George Rebane
Our government-media complex is ratcheting up the hysteria about man-made global warming (AGW) to a fever pitch in preparation for this fall’s Paris conference on ‘climate change’. Obama wants the world to see that the US will lead in reducing CO2 emissions no matter the economic cost, and Moonbeam Brown wants the world to also see that California will be way ahead of Obama. The entire argument for massive increases in the scope, size, and cost of government called for in Agenda21 rests on the thesis – Man’s burning of fossil fuels is warming the global climate to life threatening levels in the near future, and forcing Man to greatly reduce or abandon fossil fuels will save us from the coming worldwide disaster.
Local liberal cadres have been cranked up to support the hysteria on a grass roots level. Here in Nevada County our newspaper The Union is picking up the pace in its op-ed pages. On 30 August the paper published an article by two physicians (the Drs Newsom of the Nevada County Climate Change Coalition) touting pro-AGW consensus science and denigrating its skeptics (or their term ‘deniers’) focusing on Congressman LaMalfa. A few of us leaped into the breach to answer the Newsoms’ erroneous reporting. I wrote a short letter addressing their errors, but my friend Dr Bob Hren wrote a longer and better piece which was published today (5sep15) in the Union’s op-ed section – ‘Climate change: some inconvenient truths’. In his article Bob summarizes a few of the more egregious errors of data, fact and science purveyed by True Believers like the Newsoms.
A more comprehensive response to the AGW propaganda promoted by the Environmental Defense Fund was recently published in Forbes – ‘Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You’. The heavily referenced piece was crafted by the skeptical Heartland Institute.
Meanwhile, Gov Brown and the California Democrats are doing their best to pass new legislation that will significantly take the state’s economy down another notch or two, driving out more employers and jobs. As reported here in the 5sep15 WSJ, the “proposed state law would cut petroleum-fuel use by 50%, require utilities to get half their power from renewable sources, and increase energy efficiency in buildings by 50%—all by 2030, using 2016 levels as the starting point. A second measure would mandate an 80% reduction in state greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, from 1990 levels. … The bills are backed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who say that California must begin taking serious steps to curb its use of fossil fuels.” See the above graphic from the article. What the True Believers never tell us is from where does the electric power come that will replace fossil fuels’ use in transportation. It most certainly will not come from wind and solar which are ‘some time’ sources produced by technologies not nearly sufficient to deliver the levels of steady power consumption required by even our growth-stunted future economy.
We also get news that the pro-AGW team is now rejiggling the sunspot data archive to support their own denial that earth’s climate is influenced far more by the sun than by man’s meager machinations on this planet. Without going into detail (see referenced articles), the sun’s solar wind affects the earth’s magnetic field, which in turn affects the cosmic ray intensity impinging on our atmosphere, which in turn affects the cloud cover that overwhelmingly governs how much solar energy earth reflects and receives. It’s a big deal that the grant-driven scientists have been told to bury either by outright denial of the science (which hasn’t worked), or now attempt to implement Plan B by rejiggling the historical sunspot data so as to decorrelate it with the record of earth’s temperatures. You see, the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle is an observable of the solar wind’s intensity. And we already know from the IPCC’s ‘Datagate’ scandals how other datasets have been altered to produce the graphic ‘hockey stick’ temperature spiking from their already suspect general circulation (computer) models. (See also the active campaign to gag their own scientists, here.)
As we don’t know how The Union will continue to play the AGW issue in the coming days, I close with my own 30aug15 letter that I sent to the newspaper (since this may be the only light of day it sees).
Dear People – re the 30aug15 piece on climate change by the Drs Newsom. I do suggest that they may have mistakenly assumed their MD degrees allow their donning the mantle of scientists – a common mistake by physicians. Literally every scientist we celebrate today for having extended human knowledge was opposed by the established ‘consensus scientists’ of their day. This is not the place to debate the depth and breadth of today’s man-made global warming (AGW) religion, but it is worth contending the points of science with which the Newsoms dunned Congressman LaMalfa.
Today the post-scientific embrace of AGW is a global political issue that musters ‘consensus science’ for its legitimacy. The nations’ academies of science must also embrace AGW lest their grant monies be withdrawn by the local politicos, most of whom are waiting for the large wealth transfer from the haves that fomented international mass hysteria promises. Even the UN’s IPCC now admits that there is a problem with the mis-predicted earth’s temperature record of the last 15+ years. And the consensus scientists don’t have a clue about the real impact of CO2 on temperature. Yes, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (compared to water vapor), and yes, humans pump an unknown fraction of it into the atmosphere. However, CO2 gives life to earth’s biomass, and is no more the claimed “pollutant” than is oxygen or mother’s milk if consumed in excess. But in the end, all climate scientists admit that earth’s carbon cycle is poorly understood, and the more critical climate transfer function is almost completely unknown.
Good time for more research, bad time for making draconian public policy.
George Rebane, PhD, Nevada City, CA
[7sep15 update] The Union as of today has published three columns promoting belief in AGW, which also dun the skeptics, compared to one column – Bob Hren’s – outlining major skeptical arguments. Today the newspaper also published Russ Steele’s letter viz the Newsoms’ original column. It is a kinder and more accessible indictment of the True Believers than my ascerbic and too technical rebuttal (‘I yam what I yam!’). Mr Steele’s letter follows.
Regarding the Aug. 29 open letter to Congressman LaMalfa by the two Newsom physicians, certainly they must use science in their medical practice, relying on the latest medical studies in treating their patients.
The good doctors would be dismayed if they discovered that a leading medical study they are relying on to treat patients was based on fraudulent data, possibly damaging the patient’s health.
My question is: would they be equally dismayed to discover that the studies they referenced in their open letter to Congressman LaMalfa are based on fraudulent data?
They claim that the earth has warmed because NOAA said it has, calling into question Congressman LaMalfa’s claim of no warming in 18 years. NOAA has been tinkering with the data to create the cited warming, as reported by multiple scientists, but here is the latest analysis by Professor Robert Brown of Duke University and Werner Brozek: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/
When independent satellite measurements of the global temperature are plotted the trend is flat. The earth’s temperature is the same today as it was in 1997. Congressman LaMalfa is correct, no warming in 18 years.
Russell Steele, Nevada City
[8sep15 update] Perhaps I jumped the gun. The Union today published my above letter as a full-blown Other Voices column with a very appropriately chosen title and tag line. Kudos and gratitude for balance and exposure of another skeptical perspective.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment