From:
http://libertyunbound.com/node/1317
I agree with Pascal Bruckner, that CAGW is just another ideological meme to control people. And, the good news, I hope, is that more & more facts are coming out that rebut CAGW. Most people are just not aware of some basic facts about climate & CO2. Here are some I have learned over the last few years.
1. Currently carbon dioxide amounts to about 0.04% of the atmosphere. (4 / 100ths by percentage or 400 parts per million.)
2. From all of the reading I have done it appears that human caused CO2 generates somewhere between 3-7% of all global carbon dioxide. (For one source see
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/e...ths/myth10.htm ) Even if it as high as 10% per cent, natural causes dwarf human generated CO2. And if humans double their CO2 output, global concentrations go up 10%. (400 current ppm all sources minus 10% by humans [40 ppm] when doubled gives 360 ppm natural sources + 40 (current human caused) +40 [doubling] which is 440 ppm.)
3. There is proof that over the history of the earth there have been times when temperatures climbed first, then an increase in CO2 appears.
4. There have been times when CO2 concentration was as high at 7,000 ppm, one of those during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago.
5. If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes too low (somewhere around 200 ppm) it will be very detrimental to growing crops.
6. There has also been some research about CO2 “climate sensitivity”. Which means how sensitive is global climate to increases or decreases in CO2. Recent research is showing that climate may less sensitive to CO2 increases than earlier studies showed.
Now some comments on the computer climate models used by the people who support CAGW. Not one of them predicted the current temperature “hiatus”. They call it a “pause”, but that assumes global temperature will go up in the future. They all predicted a much higher global temperature average by now. I think there are a couple of major issues with modeling climate and temperature. I don’t think climate scientists know all of the factors that affect climate and global temperatures. One of their latest theories is that the heat has been hidden in the oceans. But recent studies show that the oceans are stable or cooling slightly. The other issue with the models is I don’t think they take “chaos” theory into consideration. The people building models assume that there are knowable & predictable outcomes from a specific set of inputs. But the current failure of the climate simulation models argues against that. Climate could be “chaotic” where it is not “knowable” with our current human knowledge base. And it is possible that it can never be predicted.
There is also quite a bit of “smoothing” (read “changing”) of historical data to fit their models. Climategate showed that certain people are not above fudging data or outright lying. Having done software design and programming on large data sets for many years, I am very skeptical that they are working with the data with any kind of integrity.
Here’s a web site for a more balanced picture than the “sky is falling” CAGW crowd:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot...ticism-of.html
Interview with Canadian scientist Tim Ball
http://thestagblog.com/qa-with-timot...imate-skeptic/
