Global Warming Skeptics (Henry Burke)

Link: http://www.educationviews.org/global-warming-a-two-part-series/ NOTE: All hyperlinks have been removed, because going to the links and returning to this article is not convenient from this website. GO TO THE LINK ABOVE FOR ALL HYPERLINKS.

Global Warming: A Two-Part Series Feb 24, 2013 by Henry W. Burke EducationViews Contributor

Part 1 of a Two-Part Series Global Warming Skeptics When the history is written of the 20th and 21st Centuries, historians will wonder how the deeply flawed logic of global warming gained any acceptance. Global warming will likely be remembered as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind!

CONCLUSION The global warming theory depends upon unproven “junk science” to gain acceptance throughout the world.

In order to obtain federal grant money, climate scientists often go along with the global warming charade.

The “Climategate” e-mails revealed much about the behind-the-scenes shenanigans among the climate researchers. The “hockey stick” graph has been thoroughly discredited.

The United Nations’ IPCC has a built-in bias in favor of global warming. Its reports and findings are not credible.

Contrary to the warming proponents’ claims, there is no “consensus” on global warming. In fact, many notable climate scientists dispute the human-caused warming theory.

Over 31,000 American scientists and engineers have signed the Global Warming Petition Project to voice their rejection of global warming. The list of signers includes 9,029 people with Ph.D. degrees.

The scientific community is hardly in agreement on the global warming theory.

Numerous reputable climate scientists have voiced their skepticism with global warming; their statements are quite telling. page 1

A. “Junk Science” Global warming (now called “climate change”) is the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world! How could carbon dioxide (CO2), the life of plants, be viewed as a poison?

When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced the scientific method.

Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them. Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. We will examine some examples of faulty science.

1. Scientific Dishonesty Scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, and review one another’s work. It is a tight fraternity, a rather exclusive club.

The global warming researchers have substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased. They gain recognition and notoriety through their published articles. They obtain continued grant funding, larger grants, more graduate students and university advancement when they take a pro-global warming stance (“follow the money”). http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2100 Data compiled by the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. Climate change can be very lucrative for the researchers and companies involved.

2. “Climategate” The “Watergate” scandal occurred as a result of the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. When the Nixon Administration attempted to cover up its involvement, the mounting scandal eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon as President. After Watergate, it has become popular to attach “gate” to any major scandal.

In November 1999, several thousand e-mails were released to the public that exposed the lies and deceit committed by the global warming climate scientists. This quickly became “Climategate.” The Climategate database includes 1,073 e-mails and 3,485 other documents. [Note: The Climategate website is no longer operational.]

Two of the key players in this global warming saga are Professors Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. Another person at the center of this controversy is Michael Mann, Associate

page 2

Professor at Pennsylvania State University. A typical example of the information revealed by Climategate is this 2.21.05 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann: Leave it to you to delete as appropriate. P.S. I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the U.K. has a Freedom of Information Act. [In other words, Phil Jones did not want to release the temperature data because it would reveal the lies in Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” chart. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the public could demand the data.]

3. The Hockey Stick In 1999, Michael Mann published a chart that supposedly showed average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1,000 years. The chart showed minor fluctuations in temperature over the first 900 years and then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a “hockey stick” shape. [I have looked at the temperature reconstruction, and I can’t believe so many people bought into this lie.]

Mann’s chart was an immediate scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a large body of scientific work that indicated a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a “Little Ice Age” (that occurred from about 1400 to 1850 A.D.). It also gave support that fossil fuel emissions were the cause of the higher temperatures.

Even though the global warmers refuse to admit it, the “hockey stick graph” has now been thoroughly discredited; and Michael Mann’s reputation has been significantly tarnished. After Climategate exposed the lies, Phil Jones was forced to step down as Director of the Climatic Research Unit. (Jones was later reinstated in a newly created position.) http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2003-07-28-climate_report.pdf 4. The IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations in 1988. Its charter states that the organization’s purpose is to look for humaninduced climate change. Therein lies the problem;the IPCC has a built-in bias in favor of climate change or global warming. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2682 The United Nations and its IPCC needed to show that the earth’s temperature was rapidly increasing, and the “hockey stick” provided that picture. The hockey stick was featured prominently in the influential 2000 reportClimate Change Impacts on the United States (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2000). They published the hockey stick without the accompanying error range, an “egregious example of scientific misconduct.” As expected, the EPA’s 2001 Climate Action Report was based on the National Assessment. [In other words, the EPA’s report was based on a lie.]

page 3

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945 The IPCC’s reputation was already suffering from Mann’s “hockey stick” before the Climategate scandal exploded in late 1999. Dr. S. Fred Singer stated: “Anyone who continues to cite the IPCC as representing the ‘consensus’ on global warming is wrong.

The IPCC has been totally discredited.” http://www.nipccreport.org/ The IPCC claims it had 2,500 expert scientific reviewers for its 2007 report (an impressive number if it were true). When Energy Probe tried to get the list of names to interview them, the top IPCC official refused. The 2,500 reviewers did not endorse the conclusions of the 2007 report; in fact, many of them disagreed with the conclusions.

Chapter Nine of the report included the statement that humans have a significant influence on the climate; only 62 IPCC reviewers commented on that chapter in the draft report. Only five of these reviewers actually endorsed it! The “consensus” is rather small indeed! [The IPCC is not a credible organization.]

5. Scientific Consensus The global warming contingent often states that: “the science is settled; there is strong consensus on global warming.”

This claim of scientific consensus is based on a flawed essay by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, which appeared in the journal Science in December 2004. She supposedly surveyed the literature and could not find a single paper questioning the global warming hypothesis. Several researchers found numerous flaws in her work, but the Science journal refused to publish their rebuttals. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1905 The global warming message gained momentum when Al Gore released his book and documentary film An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. The 2007 IPCC report became Al Gore’s main source for the “evidence” that he relentlessly pitched to Congress and the public.

The 2007 report declared that global warming is “unequivocal,” and the frequency of natural disasters is likely to continue. The report’s “Summary for Policymakers” warned that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel production are significantly contributing to global warming.

In December 2008, The Senate Minority released a report that included 650 dissenting scientists refuting claims made in the IPCC report. (By April 2009, that number had surpassed 700 scientists.) Included in the 700 dissenting scientists are several current and former IPCC scientists. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407.cfm page 4

Even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that is not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule in science. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority of people who found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist, mathematician or engineer (such as Galileo, Einstein or Edison).

Because the IPCC has been forced to retract parts of its 2007 report, the “scientific consensus” is called into question. Several examples of IPCC retractions are offered.

The 2007 report put the probability of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 at “very high.” (That statement was based on speculation.) The IPCC also acknowledged overstating crop loss in Africa, depletion of the Amazon rain forest, sea level increases in the Netherlands, and damage from weather catastrophes. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/how-the-scientific-consensus-onglobal-warming-affects-american-business-and-consumers If the global warming lie is repeated often enough, people start believing it. The same thing applies to the so-called “scientific consensus” mantra. In Obama’s 1.21.13 Inaugural Address, he declared: We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-presidentbarack-obama B. Global Warming Petition Project We know that scientific facts are not established by popular vote. However, when a large number of scientists and engineers publicly support fact-based conclusions, we should listen.

The Global Warming Petition Project was started by two Ph.D. scientists in 1998 to urge the U.S. to oppose the Kyoto agreement. Also, the petition allows the signers to formally reject the human-caused global warming premise.

The Petition reads in part: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php To date, 31,487 American scientists and engineers have signed the petition. To be qualified, signers must have college degrees at the Bachelor of Science level or higher in the appropriate fields. page 5

The list of petition signers includes: 9,029 people with Ph.D. degrees; 2,586 with M.D. or D.V.M.; 7,157 with M.S.; and 12,715 with B.S. degrees. In Ph.D. scientists alone, the Petition Project includes 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the IPCC process. Included are: 15,190 Engineers; 13,251 people in Physics, Chemistry, Environmental, Math, and Biochemical; and 3,046 in Medicine.

Many notable scientists and engineers are on the list. For example, Dr. Frederick Seitz, Past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, supported the Petition Project since its inception. Dr. Edward Teller, noted nuclear physicist, also signed the petition.

The Global Warming Petition Project website includes a very good article on global warming, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf C. Statements by Global Warming Skeptics The scientific community is hardly in agreement on the global warming theory.

1. Various Sources Examples of statements from the global warming skeptics include the following: a. The (global warming) scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. (Award-winning paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni) b. Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the U.N.-IPCC. … The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium … which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’

(Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado) c. Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. (Harold Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professorglobal-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-haveseen-in-my-long-life/ 2. Senator James Inhofe Speech Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) presented a 2008 Senate Minority Report — “Global Warming ‘Consensus’ in Freefall.” The report includes some great statements from climate experts. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=de2153 82-42ba-4978-8fee-00b4e04aeaae page 6

Here are some of the highlights from the report: a. I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion. (Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever) b. Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. (UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh) c. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time. (Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke) d. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming. (U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA) e. So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming. (Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a former Greenpeace member) f. After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment comparing skeptics to Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet. (Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs) g. Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. (Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland) h. Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. (Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden) CONCLUSION The global warming theory depends upon unproven “junk science” to gain acceptance throughout the world.

In order to obtain federal grant money, climate scientists often go along with the global warming charade.

The “Climategate” e-mails revealed much of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans among the climate researchers. The “hockey stick” graph has been thoroughly discredited.

The United Nations’ IPCC has a built-in bias in favor of global warming. Its reports and findings are not credible.

page 7

Contrary to the warming proponents’ claims, there is no “consensus” on global warming. In fact, many notable climate scientists dispute the human-caused warming theory.

Over 31,000 American scientists and engineers have signed the Global Warming Petition Project to voice their rejection of global warming. The list of signers includes 9,029 people with Ph.D. degrees.

The scientific community is hardly in agreement on the global warming theory.

Numerous reputable climate scientists have voiced their skepticism with global warming; their statements are quite telling. ======================================== The scientific facts on global warming (climate change) are covered in the report “Obama’s Climate Change Agenda,” by Henry W. Burke, 2.01.13. http://educationviews.org/obamas-climate-change-agenda/ The financial aspects associated with global warming are detailed in Part 2, “Global Warming Is an Expensive Myth,” by Henry W. Burke, 2.23.13. ========================================= Bio for Henry W. Burke Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years.

Henry Burke has experience in the air pollution control field through employment with the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA).

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor.

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects.

He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke E-mail: hwburke@cox.net

page 8