Anthropogenic Global Warming: Is there a consensus?

The mainstream media has pushed a certain agenda about global warming.  The reasons they have done this are worth discussing, but here I wish only to say that they have been dishonest with us.  Let me explain first what is meant by anthropogenic global warming, and then I will show explain why there is no consensus.

First, anthropogenic global warming is the theory that humankind, through the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, has contributed to the warming of the planet.  It is believed that these gases trap heat from the sun on the planet, much as a greenhouse traps heat from the sun.  Humans have indeed increased their emissions into the atmosphere of these greenhouse gases through the use of power plants, cars, factories and so forth, anything that uses carbon fuels such as petroleum, coal and natural gas.  They believe further that the eating of meat contributes to the problem, because cattle increases the amount of gases like methane and carbon dioxide too.  To people living in cities where fumes from cars and factories choke out their opportunity to breath fresh air, these conclusions may seem evident enough.

I had heard about 11 years ago from a radio talk show that there was really no consensus on global warming amongst the top scientists in the field of climatology, despite the media’s claim.  At the time, I happened to know an atmospheric physicist, whose PhD was from University of Toronto and who was working in Toronto in a private firm which specialized in weather studies.  So I thought to test this idea about the lack of consensus with the expert on hand.  My friend, whose name will be withheld to protect the innocent, said that it seemed that the planet was warming–yet he believed that the scientists who claimed it was caused by man-made greenhouse emissions were using flawed models.  He also said that there was no consensus in his field that he knew of.  From that point on, I became what the media calls a global warming denier: this is a propaganda tool of demonizing the opponent and ad hominem attack comparing those who would deny anthropogenic global warming to those who deny that the Holocaust of the Jews ever took place.

Today, has posted an article called, “Hansen ’embarrassed NASA’“.  James Hansen of NASA has become a propagandist for the lobby of anthropogenic global warming.  Hansen’s supervisor at NASA, John Theon, has now come out and said that Hansen embarrassed NASA.  Just so that you can see that Theon is no average climatologist, Powerline lists his resume:

Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

Theon echos what my physicist friend told me 11 years ago:

My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.

Theon is not some isolated scientist who has come out against the anthropogenic global warming theory, but an industry leader whose opinion proves that there is no consensus (this blog has a list of several other leading scientists who are deniers).  It is a very serious issue, Obama and other world leaders want to push through an agenda which would try to limit and contain the usage of carbon fuels.  This will have a detrimental effect on economic stability in the West.  For Africa, the consequences will be dire, as pressure from the Western nations, influenced by theory of anthropogenic global warming, will try to stop development in Africa.  Some already claim that the lack of cheap electricity in Africa is the result of this pressure (so the documentary film, The Great Global Warming Swindle).  Cities in Africa that I visited experience rolling blackouts because there is not enough electricity, and the standard of living has suffered as a result.  In the case of Ndjamena, it is almost inconceivable, since the country is a net exporter of petroleum, and in all likelihood must have sufficient natural gas to provide cheap electricity to the capital.

An acorn hits chicken littles head

An acorn hits chicken little's head

Perhaps some of you know the story of chicken little.  An acorn falls on chicken little’s head, and the little chick goes around telling everyone, “The sky is falling!”  We need to be very careful about listening to the Luddites who want to stop development both in West and in Africa.  Al Gore and his kind are modern chicken littles.

Links:  Global Warming Petition Project and a review of the project at World Net Daily.  The Global Warming Petition Project greatly belies the claim of a consensus and that the “science is settled”.

5 thoughts on “Anthropogenic Global Warming: Is there a consensus?

  1. It is very difficult to assess if the current warming trend is simply one of the naturally occurring warming/cooling cycles that the earth undergoes periodically or whether the effects are anthropogenically derived. Such periodicities can span tens of thousands to millions of years and to base conclusions on such a short sampling of measurements of maybe a couple of hundred years within a long time scale of geological time is not very well founded. Until the causes of such periodic changes are identified, it cannot be separated out that the recent warming trend is man-made. I find amusing the suggestion that those who eat meat are urged to refrain from doing so because cows (and other flesh-derived food sources) are a prime source of methane, a strong greenhouse gas. What these advocates fail to mention is that the largest source of methane is the Earth’s wetlands, which includes vast tracts of land cultivated for rice paddies. I’m sure it would be equally absurd to blame the vegetarians.

  2. Pingback: Half-billion dollar fine for not heeding global warming « Palabre

  3. Pingback: The Great Global Warming Swindle, in 9 parts « Palabre

  4. Pingback: Richard Lindzen is the Rembrandt of Climatology « Palabre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s