Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Climate Tricks 30: On the term "CC Denial/Denier"

Have a friendly debate today in fb with a physician friend, DiVa. She showed a poster of Mr. David Koch saying he has “given $67 million to climate change denial groups since 1997.”

I commented that the term "climate change denial" is stoopid. I am a skeptic, and I do not deny climate change (CC). It is true. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen in the future. Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooing-warming-cooling... in endless, natural cycles. CC is mainly natural or nature-made, not man-made.

On the contrary, climate alarmists deny that global cooling can also happen along with global warming. Alarmists deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that CC can be nature-made.

She admitted that CC is  both nature- and man-made, but “overuse of fossil fuels is reaching alarming levels…it wouldn't hurt to develop renewable energy.”

Global warming (GW) was true. It did happen -- roman warm period, medieval warm period, past century's warm period. Both GW and CC are true. What is being denied by the skeptical groups is the "man-made" adjective. It should be "nature-made GW" and "nature-made CC" and "nature-made global cooling".

Here's a good chart from Dr. Roy Spencer in a testimony at the US Senate last year. Roman WP and Medieval WP shown. They occurred more than 1,000 years ago, not a single car existed then, "man-made" CO2 emission except breathing almost zero, yet GW happened. Now the UN, Al Gore, etc. say it is mainly anthropogenic and did not mention RWP and MWP. 

I have no problem with renewables. If people put up solar panels in their houses, or windmills in their farms or backyards, fine. It's their own money. What I dislike is forcing everyone else to subsidize solar and wind, like the feed in tariff (FIT) in the PH's renewable energy (RE) Act.

Even the warming scientists cannot an answer, how much of the recent warming was man-made and nature made? 10-90%? 25-75%? 50-50? 90-10? Assuming they give such estimate (for now it's zero), what explains for the roman warm period, medieval warm period, when there was not a single car, not even bicycles?

If GW will happen even if we throw all the existing cars and planes and malls, and global cooling will still happen even if everyone in the planet is driving a car, what's the point of all those "fight man-made GW/CC" policies? I only see one goal for their activities. More politics, more government, more bureaucracies, more junkets.

In an earlier discussion, a friend Samson P. observed that Climate Variabilities and Extremes (CVEs) has been cited too often by the warming camp as “proof” of anthropogenic CC. Yes, the alarmist groups say that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less snow and more snow, less cats and more cats, they are ALL proof of man-made CC. This is a very dishonest, sigurista argument. 

Many climate research have been done that point to the role of natural factors like the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, volcanoes and geologic movements, etc. on planet Earth's climate. The problem is people won't find what they are not looking for. If they are so preoccupied to find only anthropogenic sources, that's what they will find, no matter how small, then amplify or exaggerate it. In IPCC AR4 (2007), of the 9 factors as contributors to past century's warming, 8 of them were anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, this is very informative. How much of warming in the past century was due to nature, how much from humans? Are GHGs evil or saviour? Without those GHGs, we should need perhaps 1/4 inch thicker skin, otherwise no life as we know it is possible, simply too cold.

Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective by Ira Glickstein, April 7, 2014.

And an update last month from Christopher Moncton of Brenchley, April 5, 2014, using global air/lower troposphere temperature data from the Remote Sensing System (RSS),


See also::

1 comment:

GabbyD said...

what do you think of this disent: