carbon dioxide

The quote above is from economist John Maynard Keynes.  The science reported below with the headline “Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist” was done by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.  The questions I ask myself and suggest you might want to ask yourself too are:  

1.     Why aren’t we celebrating his findings, which are based on hard data not just computer simulations?  (See earlier post about the “weak underbelly of climate models” which is also about some research conducted at MIT.)

2.     Why aren’t Lindzen’s findings the lead story reported on every media outlet in the USA and the rest of the world too?  (And before you fall prey to the ad homonym attack diversion, most of which has no factual basis, consider that just about every piece of published medical and scientific research conducted today is funded by somebody who has a bias just like every other person on the planet.  That doesn't refute the work, it just helps us put it in context and take the possibility of bias into consideration.)

3.     Why are the politicians of the USA, including our president and the leadership of most of the world’s other countries for that matter:    

        a. Still talking about taxing carbon dioxide and anthropogenic global warming?

        b. Planning to meet in Copenhagen in December to sign a gigantic bureaucracy creating, carbon dioxide controlling, international treaty?

        c. NOT dealing with all the many real pollution problems we have, most of which are anthropogenic?

Did terrorists put something in our water, or have we been dumbed down by some pollutant, or have I gone mad, or has earth morphed into Bizarro World?  Here's the article and some reference links too.  Question everything!  Think and decide for yourself.

--- ---- --- ---

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

August 18, 2009 7:39 AM Portland Civil Rights Examiner Dianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO₂ in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years.  Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.  More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale." -- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

--- --- --- ---

Want more information? – Try these for starters:

• http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/Press-Release_No-Climate-Crisis.pdf 

• http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

• http://courses.unt.edu/kappelman/blog/content/weak-underbelly-climate-models-are-you-feeling-lucky-punk

• http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

The theory that carbon dioxide might be causing global warming was worthy of our consideration.  The computer models helped us consider the possibilites and experiment with "what if" simulations.  The hard-data science is in.  The theory is disconfirmed.  When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do?

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson. Climate correspondent, BBC News

(Page last updated at 15:22 GMT, Friday, 9 October 2009 16:22 UK)

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. ...

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up."

More precisely, the debate about whether there even is any such thing as "global warming" (or more accurately "anthropogenic climate change") is far from over.

Read the entire article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm.  Think for yourself.  Our brains are still the most powerful computers on the planet.  All the computer models, theories, and hypotheses are merely tools to help us think, not think for us.  Be aware of your biases too, we all have them.  Almost everyone believes that humans should (even must) be good stewards of the planet and its environment -- Regretably this can make almost everyone suceptible to manipulation in the name of doing good for the earth and its inhabitants.  Moreover, since this is a political debate as well as a scientific one, it may be revealing to follow the money.  And keep in mind that power, influence, and money are fairly fungible these days when it comes to political and business decisions; and sadly, scientific ones too (e.g., see http://chronicle.com/article/Medical-Journals-See-Cost-in/48393/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en, http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/346/24/1901).