Global Warming Introduction by Roger King

Lord Monckton adresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming

Follow the Money at IceCap.com 3/10/2010 It’s about time that someone once and for all puts the lie to the recurrent charges that the AGW skeptical community is supported by “Big Oil”, or is populated by “flat-earthers”, or by those who in the past have been complicit with “the tobacco lobby”. ...

The facts are that quite the opposite is the case. For example, let’s take “Big Oil”. BP has contributed over $500 Million to UC Berkeley, one of the Bay Area’s centers of AGW support, for its Energy Biosciences Institute.
Stanford University has received $225 Million from ExxonMobil, Toyota and Schlumberger for its Global Climate and Energy Project. That money will be combined with a $50 Million donation from alumnus Jay Precourt whose career as an oil engineer included such companies as Hamilton Oil and Tejas Gas Corp. The new entity will be named the Precourt Center for Energy Efficiency, see http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-13/news/17198474_1_energy-efficiency-greenhouse-gases-uc-berkeley ...

As for individuals active in the promotion of AGW, Susan Solomon, a Phd from Stanford and a lead author of the 2007 IPC Report was a recipient of the 2004 Blue Planet Prize, a 50 Million Yen (~$460,000) cash award from the Asahi Glass Foundation , see http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2249.htm

Other high profile figures such as James Hansen and Michael Mann have received six-figure amounts from organizations such as the Theresa Heinz Foundation and the Dan David Foundation. It seems as though being a staunch proponent of AGW is a very rewarding position to have.

These are just a fractional example of the money that has flowed from the private sector to individuals and academic institutions friendly to the notion of anthropogenic influences on the environment. Over the past 10 years Government funding to such organizations has been conservatively estimated at well over $50 Billion.

What do we hear almost every day in the media? Lets look at a quote from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and a Sierra Club statement.

Al Gore's web site talks about his film "An Inconvenient Truth" "Our Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."

Population and Global Warming Factsheet at the Sierra Club "Scientists around the world have concluded that flooded cities, diminished food production, and increased storm damage all seem likely [as a result of global warming]...and could affect the lives of billions of people."
-Christopher Flavin, Seth Dunn, Worldwatch Institute

The world's leading scientists agree - global warming is real and already occurring. The questions now are how fast will it occur - and how bad will it be. Population growth is one of the factors contributing to global warming.

Not lets look at the other side.

The Sloppy Science of Global Warming by Roy W. Spencer March 20, 2008 Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. Link

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Arther B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine on SPPI January 30, 2008 There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve thehealth, longvity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Link

Your right, there can be bias on both sides to please your employers. So lets look at what is actually a fact among scientists.

Science FAQs at GlobalWarming.org Scientists do agree that:

global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over 1° Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago;
atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO² ) have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years; and
carbon dioxide, like water vapor, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.

As I have researched this subject over the last since August of last year I have become more and more convinced that not only is man made global warming one of the biggest scams in our history but that far left environmental radicals have taken our country hostage at the expense of our economy, life style and particularly the poor they claim to help. They claim we must solve man made global warming that will kill the poor in the future with computer simulation models as their main proof. They stifle any decent, don't follow proven scientific methods and hide their methods and raw data. What is happening is the poor are being the hardest hit as energy prices spiral, food price soar and our dependence on foreign oil steadily climbs. I think as you read the data I have gathered you will come to understand. My hope is you become active to counter this radical push so we can work on our environment in a sensible and sane manner.

Cutting our consumption is all about saving the poor they say, but they want the ability to buy carbon offsets so the rich like Al Gore can continue their lifestyles but the poor can't afford these offsets. So who looses?

Cutting our consumption is all about saving the poor to we tax energy. Who can least afford the higher gas prices?

Cutting our consumption is all about saving the poor and the environment so halt all new damns, nuclear plants, oil, and coal drilling and mining. Again this drives up the price of energy which inordinately hurts the poor.

What if "Scientific Consensus" had stopped these scientists

In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial "for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many," namely that the earth moved around the sun.
Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe
Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that Earth was flat.

Only if a theory is proven should scientists except it and man made global warming is certainly not proven. I would also say gravity is pretty proven but I recently read an article that stated mathematically our gravity should be more. It was felt that the excess was bleeding into a ours from a parallel universe. Who knew, but it goes to show that there are alternative theories for even those accepted scientific facts.

Again your right Fred. That is true but compare that to what the other side receives. The so-called “warmers” have enjoyed the unstinting support of a scientifically illiterate media, the movie industry, and many institutions that have been on the receiving end of an estimated $5 billion annually for nearly 2 decades Link

Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate by Walter Sullivan July 15, 1993 To the astonishment of climate specialists, an analysis of ice extracted from the full depth of the Greenland ice sheet has shown that except for the 8,000 to 10,000 years since the last glacial epoch, the climate over the past 250,000 years has changed frequently and abruptly.

The findings suggest that the period of stable climate in which human civilization has flourished might be unusual, and that the current climate may get either warmer or colder much more quickly than had been believed -- in spans of decades or even less.

The data are likely to bolster concern that future changes in climate might not be spread over many centuries, allowing farmers to adjust to altered growing conditions and coastal cities to deal with rising sea levels, for example. Link

Must challenge all theories -

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? by Timothy Ball February 5, 2007 Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. Link

Global Warming Skeptics Michael Crichton said it best:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." Link

Chilling Intolerance for Free Speech on Global Warming by Dana Joel Gattuso March 28, 2007 The field of science is all about inquiry. Intolerance for questioning or even engaging in debate suggests a fear that a theory or hypothesis is not up to the test. Without challenging theories, we accept as doctrine that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth-or that, as Al Gore tells us, "the survival of our civilization is at stake." Link

Al Gore has become the profit of our time with the Nobel Peace prize, and Oscar and Emmy. I submit that an “Inconvenient Truth” is over exaggerations chalked full of untruths. Further I will present information showing a McCarthyism mentality that has permeated our society over man made global warming. However, I submit that Senator Inhofe, Dr. Grey,….. will become our heros for saving the world trillions of dollars, destruction of our economy and the deaths of many poor and innocent people.

First, if you notice you are starting to see a change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change". This deserves a closer inspection. What is climate change? If you wish to push an agenda and start to hear that there may be "global cooling" in our future, they needed to hedge their bets. With "climate change" you win either way. It gets warmer its caused by humans, if it gets colder its also humans fault. If this does give you pause then check out this statement by a Greenpeace activist. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” Link

Most people have come to feel that our current temperature is normal and any changes will occur slowly and over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.

The Great Global Warming Swindle http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&total=159&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Bob Carter’s Talk at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation on September 8th in Melbourne

Penn & Teller: Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria

How to Create and Protect a Consensus

How to Create and Protect a Consensus at the Politics and Environment Blog October 14, 2007 A book authored by Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977) Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New York Free Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ which shows a remarkable parallel with the way the climate science consensus is operated and protected.

Eight symptoms of Group Think are listed below:

Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
Mind guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

I can certainly see how ignoring the dangers of concentrating all of our efforts on futile CO2 reduction, ad hominem attacks, personal smears, US State Climatologists losing their jobs, and the likes of RealClimate plus some media outlets as ‘Mind guards’ fits into this framework. No doubt some blog readers will agree and can think of other examples. Others, of course, will disagree. Link

But Al Gore says there is a consensus and we must act quickly to prevent a global destruction. First, let me tell you a recent survey shows that over 1/2 of scientists in the climate field do not believe in man made global warming.

Brr! The climate cools for reality-deniers at the Spectator May 20, 2008 Lawrence Solomon writes for Canada’s National Post Now he has written a book, provocatively entitled The Deniers, in which he shows that not only is the fabled climate change ‘consensus’ itself a sham but the so-called MMGW ‘deniers’ are by far the more accomplished and distinguished scientists than those pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth. A number of them indeed, are so eminent they were used as experts by the IPCC – but then came to realise that this was an innately corrupted process and that even some of their own work was being abused and distorted in order to promulgate the false doctrine of MMGW.

Margaret Thatcher famously observed (“The Downing Street Years”, p. 167): “Consensus is the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot (otherwise) get agreement on the way ahead”.

We hear every day that we don't have time to question and those that do are Nazi or should be fired as is already happening. Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think independent thoughts or take independent actions. Only pre-approved human response would be acceptable. To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally to one's destruction. As George Orwell once wrote: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” We should always question and we should never give up our freedom's for supposed catastrophes. Man made global warming is far from being proven and should be continually challenged.

What Incentives to these groups have?

Ok, so maybe there is something to all this but all I hear is scientist taking about global warming, constant news reports on the issue, politicians urging immediate actions and companies going green. Well first lets look at some of the incentives these groups might have to push these beliefs and how it gives them power to pursue their agendas.

Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes greatly improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. Few other government programs (in the US, EU, UN, Canada or elsewhere) offer so many lucrative grants.

Global warming claims also increase the likelihood that scientists will get headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, researcher says.” Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines, quotes and job security. Link
Most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organizations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen. Link
Politicians can curry favor with activists who support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations; transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection; and promote policies that otherwise would raise eyebrows. Link Politicians have an incentive to gather power and to remain in office. Commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." So high energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to market forces – but praised if imposed by government "to prevent climate change." Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to create jobs, tax revenues and enhanced security; but subsidizing wind power to generate 2% of our electricity is lauded, even if giant turbines despoil millions of acres and kill millions of birds.
Environmental activists use climate fears to raise billions of dollars via direct mail and foundation and corporate grants – to promote government control over resource use, technological change, housing, transportation, living standards and economic development. Recent developments promise greater rewards. Link The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. They dream of controlling global resource use, technological change and economic development, through laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns. They also make it "ethical" for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose power generation in Third World countries, where few have access to electricity – and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.
Media - The people in the media are supposed to reports the unbiased news so we can make informed decisions. However, the bottom line is their incentive is to get published on the front page or have more air time. To achieve these goals they have to have something dramatic, an attention grabber if you will. Lets assume one reporter researches global warming and finds their is very little to worry about and humans couldn't change the climate very much if we tried. A second reporter says he has proof we are causing a crisis and only immediate action will say mankind. Which do you think will make the front page. Which report will likely be tossed to the side. The papers, TV or radio only increase rating and make more money if they are watched. The dramatic is what sells. Pay attention to the news sometime and see if you can fine any mention of something that isn't a dramatic attention getter. If you do, it would certainly be an exception.
Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who pillory climate chaos skeptics. ... DuPont and BP will get money for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection equipment, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Link Makes more sense why you see these companies pushing Green technologies.

Isn't it a Win-Win to fight Global Warming - Some say man made global warming is a win-win. If there is man made global warming then we are taking. If it isn't then we are still cleaning up the environment. I think it’s a win-loose at best and maybe a loose-loose. If we look at this logically then if we are responsible for global warming then its a win to fight it with every reasonable tool. However, our warming is natural, well within historical limits. Also I will show that our currently actions are either meaningless, cause greater damage or at best are taking hugh amounts of money for a very little gain. Our economy has a limited amount of funds and it must be spent where we can get the greatest bang for the buck. We will examine what are the costs we occur with this fight and what are the benefits. Cold hard facts and not emotions should guide us. Almost all future predictions of man made global warming comes from computer models that can not even model our past climate history. So are your really sure you would like to give hugh amounts of money and control to our government when this many all be a hoax and our money spent much better else where?

It can also be taken as showing we should not be so worried about changing a climate that would probably be impossible to change even if we tried. Rather it should be noted we should point our resources to dealing with the climate changes that are to come and have always happened in our future. Further, it would be “MUCH” wisher to work toward smarter methods for energy creation and alternative types of energy in the free market instead of loosing our independence, economy and life style to a hugh bureaucratic system. Among the scientific community there is probably much more consensus that in the future of the earth we will be hit with a hugh meteor, suffer a 100ft title wave, be hit with a comet or have a super volcano, like yellow stone, erupt. Given these occurrences as near certainties in our earths future should we also not prepare for these with at least as much fervor as global warming? However, we can not afford to fully fund all these efforts. So many be we should logically look at the facts, the probabilities and make smart decisions with our limited resources. Maybe helping hunger or aids would be a much better use of our money. These are already issues we have and not some hypothetical. Questions we should think about before spending untold billions of dollars.

Is enough really understood about climate science?
What are the real effects of CO2 and how much of it is man made?
Is man really responsible for most of the global warming or even enough to have much if any change in the climate?
If man does affect climate to some extent what are the real costs to effect any meaningful change?
Are there other more important things we could spend our limited resources on?
Where is the real money being spent and who has the most to gain in this argument?

Proof that Global Warming is caused by a reduction is Pirates.

Let me give you an absurd logic that is much like we are being fed with man made global warming. Bobby Henderson wrote this to the Kansas school board. You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. Link Of course it is absurd, just like Al Gores CO2 to temperature graph is absurd.

Cold Or Hot, it's always our fault by Lorne Gunter, National Post July 23, 2007 British filmmaker Martin Durkin, whose documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle has already aired in the U.K. and Australia (and will soon be available here on DVD), thinks it is because "global warming is first and foremost a political theory."

Those who buy into it -- including most scientists who back it -- have a particular worldview that Durkin believes can be "summed up in the oft-repeated phrase 'we consume too much.' " He calls this "backward-looking bigotry," and claims it has "found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalization) into a single unquestionable truth and cause."
In other words (mine, not Durkin's), global warming has become the new locus for those who believe government is the solution to all ills, and central planning the preferred tool. When they look back through the stack of global warming consequences, they don't want to see any natural explanations. The sun, cosmic rays, cloud development and so on, cannot be controlled by Ottawa or the UN.