New Evidence Discredits Global Warming Dogma
Some call data on carbon dioxide a bombshell, but so far global warming advocates have been bombproof
March 25, 2008
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaks on climate change and global warming in New Delhi, March 20
On national radio in Australia, Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, dropped a bombshell on those who support global warming: While carbon dioxide levels have risen for the last 10 years, the Earth has cooled, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows it. Marohasy said,
The head of the ipcc (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it [that the Earth has cooled since 1998]. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued. … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up.
According to Marohasy, the head of the ipcc has suggested natural factors, such as solar activity, are countering global warming. These are the same factors that global warming proponents deride when skeptics suggest that they may be the deciding factors in global warming rather than carbon dioxide. The new discussion is a result of data gathered from nasa’s Aqua satellite launched in 2002:
What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapor, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the nasa Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.
Marohasy thinks the entire global warming paradigm will collapse as a result of this bombshell. But we wouldn’t count on it. Science has worked against the global warming community for years now without result. Here is one example of why: In “Junk Science: The Global Warming Bubble,” Steven Milloy writes about a conference hosted by the Wall Street Journal and largely comprised of global warming advocates.
In the interlude between presentations by the ceos of Dow Chemical and Duke Energy, for example, the audience was shown a slide … of the diverging relationship between atmospheric co² levels and average global temperature since 1998.
That slide should have caused jaws to drop and audience members to ponder why anyone is considering regulating co² emissions in hopes of taming global climate. Instead, it was as if the audience did a collective blink and missed the slide entirely. When I tried to draw attention to the slide during my presentation, it was as if I were speaking in a foreign dialect.
The only conclusion I could come to was that the audience is so steeped in anticipation of climate profiteering that there is no fact that will cause them to reconsider whether or not manmade global warming is a reality.
He also observed a poll at the conference where attendees were asked to select society’s most pressing problem from a list of five including infectious disease, terrorism and global warming. Infectious disease, which kills millions and infects billions every year, received 3 percent of the vote. Global warming won out with a solid 31 percent.
It doesn’t look like the bubble will burst any time soon. To learn more about the depth of the global warming sham, read “A Really Inconvenient Truth.”