Thursday, December 30, 2004

Science Fiction

The recent tragedy in southern Asia was truly nightmarish. One commentator likened it to the recent science fiction film “The Day After Tomorrow”: “We never thought it could really happen.” Friends of the Earth director, Tony Juniper, points out that “here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions based on the most up-to-date scientific models.” His co-hort, director of Greenpeace UK, Stephen Tinadale, observed that “no one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters.”

There was a tsunami that destroyed coastlines in Hawaii in the ‘40s and on July 9, 1958 another tsunami measuring 1,700 feet tall (that’s 56 times higher than the one in southern Asia) wrecked Lituya Bay, Alaska. These tsunamis were caused by undersea earthquakes. Global warming, if it were a reality, does not cause or lead to earthquakes. Making this claim is fear-mongering, job security, and a means to insure ongoing fundraising. The mantle of the earth is a patchwork of tectonic plates. They move. They ‘crunch’ against each other, causing earthquakes. This has been going on since there has been a solid surface to the planet. It is completely natural and totally unrelated to humanity or technology. But this tsunami in Asia fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

This past summer saw a series of devastating hurricanes and the ‘greens’ said, ‘we warned you.’ However, global warming does not cause hurricanes. Those who really understand global warming theory, like Tindale and Juniper, knew that, but they did nothing to correct the misinformation. The theory goes that the greenhouse gases trap solar radiation causing heat, which melts arctic ice, raising and desalinizing the oceans. The Gulf Stream, which distributes warmth along its route, is disrupted by the influx of fresh and cooler arctic water, leading to a global cooling and a modern ice age (according to a study by University of Colorado reported in Nature). Put very simply, hurricanes are created by effects generated from the heat of both warm water and warm air. If global warming were a reality, we would expect fewer hurricanes or none. But the hurricanes fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

These out-of-control greenhouse gases are supposed to be destroying the ozone layer and have created at least one ozone hole. Firstly, there is no ‘ozone layer,’ it exists in the air from ground level to the edge of the envelope, though it is more prevalent in the air between 10 and 40 kilometers above ground. Ozone is created naturally by the action of solar radiation on oxygen in the air. If you test for ozone in Antarctica during the winter, when the revolution of the planet hides Antarctica from the sun causing a ‘night’ all winter long, you will find depletion or a hole. If you test in summer, when the sun shines, you don’t find a hole. Care to guess what season the study proving an ‘ozone hole’ was conducted during? Curiously, that little detail is left out of the presentation of the data. The naturally occurring annual ‘ozone hole’ over Antarctica was first studied in 1956-57. This is significant because we are told CFCs have caused the hole and they weren’t commonly used until well after that first study. Another detail is that CFCs are heavier than air and do not float very high into the atmosphere. But the ‘ozone hole’ fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

Shishmaref is a village about 100 miles north of Nome, Alaska, on the Bering Strait and CNN (among others) recently reported that this “Alaskan island falls victim to global warming” as it sinks below rising ocean levels. While it makes great headlines, this is sheer fabrication. A study of the annual mean temperatures in Nome from 1907 through 2001 proves it was colder in 1999 than it was in 1907. A visual study of the island itself clearly shows the cause of the erosion ~ and it’s not rising tides, but rather the completely natural phenomenon known as ‘longshore drift.’ The east coast of England has for centuries been troubled by longshore drift and whole villages have been washed away. The peninsula of Spurn Head in Yorkshire and the island of Findhorn on Moray Firth in Scotland exhibit the same symptoms Shishmaref does and no one suggests global warming. But Shishmaref fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

Arctic ice melt and rising sea levels is an anchor of the global warming theory and there have been numerous reports of the rising tides and evaporating arctic ice just this past year. Greg Holloway, Canadian specialist in Arctic Ocean Science, noted that “it’s more complicated than we thought.” While satellite photography and declassified U.S. submarine studies show a loss of surface ice in the last 20 years, Holloway found the missing ice by following the 50-year cycle of Arctic wind patterns. “The submarine sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the centre of the Arctic,” explains Holloway. “They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the Canadian side.” The International Panel on Climate Change preferred the study based on flawed data and disregarded Holloway’s results. Arctic ice melt fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

An unamed environmentalist attending the recent EU Climate Summit noted that we ‘are experiencing the hottest summers since 1500.’ This claim begs the question: which industry caused the heat in 1500? The claim also buttresses the position of scientists like Robert Essenhigh, Ohio State Professor of Energy Conservation, who suggest that what we call global warming is “a natural geological process” of temperatures rising and falling in trends measured in geologic time, not decades, or even centuries. Frederick Seitz and 18,000 other members of the National Academy of Sciences observed that “research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” But harmful greenhouse gases fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

All scientists do not agree with global warming theory. In fact, the essence of science is disagreement, i.e. the concept of questioning, studying, and re-questioning until the truth is revealed as scientific fact. The Earth is round. Though you can’t see it, air is there. Gravity exists. Global warming is still at best a theory and one that is still hotly debated despite the carefully crafted appearance of unanimity. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sponsored a petition in 1998 stating that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” This petition was signed by 17,000 scientists. The Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg surveyed 400 international environmental scientists and found 67 percent did not subscribe to global warming theory. More than 19,000 scientists signed the ‘Leipzig declaration’ proclaiming “the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed.”

Stephen Schneider is a biological sciences professor at Stanford who sums up the case for global warming protagonists nicely: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” The problem with global warming theory is that “the most up-to-date scientific models” are flawed. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick reviewed the original data used by Michael Mann that forms the basis for global warming theory and found “numerous errors in the data”. Further, after correcting the errors, “the most up-to-date scientific model” showed no significant climate change whatsoever. Untold billions of currency have been lavished on measures to alleviate global warming symptoms. When global warming is finally debunked and it’s advocates discredited, that funding will dry up, the grants to the environmentalists will be withdrawn, the donations to the activists will cease. The tried and true adage - ‘follow the money’ - applies. But that doesn’t fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”


Post a Comment

<< Home