Real vs Faux Science in the Global Warming Debate

Now that the furor over Nobel Scientist Al Gore has died down, lets look at some of the real science of global warming. How about science from people who have actually investigated the issues? For example, is CO2 related to global warming? Yes, but not nearly in the way that the IPCC shills might have you think.

The US National Science Foundation has further confirmed the scientific observation that increases in carbon dioxide happen years after natural global warming cycles, and that CO2 does not contribute to global warming on near the scale that was once thought.
Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming -- that warm periods in the earth's past were typically accompanied by rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide. But that evidence is under serious attack, from new research funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The research team, led by Paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, demonstrated CO2 levels after the last Ice Age started to rise some 1,300 years after the warming began. According to Stott, earlier researchers had cause and effect reversed -- CO2 increases were the result of warming, and not the original cause. Stott's paper is not the first to show CO2 rises followed warming trends, but it is one of the most detailed and thorough rebuttals of the linkage.

The work comes hot on the heels of other research downgrading CO2's importance in climate change. Earlier this year, the Belgian Royal Meteorological Institute issued a study saying CO2 effects had been "grossly overstated." Dr. Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs concluded that CO2-based warming had been overstated by some 400%, and a pair of Chinese researchers used mathematical modeling to demonstrate the majority of current warming was natural in origin.

Stott's findings are important for two reasons. First, they directly challenge the correlation between CO2 and warming. As Stott himself points out, CO2 is still likely a contributor to climate change, but its role needs to be reevaluated.
Science can be painful...I mean to those who don't actually perform the observations, but instead sit in their offices and trust their garbage-in-garbage-out computer models.

Take for example the non-scientist Al Gore. There were actually a lot more untruths in his movie than the British High Court pointed out. And Gore new about them, but he worried that if he pointed out the tenuousness of many of the claims, that the authentic scientific community and its fellow travelers (like me) would begin piling on with marked derision. Well, the piling on has begun!
Based on the judge’s ruling, the footage that ought to be excised adds up to about 25 minutes or so out of the 98-minute film. What’s left is largely Gore personal drama and cinematic fluff that has nothing to do with the science of climate change.

It should also be pointed out that Gore makes other notable factual misstatements in the film that don’t help his or his film’s credibility.

He says in the film that polio has been "cured," implying that we can cure "global warming." While a preventative polio vaccine does exist, there is no "cure" for polio.

Gore attempts to smear his critics by likening them to the tobacco industry. In spotlighting a magazine advertisement proclaiming that "more doctors smoke Camel than any other brand," he states that the ad was published after the Surgeon General’s 1964 report on smoking and lung cancer. But the ad is actually from 1947 — 17 years before the report.

Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.

Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn’t want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
Yesterday the United Nations overstepped itself by stating that because we have failed to tackle the obvious problem of man-made global warming that we have now entered "the sixth mass extinction of life" in the history of earth. Hmmm... Maybe they'll need a few wars to help the UN's thesis along. How about a few wildfires?

It's a good thing that the UN has laid its cards on the table. Maybe now everyone will start noticing that the UN and its Frankenstein Monster--theIPCC--are emperors that have no clothes.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Frank, I enjoy your blog immensely, and appreciate the dialog it often elicits, but these global warming posts are a bit out there.

    Tell me, is every scientist that supports the idea that global warming exists, and is aggravated by human action that you would call a real scientist?

    I believe the issue is much more complex than "real" vs. "faux." I think every scientist researching the issue is doing so because they believe their work is important. To assert (as you often do) that any scientist reaching conclusions different than your own is a fool is to over-simplify an issue that you may not get a chance to say "oops, I was wrong" about. Nor will your children, and most definitely not your grandchildren.

    It's not a risk I am willing to take, and therefore I steer clear of labeling scientific debate "real" of "faux" if it differs from my own personal opinion.

    But then, perhaps that's why you and I are bloggers, and not research scientists? Perhaps we are not the experts we both would claim to be? And perhaps this issue is deserving of honest dialog, not cheap labels and half-assed debunking?

    Could be.

  3. Jason,

    I apologize if I come across as thinking that I am an expert. I'm not. But I have done a great deal of study on this issue.

    Gore's movie is largely a farce. I have read copiously noted books, and have looked into several of the notes to prove that the sources weren't made up. I also read one book that was in favor of man-made global warming, and the author was clear and gracious enough to point out that he didn't really know for sure (and that others didn't either) whether man was having such an effect on global warming. But he felt like we couldn't afford to be wrong.

    I've posted in previous articles that I am confident that global warming exists--just that I don't think man has nearly as much to do with it as some scientists say.

    It's hard to do justice to both sides of the issue in a blog article, but I do believe that there are real scientists on both sides of the issue. And that they are experts, and that they are sincere.

    I'll try to take up that perspective in a future article.

  4. The Global warming issue has been made comparable to The war in Iraq.
    Let me explain. It was necessary to get Sadam out of power.
    Pres. G.W Bush thought so as well. The problem is that he lied to get us to take care of the
    problem at hand. That is, in my opinion, very wrong.
    If you believe we need to take care of an issue, you should not lie to get it taken
    care of. Global warming is the same scenario.
    People on the side of "man made" global warming are doing the same thing Pres. G.W Bush did
    for the Iraqi war. They know that we need to take care of the planet, but how do they get
    their point across and to get people to take action???...
    Thats it! We make up stuff about it that will scare others into believing it!
    I know we need to take care of our planet. Let's go for more fuel efficient vehicles, and
    eventually get away from oil based fuel, we all know it's possible. But come on people, we don't need
    to lie about why we need to. If we do, the mess we will get ourselves into will be comparable
    to the situation of the current war in Iraq. Except right here at home.

  5. I am a scientist, and I have held a number of research posts.

    True scientists seek truth, and strive to relate facts to truth. They recognize that there is a lot of truth that they do not [yet] know. They will go wherever the truth leads.

    Politicians have no such allegiance. They will go wherever the polls lead.

    The problem is that politicians seek to influence scientists, and if you are a pragmatic scientist, you will go where the funding takes you. Enter the First Church of the Warming Globe, where any questioning of the official mantra is heresy and will be brought up against you at the yet-to-be-held Nürmberg-style trials.

    So am I 'for' global warming or 'against' it?
    Neither. I stand for truth, without political bull.

  6. Danny,

    Excellent analogy.

    I think government should foster alternative energy, as I have written on SUMP before (GW Bush has done a terrible job of this, too in my opinion), but I also think that we shouldn't snub our noses (let the Democrats hold us hostage??) at domestic oil resources because it might have a small effect on the environment. We're gonna be in a world of hurt if our relationship with the Middle East makes it so that we can't get the oil we need from that region.

    Sorrel (sgj3),

    I agree. We should seek the truth. I suppose I may have poked a bit too much fun at those who are dead sure that man is causing global warming, but the fact is as you stated, that

    politicians seek to influence scientists, and if you are a pragmatic scientist, you will go where the funding takes you

    It's interesting that people who subscribe to the doom and gloom scenario either can't or won't see this very fundamental concept.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog