/Mobil paying these guys and lots of others to "dispute" global warming. Steven Milloy and these other global warming "critics" are being paid to say this stuff by the same people who are making RECORD profits off of fossil fuels.
I guess you also didn't see the collaborative report released by the top climate scientists of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN COUNTRIES where they say that global warming is manmade:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_39
Even President Bush has publicly admitted that global warming is real and man is at least part of the problem.0 -
quote:I guess you also didn't see the collaborative report released by the top climate scientists of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN COUNTRIES where they say that global warming is manmade:
How are they going to get more funding if they don't??????
Global warming IS real. It has happened before and will happen again.
Global warming IS NOT caused by man though it may be accelerated by man.
Solving our energy problems is a more difficult task than anyone comprehends. While there are various low impact (at least they appear that way) methods of obtaining energy they each pose their unique chanllenges.They all have some environmental impacts that we can only speculate on the long term effects. Hydroelectrics impact waterways, wind power MAY impact weather patterns, We can't even be sure what effects the use of massive solar arrays may have on weather or the earths temperature. Even Hydrogen power still requires a fuel source which will have to be mined or harvested. While these sources may be clean in terms of pollution we have no clue to the detrimental effects of their mass or long term use. They all look good but so did coal and petroleum when they first came into use. No one realized or could project the long term effects.0 -
Here we go again..... 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments