Jump to: navigation, search

Global warming

2 bytes added, May 22
makes no sense in this paragraph.
The theory that "greenhouse gases" have a greater warming effect than other gases goes back to the 19th century. The idea that carbon dioxide emissions might lead to catastrophic warming was introduced by Carl Sagan in the 1960s. He was inspired by research on the atmosphere of Venus. Around 1978, the environmental movement decided to promote Sagan's theory. The movement was already advocating energy conservation and renewables as a response to the "energy crisis." That is to say, a desired political outcome was agreed upon and then a "scientific" justification was developed.
Proponents of the global warming theory advocate for conversion to electric vehicles without expanding the electric power grid, which can only be powered by coal-burning power plants, fossil fuel, or nuclear energy. So-called renewable energy sources, solar and wind, cannot provide enough capacity to recharge hundreds of millions of electric vehicles. According to Oxfam, "climate-related disasters has tripled in the last 30 years", and "more than 20 million people a year are forced from their homes".<ref>[ Oxfam]</ref>
==Difficulties with the theory==
*'''Carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas.''' The level of CO<sub>2</sub> in the Earth's atmosphere is only 400 parts per million. Ninety to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.<ref>Friedenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264</ref> The IPCC claims that water vapor acts as a "positive feedback," i.e. warming creates more humidity, which leads to additional warming. There are humidity measurements going back to 1948, and they show no upward trend.<ref>"[ global climate]," ''Watt's Up with That''</ref> More humidity could lead to more clouds and therefore to cooling and to negative feedback. So why assume positive feedback? AGW works only if water vapor is a positive feedback, so that is what the IPCC must claim.<br/>Although Obama has denounced elevated carbon dioxide levels as "carbon pollution," greenhouse operators commonly increase the level of CO<sub>2</sub> to 1,000 ppm or more to enhance plant growth.<ref>"[ Plant growth enhanced by increased carbon dioxide, but food webs give rise to significant variations]", ''Science News'', December 10, 2015.<br/>Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer, "[ In Defense of Carbon Dioxide]," ''Wall Street Journal'', May 8, 2013.</ref>
After Schneider abandoned his global cooling hobbyhorse and got on the global warming [[argumentum ad populum|bandwagon]], he never looked back. He was all about offering up "scary scenarios" in order to get "loads of media coverage." He had hoped to be honest, but, let's face it, nobody's perfect. Since he presents himself here as the high priest of climate science, it should be noted that Schneider's Ph.D. is in mechanical engineering.
According to Oxfam, "climate-related disasters has tripled in the last 30 years", and "more than 20 million people a year are forced from their homes".<ref>[ Oxfam]</ref>
===The IPCC===
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN agency that reports on climate science, was founded in 1988. IPCC reports are often cited as the gold standard of science in this field, proof that AGW is "settled science." But few journalists read the report itself. Instead, they rely on the "Executive Summary" or "Summary for Policymakers." This document is written, not by scientists, but by UN bureaucrats under the supervision of Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian railway economist who heads the IPCC. The Climategate II emails reveal that the summary is written first then material is added to the various chapters to support it.<ref>Hayward, Steven F., "[ Climategate (Part II)]," ''Weekly Standard'', Dec. 12, 2011</ref> This procedure makes a farce of the IPCC's stated mission, which is to review the published literature so as to determine the scientific consensus.
As for the main report, this is put together carelessly, according George Filippo: "I feel rather unconfortable uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)....IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results....I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes." Filippo was a vice chair of the group from 2002 to 2008 and has contributed to all five IPCC reports.<ref>"[ Don't miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC]," January 02, 2012</ref>
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrator, template