APS backtracks on global warming: No mo’ Anthropo?

The 50,000-strong American Physical Society this week re-opened, then not-so-smoothly tried to shut down, debate over whether evidence for anthropogenic global warming — “Thropo Glo Wo” to conserve syllables — really is “incontrovertible” as the APS has previously claimed.

In the June 2008 edition of APS’ newsletter Physics & Society, the Editor wrote:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

The newsletter is posted on the APS website, but the APS quickly tried to hide this all-to-obvious family disagreement, posting the note (above) on its homepage. Funny that the APS would raise the “non-peer-reviewed” status of its own newsletter to refute the easily- and widely-verified assertion that real scientists (as opposed to Al Gore) disagree over how much “thropo” there is in “glo wo.” We’re glad to see this scientific iceberg begin to melt.

Meanwhile, a world away, down-under, David Evans, an architect of Australia’s Kyoto compliance, erstwhile climate change alarmist, and newly evolved skeptic (after failing to see supporting evidence emerge over the last five years) observes:

So far the debate has consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If you haven’t seen the movie, The Prestige, do. It offers insights into how the global warming industry works. Not unlike CPS child vendors, global warmists create the illusion of a catastrophe and finger a suspect. Then, while the audience gasps in horror, the warmists pick their pockets. Interested in more than simply indulging the popular panic over global warming? Read on.

Evans outlines four reasons (and I add a fifth) why (a) opinions are changing and (b) formerly passive skeptical scientists are speaking out.

1. The missing “greenhouse signature”, which would be a hot zone about 10 km up in the atmosphere. It’s been sought for years - hundreds of measurements using radiosondes (a sort of temperature measuring weather balloon). It would constitute the smoking gun on our thropo glo wo. Hundreds of tests have returned the same answer - it’s not there. It is statistically impossible that the hundreds of tests missed the spot. The existing models on greenhouse warming do not work without this hot zone.
2. “There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming” says Evans. “None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations” constituting evidence that carbon emissions are a significant driver in warming trends.
3. Satellites measuring the world’s temperature uniformly show that the warming trend stopped in 2001 and that in the past year the temperature actually returned to 1980 levels. Satellite measurements are the only truly reliable method for capturing the data as land-based measurements are vulnerable to encroachments of expanding cities and “urban heat island effect.”
4. “The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.” Al Gore and other leading politicizers of the climate question point almost exclusively to ice core data for validation - but they never point out that the rise in CO2 has historically always followed the warming trend, not preceded it. I will assume that no one needs to have it explained why this might be significant.

Additionally, other skeptics note that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and one of Neptune’s moons experienced the same climate shift at the same time. They only have one source of energy in common: the sun. It’s very provocative, this idea that the sun might have a primary role in warming the earth.

Four things readers might be conditioned to think, but shouldn’t:

1. “Skeptics don’t believe global warming has actually occurred.” No. The debate has never been about whether or not some warming has occurred but about (a) whether human activity is driving it, (b) whether anything useful can be done to change it and (c) whether it’s even desirable to try.
2. “Skeptics don’t care about the environment.” Lame. You don’t have to be a politically driven environmentalist to be a passionate conservationist. Myself and many others fall in the latter category. I’m a skeptic who is passionate about keeping the environment clean, who loathes anyone who buys and drives a Hummer, and would rather not see a Walmart near me.
3. “Skeptics don’t want alternative energies.” Again - trash, and unrelated to the debate on climate change. There are a hundred good reasons to aggressively pursue alternative energies. Climate change may or may not be one of them.
4. “Skeptics ‘deny’ anthropogenic climate change.” No. They’re … skeptical. Not dogmatic. They want the responsible public debate that has not yet occurred. They see other plausible hypotheses and want a real discussion before we all run off in a frenzy and paralyze the global economy.

Thoughtful scientific skeptics (such as old-timers like MIT’s lead on atmospheric science, Richard Lindzen, and the newly converted, like David Evans) are simply looking for something more than second degree circumstantial evidence for a phenomenon that thousands of panting politicians and grasping green capitalists like Al Gore are pushing as grounds for enormous changes. They worry at the reckless, bullying manner the public discussion has been handled.

If you’ve read this far then here’s a virtual fist bump for your endurance. I’m only looking for people to engage the question critically. So far, too many people have their hearts engaged without their heads. Here’s a thought: how much additional arable land would come available for bringing down food prices if Canada and Russia warmed up just a few degrees?