atw: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels

  • From: "Terry Dowling" <Terrence.Dowling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:06:19 +0800

I’m surprised to see someone with a science degree say that it’s difficult to 
measure temperatures accurately. You might have heard that ice freezes/melts at 
0 degrees. That makes it very easy to determine – accurately – whether the 
temperature is above or below 0 at points where ice and water exist.

 

I’m wondering which NASA site you look at, Rod. The NASA you use seems 
different to the NASA available to everyone else.

 

I’ve long wondered what the scientists who believe in global warming have to 
gain when it seems big industry is the place with money and the ones who could 
pay folk to distort the evidence. No, that can’t be it. Maybe they want to pay 
the extra taxes the government is imposing to discourage excessive carbon 
pollution. I guess the scientists might want to avoid a warming climate and 
enjoy cleaner air. 

 

BTW, when a hypothesis or theorem is accepted as proved, they call it a law. 
Among others, we have laws on thermodynamics and gravity, two key players in 
the climate debate.

 

I was surprised that the graphs in the video clip look nothing like the ones 
NASA produce, ostensibly from the same data. His below, and NASA’s attached. 
Maybe it’s got something to do with the narrow time band he’s chosen – but not 
simply that.

 

 

 

 

 

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart



Now, in terms of this thing you call ‘global warming’, it is postulated that 
global mean surface air temperatures have risen inordinately. There is no 
evidence to support this theory. 

See the evidence at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ - yes NASA.

Even the argument that the increase I the last two decades of the twentieth 
century is bogus. The record of the period from 1920 to 1940 had not only 
higher temperatures, but a greater rate of increase.

See http://climate.nasa.gov/warming_world/ where they say “NASA scientists 
unveil their latest findings on our warming world: 2009 is tied as the second 
warmest year since modern recordkeeping began, and 2000-2009 is the hottest 
decade ever”

Since there is no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, in this case that 
the observed data is well within normal natural variations, to postulate 
another hypothesis at all is an affront to science and the scientific method. 

Again see http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence for how the cycle of warming-cooling 
has been distorted. Then look at http://climate.nasa.gov/causes to see how they 
describe CO2’s role in warming.

I particularly love the site Rod directed me to a while ago that said that 
because the year after the hottest-ever-recorded-year was not as hot, then it 
was evidence that the world was cooling, even though it was still in the top 10 
ever hottest years.

So far as climate change is concerned, no one dares dispute the fact that 
climates have been dynamic for about 4.5 billion years. What mechanism could 
possibly relate what you call “human induced climate change” if it weren’t the 
non-existent ‘global warming’?

This is what NASA say about proving it is not sun cycles causing the record 
high temps:

How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global 
warming trends?

Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output 
of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar 
irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over 
this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming 
trend observed over the past 30 years.

Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records 
and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree 
rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance 
changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s 
warming.

I particularly like David Evans’s description of who benefits from believing in 
global warming:

“The supporters of the theory of manmade global warming are mainly financial 
beneficiaries,7 believers in big government, or Greens. They are usually 
university educated. They generally prefer the methods of government, namely 
politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the 
marketplace—especially when it comes to setting their own remuneration. 

They are an intellectual upper class of wordsmiths, who regulate and 
pontificate rather than produce real stuff. There is little demand in the 
economy for their skills, so they would command only modest rewards for their 
labor in the marketplace.”

I guess the coal, energy and petro-chemical industries have no interest in 
‘disproving’ the science. They’re all so poorly paid and there’s no 
self-interest there. At least they can be happy that they’re not university 
educated – like most of the people they have as followers.

PNG image

Attachment: Fig.A.gif
Description: Fig.A.gif

Other related posts:

  • » atw: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels - Terry Dowling
  1. Home
  2. austechwriter
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2013