I’m about to ruin your weekend if you are a Warm-earther, one who believes in the theory of Global warming in rejection of all scientific evidence that man and CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of Global warming.
Michael Asher reports that the much used data to support the claim that there is a consensus among scientist about Global warming and its causes is outdated.
When the research regarding the scientific consensus was recently updated by Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte using the same data base and criteria as the original work that said there is a “consensus view” a different and surprising result occurred.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."Not only that, there isn’t a consensus that any form of Global warming naturally occurring or the theorized man-made Global warming will have the dire catastrophic results of world-wide destruction as once was thought.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.In addition to this reversal in the scientific community regarding the theory of man-made Global warming there is a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated". This study is supported by two additional but separate research studies: The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs. And the Second by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD)
The factor all three of the above studies have in common? That CO2's role has been massively overstated. The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that will have almost no effect over the next century, and essentially none at all after that?Finally there is not a consensus view about Global warming or its cause the only consensus is among politicians who use this issue to keep voters further divided on the issues.
Senator HotAir is spouting a lot about CO2. I hope he gets enough HCN when he inhales his stogy.
ReplyDeleteI have said from the start of this "panic", probably around 1996, that this "earth-warming" that we are experiencing is a natural phenomenon, probably going on for eons.
ReplyDeleteOnly someone with the scruples of an Al Gore, could decide to make millions on the fears of the uneducated and ignorant.
If Al Gore cares so much about Global Warming, he could do his part by cutting down on the hot air emitting from his lying, fat face.
ReplyDeleteMichelle:
ReplyDeleteGet to the Point. Have you looked at the Global Cooling of the 70s and the Global Warming of the 30s ? Does your model say anything about the 1890s or the 2050s ?
Michelle, this Global Warming/Cooling Business looks more like a Sine Wave. The Algores are just exacerbating the "Problem" by withholding vital information. Did you know that there was Global Warming in the Daytime and Global Cooling at Night?
Even if Algore is correct, and he rarely is, have you observed what happens when you fill a glass with ice chunks, then fill the glass to the brim with water? You'll get condensation on the outside of the glass, but the glass won't overflow when the ice melts. The implication is that the Seas will receed and that the World Climate will become more uniformly Tropical. If you ask me, that's Climate Improvement!