By Ferdinand Bardamu, AMERICAN THINKER
The mainstream “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) says the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) remained stable for millions of years, until the Industrial Revolution, when it went from 280 ppm in 1750 to 414.7 ppm in 2019. Environmentalists blame this on man’s consumption of fossil fuels, which has increased significantly since the early 1900s.
In support of the “consensus” view, climate change researchers write: “[T]he current CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years[.] … [G]lobal temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary” (Willeit et al., 2019). Environmentalists predict that, as anthropogenic CO2 rises, there will be more and more natural disasters, threatening the lives of millions of people around the world. These include more frequent and severe hurricanes, widespread flooding, extreme heat waves, and prolonged drought.
Belief in the dangers of AGW has led to the emergence of “climate change science,” an interdisciplinary field that is very different from the natural sciences. Regular scientists rely on objective, empirical methods to test hypotheses. Climate change scientists, on the other hand, manipulate data to fit preconceived beliefs; they are trained to ignore hypotheses challenging the AGW status quo, no matter how plausible. In the natural sciences, governments fund different avenues of research; in climate change science, only AGW receives funding because it is “politically correct.” Climate change scientists are expected to uncover positive correlations between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature; if they cannot find one, it will have to be manufactured out of thin air. Not only is there no research money for those seeking alternative explanations of climate change, but any attempt at falsifying the AGW hypothesis is considered heresy. Those who question the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)’s findings are dismissed as cranks challenging a well established scientific “consensus.” Climate change science has more in common with Lysenkoism than actual science.
Climate change scientists are not above using ad hominem rhetoric to silence legitimate debate. Geologists and other researchers who disagree with AGW are dismissed as “climate deniers,” even though no scientifically literate person denies that climate always changes.
In 2008, NASA’s James Hansen, whose testimony before the U.S. Congress in 1988 began the AGW scare, demanded that fossil fuel company CEOs be tried for “high crimes against humanity and nature.” Prosecution for thoughtcrime is apparently warranted because of refusal to accept mainstream “consensus” on AGW. In 2014, the pro-AGW documentary Merchants of Doubt smeared noted American physicist Fred Singer as a “liar.” Singer threatened to sue the film director for libel.
In 2009, a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was hacked, and thousands of emails were leaked. These emails revealed a world seldom seen by the public, where manipulation of data and willful suppression of evidence had replaced scientific objectivity. Free from the glare of public scrutiny, the CRU disregarded the scientific method in pursuit of a political agenda.
The emails tell a tale of corruption at the highest levels of academia. In one email, a climate change scientist who had uncovered a decreasing trend in Northern Hemispheric temperatures was told to “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick.” By padding the trend with “instrumental” or thermometer data, the proxy temperature record was adjusted to reflect mainstream “consensus.” In other emails, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were routinely evaded and incriminating emails hurriedly deleted. Scientists who disagreed with the CRU were ridiculed and bullied. The scandal, known as “Climategate,” revealed a conspiracy among scientists to feed biased information to the IPCC. In the aftermath, the CRU’s top scientists narrowly escaped criminal prosecution because of a legal technicality.
In addition to its proponents’ questionable conduct, there are numerous problems with the evidence of AGW. Environmental activists typically rely on scientific “consensus” and the “hockey stick” graph to prove it. Claims of overwhelming scientific “consensus” on AGW are sourced from Cook, et al. (2013), a team of volunteers affiliated with SkepticalScience.com, a pro-AGW website. The study supposedly found that 97% of the scientific community endorses AGW. Re-analysis of the data revealed significant bias and unrepresentative sample sizes. Cook, et al. had excluded 75% of all papers discussing climate change. Geologists have long known about climatic fluctuations across geological and evolutionary timescales, but studies from geology and other earth sciences were woefully undersampled. Cook and his team of volunteers were taken to task for mistaking “a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement” (Tol, 2014).
Michael Mann’s iconic “hockey stick” (1998), the centerpiece of the IPCC’s case for AGW, ignited a firestorm of controversy and debate in the early 2000s, thanks to the efforts of Canadian researchers McIntyre and McKitrick. The original graph showed Northern Hemispheric mean temperature increasing dramatically after the early 1900s; this rising trend, when depicted graphically, resembled a “hockey stick.” McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) re-analyzed Mann’s data, concluding that it was “primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” They also uncovered a late–15th century “Medieval Warming Period,” when temperatures were higher than they are now.
Mann was criticized for using a computer algorithm that “mined for hockey stick shapes and overstated their dominance in the underlying data patterns” (McKitrick, 2014). His proxy temperature data for the “hockey stick” were based on tree ring analysis, which does not produce accurate results because ring width is influenced by soil conditions, amount of sunlight and rainfall, humidity, and CO2 availability. These effects must be disentangled before the data can be properly interpreted.
The IPCC believes that rising anthropogenic CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity; if the ocean can’t absorb excess CO2, it remains trapped in the atmosphere with nowhere to go. As climate physicist Edwin X. Berry pointed out (2019), if this were true, concentration of atmospheric CO2 would be many times higher than it is now, given average CO2 variation across geological and evolutionary timescales. The IPCC apparently believes that anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 have the same molecular formulas but different molecular structures, a preposterous assumption that violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
The most accurate models always supply us with an explanation that best fits the data. Berry’s simple mathematical model “shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow.” After nuclear testing during the 1950s and ’60s, there was a temporary accumulation of C14 in the atmosphere, which eventually dissipated after 1970. In order for the Bern model to be correct, this man-made CO14 would have remained trapped in the atmosphere. The data show this to be false, forcing us to conclude that Berry’s “physics model” is the most accurate explanation.
AGW is clearly not supported by the data, so what causes rising average global temperatures?
There is evidence that climate change is affected by solar magnetic flux, although the precise mechanism is still under debate. The most common theory suggests an inverse correlation between sunspot activity and cosmic ray intensity. During low sunspot activity, expansion of the sun’s corona produces faster and stronger solar winds. These shield the heliosphere from interstellar cosmic rays, which are needed for ionization of aerosols in Earth’s atmosphere. If ionization fails to produce enough charged particles, there is less formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CNNs), the “surface” area for water vapor condensation. Without sufficient cloud cover, incoming solar radiation will raise average global temperature because it is not being reflected back into outer space (Svensmark, 2019).
Environmentalists like to believe that there is a climate “control knob,” but we have as much control over the climate as King Canute of England had over the tides. AGW is a malicious fraud based on spurious correlation and post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. The question remains to be asked: if AGW is so obviously wrong, why does the IPCC continue to promote it as if it were actually true? The answer is money and power. This means more money and power for governments, which get to collect carbon taxes and impose cap and trade policies, and for the IPCC and other U.N. bodies, which get to dictate global environmental policy and transfer billions of dollars from the West to third-world countries.
Yitzchak Levkowitz Thanks for your efforts in providing more information on this difficult to find paper, especially the abstract above WHICH I AM READING THIS MINUTE, and I do believe it makes the case for the “hockey stick” when he or she or they say and I quote from this abstract in your comment directly above
There is a false idea put about by many including by American Thinker and that is that the graph by Michael Mann stands on its own. Mann claims in a video that there are many, many such studies since his that come to the same conclusion.
The Quaternary is a very long period of time and the system was kept “in order” by CO2 which varied only within a very narrow bound. CO2 IS the regulator of the system. As a greenhouse gas it blocks radiation from escaping and so enables life. How this happens is for me the key area of study. it is the rapid increase in our era which IS the era of capitalism, and especially the great acceleration since about 1950 that is causing all of the problems, and IS the “hockey Stick”, which we must remember is only a graph but a graph which brings to mind a hockey stick. So the “blade” is the problem.
In his recent book “Facing the Anthropocene” the Marxist writer Ian Angus, native of Canada, produces a valuable graph from NASA in location 891 of Chapter 4.
First of all the valuable and very clear NASA graph. Along the left side CO2 is measured in parts per million. Along the bottom are the years represented. the naming of the graph seems to be “For 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2, has never been above this line..until now. the graph shows four major changes in CO2 levels in those 400,000 years but always between 180 and 300.
And what is happening to this “miracle” of atmospheric stability of CO2, the “regulator of temperature on our earth. in our day, with 1950 mentioned, and current CO2 level mentioned on the graph, the latter is seen as having shot up to 400, that is 400 parts per million. {The graph is as of July 2013}
And thereby if CO2 IS the regulator of temperature on our earth, and if this CO2 remains steady and low (thereby just enough) for 400,000, actually 600,000 years is the study although the graph is just showing the 400,000 years, a mighty long time, and inside of 70 years there is this dramatic increase, WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN?
i think it means that climate science is giving certain information, and the youth of Extinction rebellion have picked up on this information, and they are basing their concerns on carefully gathered and independent scientific information.
The graph by NASA is well covered and if you google “nasa for 650,000 years atmospheric CO2”, then click images in the line above, you will find many representations of this valuable graph.
The Extinction Rebellion youth and adults are really onto the science, just as surely as Marx and Engels were onto the science of Charles Darwin and Evolution. But of far more consequence for whether life will continue on Earth.
these articles in American Thinker are below contempt. The aim of these articles is to falsify the science already produced but by implying that the scientists of the world are engaged in a massive conspiracy scandal. But they are not as the NASA graph above shows. And it turns out the people who do not answer the facts of this graph are the ones engaged in horrific conspiracy practice, and among these i might add are the very worst antisemites on the planet.
@ Yitzchak Levkowitz:
Something happened I included the link and it did not come thru. It is the actual paper published on the website. The webiste is
advances.sciencemag(dot-org)/content/5/4/eaav7337
RESEARCH ARTICLECLIMATOLOGY
Mid-Pleistocene transition in glacial cycles explained by declining CO2 and regolith removal
M. Willeit1,*, A. Ganopolski1, R. Calov1 and V. Brovkin2
See all authors and affiliations
Science Advances 03 Apr 2019:
Vol. 5, no. 4, eaav7337
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav7337
Abstract
Variations in Earth’s orbit pace the glacial-interglacial cycles of the Quaternary, but the mechanisms that transform regional and seasonal variations in solar insolation into glacial-interglacial cycles are still elusive. Here, we present transient simulations of coevolution of climate, ice sheets, and carbon cycle over the past 3 million years. We show that a gradual lowering of atmospheric CO2 and regolith removal are essential to reproduce the evolution of climate variability over the Quaternary. The long-term CO2 decrease leads to the initiation of Northern Hemisphere glaciation and an increase in the amplitude of glacial-interglacial variations, while the combined effect of CO2 decline and regolith removal controls the timing of the transition from a 41,000- to 100,000-year world. Our results suggest that the current CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years and that global temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary.
Here is the article in Science Magazine.
URGENT! THIS IS NOW URGENT IF ISRAPUNDIT AND ITS PEOPLE ARE TO MEAN ANYTHING!
find the location of this quote
““[T]he current CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years[.] … [G]lobal temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary” (Willeit et al., 2019).
If Ted Belman and those who support him on this issue are to have any validity on anything please do this. Locate this quote precisely.
If necessary write to American Thinker.
Keep going until they respond
I am becoming reluctant to reply to these articles that Ted introduces. there comes a point when lie after lie is replied to and tried to correct it seems not worth it.
The source here is not given precisely but it is most likely this “http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/04/first-successful-model-simulation-of-the-past-3-million-years-of-climate-change/comment-page-2/#comments”.
But the quote in inverted commas cannot come from it or any other work by any scientist.
the quote from above that I am talking about is “[T]he current CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years[.] … [G]lobal temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary” (Willeit et al., 2019). ”
By the above I mean from the article above here produced by Ted.
Not change more than 2 degrees. The Quaternary age encompasses the Pleistocene (ice ages)
Quite impossible for a climate scientist to say that. That quote is manufactured. There are people sitting down and falsifying information.
before anybody talks about Climategate please watch the video in which Michael Mann talks about Climate Gate, I cannt put my finger on the one I mean, but this one may be as good. Climategate came from stolen emails and was the same sort of setup that is being planted on Trump by Schiff…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElI-XVGHCHs
mann explains often how words were extracted before Copenhagen and used out of context…and remember stolen emails
But again there comes a point where despite ……. I give up on this issue
@ Lorensacho:
If the author is in fact writing under a well known fictional person’s name as a nom de plume there is no reason to suspect another use of the nom is the same person, absent evidence. We have here, as a putative attempt to discredit, a naked and scurrilous argumentum ad hominem.
If every country fulfills every promised Paris Climate Accord carbon cut for the next 14 years at a cost of trillions, carbon dioxide emissions will drop by 60 gigatons. To keep the rise of temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, the world must reduce such emissions by 6,000 gigatons. One major volcanic eruption will wipe out any gains. The Paris Accord is an anti-America humanitarian hoax designed to transfer the wealth from industrialized countries, especially the United States, to non-industrialized countries. The purpose of the climate change hoax is to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy in preparation for one world government.
Ferdinand Bardamu is not a real person but a character in a novel by Celine. Whoever this person is, he or she has also written about how the global elites have conspired to force people of color and of different cultures on us pure white folks to lower our standard of living and destroy what’s good. Israpundit diminishes its own effectiveness by giving a platform to these nuts.