Serious cracks in climate data
Recently, Richard Kennel, Ph.D., HSPP, responded to my letter of June 30. In my letter I demonstrated the fraud that surrounds global warming. Dr. Kennel began by informing me that the earth is round, not flat, and the earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. He also proclaimed that there “is an awful strong consensus” that humans contribute to global warming.
Although I have found little hard data with regard to the pre-Copernican consensus on the shape of the world and Earth-sun-rotation issue, I submit that the “scientific” consensus prior to the availability of hard data on these subjects was even higher than the 97 percent Dr. Kennel attributes to man-made global warming. When data became available it was proven that “flat earthers” and heliocentrists were wrong.
And — quite simply — that was the point of my letter. We now have hard data that clearly demonstrate that the earth is not warming, as the alarmists predicted in their theory-based computer programs. My letter documented the fact that the measured/observed temperature of the world over the past 33 years shows that warming is occurring at a rate 1.5 to 8.5 times slower than was predicted in the 73 computer programs developed by Dr. Kennel’s scientists. In science, data trumps theory every time.
These facts raise the question: Does Dr. Kennel have a valid basis for his statement that “Not only is global warming happening, but it is increasing at a much faster rate than was anticipated”? Or did he just make it up? The basis he gave in his letter leads one to believe that he doesn’t understand the difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth. His basis appears to be that a consensus of scientists agreed that 350 parts-per-million of CO2 (Kennel calls it carbon) in the atmosphere is “incompatible with life” and this threshold has been exceeded; therefore, there is faster warming. In fact, there is a very complex relationship between these two variables that is at the heart of the debate.
Furthermore, blind faith is certainly not warranted in these scientists whose predictions of this relationship are so flawed that any unbiased observer would throw out their predicting computer programs and start over.
Further to Dr. Kennel’s words cited above, it is unconscionable that the alarmists use verbiage related to CO2 like “incompatible with life” in their attempts to distress the uninformed. It is not only outlandish hype but factually wrong; and it gets repeated over and over so that it has probably burnished carbon in the minds of the public for years to come. Even the president in his push for control over our energy resources adds to the hype by equating CO2 to poisonous chemicals like arsenic and mercury.
To the contrary, CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants and as essential to life on this planet as oxygen. When human beings breathe out, they emit CO2. OSHA allows workers to work in environments up to 5,000 ppm; more than 14 times the “incompatible with life” level.
In order to believe that human beings are causing a change in the climate one has to have faith in failed computer models of an unproven theory that predict an uptrend when the data show otherwise. Fortunately, there are cracks in the religion of man-made global warming. Even the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is having doubts. “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,” Hans Van Storch of the IPCC admitted to Der Spiegel.
Unfortunately, our president can do great damage in the time he has left at the lever of energy policy and regulation. Write to your congressman.
— Thomas B. Tucker