Well, What Do You Know? Scientists Reconsider Warming Fears
Vol: 68 Issue: 17 Thursday, May 17, 2007
A new report published by the uber-liberal German magazine, Der Speigel, has joined a growing list of media publications who are beginning to realize that somebody has been playing fast and loose with the facts when it comes to global warming.
It begins by saying, “Avante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising — and that it would be a blessing for all.”
A blessing? Not a curse? How so? (I’m glad you asked)
Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, argued, “by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates,” potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.
Heresy! I must stop up my ears! How dare Der Speigel write such lunacy! There is a global CONSENSUS, you know! Al Gore said that no further debate is necessary.
But Der Speigel noted that previous cold periods (like the little Ice Age that followed the Mediaeval Warming Period in the 14th century) were, “too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land depopulated.”
(I’ve got my fingers in my ears! La-la-la-la-la-la! I can’t hear you!)
“The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age — supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.”
Oh sure. But in the 1960’s they didn’t know what they were talking about. Now they’ve advanced computer models that can predict the weather, sometimes five days in advance, and sometimes, they are almost right. Besides, what about the catastrophic flooding from all that melting ice?
“According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels,” the magazine reported.
Drat! And I was planning to buy oceanfront property outside of Phoenix!
German biologist Josef Reichholf told Der Spiegel that, “It’s nothing but fear-mongering, for which there is no concrete evidence. On the contrary, there is much to be said for the argument that warming temperatures promote biodiversity.”
Wait just a darn minute! Is he arguing that warmer temperatures are good for biodiversity? Well, yeah . . .
“There is a clear relationship between biodiversity and temperature. The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species.”
But this is just one magazine, (a German one, at that!) and just one scientist. There is a global scientific CONSENSUS, no?
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.
He was among the first to sound global warming alarms 20 years ago. But, having examined the evidence, he now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the prophets of doom of global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
Ummm, money? Let’s look at the eco-credits Al Gore bought to offset his huge carbon footprint. ‘Carbon offset credits’ work like this. Since Al Gore uses 20 times the energy of a typical American family, he buys “carbon offsets” based on the fact that an Ubangi tribesman who doesn’t own a car isn’t using his, anyway.
So Al Gore ‘buys’ them by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.” He pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C.
In fact, the idea is SUCH a good one that Al Gore bought a piece of the company (and its profits). Generation Investment Management’s U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight.
In other words, Gore buys “carbon offsets” from himself, in essence, by buying stocks.
Getting back to the scientists, Dr. Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.”
And generating investment profits.
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a Kyoto house in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.
But after examining the science more closely, he wrote a book entitled, The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv gave an interview to the Canada National Post on the subject. In it, he said:
Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.”
Then he let loose with his bombshell observation. Global warming isn’t caused by human activity, (Al Gore’s hot air being the exception that proves the rule). Instead, as an astrophysicist, he reached the startling conclusion that global warming is caused by the sun.
By the SUN! Who would have thought it?
“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist, Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere.
So, the sun warms the earth and not mankind! Is there a consensus on that? The next thing you know, somebody will be telling us that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. Heresy!
(Well, it WAS heresy when Galileo said it in 1633 and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Roman Catholic Church’s Grand Inquisitor. Where’s a Grand Inquisitor when you need him? )
According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”
Australian mathematician and engineer David Evans, (who earned six university degrees in 10 years) noted that believing in global warming pays well.
“By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming,” he said, adding;
“And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful.”
“But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed, Evans wrote. The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were NOT initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon,” he said.
Oh, really, Doctor? What caused them? The sun?
Well. . . yeah.
Carbon levels increased as a RESULT of global warming. It doesn’t cause it. The ice data shows global warming comes first, then Co2 levels begin to rise some 800 years later.
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, another former global warming alarmist, also reviewed the ‘science’ of Al Gore, which he terms, “poppycock.”
(Those British guys have a way with words — especially English words.)
According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can t be fixed.
Bellamy doesn’t understand how things work in the Colonies. If something ain’t broken, you have to keep fixing it until it is.
The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything, Bellamy added.
University of Auckland climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas conceded; “At first, I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous global warming.”
But then, that pesky research stuff keep popping up.
“But with time and with the results of research,” he wrote, “I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.
Meteorologist Dr Reid Bryson was on the UN’s Global 500 Roll of Honor for his work in climatology. Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay? Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News.
All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it s absurd. Of course it s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we re putting more carbon dioxide into the air, Bryson said.
Global warming author Hans Labohm switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.
After that, I changed my mind, Labohn explained.
Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, Climate change is real is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause.”
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa also changed his view after reviewing the scientific ‘evidence’.
I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change, Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007.
Patterson changed his mind as a result of his research on the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.”
He wrote, As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.”
The SUN again! Why does everybody keep blaming the SUN for warming the earth?
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, said in a documentary about climate change, “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun.”
And, finally, we have The National Geographic Magazine’s conclusions to consider.
In an article from February, 2007 entitled, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says”, “Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”
“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars, Abdussamatov said.”
If there is so much evidence that the global warming phenomenon is being driven by solar activity, why is everybody so eager to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol?
In Al Gore’s case, global warming is not only profitable, it is his ticket back to the White House. (“I’m Al Gore, and I used to be the next President of the United States.”)
For decades, an elite cadre of globalists (including Al Gore) have been trying to figure out a way to force America into a UN-sponsored global government.
These aren’t bad guys. They’re elitists who sincerely believe that only the UN can save the world from destruction by an ignorant and greedy American population. Even if it kills you. It’s a small price to pay, after all. Sacrifices MUST be made.
They’ve tried accomplishing their goals by political manipulation. They’ve tried through their control of the global money trust, through the World Bank, IMF and the World Trade Organization.
The Kyoto Treaty would empower the UN to levy a sliding-scale ‘energy tax’ on rich nations (like America). It was Baron Rothschild who observed that, “he who has the gold, makes the rules.”
“Give me control of a nation’s currency,” the Baron once said, “And I care not who makes its laws.”
New Age guru and UN advisor Maurice Strong is the architect of the UN’s Kyoto Protocol. Strong organized the UN first-world environmental summit in Stockholm in 1972 and has never stopped pressing for a world where UN resolutions would be enforced as law all over the Earth.
Strong went on to chair the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. Strong sits on boards with the Rockefellers and Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates.
He told Maclean’s magazine way back in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He warned that if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.
In interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said “the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere.”
In 1990, Strong told a BBC reporter of his fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather “to address global issues.”
Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…”
He told the startled Beeb reporter, “In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
He later told the reporter he was just kidding, telling him, “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”
Probably not. Especially since he meant every word.
In 1972, as Strong organized the first environmental conference for the UN, he granted an interview to the BBC. “I am convinced the prophets of doom have to be taken seriously,” he said.
The only way to avoid doomsday, said Strong, was if “man, in light of this evidence, is going to be wise enough and enlightened enough to subject himself to this kind of discipline and control.”
“Wise enough and enlightened enough to accept this kind of discipline and control.” That’s the ultimate goal of Kyoto. It’s the reason that mankind MUST ultimately be responsible for global warming. Or a coming Ice Age. Or whatever it takes.
“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring. . . ”
Distressed yet? A bit perplexed? Or maybe a bit scared?
“Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” (Luke 21:26-27)