Monday, February 27, 2012


by James Craig Green
(with links to Alan Cheetham and Anthony Watts websites)

For several years now, I have been researching, discussing and writing about the issue of man-caused (anthropogenic) global warming, or AGW.

Early on, I tried to maintain my objectivity, but the vast conspiracy and duplicity of governments' climate scientists (refusing public records requests), the self-serving politics of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), major media and even several (formerly respectable) professional societies have poisoned too many people with their self-serving and dogmatic assertions that:

1. Global warming during the last several decades has been primarily caused by human activity,

2. Only so-called "climate scientists" self-selected by the IPCC and its supporters have the credentials to publicly opine on the issue, despite their not being allowed to write the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers" in each of their major reports, routinely published months before the release of technical reports.

3. Skeptics are hacks for oil companies and other polluters who profit from covering up the truth, and

4. The earth will experience an unprecedented warming, never before seen, unless drastic measures are taken immediately by the governments of the world to prevent catastrophic warming that will destroy the human economy as it currently exists.

Fortunately, several prominent climate skeptics (who deny that humans are the primary cause of recent warming) have compiled scientific and other information on websites and in many books that show the failure of the IPCC and its minions to prove their case. Astonishingly, the IPCC's incredibly shoddy and politicized work, including hijacking scientific societies and publications (such as Nature, National Geographic and Scientific American magazines), has been covered up by one of the most dishonest disinformation campaigns in more than a generation.

Enter my heroes Alan Cheetham and Anthony Watts.

I was first attracted to Alan Cheetham's global warming website several years ago because of its detail, excellent writing and voluminous data with graphs, tables and broad scope addressing AGW issues. I have referred to Alan's site many times in email correspondence and articles of my own. Here is his website, chock-full of scientific detail on a variety of technical issues:

Alan's "Simplified Nutshell" page has also been available for years:

In case you didn't know, all IPCC reports depend on a single assumption, that has no basis in reality -- that increases in CO2 warming should be multiplied several times and assumed to apply directly to water vapor, the most dominant greenhouse gas. CO2 comprises only about 1 part in 2400 of the atmosphere, even at today's elevated levels. The earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age from the mid 1700's, when the Thames River in London was frozen, as was the Hudson River in New York during the American Revolution. In other words, the earth had already been warming for two centuries before today's global warming became a "prime time" political issue.

I have more recently been following Anthony Watts' site, "Watts Up With That?" (The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change)
In particular, his latest article as of this date is shown in the link below. It summarizes what I think is the achilles' heel of all IPCC work -- the unproven and dogmatic assumpion that human effects which may cause increased global warming from carbon emmisions should be multiplied several times as a "positive feedback" to the most dominant greenhouse gas, which is water vapor.

This article, with a handful of excellent graphs, explains the criticism of the IPCC's shoddy work and the case for the skeptic's position, using the most recent data and well-documented data sources.

It is the best focused explanation, with sufficient data, I have found to demonstrate the IPCC's failure to model reality for the last three decades. It focuses on the weakest, but most important link in the IPCC chain, which is the unfounded assumption that warming from CO2 can and should be multiplied and applied to water vapor. Without this assumption, IPCC models fail dramatically to even suggest, much less prove, their case.

No comments:

Post a Comment