|
| |
Fraud and Misrepresentation |
 Click on graph to enlarge |
The United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that
the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe
group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific
consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been
spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a
survey
was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having
climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there
was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global
warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about
climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the
question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among
scientists who can actually speak to the issue.
In 2001 a
voluntary petition
was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other
things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in
the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists
signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists
signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had
PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500)
that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The
IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among
scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide
the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically,
motivated. Every effort is made to
silence the
dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the
actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent. |
 |
In 1998 a team of scientists applied a
statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and
reported that instead of having a
Little Ice Age
and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's
temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth
century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind
was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the
Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick.
Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary
for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr.
Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set
to the scientists wanting to verify his results. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
 |
Finally, two Canadian scientists found
out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach.
They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up
with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even
if they inputted a completely random data set. The curve was a function of
the statistics used, and had nothing to do with reality. When the Canadian
scientists applied the correct statistics, out popped the Little Ice Age and
Medieval Climate Optimum (see above). Worse, a scandal at Great Britain's
Climate Research Unit in the late fall of 2009 revealed that the data used
in the graph after 1960 was from a totally different and completely
corrupted data set. Even if the second data set was not corrupted, combining
two radically different data sets (apples and oranges) into one graph
negates its scientific validity. Although the Hockey Stick Curve was thoroughly
discredited, it continued to be used in publications and media reports for
years, and was a main component of Al Gore's video The Inconvenient
Truth. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode is that even
after having his error exposed, Dr. Michael Mann is still a principal
scientist in the IPCC and receives millions of dollars from the US
government. Tragically, this kind of slipshod research has also
been discovered coming out of
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the finding that
NASA's temperature data was in error in 2007, other errors are being reported. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
 |
Although Al Gore's video, The
Inconvenient Truth has been show in almost every middle and high school
in America, it is very biased and error ridden. The former Science Advisor
to Prime Minister Thatcher was so alarmed at the errors, biases and
exaggerations that he sued the British government to keep it from being
shown in England. After the British High Court reviewed all the evidence,
they ruled against Gore outlining 9 serious errors (there are over 30 errors
totally). The Inconvenient Truth cannot be shown in public schools
today without a disclaimer that is a political film with numerous scientific
errors. To read the court's decision in these articles click
here,
here and
here. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
|
|
One of the most exaggerated claims made
in The Inconvenient Truth is that if half of Antarctica's and half of
Greenland's icecaps were to melt, sea levels would rise twenty feet or more,
flooding coastal cities and islands. The images used in the video are very
graphic and alarming. While Gore's claim is technically more or less
correct, the message he gives that it could happen in the next few
decades is completely false. First, as noted above, earth has experience
much warmer temperatures in the past and neither icecap melted. It would
take thousands of years at these temperatures for that to happen. Second,
even the highly political and biased reports from the IPCC say that at the
very most, ocean levels might rise 23 inches in the next 100 years, and only
then if warming continued to increase at the rates experienced in the last
quarter of the twentieth century. Third, we are likely entering a cooling
period, so the issue is no longer relevant. In fact,
Greenland's icecap is not losing ice mass, and the
rise in ocean levels has slowed significantly. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
 |
A serious error was found in the NASA
temperature data for the United States in 2007. When corrected, it was determined that the warmest
year in the past 100 years was not in 1998 and 2006 as previously believed, but was
1934, followed 1998. 1921 became the third
hottest year, followed by 2006 and 1933. Out of the five hottest years,
three occurred in the 1920s and 30s and only two were in the past 10 years.
Notice that the US data do not have the same steep increase in temperature
shown in the corrupted data of Britain's Climate Research Unit's data in the
graph above. This dramatically changes scientists understanding of the importance of the
warming that has occurred since 1975. The period between 1995 and 2009 is no
warmer than the period between 1920 and 1935.
This error in the NASA data has lead to discoveries of other errors in the
data which are
raising concern about data integrity of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge
|
|
 |
Although global warming models show that
both polar regions should warming with CO2-caused global warming, the
various stations maintained in Antarctica show Antarctica to be cooling over
the past two decades. One research paper in 2008 allegedly showing
Antarctica to be warming is being
accepted with skepticism by the scientific community, even by those who
still maintain that global warming is caused by human activity. The main
criticism centers on the use of highly questionable equations to fill in
temperature data between the widely scattered weather stations in
Antarctica. It appears to many to be a repeat of the infamous
hockey stick curve fiasco
of the early 2000s.
The only place Antarctica has shown true warming is
along Western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is where pictures
of massive ice chucks breaking off of Antarctica come from that are shown on
the news every couple of years. Research published in 2007-2008 found that
this warming is NOT do to global warming, but to volcanic activity under the
ocean and ice flows. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
 |
While the correlation between atmospheric
increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it
is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 --
The higher the rs value the greater the
correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself
does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in
the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar
irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11
and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good
correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and
somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the
leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar
activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation, explained below. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
|
|
Research done primarily at the
Danish National Space
Center has show there is a very high correlation between incoming solar
radiation and cloud formation. Cosmic radiation originates from exploding
super novae. When the cosmic radiation enter the earth's atmosphere, they
excite water vapor molecules, causing them to clump together (condense) into
tiny water droplets which form low elevation clouds. These clouds then
reflect the solar radiation back into space instead of warming the earth.
This causes the earth to cool. When the
sun becomes more active more solar flares,
coronal mass ejections and other solar activity dramatically increase
the solar winds which push back cosmic radiation thereby preventing the
cosmic radiation from reaching the earth's atmosphere and creating more
clouds. Since there is less cloud formation, more solar radiation reaches
the earth's surface and the earth warms. It is estimated that this
phenomenon can account for 85 percent of the warming that occurred in the
twentieth century. |
|
Click on graph to enlarge |
|
|
|
|
|
