Winner, Best Topic: Environmental Debate 2003-2004
In another thread, I was tempted to derail it with my rants about the "global warming" phenomena.
Is "global warming" being caused by industrialization? Is it backed by a majority of scientists? Or is it a purely political issue?The Reality of 'Global Warming' : Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
Editor's note: This is text of a House speech Tuesday night by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing global warming tonight, especially considering that President Bush has come under severe attack for his refusal to bow before the pressure of a very well-organized effort that they are trying to pressure him to accept the idea that the world is in peril because it is becoming more and more warm because of industrialization. It is vital that the public understand that what is going on in this attack against President Bush is about a political agenda; that global warming is not a scientific imperative. It is a politically-driven theory.
Those espousing global warming are building on public fear and apprehension. Young people in particular are being lied to about the environment and about global warming. Global warming, of course, is one of the worst falsehoods that they talk about. When I meet with student groups, it is clear they are being told false things about a lot of areas of the environment.
In fact, I meet every student group from my district that comes to Washington, D.C. I always ask them the same question: How many of them believe that the air today in Southern California is cleaner or worse than it was when I went to high school in Southern California 35 years ago? Consistently, 95 percent of these students who live in Southern California who are coming to my office say they believe that the air quality today is so much worse than it was when I went to high school and how lucky I was to live in an era, in the early 1960s, when we had such clean air in Southern California.
This, of course, is 180 degrees wrong. These young people have been systematically lied to about their environment. They are being told they are being poisoned by the air. But, in fact, the air quality in Southern California is better than it has ever been in my lifetime. They cannot believe it when they hear it.
Dan Rather, let us take a look at Dan Rather's report in particular. Dan Rather on CBS news was perhaps the worst in terms of his bias and inaccuracy of the presentation of that report. His lead to the story stated uncategorically that the report had proved global warming was here and that humans were the cause. How many listeners noted that after 3 minutes of Dan Rather's report, that at the end of that report, Dan Rather's own correspondent stated that the National Academy had not stated that humans were the cause of the temperature increase, and that temperature increase was 1 degree over 100 years?
Now, how many people noticed that? You had Dan Rather leading into his report that the report stated unequivocally that there had been the global warming and that humans were the cause. Yet at the end of the report, his own reporter put a little tag on that that they could not absolutely say that it was caused by human actions and human activity.
The National Academy of Science report is filled with weasel words and caveats. That was true of many of the other scientific investigations. Almost every one of the scientific investigations, the findings about global warming were not conclusive enough to make any solid statement other than words to the effect that further research is necessary.
Just like Dan Rather, it totally misportrayed what that report was all about. Over and over and over again, the American people have heard about reports that global warming is absolutely here, and it has been misportrayed to them. That is not what those reports have said. Sometimes reports have said that, and you go back to who did the reports, just a very small group of radicals who are not respected by the scientific community in those reports. Yet we hear about the reports all the time, and we see these same misquoted reports as being used to justify dramatic headlines and very frightening reports over the broadcast news media.
There are literally dozens of links debunking the myth of the global warming due to green house gas theory.
Here is one: Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth?
Everywhere today we hear that the Earth is warming up due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet the MSU satellite observations fail to see any warming. The surface observations, which are the main support for the greenhouse effect hypothesis, are poorly made and contaminated with urban effects and changing skyline effects. The surface temperature observations are made mostly in the 1% of the global areas that are heavily populated and built up. The spatial-temporal sampling of the surface network is not global and this under-sampling alone appears to be causing a spurious warming trend of 0.12 C (out of the observed 0.23 C warming trend between 1979 and 1994). Melting The Global Warming Myth
The old fashioned technique of using 30 year normals also forces climatologists to preferentially choose faulty or inappropriate locations. A station must make measurements within a specified 30 year window or it will not be included in the GISS or CRU temperature reconstructions. This technique alone causes them to throw out about 40% of the observations made before 1870. There are analysis methods which allow the use of all the data. Climatologists have not used them. There are analysis techniques that allow one to separate the urban heat island effect from other causes of climate change. Climatologists have not employed these techniques either. They are not published on this web page. When (and if) we get funding, we will show how to make the temperature trend analysis correctly.For those interested, here are the monthly temperature anomalies for GISS and MSU for 1997, each scaled to give a yearly mean anomaly of 0.00 C. The two time series disagree quite a bit from month to month. For another argument that the surface observations are incorrect and the satellite observations are correct, see this discussion.
Over 17,000 well-qualified scientists have signed the Oregon Institute Petition (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm) saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Here are just some facts they pronounce to unmask the myth.
Is global warming due to green house gases a myth, a hypothesis or a fact?