Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Open Letter to Barack Obama Part 1

Mr. President, you speak of the "overwhelming judgement of science" pertaining to climate change (I notice that you didn't use the more conventional term, global warming). Could you please be more specific here? Were you possibly referring to a) the logarithmic nature of the way that CO2 effects atmospheric temperature (that the effects are minuscule once you get past 20 ppm)?............b) the fact that the ice cover in Greenland is only melting at an approximately .4% clip per century?............c) the fact that satellites (since 1979) and weather balloons (since 1958) show a significantly lesser rate of temperature rise than do surface thermometers?............d) the fact that the temperatures of the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warming periods were all somewhat higher than those we're presently experiencing and that Florida was never 50% under water during any of them?............e) the fact that from the late Miocene to the early Pliocene, there was actually a three MILLION year period in which temperatures were a good 2-3 degrees warmer than they are today and that life fully flourished back then?............f) the fact that there is a much more convincing and reliable correlation between sun-spot cycle length and global warming (according to environmentalist, Peter Taylor, the solar field has increased by over 200% since 1900) than there is between global arming and CO2?............g) the fact that the urban heat island effect was quite possibly a major factor in the temperature gains of the 20th century and that the temperatures of rural areas increased at a lesser rate?............h) that we were actually coming out of a little ice age in the 19th Century and that of course the temperature rates were bound to go up (HELLO!)?............i) the fact that the IPCC computer models have all been severely incorrect in their projections?............j) the fact that there has been a zero increase in temperatures over the past 15 years despite the fact that the CO2 levels have gone up 4%?............k) the fact that over 125 scientists (the overwhelming majority of them having PhDs in meteorology, astrophysics, geology, astronomy, oceanography, etc.) recently wrote an open letter to the U.N. voicing strong opposition to the theory of anthropogenic global warming?............l) the fact that in virtually every period of global warming correlating with rises in CO2, it is the warming which plainly precedes the CO2 (sometimes by as much as a millennium)?............m) the fact that we KNOW how naturally occurring warming (inverse solubility - google it) can quite readily and consistently increase CO2 AND NOT VICE VERSA?............n) the fact that CO2 is but a trace greenhouse gas (it comprises approximately .04% of the earth's atmosphere) and that human activity is responsible but for a tiny portion of it (underwater volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation, and the oceans all contribute more)?............o) the fact that there have been periods in the earth's history (some of which were actually periods of glaciation) in which the CO2 levels were actually 15-25 times greater than they are today and that there was NO greenhouse effect?............p) the fact that there was a 4% reduction in cloud cover from 1983 to 2000 and that that would have been more than a sufficient enough reason for the temperature rise?............q) the fact that the largest percentage of the recent increase in temperature actually took place prior to 1940 (a period of relatively low CO2 emissions) and that from 1940 to 1975 (a period of rapid growth of man-made CO2) the temperatures consistently DECREASED?............r) the fact that the Antarctic ice cover is actually gaining ice?............s) the fact that nearly half of those supposed 2,500 scientists who signed the IPCC report weren't actual scientists but reviewers and/or bureaucrats, and that, even of the scientists, a fair number of them actually disagreed with the "findings" and requested (mostly to no avail) that their names be removed (Paul Reiter actually sued the United Nations and won)?............Please, feel free to stop me at any time Mr. President. Surely, you must have a semblance of specificity to share with the citizens here.

10 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

There you go again Will. Confounding the those who hang on every word the President utters with some real data. Why, how could you?

dmarks said...

Overwhelming judgment of science? Not at all.

Overwhelming judgment of political allies and zealous "faith not science" manmade global warming "True Believers"? That's a lot more like it.

As he is someone who buys into what is trendy and not reason-based or sound, if this were 1491 and Obama were in Spain, he'd be warning against wasting money sending Columbus and his ships off the edge of the flat Earth.

BB-Idaho said...

“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” -Carl Sagan

Jerry Critter said...

Interesting list of "facts". How about verifying them with some references. Start with a) which seem to be just the opposite of what a greenhouse gas should be doing.

Roberto Severino said...

Holy crap! Tons of facts I did not know about this so-called anthropogenic global warming agenda. It would be helpful if there was a list of sources of where you got this info from just in case.

dmarks said...

Looks about as scientific as creationism. The main difference between the two is which political group tends to embrace which.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a is a common fact, Jerry. It's even in Wikipedia - "The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect." I didn't get it from Wikipedia, though. I got it from Ian Plimer and Greenpeace's Peter Taylor.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I agree, BB, the President should spend far more time studying the geological record, the law of inverse solubility, and the NASA satellite temperature readings than the rantings of a man, Al Gore, who claimed that half of Florida was going to be under water by 2100.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Dmarks, the sad thing is that there are a lot of legitimate environmental issues out there; deforestation, sulfur dioxide, massive amounts of plastic waste in the oceans, epidemics of malaria in the third-world, etc.. This whole focus on something that isn't even a pollutant is not only a costly one but a colossal waste of time as well.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Roberto, most of this information I got from Peter Taylor's book, Chill", Ian Plimer's book, "Heaven and Earth", lectures by Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, and David Evens (a former climate modeler for the Australian government), and the Miocene and Pliocene stuff I got from climate researcher Alan Mix from Oregon State.