Global Warming: I Have Questions

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – Jan 14, 2014

"A conspiratard? Fascinating."

“A conspiratard? Fascinating.”

Question: What happens when a skeptic like myself questions the global warming theory in a facebook group that considers themselves skeptics?

Answer: I get labeled a conspiracist, conspiratard, sheeptard, right-winger, troll, denialist and all kinds of other interesting things. It was also suggested that i do certain things to myself and go away.

As Mr. Spock would say, “Fascinating, Jim.”

I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:

  1. Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
  2. Are humans responsible?

Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:

  1. I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
  2. I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.

It’s this position that gets people all worked up. But why do i feel this way? Because i have questions.

What period of time are global warming believers referring to when they use phrases like, “the warmest ‘on record’”, “since records have been kept” orsince measurements began”?

Al Gore is notorious for using these kinds of references to a mystery time frame. When he says “this is the hottest year ‘since measurements began’”, am i the only one wondering when “the measurements began”? After all, if the measurements began at 5 o’clock this morning, then by noon it really would be the warmest since measurements began, wouldn’t it?

Here is Al Gore from 1997 using these types of vague references to a mysterious period of time:

The IPCC[1] (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) used similar language in their 1990 Scientific Assessment report when they wrote, “the five warmest years on record have been in the 1980s.[2]

Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? It almost sounds like they’re saying, “the five warmest years since the beginning of time have been in the 1980s,” or “the five warmest years EVER have been in the 1980s,” doesn’t it?

The truth is, when the IPCC, Al Gore and the other global warming theorists compare temperatures to “the record” (i.e. “The warmest on record“) they are actually referring to the last 150 years of temperature data.

Allow me to explain.

Here are the temperatures from the last 1,000 years:

1000 Years_0600px

With current temperatures located on the far right of the graph and the dotted line representing temperature conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century[3], you should notice something right off the bat.

Beginning about 950 AD and continuing for about 400 years until almost 1350 AD there is a period of time when the temperatures were warmer than they are today. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – 1990), this warmer period is referred to as the “Medieval Warm Period.”

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than any temperatures seen today, so global warming theorists must use a period of time after the Medieval Warm Period to make claims of record breaking temperatures.

Here is that period of time referred to as “the record”[4] by global warming theorists when they say “… on ‘the record’”:

The Record_600px

The above graph is “the record” as depicted in the 1990 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Scientific Assessment Report. It only goes back approximately 150 years to the year 1860.

From the same IPCC report: “The instrumental record of surface temperature is fragmentary until the mid-nineteenth century, after which it slowly improves[5] . . . ” and it “shows current estimates of … surface temperature over land and ocean since 1860.[6] [7]” [all emphasis mine]

So when the IPCC[8] and other global warming theorists say, “the warmest temperatures on record,” what they’re really saying is, “the warmest temperatures since 1860!”

Now look again at the 1,000 year temperature graph, this time with “the record” put in perspective:

Click image for larger view

Click image for larger view

It becomes clear why global warming theorists say “the warmest temperatures on record” -­ because if they were honest and said “the warmest temperatures since 1860,”­ the deception would become as painfully obvious as it is above.

What else do you notice? Notice where “the record” begins on the 1,000 year timeline. It begins at the end of a period in history called the “Little Ice Age.” The Little Ice Age (LIA) is a 500 year period of cooling that occurred from about 1350 to approximately 1850[9].

I’m sure it’s just pure happenstance that the purveyors of global warming use the end of an ice age as their temperature comparison starting point. Sort of like wanting to convince your friends you’re a gambling guru by bragging about how you won $3,000 on your last day in Las Vegas while conveniently forgetting to mention how you lost $5,000 on your first day in Vegas. You’re the man (until your friends learn the inconvenient truth)!

For more perspective let’s go back some more. Here is 8,000 years of temperatures:

Click image for larger view

Click image for larger view

Notice how almost all of the last 8,000 years was warmer than today. In fact, I would say maybe we should be concerned that present day temperatures are too cool! Today’s temperatures are but a blip on this bigger picture. Makes one wonder how the global warming theorists get away with their verbal “on the record” slight of hand.

I think you get the idea of where I’m going with my thinking. Let me cut to the chase and show you the largest infographic i’ve ever made. Let’s go back 600 million years. I’ve overlayed all the other timelines hoping to add some perspective.

Click image for larger view

Click image for larger view

Things to note:

  • The 50,000 year timeline was so insignificant on the 600 million year timeline that it couldn’t be visually represented – it literally didn’t register a width large enough to be depicted on a computer monitor (1/50 of a pixel in width).
  • Notice the lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. This flies in the face of the global warming theorists telling us CO2 drives temperature.
  • In the last 600 million years, there is only ONE time period – 315 million years to approximately 270 million years – when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today. Think about it – out of the last 600 million years, 555 million of those years had CO2 and temperature levels higher than today. In other words 92.5% of the last 600 million years had higher CO2 and temperature levels than today.
  • Some global warming theorists tell us if CO2 levels continue to rise, temperatures will continue to rise and if temperatures continue to rise, CO2 levels will continue to rise. We’re warned this could cause CO2 and temperatures to spiral out of control, which would lead to the obliteration of earth.transparentYet, look at the above graph at the 550 million year mark. CO2 levels were at 7,000 ppm (parts per million) – more than 17 times higher than today’s CO2 levels (400 ppm). Yet, CO2 and temperatures didn’t spiral out of control. No apocalypse.

Given all this historic data, how could people such as John Holdren tell us climate changes over the last 150 years (“the record”) cannot be explained by natural causes?

From October 6, 1997 at the White House Conference on Global Climate Change:

Let me get this straight – for 599,999,850 years, the earth’s higher temperatures (than today) and higher CO2 levels (than today) were all naturally driven (not manmade), but the last 150 years are NOT explainable by ANY of those same natural causes from the first 599,999,850 years?

I’ve debated this point with global warming believers.They respond with reams of “scientific” papers from scientific people to back up their scientific belief that whatever the natural causes were for the first 599,999,850 years of climate change, those same natural causes don’t apply to today’s climate change. Today’s climate change – unlike the climate change in those hundreds of millions of years before 1860 – is not natural. It’s all about the science, you damn denier.

But i’m assured that today’s scientists have a firm grasp on the science behind the weather.

Which segues perfectly into my next question . . .

Why have all those climate models by all those climate “scientists” been so wrong about all those future warming projections?

Click image for larger view. Image: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Click image for larger view.
Image: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

You might think this is a graph about missed temperature projections, but you would be wrong – this is a graph about epic failures! Seriously, i’m supposed to put my faith in a “science” with this kind of record of repeated failures? If my financial adviser was this awesome there’s no telling how rich i would be!

Where is the “science” in this mess? Well, you have to remember the scientific principle of reproducibility. Considering these climate “scientists” have all done an outstanding job of reproducing failure, maybe this is how they justify calling what they do a science. The science of failure. Bravo.

At this juncture i really begin to wonder how it is that so many scientists allegedly believe in man-made global warming. The previous paragraph about reproducing failure as a scientific method was meant as a joke, but there is a serious truth in that joke. How many times must a theory fail before it’s abandoned? How could so many continue to believe in so many failures?

Which leads me to my next question . . .

What percentage of scientists believe global warming is human-caused?

One of the most often quoted statistics is, “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.” But is this statistic real? Where did this “97%” figure come from?

This statistic comes from The Consensus Project (http://www.theconsensusproject.com/). They have a catchy little logo to go with their claim. Take a look and pay attention to the small print between the headlines:

97_01

Note the small print: “… of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming …”

So let me get this straight. If 1,000,000 climate papers are published but only 100 of these papers expresses an opinion on human-caused global warming, and 97 of those 100 papers agree humans are causing global warming – we can say 97% of scientists agree? This is what passes for scientific research? What if only 1 paper out of 1 million expressed an opinion in favor of global warming? Could we then say “100% of scientists agree?”

My example might sound blown out of proportion, but the truth is not too far off. The truth is, 11,944 climate papers were published. Of those papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950.[10]

Here is some science for you: My calculator says 41 papers out of 11,944 papers is 0.34%!

That’s right, the headline should be “0.34% of scientists explicitly stated they believe global warming is human-caused.

Then I saw this statistical masterpiece posted on Facebook recently[11]:

99 PERCENT

Wow. So, who ever doesn’t explicitly disagree with the theory, is in agreement with the theory? Really? Am i reading this right?

With this logic, if you don’t explicitly tell me not to mug you, you want me to mug you?

What level of dishonesty have global warming alarmists reached when they assume scientists believe what they (the scientists) have neither said nor written?

Mason. I Bilderberg (MIB)

Resources:

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
[3] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, Page 202.
[4] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
[5] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
[6] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
[7] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
[8] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
[10] http://wattsupwiththat.com/
[11] https://www.facebook.com/
[12] http://www.livescience.com/
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential


Tagged: Global Warming, Science, Skepticism, 1860, Al gore, CO2, conspiracists, Conspiracy, conspiracy theories, conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theory, Global Warming, global warming alarmist, global warming theorists, global warming theory, infographic, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, MWP, on record, on the record, Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists, science, skeptic, skepticism, skeptics, the record.

5 comments on “Global Warming: I Have Questions

  1. Pingback: Global Warming: I Have Questions | Illuminutti

  2. So basically, what they’re saying is…. if we get more of this global warming, we’re going to freeze to death!

    To some global warming/climate change, causes everything..

    If it’s…too hot – GW
    too cold- GW
    too wet – GW
    too dry – GW
    variations in migration – GW
    disease patterns – GW
    autism -GW
    poor academic performance – GW
    murders – GW
    rapes -GW
    etc, etc, etc.. Ad infinitum

  3. Pingback: Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose. | Illuminutti

  4. There are many factors to consider in the climate change debate. My current understanding is it’s happening partly due to a natural cycle but accelerated by anthropogenic influences. The points you made are valid. Skewing the results of surveys or analysing data in a certain way to highlight a point is a marketing trick played universally around the world because it works. The sceptic in me is thinking, what are the motives behind doing skewing? What do they have to gain by trying to convince people that climate change and global warming are happening? A first thought might be to point the finger at financial gain. But it seems like there is more to gain by not believing. Not saying there won’t be a financial gain by moving to technologies to reduce carbon output but there are massive amounts of money to be made by keeping the status quo. So is it a battle between the two competing technologies? And what will be the consequence of ditching the reliance on unstainable fossil fuels? A more sustainable future with a cleaner/healthier planet. Why is that a bad thing?
    Humans are a quirky bunch. Unless there are some immediate consequences from our actions, we are reluctant to make a change. Also, we like to keep our lifestyles as they are and will try and work a way around to make sure we can continue. Jerry Seinfeld made a funny point along these lines using the invention of a helmet as an example. Instead of not doing the things that can injure our heads, we invent a helmet so we can continue doing the dangerous activities and minimize the damage. There is no denying that continuing to rely on dirty technologies is an unhealthy outcome for everyone. If skewing some data to motivate people to make a change works, then I’m all for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s