Climate Warming is a hoax

Why So Gloomy?


By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the
debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming
of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas
emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are
almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that
the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement
has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that
the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to
catastrophe. What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss
is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that
it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few
tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures
are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent
that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature-a climate at
which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false
assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise,
but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more
reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we
have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance
of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for
instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic
way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center,
the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's
report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that,
outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less
variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea
levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last
ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring
short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been
relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's
even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the
twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-
level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location
than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's
surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using
inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot
accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of
these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature
goes down-not up-the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even
if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise-a
dubious proposition-future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb
in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already
higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the
atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as
1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing
about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"-its
contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already
about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But
average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning
of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform-warming has
largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to
1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain
this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred
before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly
observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These
factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C
between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be
greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This
is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes
explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for
the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to
expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record-an
effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also
severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the
Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of
the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no
external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be
catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India
has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and
agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like
malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-
health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally
found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had
negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to
climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry
protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing
and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to
lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit
trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped
to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more
potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of
the late climate scientist Roger Revelle-Al Gore's supposed mentor-is
worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't
warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have
nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been
funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from
any energy companies.

In article . com,
says...


Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been
funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from
any energy companies.

As you're such a patriot, stephen bach, perhaps you should return to the
US to face the charges your criminal activities merit? You can then
"work for the US Government" for a while, which I'm sure you'd enjoy.
You could catch up with your hero, Scooter and if you're lucky, you
might meet a few more of your role models, once the Democrats start the
purge of the criminals in the Administration in earnest.

On 10/04/07 0:02, in article
, "Capitalist Pig"
wrote:

There has been a net warming
of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas
emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are
almost certainly true.

Then where is the hoax?

"Fred Bloggs" kirjoitti
. com...
In article . com,
says...


As you're such a patriot, stephen bach, perhaps you should return to the
US to face the charges your criminal activities merit? You can then
"work for the US Government" for a while, which I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Perhaps you hebe faggot get lost from rte. This group is for discussion on
travelling in Europe. Try penis enlargement.

In article ,
says...

"Fred Bloggs" kirjoitti
. com...
In article . com,
says...


As you're such a patriot, stephen bach, perhaps you should return to the
US to face the charges your criminal activities merit? You can then
"work for the US Government" for a while, which I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Perhaps you hebe faggot get lost from rte. This group is for discussion on
travelling in Europe. Try penis enlargement.

You didn't complain last time we 'met' Markku. You reindeer-lovers are
all the same...

On 10 avr, 09:11, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 10/04/07 0:02, in article
om, "Capitalist Pig"

wrote:
There has been a net warming
of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas
emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are
almost certainly true.

Then where is the hoax?

AND if you read the next sentence: "Recently many people have said
that
the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement
has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that
the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to
catastrophe. "

"Capitalist Pig" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 10 avr, 09:11, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 10/04/07 0:02, in article
om, "Capitalist Pig"

wrote:
There has been a net warming
of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas
emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are
almost certainly true.

Then where is the hoax?

AND if you read the next sentence: "Recently many people have said
that
the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement
has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that
the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to
catastrophe. "



Tell that little nonsense to a Maldive islander or a Bangladesh villager.

"Capitalist Pig" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 10 avr, 09:11, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 10/04/07 0:02, in article
om, "Capitalist Pig"

wrote:
There has been a net warming
of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas
emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are
almost certainly true.

Then where is the hoax?

AND if you read the next sentence: "Recently many people have said
that
the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement
has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that
the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to
catastrophe. "



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/wo...1india.html?hp