Science evolves continuously and can never be settled, unless, of course, the ‘settled’ subject is dogma, not science. Is it just a ‘my way or the highway’ attempt by vested interests to close discussion on their terms?
Consider the term “peer reviewed.” Science evolves through the contribution of new ideas which are published so that their peers (other scientists) can review, validate, contribute, or argue with them.
If we had accepted Niels Bohr’s version of the atom as settled science, there would have been no subatomic particles discovered and nuclear fission might not have ever been attempted, which would be perfectly okay with the modern day flat-earthers.
In 1990, we find the United Nations’ formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chartered to remedy carbon dioxide-induced global warming without ever pausing to examine the plausibility of the theory.
A key feature of this plan is a carbon tax to be levied on developed economies with proceeds going to less developed countries (read members of the UN general assembly).
The goal is to provide incentives to restrict fossil fuel development and invest (read sink money) in wind farms and solar panels with much higher costs per energy unit produced.
It also incentivizes participating governments to create grant funds for environmental lobby groups who make political contributions to the politicians responsible for creating those funds.
The ‘Science’
Combustion of fossil fuels, oil, gas, and coal contributes to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is defined as ‘greenhouse’ gas meaning that it traps heat in the atmosphere leading to an increase in ambient air temperature.
A temperature increase for the planet will cause melting polar ice caps with flooding of coastal areas, polar bear extinction, increased severe weather and drought.
Solutions include solar panels and wind farms, the so-called renewable energies.
The Real Science
Earth temperatures have been fluctuating, up and down, in response to sun activity forever. Polar ice cap fluctuations have been observed to coincide with Earth, Mars and other planets in our solar system.
A striking example of the effect of solar activity is illustrated by the Maunder Minimum, a 200-year pause in solar activity which coincided with the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
In 1990, the IPCC said this is the likely historic temperature history of the planet for the last 1000 years:
CO2 Myth
A 2500-molecule air sample will contain 1952 molecules of nitrogen, 524 molecules of oxygen, 23 molecules of argon and one molecule of carbon dioxide (in red).
This is the mathematical equivalent of 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which MMCC advocates say approaches the level of irreversible change, killing polar bears and inundating our coastal areas.
Since carbon dioxide has a specific heat only about twice the other air constituents, it is difficult to see how it could impart a measurable temperature increase to the other 2,499 air molecules.
That would be like powering the lights of a major sports stadium through a single household extension cord.
The pie-shaped red area in the figure above represents the 11 percent portion of the infrared wavelength which can react with CO2.
Climate Deception
AGW fanatics have relied on four key deceptions to keep their story alive:
- Ice core samples reveal higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during warm periods in the planet’s history.
- Hockey Stick Curve
- Sea Levels Rising
- It is settled science.
Closer inspection of the ice core samples disclosed that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of the warm cycles.
Oceans are a huge sink for carbon dioxide and, like the open root beer loses its fizz when left sitting out at room temperature, they can hold less gas when the climate warms.
When solar activity heats up the oceans, CO2 is given up to the atmosphere. It is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
Hockey Stick Curve
When the IPCC’s declaration that the 20th century was the hottest in history didn’t square with the Medieval warm period, it was necessary to make it disappear.
Michael Mann, two years removed from his Ph.D. in physics, fabricated a temperature curve that supported their assertions with a relatively flat shape until it made an abrupt upturn at the 20th century, hence the term ‘hockey stick’ was applied to it.
It was used to justify the warmists’ theory of everything. Referring to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), author Christopher Booker in his book The Real Global Warming Disaster quotes an unnamed observer, “without it, the TAR would have been a very different document, it would not have been able to conclude what it did, nor could the IPCC have convinced world leaders to take the actions they subsequently took.”
The unusual hockey stick shape intrigued some people who were not associated with climate science, but experts in graphical representations.
Stephen McIntyre, a financial consultant and statistical analyst, joined by Guelph University economics professor Ross McKitrick, analyzed the hockey stick.
They were familiar with hockey stick algorithms used by people to sell a business prospect. In short, they showed the curve to be without merit based upon dubious assumptions.
There is a wide disagreement on the question of sea level elevation. Who can forget the scene in Al Gore’s movie, an “Inconvenient Truth” when he rides a scissor-lift up 17 feet to dramatize the global warming effect on sea levels?
Expertise
Whenever AGW is questioned, the answer is always, “it’s settled science.” They go on to say that 97% or even 99% of scientists agree.
They ignore the caliber of those who disagree, who include Freeman Dyson (who supported Obama), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, and Green guru James Lovelock, who said, ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy.’
Conclusion
According to Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Source