Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Another Letter on the Greenhouse-CO2 Theory

Dear J.T.,

As to my criticisms of the greenhouse-CO2 theory, and the Dispatches Channel 4 film "The Great Global Warming Swindle", I am reminded of a statement by Reich, when his later work upset some of his associates. "They want my roses, but not my thorns".  My work has, without wishing or intending it, thrust me into the global-warming greenhouse-CO2 debate, on the side of the critics of the CO2-greenhouse theory.  While I have been a working environmental-earth-atmospheric scientist and renewable energy advocate over decades, I must separate from the current brand of "environmentalism" making these unsupportable claims about CO2, which seems more driven by political urges than good science.

In my view, the Dispatches did a reasonable job bringing some of the central issues into discussion, and so I disagree with your view, even though I have my own quibbles with it.  There was one climatologist interviewed in it who became intimidated by the incredible venom thrown his way afterward, so he back-pedaled, and this did not surprise me.  I got several cursing, spitting-rage emails for daring to post out the item you objected to in more rational and friendly words. Typically in public forums, if you question the greenhouse-CO2 theory, you are greeted with intense hatred and character assassination, similar to openly questioning "infectious HIV" as the "cause of AIDS". (AIDS-deniers and CO2-deniers share the same volcano in Hell, I am informed.)  Or challenging the mainstream doctors about circumcising baby boys, or giving Ritalin to school-kids.  Or, or, or...

Regarding the Independent article you referenced:
This strikes me as a hit-piece, deliberately twisting the facts.  In the real world, it is the advocates of greenhouse-CO2 who have made the most bald-faced misrepresentations, as with the discredited "hocky-stick" graph they use, which is also repeated in the UN IPCC publications, which everyone genuflects to.  That offensive graph simply erases both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as if they never existed, which for climatology is akin to an astronomer erasing Saturn and Jupiter from the sky.  With the Medieval Warm Period gone, they can falsely claim today is the hottest time in a thousand years or more.  With the Little Ice Age gone, they can claim there was no colder period, out of which we have been slowly warming since around 1850. With their "data" all nicely scrubbed clean of offending surges and dips, they can now point to a long-term stable climate over the last 1000 years or more, with this totally anomalous peak going up to the sky over the last 100 years, and beat the alarm gongs that the sky will soon fall.  It is sophistry, and on top of it they use Stalinist devices, to accuse their critics of their own dirty-tricks, of "making distorted graphs"!!

Sorry, if you accept that Independent article as authoritative, it only shows you have not dug into the issue sufficiently.  Maybe if you see how far they will go with their extremism, it will be revealing: Take a look at this other Independent article, where the journalist accuses those who question greenhouse-CO2 theory to "Holocaust Deniers".
This was repeated more recently by a "top" American journalist:

Heavens, who am I to question the authority of newspaper journalists!

OK, you did not like the Dispatches film.  Try these:

"Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change" -- video put together by a group of Canadian climate scientists.

More basic info is found here:
Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science
CO2 Science
Still Waiting for Greenhouse
Article Series Skeptical of "Global Greenhouse Gas Warming"

Best wishes,

James DeMeo

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL: http://www.orgonelab.org/donation

Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore: http://www.naturalenergyworks.net

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?