![In desperation, global warming "True Believers" have turned into a pack of snarling attack dogs.](http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/hash/a6/cb/a6cb4ec814d4a9cb73c124b4c780d6d1.jpg "In desperation, global warming "True Believers" have turned into a pack of snarling attack dogs.")
Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The latest target of the Warmists: Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, a mathematician and leading critic of the global warming theory, a.k.a. "climate change." Monckton was recently mocked and browbeaten in a 115-slide presentation by John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His "hit and run" slide-show attack was an attempt to discredit a presentation that Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009.
Monckton replied with a powerful rebuttal that, point by point, eviscerated Abraham's embarrassingly dishonest production. Monckton called on Abraham and the university to issue a formal apology, remove the libelous presentation from the Internet, and donate $110,000 to a Haitian charity as compensation for the damage done to his reputation.
"Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn't say, complained about things he didn't cite (even if he did and it's printed on his slides), pretended he couldn't find sources (but didn't take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton's character."
The assaults on Monckton and other high-visibility skeptics (for example, Marc Morano of Climate Depot, Joe D'Aleo of ICECAP, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Fred Singer, Anthony Watts and Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi) are further evidence that the global warmists are in full retreat and resorting to slash and burn tactics as they make a desperate last stand to defend their cherished theory from the onslaught of countervailing scientific evidence.
Recently, the so-called "greenhouse effect" has itself come under increasing attack by a phalanx of scientific experts, including Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, professor Nasif Nahle, applied mathematician Claes Johnson, former radio-chemist Alan Siddons, analytical chemist Hans Schreuder, combustion research scientist Martin Hertzberg, and engineer Heinz Thieme.
Last year, 130 skeptical German scientists co-signed an Open Letter of protest to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, asserting, among other things, that a "growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role" in Earth's climate.
The scientists derided global warming as a "pseudo religion," said the "UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility," and dismissed the alarmist warnings of rising CO2, claiming it "had no measurable effect" on temperatures.
The critics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect have been relentless in their attacks. They continue to blast holes in the theory, whose roots go back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896).
As professors Gerlich and Tscheuschner have pointed out in their research paper, "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics":
"[The greenhouse theory] essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.
"According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.
"Neither the absorption nor the reflection coefficient of glass for the infrared light is relevant for this explanation of the physical greenhouse effect, but only the movement of air, hindered by the panes of glass."
A growing body of scientists have joined Gerlich and Tscheuschner in exposing the "accepted science" underlying the greenhouse effect. Here are a few of their more damning statements:
(Heinz Thieme, engineer)
"The phenomenon of 'atmospheric backradiation' is presently advanced as an explanation of thermal conditions on Earth, and as the basis of some statements about climate change. However, scientific evaluation in strict accord with the laws of physics and mathematics suggests that 'atmospheric backradiation' is physical nonsense.
"An assessment conducted in the light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of the key greenhouse theory concept of 'atmospheric backradiation' suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only 'Backradiation Phenomenon' that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place in numerous earth sciences textbooks at both school and university level."
(Alan Siddons, radio chemist)
". . . if the tenets of this [greenhouse] theory are valid there can be no outcome other than a doubling of surface energy (a doubling at minimum, that is, since there's no reason to suppose that radiation from the now-warmer surface would not continue to be back-radiated, absorbed, and amplified in a 'runaway' heating cascade).
"Simple as it is, though, no scientist in the world is able to construct a model that exhibits any radiative gain because the theory's tenets (called 'the basic science') are not valid. On a theoretical basis alone, conservation of energy (the First Law) forbids a model like this from working. You can't obtain more energy than you put in.
"Just like temperature, radiant energy flows do not add. Lumping two 70° balls of clay together doesn't result in a single ball that's 140°, nor do 70 watts per square meter beaming back onto a body that's radiating 70 [degrees] raise it to 140 [degrees]. Frankly, it is stupid to think otherwise."
(Dr. Martin Hertzberg, combustion research scientist)
"The most significant atmospheric component in the radiative balance is water: as a homogeneous absorbing and emitting vapor, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation; as clouds, snow and ice cover, which have a major effect on the albedo, and as the enormous circulating mass of
liquid ocean, whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport with the atmosphere dominate the earth's weather.
"In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane!"
(Siddons, Hertzberg and Schreuder, "A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?")
"The Earth is not "unusually" warm. It is the application of the predictive equation [Stefan-Boltzmann formula] that is faulty. The ability of common substances to store heat makes a mockery of blackbody estimates. The belief that radiating trace gases explain why earth's surface temperature deviates from a simple mathematical formula is based on deeply erroneous assumptions about theoretical vs. real bodies."
These are just a few examples of the mounting criticism directed at the very foundation of the AGW theory -- a theory driven not by science, but rather by a cabal of powerful elitists who seek to dominate and control the planet's economy through a system of confiscatory taxation and Orwellian people controls.
The "science" underlying greenhouse warming alarmism increasingly is being exposed as pure fantasy -- a house of cards built on manipulated climate models supporting pre-ordained conclusions based on cherry-picked land-based temperature data that has been homogenized, interpolated and adjusted to produce, without fail, a politically correct increase in planetary warming.
But as Gerlich and Tscheuschner observe, the science of climate change is fraught with uncertainties and unknowns that make a mockery of the predictive powers of laboratory computer models:
"The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own models."
Comments
Well said Kirk Myers! Could agree more. Little wonder the fraud that's been promoted by the AGW Warmer's is progressively collapsing aground the world, especially in Australia and the US.
Skeptics are at long last gaining the high ground in this debate which still has a long way to before common sense prevails.
Whilst a cleaner greener environment is good for us all, the claims that CO2 is the primary cause of runaway global warming no longer accepted by the majority of citizens worldwide! The science as promoted by the UN IPCC Reports has been thoroughly discredited.
Only a complete review of climate science by qualified scientists from both sides of the debate is the only way this highly controversial subject can move forward!
I'm afraid you're as dense as the writer's opinion piece. Everything this "examiner" writes is bunk. He's admittedly a public relations man and I suspect that his cflients propaganda needs propel his awful writing. He's certainly not a reporter in any sense of the word. I'd guess he has Exxon-Mobil or the Koch brothers as a client, or is trolling to get them.
Another slow news day; I'm afraid that, as far as climate change goes, there is no news like old news!
This is an excellent article. It is not only AGW theory that is under threat, but also greenhouse theory itself - as both and an analogy and a scientific proposition - that is being exposed as old, weak and appallingly inaccurate science.
But the problem remains as to how to extricate ourselves from the way that CAGW has woven its way into our society, through education, politics, fiscal policy, carbon trading, marketing and not least value driven social behaviours. Which reminds me of this fine quote, not used often enough to describe alarmist behaviour:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” Tolstoy.
OK, let's see: Every scientific organization still supports GW. Every national science academy still supports GW. 97 % of climate researchers do. Over 95% of papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals do. So how is this a retreat? And the 4 "scientists" you site -- only 1 is a scientist, and his field (combustion) has nothing to do with atmospheric science.
Denialists are desperate, but you don't get to make up facts.
Have there ever been any experiments with gas balloons proving or disproving this "theory?" It seems to me that it should be easy to release several balloons with different amounts of CO2 and enough helium/hydrogen (whichever that would not mask the results) that the balloon would ascend high enough to get meaningful data.
If the CO2 is "capturing" the suns radiation then it is NOT striking the earth (land, water, buildings, etc.). Wouldn't the amount captured by the CO2 equal the amount that was NOT captured by the earth and balance out the equation? Further wouldn't the earth also "re-radiate" the energy it does capture which would also cause an amplification of heat (think city heat island effect) and cause global warming. Therefore, we should destroy all cities. Why is the amplification factor from 300-500 ppm of CO2 so much greater than that of dark rocks, buildings, land masses, oceans, etc.? The black slate in my foyer is still very warm to the touch the morning after a sunny
Notwithstanding the current "state" of the science of global climate, we need to look very closely at the one factor that is most readily available. Temperature.
Proxies are one thing but confirming the validity of actual climate measurements would be a tremendous step in the right direction. Have we really been heating up? Is it all part of a regular cycle that is influenced by all kinds of "forcings" and not just the "homogenizing and quality controlling" aspects as practiced by GISS and HADCRUT?
Theories are one thing and models are another. Reality is easy to define once we are able to discern its manifestation. Time to go back to the drawing board before we continue the debate.
Bravo.
Moar, please!
I live up here in the Pacific NW.
We now have large patches of forest that are dying. And most agree it's because it's been so much warmer over the past few years. Douglas Firs are heat sensitive.
The north is seeing a far greater warmup than you folks in Florida.
I got all the proof I need about global warming right outside my own door...
Human caused or natural cycle makes no difference at this point.
x
erwin schroedinger,
Your appeal to authority sheds no light on the topic that Kirk Myers is writing about.
It can take just one person to disprove a consensus,it has happened many times before.
If you have any actual counterpoint to offer against this article,do it and spare us the worthless appeal to authority pablums.
There is indeed a traditional "logical fallacy" called "appear to authority". Both sides appeal to authority constantly however, citing different authorities, so absolute purity isn't possible or desirable.
However, over 99.9% of us are frankly incapable of real evaluation of the mathematics and theory behind global warming, pro or con. We can fool ourselves that in reading a few paragraphs or seeing a movie (from either side!!) we somehow know as much as anybody. We don't.
Instead we are forced to weigh probabilities of credibility of those who can and do create and evaluate the real science. At this point, we have two scenarios to evaluate. Scenario 1. 97 % of climate scientists around the world are deluded or conspiring. Not just climate scientists tho - every national science academy in the world - communist or capitalist, east or west, north or south - has endorsed the core of global warming. AND this is despite the hoax or incompetence being so transparent that; the truth which eludes all those scientists who actually read the science and check the equations, is immediately clear to laymen who read other people's selective summaries.
Or maybe there's something to it, and a small minority still dissents because (1) You NEVER get 100% agreement and (2) there are interested parties who would like to manipulate public opinion, and they can get that minority disproportionate media attention.
xexon,
I live in the Pacific Northwest too and I consider your comment about Douglass Fir misleading.
How about reading the official Department of Agriculture forest service reports?
In them you will learn that a variety of factors are in play and that MONOCULTURE planting large tracts of DF can help promote the spread of vectors.
Douglas Firs grow is a wide variety of climates from the hot continental interior to the frigid rocky mountains to the Maritime coastal.
Quoting San Francisco State University
Department of Geography:
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) can grow under a wide variety of climatic conditions from the maritime climate of the Pacific Northwest to the mild continental climates of the Rocky Mountains (Earle 1999).
While I agree about the vectors, it doesn't change the fact it's been hotter up here than anytime in recent history.
I know because I'm considering moving about a 1000 miles further north to escape it.
Had enough.
I HATE the heat. It's why I left Alabama in 1977.
It's 56 outside right now. I live on the coast, in the fog zone. If I go even 2 miles inland the temp rises by about 10-15 degrees. That's normal, but other things aren't.
We've had some recent(10 years or so) saltwater intrusion into the local marshes that have killed the trees. Most here will agree the ocean is coming up higher than it used to.
And it's not storms pumping saltwater either.
If we examine the historical record, weather has never been stable for very long. We are certainly approaching a new era in what is to come.
Once these changes hit the breadbaskets of the world, starvation is a very real possibility for a while.
x
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!