Climate Change Scaremongering is a Threat to our Democracy

The latest Climate Commission report on climate change is yet another joke from a farcical organization.

The claim that all scientists are now in agreement with the premise that "the climate is changing" is just so dumb. Off course they are and always have been. The climate has always changed, naturally.

Furthermore, main stream media has a lot to answer for, for their obvious scaremongering presentations.

For example:
On Apr 3rd, 2013 ABC1 news presented a graphic claiming a 40% rise in GHGs since the industrial revolution, followed immediately by a picture of the chimney stack of a coal fired power station emitting predominately steam. The associated audio stated "we need to take immediate steps to reign in emissions". The intention was to convey the though that humans had caused this 40% increase in GHGs.
We have to presume that they're referring to atmospheric CO2, unless they've found another significant human caused GHG that they are keeping from us, for fear of creating alarm. Oh yeah sure!

Reality check:
Human CO2 production is just 3% of the total. Nature is therefore responsible for the remaining 37% of the rise they've referred to.
So what their data should be telling them is that nature is responsible for 100*37/40 = 92.5% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since industrialization. Hence, if they're blaming CO2 for climate change, then they've clearly highlighted that nature is not only predominately responsible, but also that it's so dominate that any change we make to our CO2 emissions will have an undetectable impact.
So why are their conclusions the exact opposite of this?

As it happens, industrialization started around the time of the end of the little ice age. Natural CO2 production has been on the rise since that time. This is due to the warming of the seas, which causes more CO2, trapped in the oceans depths, to be released.
The thermal inertia of the seas means the temperature increases much more slowly than the surface temperatures. Hence we expect that more "old ice" in the Arctic and Antarctic will melt each summer and natural CO2 levels will continue to rise.

Another example from a similar Climate Commission campaign last September.
SBS news presented the story by showing two graphics side by side. Each were satellite pics of the Arctic, one with little snow/ice cover and the other with heavy cover. The story was highlighting IPCC alarm over the rate of decay of the snow/ice cover. The final comment from the presenter was, "be aware that this was not the change over a long period. This was the change in just six months".
The tactic of that statement was twofold:
1. It was designed to be alarming for the unaware.
2. It meant that they could not be challenged for presenting misleading information.

Reality check:
Obviously the snow/ice cover of the Arctic varies bi-annually from a minimum after summer to a maximum after winter. Hence the two pics were useless for a measure of melt rates and for their associated alarming story. You would need to compare pics from one year to the next exactly 12 months apart. Furthermore, as we know from the previous example, we expect the cover to reduce as the oceans warm. So no surprises here for those that are aware. The intention of course was to alarm the unaware and there's a lot in that category. If challenged for this misleading information, their reply would be along the lines, "but we correctly reported that the two pics were taken 6 months apart".

Conclusion
The worlds climate is changing as it always does, naturally. The Climate Commission and especially the IPCC are trying to take advantage of the natural variations to support UN agendas.

They (or their earlier cohorts) tried the "coming ice age" scare back in the mid seventies and failed.
They tried the warming scare around the turn of the century and failed.
They have now perfected their tactics so that a majority of people will be convinced and hence will beg to be saved from the monster.
Panicked masses can easily be convinced to vote for anything, including the forfeiting of voting powers.

See this article from the global cooling scare of the mid seventies.

http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t394/VK3BBR/GlobalCoolingSolutions_zps601b07b2.jpg

This is a serious threat to our democracy.
It's up to those of us who are aware to inform others.
Spread the word!

Revised April 8th 2013

Does Human CO2 Cause Global Warming

The IPCC will have you believe that human produced CO2 is a significant driver of global warming, however a quick check of the facts shows that it's insignificant.

The problem with the IPCC is that it's a political org with a UN agenda. Their science is pseudoscience and they sell it using scaremonger tactics. Even their pseudoscience review process has been discredited see:

http://polliter.com/2013/03/19/top-warmist-scientist-we-were-wrong-no-warming/

There is no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 has caused warming, however that’s not to say it’s ruled out. 

If we postulate that CO2 “in our lower and upper atmosphere, including its effect in the Troposphere” does have an overall uncontrolled warming effect, and given that man is responsible for approx 3% of current CO2 production, and even though this is minor, especially when compared to the normal NATURAL variation of CO2 production (approx 12%), then if that postulate is proven to be correct, it must be concluded that man does indeed add to the warming.

Proceeding with the assumption that our postulate’s true; let’s look at the magnitude of this problem. The average global surface temp for the period 1988 to 1998 rose by 0.5deg C. That’s the temp excursion that put the world in a tizzy. 

Now, if we were to stop all industry/power generation/cars etc and live in the trees using bows and arrows to catch our food, then with that 3% less CO2, the average global surface temp rise for that period would have been the same +0.5degC. We simply could not detect the change given the coarseness of our measurement accuracy. 

So we must conclude at the outset that the problem is miniscule.

Now, how do we prove our postulate valid?
If we were the IPCC we would find every possible piece of evidence that might prove our postulate true. That mountain of data would usually be enough to convince most people the postulate was indeed valid.
On the other hand, if we were a science org, we would exhaust every possible means of disproving our postulate. If after that process we still hadn't refuted it, then, under science rules, we can accept it as fact.

For this postulate, the IPCC relies heavily on the fact that CO2 can be proven to be a GHG using a relatively simple lab experiment. Unfortunately it’s impossible to simulate the atmosphere and all of its gasses/impurities/particles and concentrations right up to the troposphere in the lab. Hence, this in itself is not proof.

Last year we had a solar flare event that allowed NASA scientists to do measurements in the Troposphere and those measurements concluded CO2 and NO were “natural thermostats” in as much as they emitted heat to space via radiation. Here’s the article.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

I was one of many that misinterpreted this, thinking it had repercussions on CO2, in as much as it was not only a GHG, but also provided a temperature limiting function. We got a rebuttal from “Watts up with That“ for our efforts. Here it is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

The point of raising this is not to show my stupidity but to highlight the comments on this post. There are a lot of very good points made. I’m not totally satisfied that we are wrong with our interpretation. One suggested some gasses present (or H2O vapour) could take the heat up into the Troposphere where it would warm the CO2 by conduction, which in turn would radiate it to space, as it did for the solar flare heat energy.

The most significant problem for our postulate is the last 16 years of real surface temperature data, which indicates temperatures remain essentially flat, even though the CO2 level continued rising. We should have more heat, so where is it? Under the rules of real science we must deem our postulate invalid unless we can come up with an explanation of where the additional heat has gone. I've seen IPCC articles on the possibilities but none have impressed me at all. Here is the most even handed article I could come up with:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/a-sea-change-on-climate-sensitivity-at-the-economist/

Note the sentence “Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before“

Well I’ll buy that! So maybe there’s something in our “radiation to space from CO2 in the Troposphere” theory.

Conclusion:

So does human CO2 cause global warming or not? The truth is, us humans haven't figured that out yet. 

With the current inconclusive state of climate science and our previous conclusion that it's a minuscule problem anyhow, one has to ask; why are we panicking over this and why are we putting so much effort and $$$ into it?

And a little PS while I have your attention.

Things like this don’t help the alarmist’s case at all.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

So there you have it. Now I brace for the expected degrading and demeaning remarks from the alarmist lobby in line with their usual scaremonger tactics:

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/health-scaremongering.php

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/what-is-pseudoscience.php

Revised April 8th 2013.