3. The rationale for 'global warming': manufacture of a global consensus.
One may ask, why was the global warming myth chosen to promote the new doctrine of globalization? The answer is simple: because climate is changing on a planetarian scale, and there are good reasons to believe that this is a man-made (anthropogenic) factor, not part of a natural variation. Few scientists would dispute the fact of a climatic change. Just what it is and what causes it, is the problem.
What every good scientist will dispute is whether the implicated change is that which promoters of the global warming myth dogmatically assert: an upward change in the atmosphere's mean global temperature. Furthermore, most good scientists will also dispute whether the mechanism proposed for 'global warming' (ie CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion) is really the mechanism responsible for the observed and ongoing climactic change, or even the main factor.
In his book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field", Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (molecular biologist, biochemist and inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction) summarizes - in Chapter 11, appropriately entitled "What happened to the Scientific Method?" - the negative consequences of the pseudoscientific fads which Official Science regularly promotes, and the widespread stupidity that this engenders:
"Very little experimental verification has been done to support important societal issues in the closing years of this century. Nor does it have to be done before public policy decisions are made. It only needs to be convincing to the misinformed voter. Some of the big truths voters have accepted have little or no scientific basis. And these include the belief that AIDS is caused by human immunodeficiency virus, the belief that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming, and the belief that the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere has created a hole in the ozone layer. The illusions go even deeper into our everyday lives when they follow us to the grocery store."
Let's take a look at the science behind this pseudo-scientific ideology of 'global warming'. The zealotry displayed by the promoters of this hysteria, their belligerently militant pose of altruistic motivation, can best be exposed - for all the revulsion they evoke - by debunking the pseudoscience and the main tenets of the myth of global warming. The new party line, as defined by one such pseudoscientific zealot , is founded upon a bureaucratic notion of a consensus with 4 tenets (the sacred pillars of the myth):
1.That the earth is getting warmer (0.6 deg C over the last 100 years, and at a rate of 0.1 deg C per decade in the last 30 years). [Some claim 0.2 deg C per decade...]
2. That the effect is man-made.
3. That the effect is attributed to the increase in carbon dioxide over the last 100 or 200 years (depending on whom one reads) caused by burning fossil fuel (in cars, power plants, etc), and as the burning will increase because it is the main source of energy, so will the global warming.
4. That something must be done about this, which means the use of political power to bring the burning of fossil fuels to a stop.
More likely, we should add, to permit substantial increases in the cost of those fuels...
The main objections to this faddist consensus can be easily summarized: the atmosphere is far too complex a system, and too dependent on the oceans, on geothermal energy and solar radiation, to be arbitrarily reduced to processes driven by single causes, such as the emission of carbon dioxide, or even the production of 'greenhouse gases' (GHGs). Moreover, climatology is not a real science, not yet a discipline that has succeeded in understanding the core of its subject the way other sciences have, nor one that is able to effectively adhere to the principles of the scientific method and thereby become rigorous. In fact, until the present authors published their proposed enthalpy balance for the most fundamental atmospheric cycle, the allotropic cycle of water, oxygen and ozone , no physicist nor chemist, let alone a climatologist or modeller, had been able to resolve this simple but most immediate problem. Without such a solution, one cannot even hope to establish a science of climate and weather. Similarly, chemo-atmospheric cycles, as regards pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, remain poorly understood to this day.
Furthermore, even though meteorologists are taught that most of the atmospheric energy budget exists only in the form of latent heat, there is no adequate physics or physical understanding of the circulation and key role of this latent form of energy in the atmosphere, nor a real understanding of the energy conversions into and from it. All arguments are reduced to radiative treatments of electromagnetic energy, plus the mechanics of the movements of cold and hot air masses. In the past 20 years, the vulnerability of the field of climatology was more poignantly put into evidence by its take-over by climate modellers, bent on improving forecast ability. 1980 and 1990 models predicted temperature rises on the order of 1.5 to 2.0 deg C by the year 2000, more than 5 times what the promoters of global warming now accept 'was found' to be the case (rates of 0.1 to 0.2 deg C per decade). Modellers cannot predict even the path of a hurricane (when Katrina was 200 miles offshore, all models predicted a path towards northern Florida, not towards New Orleans), nor even local weather on the same day - and yet, they are trusted to tell tall tales about the past and spread alarmist fears about the future. It is, therefore, hardly astonishing that climatology has become a preferred field for pseudo-scientific faddists.
So, let's address the four false tenets of the 'global warming' ideology. In summary, we can counter them and their dogma, as follows:
1. First of all, there is no real scientific evidence that demonstrates that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years - neither for seawater, the atmosphere, nor the land mass. There is evidence that shows that there are complex interwoven cycles of intradecadal and supradecadal warming and cooling, but no data that can even be formulated as a warming rate of X deg C per decade with any legitimacy.
2. The main effect of man-made pollution is not 'global warming' but a complex alteration of atmospheric chemistry and energy conversion processes, little of which is being investigated.
3. The role of carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere has been overestimated, partly because so little is known about that atmospheric chemistry.
4. Instead of asking for more political and policial powers for national and supranational State structures, for more 'daddies' or 'dons' to protect us, society should be fostering and encouraging real scientific research in alternative energy systems and non-mainstream basic physics.
Finally, the pretense of 'a consensus of scientists' about the 'reality' of 'global warming' is the very underpinning of the myth, a commodity manufactured by mediocre scientists most often associated with State or UN 'services', and marketed by globalized media-chains and unethical mainstream peer-reviewed magazines such as Science. A poll of the American Meteorological Society in 1999 found that 49% did not believe that there was an association between man-made CO2 emission and climate change, 33% were not sure about the connection, and only 18% were sure that there was such a connection. But in aspiring populist organizations , where 'majorities' can be enforced by techno-bureaucratic power plays, the consensus is declared to be 'virtually unanimous'...
Yes, the consensus, too, is part of the hoax, a complete fabrication. As to what "popular consensus" really means - that too, is nothing other than an exercise in mediocracy for consumption by zombies, as performed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and 'eco-sensitive' Hollywood stars.
A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':
Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)
Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)
Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)
Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)
Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair of the Scientific council of the Warsaw Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, CLOR)
Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)
Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)
Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)
Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)
Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)
David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)
Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)
Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)
Add to this scientists who have reversed their originally pro-'global-warming' views, such as:
Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)
Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)
But for those who have any doubts about the dissenting views of a majority of scientists with respect to the fad of 'global warming' just consult the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (19,000 signatures, of which 2,500 by scientists in Earth Sciences), at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm
If there is a scientific consensus about 'global warming', it is that it is junk science, pseudo-science, humbug.
When the entire myth eventually collapses, scientists and the public will do well to wonder how so much of the public purse was abusively wasted by scientists and politicians on an issue and a field of investigation where most of the basic science is still missing, while virtually nothing was done to investigate basic physics (including atmospheric physics) and to develop alternative energy sources. To call this widespread abuse and overt mismanagement of funds 'a scandal' will hardly begin to describe the free-for-all gravy-train circus it has been.