Feb. 22, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
08:34
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Howard C. Hayden, 785 South McCoy Drive, Puebla West, Colorado, 81007. | |
| October 27, 2009. | |
| To the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C., 20460. | |
| Dear Administrator Jackson, I write in regard to the proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202A of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule 74 Fed Reg 18886, April 24, 2009, the so-called endangerment finding. | |
| It has often been said that the science is settled on the issue of CO2 and climate. | |
| Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one letter proof that it is false. | |
| The letter is S, the one that changes model into models. | |
| If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements. | |
| Alternatively, one may ask which one of the 20-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded, along with the research funds that have kept those models alive. | |
| We can take this further. | |
| Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. | |
| If the science were settled, the model would have predicted it. | |
| Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching, or have passed, a tipping point. | |
| Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. | |
| The output goes to the rail. | |
| Not only that, but it stays there. | |
| That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen of NASA GISS and Al Gore. | |
| But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near. | |
| A tipping point. | |
| The Earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 parts per million, and that did not lead to a tipping point. | |
| If it did, we would not be here talking about it. | |
| In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials and interglacials is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years. | |
| Global warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is a. | |
| anthropogenic and b. | |
| leading to global warming. | |
| A. CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. | |
| The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. | |
| Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. | |
| They simply assume that it would be the pre-industrial value. | |
| B. The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. | |
| The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. | |
| How then can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming? | |
| Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. | |
| But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased? | |
| A warmer world is a better world. | |
| Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better. | |
| The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. | |
| But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. | |
| Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. | |
| CO2 is plant food, pure and simple. | |
| CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition. | |
| A warmer world begets more precipitation. | |
| All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. | |
| Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms. | |
| The melting point of ice is 0 degrees Celsius in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. | |
| The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is minus 14 degrees Celsius, and the lowest is minus 117 degrees Celsius. | |
| How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida as is claimed by the warming alarmists? | |
| Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. | |
| The term global warming has given way to the term climate change because the former is not supported by the data. | |
| The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. | |
| If it warms up, that's climate change. | |
| If it cools down, ditto. | |
| Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change. | |
| In a way, we have been here before. | |
| Lord Kelvin proved that the Earth could not possibly be as old as the geologist said. | |
| He proved it using the conservation of energy. | |
| What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the Sun and the Earth. | |
| Similarly, the global warming alarmists have proved that CO2 causes global warming. | |
| Except when it doesn't. | |
| To put it fairly but bluntly, the global warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. | |
| It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense. | |
| Best Regards Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics UConn Now onto a slightly separate matter, you've probably heard 98% of scientists accept global warming and so on. | |
| This is actually not true. | |
| A survey was sent out to over 10,000 scientists, 3,100 received it, of which 77 were climate scientists, and the climate scientists who answered yes to is there a change in temperature and do human beings have something to do with it, 75 of them said Yes, but this is not the same as global warming. | |
| Of course human beings have an effect on climate, and of course the climate is changing. | |
| But whether that is global warming for which we need to restrict energy use all around the world, causing the deaths literally of hundreds of millions of people, that's not the same question at all. | |
| So this 98% of scientists is actually based upon 75 people answering obvious questions that make sense, which really don't have anything to do with global warming, so I wanted to mention that. | |
| On the other hand, since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a public petition announcing their belief that, quote,"...there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, | |
| or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." So here you have 75 people saying human beings have an effect on climate and the climate is changing. | |
| I don't think anyone would disagree with that. | |
| On the other hand, you have more than 31,000 American scientists signing a public petition that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not true. | |
| That there's no convincing scientific evidence of this. | |
| So the next time somebody quotes you that 98%, you might just want to ask them to check the source, to say the least. | |
| This is Devan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio. |
Export Selection