The Inconvenient Lie

| 01/02/2009

This is about the Inconvenient Lie of Global Warming and the junk science used by the IPCC (Inter government Panel on Climate Change).

It is inconvenient for the world’s citizens, who will soon be asked to spend billions of dollars per year to fix a problem that does not exist.

Please look at a paper called “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scan” posted on the Internet, to understand the sordid story of how a vast bureaucracy grew like a cancer on the world’s body over the last 40 years,

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle, who noticed that the climate was warming while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was rising and then
sought a relationship between them. In fact, it was merely a coincidence.

The climate was already warming naturally out of the mini ice age at the same time that the industrial revolution increased the CO2 from burning more fossil fuels. The IPCC bureaucracy merely co-opted this coincidence for their own fraudulent purposes.

No quantitative relationship was ever proven. In fact, many physicists have now shown that the effect of CO2 on climate is either nil or insignificant.

For example, a mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” was published last July in a major peer-reviewed paper in “Physics and Society”, a learned journal of the 10,000 strong American Physical Society. In it, physicist Christopher Monckton shows that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would only increase temperature by about 1 degree F.

In last year’s US Senate Minority report on global warming, over 650 scientists spoke out against the IPCC’s recent report, more the 12 times the number of UN scientists.
One typical remark : "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming."
— U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research
Another remark:
"Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." — UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

There were many more scathing remarks, all of which show there is something very wrong about the hysterical warnings from the IPCC, all of which are being used to scare the world’s citizens into compliance.

In fact, more CO2 is what we want, because it helps plants grow and is therefore very beneficial to food crops. Why should we hire a host of self serving bureaucrats whose intent is to damage our environment.

And this is not the first instance of junk science being used by government against its citizens. We lost Freon, our best refrigerant gas ever, through science that was even junkier than that of the IPCC. We have also lost DDT and Chlordane

I am writing this because I am a retired scientist who has always, and still does, love science. It breaks my heart to see science being bastardized by selfish and immoral forces who use it to try, and usually succeed, in achieving their immoral profit and/or political objectives. This is not only abhorrent, but it gives true science a bad name.

We, the people, are the losers in this game. We need to wake up and understand what is happening to us. Somehow, we must halt the IPCC on Global Warming, and any further use of junk science to scare us into supporting programs which are not in our interests.

Gerry Miller, PE, BA Sc. Engineering Physics

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gerry Miller says:

    In fact there is no consensus among climatologists that CO2 causes global warming.

    As I wrote in my opening letter:

     "In last year�s US Senate Minority report on global warming,
    over 650 scientists spoke out against the IPCC�s recent report,
    more the 12 times the number of UN scientists"

    The IPCC will not debate their ‘science’ . The lie that we constantly hear 
    on the controlled media is "The Science is Settled"

    Well, it is NOT settled, and anyof you can easily verify this on the Internet.

    The Global Warming Industry (GWI)  is a huge taxpayer funded collection
    of international bureaucrats, self serving scientists, and politicians, who are
    increasingly desperate to push their unproven CO2 hypothesis onto the
    world’s people. And they are using deliberately sensational scare tactics to do it.

    The truth is, using basic atmospheric physics, many scientists have shown that CO2 has
    little or no effect on climate temperature. Quite the contrary. CO2 is essential for life
    on earth, and plants cannot grow without it. It is NOT a toxic substance.

    You do not have to be a scientist, or even look very far, to find giant holes in the IPCC’s
    ‘science’.

    It is a matter of historical record that our climate is much COLDER now that it was
    6000 years ago. Just ask, how did CO2 cause that when no one was burning fossil fuels?
    The IPCC’s science does not even attempt to answer that simple question, because there
    is no way  their CO2 ‘science’ can.

    The consensus now arising among climatologists is that climate changes are caused by
    variations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth.

    "An examination of warming and cooling trends over the last 400 years shows an �almost exact correlation� between all of the known climate changes that have occurred and solar energy transmitted to the Earth, while showing �no correlation at all with CO2,� Don J. Easterbrook, WWU, Bellingham, Wash

    "Contrary to what has been stated in a �Summary for Policymakers� attached to the United Nation�s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report — and in subsequent press coverage of the report — there is scant evidence in favor of human-caused global warming, according to geologists, astrophysicists, and climatologists who have released updated studies. "
     
    "Dr. Bruce West, the chief scientist of the U.S. Army Research Office�s mathematical and information science directorate, sees a strong link between the dynamics of the sun and the Earth�s ecosystem. "

    From the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change: An Intellectual Feast
    By Michael R. Fox, 3/17/2008 8:19:04 AM

    "Dr. Fred Singer continued to contribute solid analyses of the global warming issues which he presented. He and 23 co-authors have written an excellent new summary (http://tinyurl.com/327vkg).

    Singer introduced the recent findings of global warming complexities entitled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. This was the Summary for Policymakers from Singer�s new group the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change or NIPCC. The report is the perfect foil for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers.

    What many people do not appreciate is that the UN�s IPCC has been an activist program from the very beginning. It has not been devoted to better understanding of the climate, but to develop documentation �proving� only a human link (read capitalist) to climate change. Considering natural forces on climate such as the influence of the Sun were off limits.

    Those IPCC documents have been historically drafted by international bureaucrats to better fit the UN and the IPCC political agendas. They have been known to re-write scientific conclusions without knowledge or approval of the originating authors. This is not science, nor a scientific process, but is hubristic (and destructive) politics, unbecoming of �world class� scientists. "

    Unfortunately, the IPCC’s propaganda through the controlled media has most people convinced that they must pay the UN billions of dollars to solve a non problem, a problem dreamed up by a cancerous bureaucratic growth being fed by taxpayer dollars.

    By now it should be clear that the IPCC  is using false science to push a political agenda for their own ends. and whatever those ends are, they DO NOT concern our climate.

    We must do our best to terminate this cancer, and all other similar publicly funded bureaucratic ancers, which are growing on us, and sucking out our life blood.

    Certainly, we cannot afford to waste our money on non problems when we have so many real problems that we must solve.

    Let’s just tell all these self serving bureaucracies to take a hike.

     

    • Anonymous says:

      Gerry,

      Thanks for the response and the links. It is refreshing to read another perspective. If you are right this would be one of the greatest frauds perpetrated in history.

      However, quite apart from CO2 and global warming, isn’t there a separate issue of toxic emissions caused by burning fossil fuels which may cause health problems? Isn’t this sufficient reason to reduce those emissions? 

       

      • Gerry Miller says:

        Yes, I do believe we should continue to remove pollutants, such as sulfur, from fossil fuels before these fuels are combusted.

        These pollutants make up a very small proportion of these fuels, so it is beneficial and economic to remove them.

        However, the IPCC is intent on removing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which is NOT a pollutant. In fact, it is the most natural gas on earth, and vital to many forms of life. Yet, it was recently proclaimed by the EPA as a TOXIC gas, due to pressure from the IPCC and the warmest forces.  Of course, this was a purely political move to give the EPA the legal rights to control it.

        It now turns out that CO2 is either not involved, or has a very weak effect, on climate change, and that variation in solar radiation is what causes climate change. Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas (95% of all greenhouse gases),  and is what regulates our climate.

         

        B

  2. Anonymous says:

     

    Mr Miller,

     

    You are obviously a highly intelligent man which is why it makes it even harder to understand your point of view. I have to wonder why anyone would bother to address the scientific "facts" you wrote about in your article. So many peer reviewed papers have been written in the last 5 years by world class climate scientists addressing all of your issues and almost without fail they, under suitable analysis, testing and fair trial, have been proved incorrect or not relevant. You really do need to catch up with current climate thinking and stop confusing vested interest papers with real scientific reports. Perhaps i can refer you to an excellent site that, with your strong maths background, you will appreciate and hopefully enjoy.      http://www.realclimate.org

     

    On another point, i have a general rule in life. If i want to know the truth behind a number of different opinions, i try to ‘follow the money’. Its all about vested interests, If groups of people are arguing on a topic, the ones with the deepest pockets and the most to lose tend to speak the loudest. It was true for the tobacco companies and its true for the oil companies. No one would ever compare the pockets of scientific establishments with the world’s largest oil conglomerates!

     

    And finally,  if you want to build a rocket ship you ask the best rocket scientists on the planet to help you, and likewise if you have a very important question about the earth’s climate you ask the world’s best climate scientists (which is what the world did – IPCC), you don’t ask a group of  ‘scientists’ sponsored by oil companies or any other vested interest group. In this argument we have climate scientists on one side and oil companies, engineers and fictional novel writes like Michael Crichton, on the other side.

  3. Sounder says:

    I fully agree that individuals should take the time to research the issue of global warming, but that is easier said than done. I’ve been interested, as a non-scientist, in GW for some time and have attempted to understand this issue and the impact man may or may not have had. My layman research has led me to conclude that:

    1) It is essential ( and maybe the most important factor in giving credence to a report ) to understand the ideology of the research facility or individual issuing the report being studied, because my wide reading on this subject tells me that the underlying ideology will invariably dictate, in broad terms, whether the report supports man assisted GW or refutes it.

    2) GW is real, in the sense that the average temperature of the globe has been increasing for some time, but not, as one might expect, in a straight line graph ever upwards. We are talking long term global trends, not short term local anomolies.

    3) The real debate centers around man’s influence in the GW process and consequently whether we can influence the warming trend by changing man’s behaviour.

    4) We are dealing in general with measurements at the margin and changes at the margin can have an impact out of proportion to the size of the change itself. The old saying " the straw that broke the camels back" comes to mind in a very unscientific comparison. As with straws, so with CO2 maybe.

    5) Computer models of climate change in the last century or so cannot be made to accurately reflect real world temperature changes without factoring in increasing CO2 levels and that the bulk of CO2 released into the atmosphere is related to man’s activity in some shape or form.

    6) Many critics of man influenced GW point to the wide range of potential temperature changes predicted by computer models as a sign of fundamental flaws in the theory or the models themselves, without disclosing that the wide variation is a consequence of significantly different initial conditions set up in the models. One of the principle conditions to influence future temperature trends is the response of man himself to this issue and since we don’t know what we will do, a wide range of actions ( including no action ) are reflected in the initial conditions which understandably leads to a wide range of solutions.

    7) While there are undoubtedly many researchers doing less than objective research for a variety of reasons, it is a discredit to the science community to assume that every supporter of GW is corrupt in some form. I may be naive but my feeling is that the bulk of scientists do the best, most objective work they can.

    8) Objective reporting in the media is as rare as a green flash.

    My own research has led me to the conclusion that man influenced GW is a real issue. This carries no weight but there it is.

    It has also taught me to look carefully at any report to identify any underlying bias ( see 1 above). I mean no disrespect at all when I write that the penultimate paragraph of your initial article indicates to me that you are ideologically opposed to the exploitation of science for profit , that you believe GW has been highjacked by both scientists and non-scientists for financial and political gain and that as a consequnce you are strongly pre-disposed towards any research which indicates a non-human influenced GW. Being objective under these conditions is not possible in my view.

     

  4. Barbara Thompson says:

    As a degreed Ocean Engineer and a practical thinker, I totally support Gerry’s premise that a: there is probably not any global warming and b: any climate change whatsoever is hardly the cause of mankind’s activities.  CO2 is such a tiny component of the atmosphere that even 4 times the current amount is hardly measurable.  Water vapor is a much larger component of the atmosphere and is much more active in heating and cooling the air temperature.  We certainly don’t want to do away with water.

    The earth goes through cycles, humans adapt through air conditioning or furnaces.  This does not mean we destroy the economies of developing countries or developed countries by panicking over these cycle changes and insisting on limiting how we produce energy, grow crops, what cars we buy.   These are excuses for governments to control people and their lives while enriching themselves through mandates and regulations.  The hysteria is largely led by anti-capitalist people who don’t think it is fair that some people can afford SUV’s and some cannot, etc.

    The best solution for any issue is common sense.  This is seriously lacking in the global warming debate.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Either the majority theory that global warming is a significant irreversible risk to mankind is right or it is wrong.

    But why not take protective steps just in case it is right?  Why wait for twenty or thirty years to take a firmer view only to find out then that it is too late?  Are we such slaves to money that we place it before everything else?

    As a matter of logic, it makes sense to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions until it is proved by those that agree with Mr. Miller that they are right, not the other way around.
     

     

     

  6. Gerry Miller says:

    I was a little surprised about the negative comments I received on "The Inconvenient Lie"

    I would have thought that at lease someone would have been happy to hear that he or she
    will not be cooked by global warming.

    For me, the number of negative comments, and their tone, is a measurement of how well
    the IPCC (Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change) has succeeded in scaring people
    with their draconian projections of climate collapse.

    People need to be far more critical about what they take as the truth. They need take the time
    to do some thinking for themselves.

    I was disappointed that not one of the persons who sent in a comment bothered to address the science that I explained in my letter. Instead, some tried to twist my words, advised me to get real, and even speculated that I may be a creationist.

    You do not have to believe me on the science of global climate change.  Why not just take the time to investigate this for yourselves. You can start with the references I gave you in my letter.

    I have spent many hundreds of hours studying this science. I also have the education and experience to read the science directly, including the math models used by the IPCC. I have also published math models.

    There is nothing more important to us than our global climate. If we are about to spend billions on the IPCC’s ‘solutions’ then we at least owe it to ourselves to require them to prove their assumptions.

    Sadly, the connection between CO2, a very minor greenhouse gas, and global warming has never been proven. Not only has it not been proven, some scientists have shown that it is either nonexistent, or it is insignificant.

    Water vapour is by far the most important greenhouse gas, constituting at least 95% of all greenhouse gases. Simply speaking, it alone regulates our climate in the form of vapour(greenhouse gas), clouds(by reflecting heat from the sun), and rain(correcting for too much water vapour). This cycle is powered by the sun, and nothing else.

    Any effect of CO2(about 350 parts per million) is completely swamped out. Our climate is firmly
    controlled by the sun. Climate changes according to the radiance of the sun striking the earth’s surface.And changes in this has caused repeated ice ages and will continue to do so.

    How many people know that our climate has been cooling off ever since the Holocene maximum,
    about 3000 BC, when is was much warmer than now?  Just ask that question to any warmist. Who was fooling with theCO2 then?

    The IPCC, the global warming industry, and its junk science must be stopped before it can damage our economy, extract billions of dollars of our money, write volumes of new regulations, and damage out environment.

     

  7. Anonymous says:

    I think being a denialist of G.W. is a convenient lie…its like denying that smoking kills, at the end of the day no matter how much you deny it, you will suffer for it and it really is to everyone’s benefit, including yours to do something to mitigate the circumstances. The earth does have climatological cycles and it will go on, BUT it will go on in a state that cannot sustain human life. We are encouraging an end to a climate that can sustain life as it exists today…no amount of $$ ot temper tantrum is going to change that….I guess that means that you will let others take on the burden of making this a safer Earth for you.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hey, why are you guys beating up on Gerry. You think he may be a creationist? You just gave him a lot more credibility! The truth is that science offers only provisional conclusions based on our (limited) understanding of the data we observe (which is not exhaustive). It builds in all sorts of biases, perceptual and otherwise. Today’s science is scoffed at by tomorrow’s scientists. Medical sicence used to consider bloodletting an effective cure for a great many diseases and ailments. It requires as much, if not more, faith than religion except that the faith is in science itself: ‘we don’t have a scientific explanation now but one day science will…". So why the need to be pedantic and dogmatic?  

  8. Jack Meoph says:

    Are you serious? I bet you are a creationist too.

     

    Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real

     

    A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate studentMaggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

    In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.

    Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

    In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

    "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

    He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

    "They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it."

    Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.  –ScienceDaily

  9. Anonymous says:

    You contradict youself even from the beginning, you state

    the Inconvenient Lie of Global Warming

    and then say

    The climate was already warming

    So even in your words Global Warming exists

  10. Green Hornet says:

    Yawnnn. Same old same old denial from Engineer Gerry.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world….

  11. Nicky Watson says:

    On the other hand ……….. Acid oceans ‘need urgent action’