For Fundamentalist Global Warmers

Attention all you fundamentalist global warmers. Did you know that:

1. “Global warming,” at least the current warming period has been going on for at least 10,000 years since the last ice age. I don’t think man’s CO2 contribution had much to do with that. Variations in old Sol’s energy output and the Earth’s net absorbed sunlight energy are certainly the most likely causes.

2. Yes, it is a fact (at least according to researchers) atmospheric CO2 level have been higher during warmer periods and lower during colder periods. Changing levels of CO2 are far more likely to be the result of changing temperatures than the cause.

3. Why is it none of you have ever done or reported on the math (basic gas law calculations) to show the actual net temperature or retained energy effect of atmospheric CO2? It’s basic freshman chemistry or at most undergraduate physical chemistry. Anyone doing these calculations should also do the same for water vapor and compare the results. If they do they will find that the actual effect of CO2 on air temperature is virtually zero compared to that caused by water vapor, even on a daily variation basis. There are numerous students as well as faculty at any university who could make those calculations. I did, why don’t they? Hmmmm?

There are many more known facts I could list, but why bother? Any of the three mentioned prove my point. Besides, it is patently obvious that a warmer climate produces more and more food, more and more varied life forms, and a superior environment for life of all kinds while a colder climate does just the opposite. Compare the life in a square mile of tropical forest with that in a square mile of the best arctic land. Nuff said. In addition, the increase in CO2 has already had a major positive effect on the food supply.

Here’s an excerpt from a report by a scientist who studies the effects of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

“The tremendous increase in plant growth has already been afforded by the increase in atmospheric CO2. This is generally calculated to be in the range of 15% to 40%, depending on the species (and whether it's a C4 or C3 type of photosynthesis) -- which means at minimum about a 1/7th increase in plant productivity.

“This means in turn that something like a billion humans are being fed by the EXTRA crop growth from CO2 . So the contributions of Man, through fossil fuel, land use changes and agriculture are having a very positive effect.

“Just think of the harm -- the starvation -- if the extra CO2 could be instantly made to go away, as the catastrophists apparently wish. It is not a pretty scenario at all.”

And how about politicized science? Recent revelations of manipulated data, altered computer programs, and very sloppy reporting have certainly given weather scientists a bad name. These have even brought into question the whole of science. How can common folk have any trust in reported science after these revelations? This reprehensible and irresponsible actions of a few sloppy and certainly some obviously dishonest scientists have done immeasurable damage to once highly trusted science reporting on countless subjects. Here’s another example that came to light recently:

From AOLnews on the Internet.

LONDON (Jan. 23) -- “It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood disaster movie: Central and Southern Asia are hit by biblical floods when the Himalayan glaciers suddenly melt. After that cataclysm, water no longer flows from the mountains, leaving rivers like the Mekong and Ganges dry and millions facing permanent drought. That was the picture painted by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which said there was a "very high" chance that these glaciers would disappear by 2035 if the world kept warming.

“But the IPCC, the U.N. body charged with investigating climate change, retracted that claim after it emerged that its predictions of a sudden melt weren't based on peer-reviewed evidence, but instead on an article that appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist in 1999."

Read the entire article at:

http://www.sphere.com/science/article/un-admits-error-in-overstating-himalayan-glacier-melt/19324494?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fun-admits-error-in-overstating-himalayan-glacier-melt%2F19324494&sms_ss=email

I am appalled, but not really surprised. The lure of all that money politicians and academia have reaped from the furor falsely generated over global warming is tremendous. With the billions, maybe even trillions of dollars soon possibly to be generated by “Cap and Trade” legislation, leeches and charlatans of all kinds will be vying for some of that money. The Chicago hoodlums, remnants of Al Capone’s old gang now populating the Washington political scene, will certainly be after their share. That money is certainly buying lots of dishonest scientists. Unfortunately it is also misleading scores of honest, hard working scientists caught up by believing and trusting their fellows. That’s one of the saddest parts. It’s the Piltdown man scam of the early twentieth century only on financial steroids.