OK, I'll try to answer this as much as possible. My position is due to not only scientific concerns but political clues as well.
To start with, I understand the basics of climatology. I would not place myself on the same level as those who research it continuously; however that
would not be necessary for me to understand the science they put forth. I can also understand Relativity, but I seriously doubt I could have filled
So my first reason is that the science being put forth is being put so in a manner that does not allow
for an understanding of how the
conclusions and predictions were arrived at. I cannot begin to understand how the conclusions were arrived at because the basic data is obscured. For
example, what is the albedo of the planet as a whole? What percentage of infrared emission of the Earth is in the bandwidth that is absorbed by carbon
dioxide? These are two questions that are absolutely essential to any calculation of expected temperature change; yet if the answer is anywhere on the
Internet, it is protected by a password. If it is included in written physical data, that written data is buried somewhere (in the IPCC archives?); it
is certainly not in the extensive library I have, nor in any public or university library I have been able to find.
Secondly, where is the complete source code for these models? Oh, it is available now
... it was released along with the CRU emails, apparently.
Why did it take a hacker to release the source code?
Without benefit of the information I just mentioned, calculations show a maximum temperature difference which is negligible
(Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.
). Now I realize these calculations may be
lacking in some aspects, but in those aspects, the information I just finished mentioning as unavailable is needed.
I fail to understand how carbon dioxide scrubbing, such as that developed by Columbia
is not a solution. If carbon dioxide is a problem, then would removing it from the atmosphere not alleviate the problem? Greenpeace
even admitted that the reason they condemned the scrubber was that it would allow people to continue to use fossil fuels. Apparently their complaint
is not over CO2, but over the use of fossil fuels.
The proposal of Cap & Trade is an economic nightmare in the making. Anyone with a passing knowledge of economics should be able to see this, so for
purposes of expediency, I'll not go into the exact reasoning behind such in this post; if you want a more thorough explanation of this, ask and I
Cap & Trade also does not lend itself to decreasing carbon dioxide levels. Instead it purports to create an artificial commodity (carbon credits), the
use of which is mandated by law. Any decrease in carbon dioxide levels would only be by a limit on carbon credits, which, since they are printed by
the government and have monetary value (just like cash), would be as subject to over-printing as cash is today. What mechanism is in place to prevent
this? Only the UN itself, the only entity on the planet with a worse history of scandals than the United States government (Food for Oil, anyone?).
Cap & Trade has also been advanced by the likes of Al Gore based on proven faulty data. Now, should most people be caught intentionally
misrepresenting data in order to obtain a monetary gain, they would be prosecuted. Gore won a Nobel Prize and an OSCAR. That is evidence to me that
someone in the upper hierarchy of society was extremely happy with his actions.
There have been multiple data inconsistencies by those who believe in anthropogenic carbon dioxide based Global Warming. It is generally held by such
that local observations of temperature changes are not applicable to global temperatures (a position I agree with), yet any localized deviation from
normal is also touted as evidence. They want their cake and want to eat it too.
The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today are much lower than what they have been in the past.
The temperature of Greenland today, as an example, is much lower than it has been in the recent past (the Vikings had agricultural settlements
The temperature curve of the planet has stabilized in the last decade, consistent with a sine wave curve which is indicative of natural processes.
During the same time, carbon dioxides levels have continued to rise.
Historical records indicate that while there does appear to be some correlation between warming periods and carbon dioxide levels, the heating trends
come prior to the carbon dioxide levels, disproving the cause and effect relationship from carbon dioxide levels to temperature increases. If any
cause and effect is occurring, it would have to be from heating to carbon dioxide levels, the opposite of what is claimed.
A recent YouTube video series
was presented to try and 'debunk the debunkers'. One
clip was debunking the idea of the 'urban heat island'. In doing that, he also debunked anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The evidence was that warming
anomalies did not correlate geographically to urban centers; those areas are aso where all of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is released.
There have been multiple reports of improperly-located temperature monitoring stations. They have been shown sitting a few feet away form air
conditioning units, in direct sunlight next to concrete areas, or close to building entrances where heated air can affect them. The IPCC itself, in
its own regulations, prohibits such placement; yet they eagerly accept the data from these stations.
A major climate observatory for monitoring of carbon dioxide levels is placed near Mauna Loa, an active
Volcanoes emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide on an unpredictable schedule.
Carbon dioxide is only toxic at levels of 5000 ppmv; we are presently at 380 ppmv. To plant life, carbon dioxide even at levels toxic to us,
contributes to accelerated plant growth, leading to more food production ability should levels rise. Yet, one of the concerns over carbon dioxide
levels is that it will disrupt food production.
Now we have leaked emails
stating clearly that there was at least a limited
association of climatologists who were 'fudging' data in secret.
Now we have multiple reports of major problems in the computer models used.
Now we have evidence of cherry-picking data (throwing out all tree ring data from 1960 to present because it diverged from directly observed data, but
leaving in all pre-1960 tree-ring data which supported the conclusions).
To summarize, we have hidden calculations that cannot be viewed by the public, hidden source code for modeling programs, known yet ignored errors in
monitoring instrumentation, overtly falsified data being fed to the public, unscientific demonizing of carbon dioxide, evidence of collusion, evidence
of improper coding in the models, evidence of cherry-picking data, denial of obvious solutions, rabid promotion of unworkable solutions, greed,
obfuscation, and lies.
How much evidence does one need?