13 reasons and counting for questioning Al Gore and company. (Not counting all of the political and financial motivations.)
1) The climate changes all on its own. This can be shown with data - lots of data.
2) CO2 (carbon dioxide) is emitted by all animals and is food for plants. It is not a bad thing anymore than oxygen is. (Oxygen is actually a bad thing - it causes most things to oxidize or burn. That is a destructive process, but it does release energy, which is why we use it to live.)
3) CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is by far the most prevalent gas. Depending on which parts of the atmosphere you want to include, nitrogen plus oxygen represent 99% of the atmosphere. Water vapor and argon are next, making up most of the last 1%. CO2 represents less than .03% or .0003 or 3 parts per 10,000.
4) CO2 concentrations go up and down for natural reasons like volcanos. Volcanos, the director of Goddard Space Center says, produce the most CO2 of anything. Since plant life contributes a lot to the reduction in CO2, why not blame plants? Those bad plants just haven't been busy enough, time for some genetic engineering. Of course cutting down trees doesn't help the situation, but most plant life is oceanic.
5) How many measurements does it take to find the difference that man makes in that .03%? Statistically, way more than we have available. If CO2 is such a small component, think how serious a minor error in the measuring equipment would make. Let's say I am measuring the atmospheric content and I make a .001% error (pretty small error). If that error is in measuring CO2, whoa, that's like plus or minus 1/3! Like um, the temperature is 100 plus or minus 33 degrees. Quite a variation. I hope a pigeon didn't sneeze on your probe.
6) The period in which actual temperature measurements are available starts in 1850. Everything that went on before is conjecture. And as the now revealed hoax shows, if the conjecture did not fit the desired result, they simply changed the basis for conjecture until it did. That conjecture is consistent with the desired outcome until about 1980. After that, it no longer supports the predetermined conclusion. So, they just stop using it and substitute real temperature data instead. And when real temperature data doesn't support the predetermined conclusion (which it doesn't), then they fake it some more.
7) The period for which we have actual temperature measurements starts in 1850 or so. The real temperature measurements show a lot of variation and also a decline in temperature since the late 1990's. That doesn't stop the climate fanatics however. Now we will attribute reality to local phenomena. Or maybe the thermometers aren't so accurate - a small computer program to adjust for that, no problem. Or better yet, just stop the model in 2000. What happened after that, well who cares?
8) So, we are going to theorize that an increase in CO2 will increase the temperature around the world. (Thirty years ago, we were going to freeze to death). What do we do, measure the temperature to prove the theory? But what about all the other things that might affect the temperature? Like the sun? Duh?!. Where is the control group, folks? The mini ice age in 1500-1800 (more or less)? The rings of a few dozen trees from one forest? Plus, what we have available for actual temperature measurements (instead of tree voodoo) is suspect because not only has the temperature changed over time, but the measuring devices have changed, too. People move those things all the time. It wouldn't be a big deal except most of them move in 25, 50 100 years. So, what is responsible for the change in the reading over time, the device, the change in the area around the device (like it used to be rural and now is suburban), or the the ambient temperature? There are just too many variables that cannot be measured and accounted for to say what the change has been, let alone why.
9) Given that climate changes anyway, and aside from not knowing what man's contribution to climate change might be, unless we are willing to stop breathing and kill a lot of mammals, the net result in CO2 based on the changes man can make is going to be minimal. The math doesn't work. We are trying to correct for all the other things that change CO2 levels besides us. At some point, you just have to accept that CO2 levels change, temperature changes and there is very little that humans can do to change the nature of it. But then we would have to admit that we aren't so powerful, all-knowing and wise as a small group of delusionists would like us to believe.
10) Scientific fact is not determined by a vote. Opinion is determined by votes. Opinions are not fact. Hell, we don't even know how gravity works. If we are still talking about the theory of relativity, the big bang theory, etc., where there are far more observations, controls and research, how can this be settled science? It is theory at best. Fraud, if the data have been "fudged" to produce a predetermined result.
11) Changing the terminology from endless winter (1970s) to global warming (1990s) and then, when facts show that the globe is actually cooling, to climate change (meaning what, your clueless?) should make you pretty suspicious in the first place. If the climate changes one way or the other, for whatever reason, isn't that a self-validating theory? How could I prove you wrong? Therefore, there is no proof.
12) If you insist that your conclusion is truth, refuse to consider contrary information, and disrespect anyone that does not agree with you, are you peddling science or religion?
13) If climate change produces this and that effect (acidic oceans, melting or growing glaciers, freezing or melting polar ice, etc), and climate has been changing those things for millennia without human contribution, then aren't the consequences natural? Why should we fear those changes let alone think we are so powerful that we can stand in the path of nature and stop it cold in its tracks? It is not the skeptics that fear change.
Why climactic extremists are more dangerous than islamic extremists. Subject of another article.
A good summary of the problems with the data and what those emails mean: American Thinker Here you will find graphs showing the actual data and the fudged data. You can draw your own conclusions from those.
A good summary of the arguments against the correlation that man-made results in climate change can be found here "A Citizen’s Guide to Global Warming Evidence" William M. Briggs is an American Meteorological Society member and serves on their Probability & Statistics Committee. His specialty is on the philosophy of evidence, forecast evaluation, and marketing.
Summary of what is so contrary with the current "science" by Fred L. Oliver, P.E.
A great collection of links, summaries and commentary maintained by John Daly
Crunching the Numbers by Gary Novak
Someone did the math (don't know who this is)