Almost everything you thought you knew about man made global warming might be a worthless half-truth.
Lastly, Big Bankers want us to trade carbon. Think about that.
I used to believe in man-made global warming. Then I found out that there was another side to the story, and I was shocked. The good name of science is being exploited. Over $79 billion dollars has been fed into one side of a scientific question, while almost none has been put into auditing the reports, checking the results, or investigating other theories. (Which National Institute do climate skeptics apply for a job at? Answer: None.) We paid to find a crisis, and we got what we paid for. Thousands of skeptics are working pro bono because they are outraged. Retired scientists and engineers and teams of helpers are independently auditing official reports. They are busting major peer reviewed papers.
The killer question: How much will reducing emissions cost and how much warming will it save? They won’t name a number because it’s makes a parody of their policy. (See: Shut down Australia and save 0.01 degrees.)
Why has this become so big?
In 2009, world carbon markets turned over $130 billion dollars. If a new global carbon market was created it will become a $2 trillion market, the largest commodity market in the world (bigger than oil). Banks want to broker those trades (thank you, ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching). Auditors want to audit the unmeasurable, invisible gas; scientists want their rock star status, grants, and worldwide junkets; WWF would like the $60 billion in carbon credits it expects from buying Amazon forests; Solar and wind want the subsidies; Greens want votes, power and the chance to get control over everything down to the light globes you use, and most pathetically, journalists want to impress their friends at dinner parties. Few are brave enough to risk being called a “denier”. So the gravy train rolls on, and no one asks the obvious questions. Name-calling works, eh?
The PDF reports that sum it up
For the overview of the only points that matters in the science, see The Skeptics Handbook (translated into 15 languages by volunteers). To find out about the massive money poured in and profits pulled out, see Climate Money.
To see the pattern of how results are almost always adjusted in one direction, how the “science” of man-made global warming relies on data that’s hidden, adjusted, and on poor equipment, poor placement, and poor methodology, see Climate Corruption. How many excuses does it take?
The common ground?
Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Yes it absorbs infra red and will probably make the air around it warmer. Did you know, even most alarmists will admit that doubling CO2 will only lead to 1.2 oC of warming. That’s the theoretical direct effect (see Hansen et al 1984). Did they forget to mention it? Often when people rave about how much evidence there is, they are only talking about this direct effect and this minor amount of warming*.
What’s THE bone of contention?
So why are we told the Armageddon of 3.5 degrees, or 6 degrees is coming!? Because their computer simulations assume that humidity will rise, stick around, and that water vapor (which is a more powerful greenhouse gas) will amplify that warming (along with cloud changes and other effects). This is called positive feedback. But, there is no empirical (by observation) evidence that net feedbacks (mostly clouds and humidity) will amplify the warming in the long run.
Humidity will rise, sure, but it can rain out or form low clouds. This is what the trillion dollar bet is about. Will humidity hang around and thicken the “blanket”, or not? While the simulations say “yes”, the observations say “No”. Measurements of satellites, cloud cover changes, 3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons looking at temperature or humidity can’t find the warming that the models predict. The heat is not in the upper troposphere (the hot spot is missing) and, importantly, while ocean heat has been rising for decades, it isn’t rising fast enough. There is no hidden heat accumulating there.
Millions of years of evidence? Yes, for skeptics.
The long term records, the ice cores, show that temperatures rise and fall before CO2 — 800 years before, on the way “up”, and 2000-3000 years before on the way “down”. In other words, the ice core graph shows that temperature controls the carbon dioxide levels. It’s possible that CO2 provides some extra push (amplification) but if it does, its effect is so small that it can’t be seen in those graphs. See this page for close-ups of the famous Vostock Ice Core graph. See the lag for yourself. CO2 can’t be a major driver from 800 years in the future.
It’s the largest whistle-blowing uprising among scientists ever
Despite what you hear about skeptics, we are a rapidly growing grassroots movement. Did you hear 31,000 US scientists signed a skeptical petition? Did the media forget to mention it? If you did come across it, you may have heard there were some duplicate names, and fakes, but did you also hear it was done by volunteers, and done over? When all the duplicates and errors removed, there were even more names the second time, including 9,000 PhDs? Did they forget to tell you that at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists are skeptics, and four NASA Astronauts, not to mention some of the top climatologists? Meanwhile they say 97% of climate experts agree, but they don’t say that that’s only 75 people.
PS: To find an answer, look in the index then ask in the comments... (I will be creating an FAQ page).
About the Blog
Jo Nova was just explaining science, but ended up protecting science on a crusade for logic and reason, and against Big-Government.
“Why doesn’t every scientist, every lawyer, and every politican understand what an ad hominem fallacy is?”
“Why do professors break laws of reason known for 2000 years?”
This site or Jo Nova has been mentioned or referenced by The Australian [World wide web of doubt Hot and bothered , Let’s have a debate, Aunty] , Forbes, The Spectator, Mark Steyn, Andrew Bolt [here and here], ABC (the Drum1, Drum2), The Science and Public Policy Institute, The Hawaii Reporter, James Delingpole of The Telegraph, Christopher Booker, and The Examiner, The West Australian. She’s been blamed for the collapse of the ETS and named in the Australian Parliament and the Oxfam report on skeptics. Jo did a five part debate with Dr Andrew Glikson, first through Quadrant Online, then at her own blog. The Wheeler Centre in Melbourne listed Jo Nova as the balancing counterpoint to the combined scientific weight of The UN and government departments. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald tried to disparage her with an ad hominem. So did Clive Hamilton. Of course, Joanne has her own DeSmog Blog page. Jo has been interviewed on The John Batchelor Show (NY)   and with Michael Smith on 4BC and on Global Cooling Radio.
*Yes, there are skeptics who disagree with even the 1.2oC direct effect that’s postulated. No we don’t have time to get into that.