[CTRL] InsightMag: For friend Sam Smith- Global-Warming Theory Steams Ahead

2001-02-07 Thread MICHAEL SPITZER 

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200102275.shtml

Global-Warming Theory Steams Ahead Despite Conflicting Evidence

By S. Fred Singer

   With Al Gore’s defeat in the presidential election, global
warming has lost its most dedicated governmental sponsor. Gore
may not have invented climate change ,but he certainly has been
its most zealous advocate. He repeatedly proclaimed a nonexistent
scientific consensus, labeling skeptical scientists as naysayers
who view global warming, in his words, as the equivalent of the
Easter Bunny.

   Now that he has retreated to the Columbia University
School of Journalism in New York City, will the global-warming
scare fade from the scene? Don’t bet on it. There are too many
now whose perks, power and prestige depend on keeping the myth
alive — not to mention the billions of governmental dollars
flowing out to these eager recipients. Annual conferences in
attractive cities around the world involving some 180 national
delegations with committee meetings in high-priced resort hotels
in between: It’s a great lifestyle and a full-time career for a
growing number of scientists, bureaucrats and politicians — paid
for by the hapless taxpayers.

   Don’t expect these folks to pay any attention to climate
science. For them, it is “settled” and “compelling,” to use Bill
Clinton’s words. Yet, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) science
panel keeps coming up with ever more fantastic predictions of
coming disasters.

   Last fall, this group leaked a summary of their findings
to influential newspapers, hoping to boost Gore’s chances of
being elected and also providing added urgency to negotiations at
The Hague on how to put teeth into the Kyoto Protocol on Global
Warming. This international accord has not been ratified by any
of the industrialized nations; if adopted, it would restrict
their energy use by some 30 to 40 percent within the next decade.
So, if you like the California power crisis, you’ll love the
Kyoto Protocol.

   The Hague talks last November collapsed over relatively
minor disagreements, but Kyoto is not yet dead. Its proponents
are not giving up just yet. What will finally stamp out the Kyoto
Protocol? The U.S. Senate, which would reject such a treaty once
President Bush submits it for ratification. Senators of both
parties recognize the economic danger of energy restrictions and
are becoming aware of the shakiness of the alleged science that
purports to back the Kyoto Protocol.

   To counteract this trend, the UNEP science panel has
rehashed its same old tired predictions of last fall. They
managed to get front-page attention from the Washington Post on
Jan. 23, which accepted uncritically the not-yet-approved summary
of the U.N. climate report. It claimed that the climate had
warmed in the last 50 years and that computer models predict an
increase of more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100
years, with all sorts of dire consequences. Other scientists
(including myself) see little or no warming since about 1940 and
therefore do not put much faith in these theoretical forecasts.

   Laymen understandably are confused when scientists
disagree. The explanation is simple: The U.N. group gets a
warming trend by averaging data from all surface thermometers,
including poorly characterized measurements of the sea surface.
The so-called skeptics point to the absence of a temperature rise
from well-controlled weather stations in the United States and
Europe, where the local heating from urban effects can be
eliminated. More important, the truly global data from weather
satellites show no appreciable warming trend since 1979, and
these results are independently confirmed by instruments carried
in weather balloons.

   Finally, we have additional temperature data that don’t
rely on instruments at all but come from “proxies” such as tree
rings, ice cores and ocean sediment. While they all show evidence
of a pre-1940 warming trend — starting in the 19th century, when
human influences were minor — they do not show a trend since
about 1940. (Melting glaciers, shrinking Arctic sea ice and
sea-level rise — while real — are likely the delayed result of an
earlier, pre-1940 warming of the world climate that has little to
do with human activity.)

   Hence our conclusion: The balance of evidence suggests
that the climate has not warmed appreciably in the last 60 years.
We expect future climate effects from human activities to be
barely detectable and certainly inconsequential. Let’s see if
Gore and the Columbia School of Journalism pick up on this. I am
taking bets.


   S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental
sciences at the University of Virginia and was director of the
U.S. Weather Satellite Service (now part of NOAA).


=
 Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT

  FROM THE DESK OF:
 *Michael Spitzer*  [EMAIL

Re: [CTRL] InsightMag: For friend Sam Smith- Global-Warming Theory Steams Ahead

2001-02-07 Thread Steve Wingate 

-Caveat Lector-

(Sorry, but this is Bullsh*t. You should check your sources. Bush and Co will
be proud that their disinformation is being widely perpetuated by Nader
supporters. Shame on those who  promote fossile fuels at the expense of
free energy! --SW

On 7 Feb 01, at 14:02, MICHAEL SPITZER wrote:

 -  IUFO  Mailing List



 http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200102275.shtml

 Global-Warming Theory Steams Ahead Despite Conflicting Evidence

 By S. Fred Singer

With Al Gore’s defeat in the presidential election, global
 warming has lost its most dedicated governmental sponsor. Gore
 may not have invented climate change ,but he certainly has been
 its most zealous advocate. He repeatedly proclaimed a nonexistent
 scientific consensus, labeling skeptical scientists as naysayers
 who view global warming, in his words, as the equivalent of the
 Easter Bunny.

Now that he has retreated to the Columbia University
 School of Journalism in New York City, will the global-warming
 scare fade from the scene? Don’t bet on it. There are too many
 now whose perks, power and prestige depend on keeping the myth
 alive — not to mention the billions of governmental dollars
 flowing out to these eager recipients. Annual conferences in
 attractive cities around the world involving some 180 national
 delegations with committee meetings in high-priced resort hotels
 in between: It’s a great lifestyle and a full-time career for a
 growing number of scientists, bureaucrats and politicians — paid
 for by the hapless taxpayers.

Don’t expect these folks to pay any attention to climate
 science. For them, it is “settled” and “compelling,” to use Bill
 Clinton’s words. Yet, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) science
 panel keeps coming up with ever more fantastic predictions of
 coming disasters.

Last fall, this group leaked a summary of their findings
 to influential newspapers, hoping to boost Gore’s chances of
 being elected and also providing added urgency to negotiations at
 The Hague on how to put teeth into the Kyoto Protocol on Global
 Warming. This international accord has not been ratified by any
 of the industrialized nations; if adopted, it would restrict
 their energy use by some 30 to 40 percent within the next decade.
 So, if you like the California power crisis, you’ll love the
 Kyoto Protocol.

The Hague talks last November collapsed over relatively
 minor disagreements, but Kyoto is not yet dead. Its proponents
 are not giving up just yet. What will finally stamp out the Kyoto
 Protocol? The U.S. Senate, which would reject such a treaty once
 President Bush submits it for ratification. Senators of both
 parties recognize the economic danger of energy restrictions and
 are becoming aware of the shakiness of the alleged science that
 purports to back the Kyoto Protocol.

To counteract this trend, the UNEP science panel has
 rehashed its same old tired predictions of last fall. They
 managed to get front-page attention from the Washington Post on
 Jan. 23, which accepted uncritically the not-yet-approved summary
 of the U.N. climate report. It claimed that the climate had
 warmed in the last 50 years and that computer models predict an
 increase of more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100
 years, with all sorts of dire consequences. Other scientists
 (including myself) see little or no warming since about 1940 and
 therefore do not put much faith in these theoretical forecasts.

Laymen understandably are confused when scientists
 disagree. The explanation is simple: The U.N. group gets a
 warming trend by averaging data from all surface thermometers,
 including poorly characterized measurements of the sea surface.
 The so-called skeptics point to the absence of a temperature rise
 from well-controlled weather stations in the United States and
 Europe, where the local heating from urban effects can be
 eliminated. More important, the truly global data from weather
 satellites show no appreciable warming trend since 1979, and
 these results are independently confirmed by instruments carried
 in weather balloons.

Finally, we have additional temperature data that don’t
 rely on instruments at all but come from “proxies” such as tree
 rings, ice cores and ocean sediment. While they all show evidence
 of a pre-1940 warming trend — starting in the 19th century, when
 human influences were minor — they do not show a trend since
 about 1940. (Melting glaciers, shrinking Arctic sea ice and
 sea-level rise — while real — are likely the delayed result of an
 earlier, pre-1940 warming of the world climate that has little to
 do with human activity.)

Hence our conclusion: The balance of evidence suggests
 that the climate has not warmed appreciably in the last 60 years.
 We expect future climate effects from human activities to be
 barely detectable and certainly inconsequential. Let’s see if
 Gore and the Columbia School of Journalism pick up on