Global warming climate change is happening.x20 A major cause of it is the burning of fossil fuels. The effects of it will be severe and damaging. We are already seeing some effects in extreme weather events, melting glaciers and rising seas. Those are the facts. But ExxonMobil did not like the facts, and funded a propaganda campaign to combat them.x21 “Victory will be achieved when recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom,’” said a 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo about the budding propaganda campaign.x22 From what I’ve been hearing, it seems ExxonMobil got its “victory”. For example, one of my colleagues thought global warming is a political plot to advance world government. But that would mean that the best scientific organizations and journals in the world are in on the plot.x23 More likely, my colleague was wearing a very shiny tinfoil hat. In another case, a friend of mine thinks the fact of Vikings farming in Greenland 1000 years ago proves a natural warm phase, warmer than the present. But the Viking settlement shows little about worldwide temperature and much about human tenacity.x24 The Vikings had sparse farms with skinny animals, and used up more and more of the land over the course of two centuries before the last of them starved during a bad winter. Another friend of mine gave me a copy of the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and said it was a BBC production. It turns out the video is not a BBC production, but a propaganda piece full of already debunked global warming denier arguments.x25 I found the answers to these arguments from the website RC Wiki — an index to debunkings of such nonsense that appears in the popular media. RC Wiki is a supplement to RealClimate.org, a reliable source for climate science, written by climate scientists.
‘Fossil Fuel Global Warming More Certain than Ever’ The Paragraph, 2005-10-16
RC Wiki: “An index for debunking of various popular media occurrences of climate-related nonsense.”
RealClimate: “Climate science from climate scientists.”
20 ‘IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers – Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’ – pdf file
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling infl uences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence7 that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Watts per square meter.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
There is now higher confidence in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and of ice.
21 ‘Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank’ Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million [from 2000 to 2003] into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe.
22 ‘Some Like It Hot’ By Chris Mooney, Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue
23 ‘‘How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic – Global warming is a hoax’ by Coby Beck
Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
- NASA‘s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- National Academy of Sciences
- State of the Canadian Cryosphere
- Environmental Protection Agency
- The Royal Society of the UK
- American Geophysical Union
- American Meteorological Society
- American Institute of Physics
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- American Meteorological Society
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
24 ‘How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic – Greenland used to be green’ by Coby Beck
First, Greenland is part of a single region. It can not be necessarily taken to represent a global climate shift. See the post on the Medieval Warm Period for a global perspective on this time period. Briefly, the available proxy evidence indicates that global warmth during this period was not particularly pronounced, though some regions may have experienced greater warming than others.
Instead of hunting whales in kayaks, [the Vikings] farmed cattle, goats, and sheep — despite having to keep them in a barn 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a full 5 months out of the year. It was a constant challenge to get enough fodder for the winter. Starvation of the animals was frequent, emaciation routine. Grazing requirements and growing fodder for the winter led to over-production of pastures, erosion, and the need to go further and further afield to sustain the animals. Deforestation for pastures and firewood proceeded at unsustainable rates. After a couple of centuries, it led to such desperate measures as cutting precious sod for housing construction and even burning it for cooking and heating fuel.
When finally confronted with several severe winters in a row, they, along with the little remaining livestock, simply starved before spring arrived.
25 ‘Swindled!’ by William and Gavin, RealClimate, 9 March 2007
On Thursday March 8th , the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time.
* * *
By Quinn Hungeski – Posted at G.N.N. & TheParagraph.com
The sun abides. It does not care for our politics. It will cool the earth in the coming years and nature herself will ram your foot down your throat.
How pathetic is it that the reality deniers are still trying to blame Exxon and rightwing thinktanks instead of confronting the obvious flaws in their own scientific “truths”. UAH has confirmed that May 2008 is the coldest May in 20 years, and is the exact same temperature as it was in 1979 when they started the Satelite Temperature monitoring system because of the Global cooling panic.
In 1997, the Global Warmists scream, “Oh no! The World is coming to an End because its getting hotter!” The Naturalists say, “Calm down. Of course it is getting hotter because we have an El Nino and we are at the peak of the Solar cycle.” Global Warmers say “Oh, no.”
2005: Naturalists say, “The Global Warming trend is over because of a peak in the current Solar Cycle, and a shift to the cool phase of the PDO.” Global Warmers shriek, “Oh no! Watch an inconvient truth! Look at Hurricane Katrina.” Then during the El Nino of 2007 they said, “Look its warm in January, we are all going to die!” Naturalists said, “Wait. El Ninos are usually followed by La Nina’s, we are coming up on a solar minimum temperatures will be going down real soon.” Global Warmers say “Oh no, we are all going to die!!!”
Who has always been right on the Global Climate issue? The Naturalists. The Chicken Littles were right only when they agreed with the naturalists, every other time they were wrong. They were wrong in the 70s when they predicted an Ice Age, they were right in the 90s when they predicted Global Warming, but for the wrong reasons, and so far their hypothesis of CO2 Global Warming has been blown out of the water by the fact that it stopped in 1998, and confirmed the Naturalists who said that temperatures would go down which they have, and are continuing to do so.
The Myth of CO2 causing Global Warming has been throughly busted, yet the Greenies still cry “Exxon!” Oil is currently at record highs because demand is outstripping supply, but the reason that we have not been drilling is because of the Greenies. Makes me wonder, “Who is really in the Oil Company’s pocket.” That oil is always going to be in the ground waiting to be drilled, but if the oil companies could somehow set that aside, and not have to compete for that oil or spend the money to develop it, while still make record profits, then who really wins by the green agenda? Obviously the OIL COMPANIES!!
Wise up you morons!!
Johnnyb — Keep it civil. And please look into the scientific fact referenced by the article.
Bias can be avoided by using raw data. Graphs of climate history (raw data from cited credible sources) presented at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html show that carbon dioxide level has had no significant influence on climate. Absorption of infrared radiation takes place close to the surface; half within 24 meters. Doubling the CO2 moves it about 4% closer. As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to go up and the average global temperature doesn’t more and more people are going to look foolish.
So let’s roadtest this method. I will list all the claims from the comments above as I understand them, then try to find answers to them from RC Wiki. …
1. Global warming stopped in 1998 as evidenced by May 2008 being the coldest May in 20 years.
Answer: From “Coby Beck”:http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)
According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.
2. 1997 and 2005 warming was due to El Nino and the peak of the solar cycle.
Answer: From “Coby Beck”:http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666: … According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
Also, see answer to 1.
From “RealClimate”:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-earth/: … there was no El Niño this year .
3. Variability in temperature and CO2 graphs and the lag in CO2 behind temparature “show that carbon dioxide level has had no significant influence on climate.”
Answer: From “Coby Beck”:http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67: Given the fact that human industrialization is unique in the history of planet earth, do we really need historical precedent for CO2-triggered climate change before we accept what we observe today? …
But putting this crucial point aside, history does indeed provide some relevant insights and dire warnings.
During the glacial/interglacial cycles, temperatures and CO2 concentrations showed remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but lags by many centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2. Though these cycles do not demonstrate that greenhouse gas initiated warming, they do lend credence to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat.
4. CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant to warming, because “absorption of infrared radiation takes place close to the surface …”
Answer: From “NERC”:http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#greenhouse: The greenhouse effect has been established for well over a century and the physics is well understood – this is not “just a theory”, it is an accepted scientific principle. Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be over 30°C cooler than it is today. It is the extra greenhouse gases humans are adding that has changed climate over the last 50 years or more.
From “RealClimate – The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps”:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/:
1. There is a natural greenhouse effect.
2. Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
3. The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
4. Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated: … The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2
5. Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
6. Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number: … additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.
OK, I think the RC Wiki is working well.