Global Warming Chorus Discord Rising To Feverish Pitch

Sometimes I get so frustrated and a bit depressed about the battle to correct the bad science that has lead to predictions of an extreme global warming catastrophe. It seems the politicians, environmentalists, researchers living off of global warming grants, the media and about everybody who is anybody is firmly entrenched on the alarmists side and those of us who know the truth but are termed deniers and doomed to lose on all levels. But Dr. Larry Bell, in his new article in Forbes on-line, gives me new hope. Some strong players have seen the light and they are speaking out. I repost his article with my hat off to Dr. Bell. Thank you, sir. Wow. Now, I feel good. As good as I would if we were being spoiled with a Sosa (Sort Of Santa Ana) and my total forecast was simply Sunny and Warmer.

———–

Global Warming Chorus Discord Rising To Feverish Pitch
by Larry Bell

Some leading voices in the Global
Warming
Gospel Choir are now abandoning the old climate crisis hymnal. One
is James
Lovelock
, the father of the “Gaia” theory that the entire Earth
is a single living system who predicted that continued human CO2 emissions will
bring about climate calamity. In 2006 he claimed: “Before this century is
over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive
will be in the Arctic where climate remains
tolerable.” Time magazine
featured Lovelock as one of 13 “Heroes of the Environment” in a
2007 article (along with Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Redford).

Recently, however, he
has obviously cooled on global warming as a crisis
, admitting to MSNBC that
he overstated the case and now acknowledges that: “…we don't
know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.  That led
to some alarmist books…mine included…because it looked clear
cut…but it hasn't happened.” Lovelock pointed to Al
Gore's “An
Inconvenient Truth”
 and Tim Flannery's “The
Weather Makers
 as other alarmist
publications.

The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, “…the
climate is doing its usual tricks…there's nothing much happening
yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now.”  He added, “The world has not warmed up very much since
the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time.” Yet the temperature
“has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been
rising…carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”

Fritz
Vaherenholt
, a socialist founder of Germany's environmental movement
who headed the renewable energy division of the country's second largest
utility company, has recently coauthored a new book titled “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate
Disaster Won't Happen”. 
In it he raises
a man-made blizzard of criticism charging the U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most
particularly regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of known climate influence
of human CO2 emissions.

Dr.
Vahrenholt's distrust of the IPCC's objectivity and veracity took
root two years ago
when he became an expert reviewer for their report on
renewable energy. After discovering numerous errors, he reported those
inaccuracies to IPCC officials, only to have them simply brushed aside. 
Stunned by this, he asked himself:  “Is this the way they approached
climate assessment reports?” He came to wonder: “…if the
other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.”

This concern prompted
Vahrenholt to dig into the IPCC's 2007 climate report, and he was horrified
by what he found. On top of discovering numerous factual errors, there were
issues involving 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, ClimateGate e-mails, and
informative discussions with dozens of other elite skeptical scientists.

Vaherenholt concludes in an interview which appeared in the
German news publication Bild that: “… IPCC
decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the
oceans, sun, and soot.” Accordingly,  IPCC models are completely out
of whack. “The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically,
without first deciding on the results.”

Vahrenholt isn't the
only significant German scientist to find that IPCC's global warming
projections are exaggerated.  Another is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the
director of the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research
who serves as the German government's climate
protection advisor. Schellnhuber
coauthored a paper refuting reliability
of General Circulation (climate) Models
upon which
their alarmist 2001 projections were based.

The study compared measured versus model-simulated
temperature trends at six global sites according to two different scenarios;
one with greenhouse gas influence plus aerosol influences, and the other with
greenhouse temperature influences only. Results showed that while both
scenarios failed to reproduce observed temperature recordings, the one using
only greenhouse influences demonstrated the greatest deviation from reality:
“…where the [greenhouse gas scenario] trends are clearly
overestimated.”

Schellnhuber
recently admitted
in a speech to agricultural experts that: “warmer
temperatures and high CO2 concentrations in the air could very well lead to
higher agricultural yields.”

When
appearing on Fox Business News with
Stewart Varney in January 2011
, Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore agreed
that benefits of any global warming, to the extent that this is occurring for
any reason, are greatly underrated: “We do not have any scientific proof
that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200
yearsThe alarmism is
driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to
create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not
good for people and it's not good for the environment…In a warmer
world we can produce more food.”

Moore is
among an expanding multitude with no confidence in alarmist climate
predictions. “There are many thousands of scientists' who reject
man-made global warming fears…It's all based on computer models and
predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical
object.” When asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and
what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests.
Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking
huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups,
politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations.
And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

 The release of scandalous e-mail exchanges among IPCC
scientists has taken large tolls in public climate opinion polls. A majority of
Americans nationwide acknowledge that there is significant disagreement about
global warming in the scientific community. Most responders even go even
further, believing that some scientists have falsified data to support their
own beliefs.

An August 2011 Rasmussen Reports national
telephone survey of American Adults showed that 69%
said it is at least “somewhat likely” that some scientists have
falsified research data
in order to support their own theories and beliefs,
including 40% who said this is “very likely”. (The number who said
it's likely is up 10 points since December 2009.)  And while
Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party felt
stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support
their global warming theories, 51% of the Democrats also agreed.

As for “scientific consensus”, 57% of those
surveyed believed there is significant disagreement within the scientific
community on global warming. This was up five points from late 2009.

Rapidly growing public
skepticism in the U.S.
and abroad about the veracity climate calamity claims is now putting alarmists
on the defensive. As
Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University reported
in a March 2010 Nature journal
editorial, this has his colleagues in big sweats about how to counter a barrage
of challenges: “Everyone is scared s***less, but they don't know
what to do.”

And speaking of scary,
Ehrlich is best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population
Bomb”, which predicted that a worldwide crisis in food supply and natural
resource availability would lead to major famines and economic failures by
1900. In another book titled “The
Machinery of Nature
“, he predicted that carbon dioxide-induced
famines might kill as many as a billion people by 2000.

Ehrlich's claims were based upon a theory advanced by
none other than John Holdren, who is now serving as the Obama
administration's Science Czar. The central premise was that human
CO2 emissions would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would
cause global cooling… resulting in widespread agricultural disaster.
Holdren's theory was that the warm temperatures might speed up air
circulation patterns to bring Arctic cold farther south, and Antarctic cold
farther north.

Yup in other words, they were worried about a global
warming-induced ice age.

During a March
2011 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing
, Senator James
Inhofe (R-OK) cited a 1971 study where Holdren wrote: “The effects of a
new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations
scarcely need elaboration here.” Senator Inhofe then turned to Senator
Boxer (D-CA), and stated,
“So even the president's people are agreed with me, Madam
Chairwoman!”

Accordingly, even if Holdren's calamitous prediction
never caught the planet by storm, let's  at least give him some
credit for realizing that global warming is a lot more life-friendly than the
opposite. Isn't it unfortunate that most members of his overheated chorus
aren't in concert with this brutally cold fact?

——–

About the author of this article, Larry Bell.

I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston.

I have recently written a new book titled “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax”.

Here is a link to the article on the Forbes website:

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/

Categories: KUSI