EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS – MAY 6, 2009
By Rich Trzupek
A distinguished group of scientists published a brief, open letter to President Obama this week. If you didn’t have a chance to read it, and particularly if you a parent assaulted by global warming propaganda that your kids bring home from school, it’s worth reprinting here in full.
The one hundred one signatories, eighty-eight of whom have PhD’s behind their names, responded to this statement by the President: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
A response was signed by scientists from around the world, including some who sit on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the home of global-warming alarmism. Sadly, your humble correspondent was not asked to offer his John Hancock, but I’m with them in spirit. They said:
“With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperatures changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe-weather events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
Now, one of the challenges for all of us skeptics is breaking down the science in a way that both appeals to the masses and is understandable to them and the media. It’s hard for us to fight those images of forlorn polar bears and angry, giant icebergs bent on destroying a neighborhood near you, especially when the actual science appears to be rather boring and dry to non-scientists. (Though this chemist can not imagine why that should be so).
Perhaps one of the best pieces of evidence is the “missing signature” that the alarmist’s computer models predict – a signature that must be there if their theories are correct, but one that has never, ever been observed. Allow me to explain.
As I have noted in previous discussions on this subject, carbon dioxide can not – by itself – raise the temperature of the planet by any significant degree. To use a baseball metaphor, carbon dioxide isn’t a slugger in terms of climate change. It’s more of slap hitter which, at best, can punch out a single and – if the IPCC were correct – set the table for the big slugger to follow: water vapor. Water vapor is the big gun, capable of “retaining” a lot of heat in the atmosphere, or knocking the ball out of the park, if you will.
Alarmist theory really depends on this “feedback”. That’s what the IPCC computer models predict. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide will cause more water vapor to evaporate and that water vapor will raise the temperature of the planet, which will cause more evaporation and so on and so on, until things get out of control (the “tipping point”) and we basically turn the earth into Venus, sans the sulfuric acid clouds, presumably.
It’s a remarkably frightening theory of course, albeit a little hard to believe on the face of it, given the fact the planet has seen carbon dioxide concentrations 30 times higher than those today and somehow old ma earth managed to keep her cool. However, let’s consider the theory. One of the first stages of the meltdown, according to the models, would be the creation of a “hotspot” in the atmosphere. More water vapor would evaporate in the tropics and this, in turn, would cause upper atmospheric temperatures to climb in those latitudes.
Unfortunately, for Al Gore, the “hot-spot” does not, and never has, existed. We know this because we have decades of data from radiosondes, which are balloons fixed with temperature sensors that radio climate data back to earth-based stations.
Isn’t it odd how we never hear about hot-spots – the “signature” of global warming – in the media? Can you imagine how familiar we would be with the term if it actually existed? To quote Dr. David Evans, an Australian scientist who is on the forefront of fighting this lunacy:
“Alarmists keep very quiet about signatures. Hardly anyone in the public or government realizes the observed warming data exists or its significance. The “news” services aren’t exactly falling over themselves to tell you about it. There has been near complete official silence on the topic: ever notice that, outside highly technical circles, the IPCC or alarmists never mention the idea that warming patterns are evidence of causes, or talk about signatures or hotspots?”
And I suspect they probably won’t. So get the word out people. If the planet needs saving, it’s not from fossil fuel, it’s from the fossilized “science” that the IPCC and this administration is trying to ram down our throats.