100 Reasons Why AGW is Overstated or Bunk

Excerpts from a British article published today ( Latest UK and World News, Sport and Comment - Express.co.uk ):

Climate change campaigners: 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made
Tuesday December 15,2009

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

  1. There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

  2. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

  3. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

  4. Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher: more than ten times as high.

  5. The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

  6. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

  7. Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct [result] of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago.

  8. Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity.”

  9. The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

  10. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control.

  11. A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

  12. It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.

  13. It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

  14. The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’ species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

  15. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

  16. The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.

  17. Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.

  18. It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere.

  19. There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

  20. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’ many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

  21. Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

  22. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

  23. The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations.

  24. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

  25. Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at the top end of IPCC estimates.

  26. The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot.

  27. William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

  28. Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

  29. It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

  30. Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

  31. Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty.”

  32. The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

  33. Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

  34. There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures: in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

  35. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

  36. Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

  37. If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

  38. A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

To bad the debate is over.
We could have used that information.

[quote]JEATON wrote:
To bad the debate is over.
We could have used that information.[/quote]

Truth is of no interest to those folks anymore. Too much $$$$$.

Besides, the ‘Report from Iron Mountain’ said that the global elite was going to try to substitute environmentalism for war, as a reason for maintaining a hierarchical society. I guess that probably would be better than slaaughtering each other.

“The best selling book purportedly details the analyses and conclusions of a government panel that states that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary for governments to maintain power. Report from Iron Mountain was on the New York Times bestseller list and was translated into fifteen different languages. Controversy exists concerning whether the book is the result of a hoax authored by Leonard Lewin or the real result of a secret government panel.”

50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural
Michael Le Page, features editor

A British newspaper today published a list of “100 reasons why global warming is natural”.

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims - and debunk each one.

  1. There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

  1. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

  1. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.

  1. After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.

  1. Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

…for the rest of the article: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

The Daily Express is ridiculed in Britain for every Monday having a headline about the ‘suspicious’ death of Princess Diana. Their owner is a porn mogul and sensationalism is all they do. I wouldn’t listen to them as a credible scientific source

The Daily Express is ridiculed in Britain for every Monday having a headline about the ‘suspicious’ death of Princess Diana. Their owner is a porn mogul and sensationalism is all they do. I wouldn’t listen to them as a credible scientific source

[quote]ephrem wrote:
The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

[/quote]
And, is somehow UNABLE to adapt to any other temperature ranges as mankind has done throughout all of history? And the solution to that is a massive tax and payment of “climate debt” funds by the West to the third world? Really?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
50 reasons why global warming isn’t natural
Michael Le Page, features editor

A British newspaper today published a list of “100 reasons why global warming is natural”.

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims - and debunk each one.

  1. There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.
[/quote]

“Debunk” fail.

It is very common for things to be demonstrated in science to a degree generally accepted, within science, as being “proof” of a given thing.

To assert that that does not exist in science is pure baloney.

It is, however, quite correct with regard to AGW that it doesn’t exist.

Further, this is mere word-quibbling. The point being made is that the AGW claims are not demonstrated to any such degree as to show all possible counterarguments as being almost certainly wrong. Quibbling that the word “proof” shouldn’t have been used is trying to evade the point that is really being made.

And I really doubt that New Scientist – long an AGW drum-beater – goes complaining when the AGW advocates say that their theory and claims are proven. Why the double standard?

[quote]2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.[/quote]

Debunk fail.

Only because there currently isn’t really major volcanic activity.’

The point is that the Earth has already survived vast amounts of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

[quote]3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.[/quote]

I don’t know how this is even supposed to be a debunk, other than arguing that supervolcano levels of CO2 emission trigger warming, which no one disputed.

[quote]4) After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.[/quote]

Debunk fail.

The facts still prove that CO2 is hardly the prime determinant.

[quote]5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.[/quote]

Debunk fail.

First, correlation does not prove causation. Higher temperatures cause the oceans to be able to hold less CO2, releasing CO2 absorbed when at colder temperatures.

Second: what, are they now conceding it is not at all about saving the planet or saving life, but about saving particular aspects of current civilization such as shoreline property values?

But even if so, anthropogenic rise of sea levels isn’t properly demonstrated either. As already mentioned, it’s been a long term trend since well before the Industrial Age.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
The Daily Express is ridiculed in Britain for every Monday having a headline about the ‘suspicious’ death of Princess Diana. Their owner is a porn mogul and sensationalism is all they do. I wouldn’t listen to them as a credible scientific source[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but they are not the source of the statements given. And the truth of a statement on a scientific matter, or its factuality, does not depend on the person stating it.

However, when nothing else can avail as facts are stubborn things, the ad hominem approach – or going after the newspaper that published the quotes – is I suppose the only recourse.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
The Daily Express is ridiculed in Britain for every Monday having a headline about the ‘suspicious’ death of Princess Diana. Their owner is a porn mogul and sensationalism is all they do. I wouldn’t listen to them as a credible scientific source[/quote]

exactly, stop trying to justify your beliefs without having to do any proper research. and a couple of those points are stupid, like CO2 is shown to benefit some organisms - let me know how that works out for you. and that plant thrive off CO2 - i dont refute this, but the CO2 emmissions that people should be worried about are from industries that are pumping out other toxic chemicals and elements into the environment at the same time, would you put your car in your greenhouse because the CO2 emmissions are good for your tomatoes.
fuck you people

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
The Daily Express is ridiculed in Britain for every Monday having a headline about the ‘suspicious’ death of Princess Diana. Their owner is a porn mogul and sensationalism is all they do. I wouldn’t listen to them as a credible scientific source[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but they are not the source of the statements given. And the truth of a statement on a scientific matter, or its factuality, does not depend on the person stating it.

However, when nothing else can avail as facts are stubborn things, the ad hominem approach – or going after the newspaper that published the quotes – is I suppose the only recourse.
[/quote]

and too bad those sources all have vested intrests in down playing the man-made causes for global warming. just as the other side has reasons for promoting it.
as my sustainable landscape management lecturer said “we’re fucked, enjoy it while it lasts”

Why do you assert that each of the sources of statements showing flaws in AGW has “vested interests” in arguing against it?

For very many of the scientists involved I have no reason to think you’d find a trace of such a thing.

Wouldn’t it make sense to evaluate arguments on their merits not on the persons stating the things? Let alone to evaluate them based on often-false assumptions regarding those persons?

On your argument of putting a car in your greenhouse: I really can’t imagine how you can think that this demonstrates anything.

The matter at hand is whether CO2 emissions should be capped, or with regards to what is being pushed for politically today, whether First World CO2 emissions should be capped well below current levels. Which in practice means energy production being capped well below current levels.

Not whether actually-toxic emissions should be permitted at any problematic levels.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why do you assert that each of the sources of statements showing flaws in AGW has “vested interests” in arguing against it?

For very many of the scientists involved I have no reason to think you’d find a trace of such a thing.

Did it occur to evaluate arguments on their merits not on the persons stating the things?[/quote]

Do you expect anything less from someone in Europe?

Here is a little problem for the board’s AGW endorsers:

Why is it the case that even if there is no net loss of Antarctic or Greenland ice, and even if atmospheric temperatures remained exactly the same, the oceans would continue to inexorably rise?

It is the case, but why?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why do you assert that each of the sources of statements showing flaws in AGW has “vested interests” in arguing against it?

For very many of the scientists involved I have no reason to think you’d find a trace of such a thing.

Wouldn’t it make sense to evaluate arguments on their merits not on the persons stating the things? Let alone to evaluate them based on often-false assumptions regarding those persons?[/quote]

i only trust two or three papers published in this country, the express certinly isnt one of them.

I honestly dont care if you believe in man-made global warming.
do you think heads of oils companies want to become world-reviled figureheads of the pollution of the earth - no, it would loose them money and other businesses wouldnt want to be associated with them.
do you think it is sustainable having the entire world economy built on the back of a non-renewable energy source? one that will reach its peak, or ‘bingo fuel’ point in our lifetime?
even if you dont believe in man made global warming, you agree that we should change our energy consumption habits?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why do you assert that each of the sources of statements showing flaws in AGW has “vested interests” in arguing against it?

For very many of the scientists involved I have no reason to think you’d find a trace of such a thing.

Wouldn’t it make sense to evaluate arguments on their merits not on the persons stating the things? Let alone to evaluate them based on often-false assumptions regarding those persons?[/quote]

i only trust two or three papers published in this country, the express certinly isnt one of them.

I honestly dont care if you believe in man-made global warming.
do you think heads of oils companies want to become world-reviled figureheads of the pollution of the earth - no, it would loose them money and other businesses wouldnt want to be associated with them.
do you think it is sustainable having the entire world economy built on the back of a non-renewable energy source? one that will reach its peak, or ‘bingo fuel’ point in our lifetime?
even if you dont believe in man made global warming, you agree that we should change our energy consumption habits?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Here is a little problem for the board’s AGW endorsers:

Why is it the case that even if there is no net loss of Antarctic or Greenland ice, and even if atmospheric temperatures remained exactly the same, the oceans would continue to inexorably rise?

It is the case, but why?[/quote]

really, where does the water come from, mars? rain isnt new water. where did you get this?

sorry for coming off a bit brash

[quote]caveman101 wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Here is a little problem for the board’s AGW endorsers:

Why is it the case that even if there is no net loss of Antarctic or Greenland ice, and even if atmospheric temperatures remained exactly the same, the oceans would continue to inexorably rise?

It is the case, but why?[/quote]

really, where does the water come from, mars? rain isnt new water. where did you get this?[/quote]

I could just post the reason at this point, but I think it’s more productive to leave it a question for now. But it’s not new water created or appearing from nowhere, nor from underground springs or anything like that.

It’s not an irrelevant aside, but very much linked to the entire matter.

Adding in another part to the question could help. Let’s ignore ocean circulation for the moment – it is a contributing factor but is not necessary to the explanation, and if considering the entire oceans becomes not at all the explanation.

Picture the oceans in tropical parts of the world.

The surface has the sun beating down on it, and nice balmy air year-round.

If we go not that far under the surface of the Earth beneath the ocean floor, the Earth itself is nice and warm.

But the water in the deeps is at 4 degrees C or so.

Why?

If ocean circulation is looked at for being the sole or principal answer, the problem still remains because over the great majority of the oceans, this temperature disparity still exists: the waters are colder at the bottom and for a great percentage of the ocean’s total volume than at the surface or than what the Earth is at any depth beneath the ocean floor. How can this be?