Research Proves Global Warming Models Wrong


By Richard Boren

(Rick Boren is a contributing writer at

There is new research (review of it attached) which you may want to pass along to anyone who has been persuaded that (1) humans are causing the planet to warm, (2) this will have a disastrous effect, and (3) we should try to do something about it such as passing Cap and Trade legislation, installing subsidized wind and solar power plants, buying hybrid cars, CFL bulbs and so forth.   The more scientifically-oriented of you can go right to the attachment.  The article begins at the bottom of the first page. Others may choose to read the rest of this e-mail. Everyone should understand that it is NOT a proven fact that humans have any effect on the climate.  However, the media and some politicians treat it that way.  Those who say that "the science is settled" are just plain wrong.  Even Mr. Gore, if pressed, would have to admit that the predictions of warming are 100% the result of computer models. That's right, 100%.  It's all a prediction somewhat like predicting the weather, only much, much, harder. The people making these computer models insert the known facts.  They also insert various assumptions of how these facts will interact with one another, coming up with what they hope will be a model of the climate that will produce accurate predictions.  Those assumptions mean everything, and now the research proves that they are wrong.  And not just a little wrong.  It turns out that the assumptions are exactly backwards. At the risk of using a dated computer expression, don't forget that it's still true that Garbage In = Garbage Out (GIGO).  Have you ever worked with a computer spreadsheet?  Have you ever inserted your estimates of future revenue and expenses and seen how  a few little changes here and there can result in either huge profits or devastating losses?  You might, for example, realize that at 3% revenue growth you'll go broke in four years, but at 7% you'll be a billionaire in six years.  It's hard to be objective in those circumstances, especially if you have investors.  In the case of the climate modelers, virtually all of them are funded by grants designed to study the climate "problem."  No problem, no grant.  No fame either.  No political power.  Objectivity can be difficult to maintain.  The computer models on which all of the fears are based rely on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2), a weak greenhouse gas, will trigger something called positive feedback which will amplify its weak effect, causing the effect to grow and grow.  (Positive feedback here is not the same thing as getting compliments about your job performance.  In this case, it means that when more of something happens it triggers even more of it to happen, with a snowballing effect.)  The climate models on which the current fears are based all assume that this positive feedback will occur. Without this assumed positive feedback, no human-caused global warming will occur.  Without the positive feedback assumption, the predictions of the models wouldn't scare anyone. The good news for the planet is that instead of having to make feedback assumptions there is now real data, and it shows that in the real world the feedback is negative. This means that the warming effect of CO2 triggers an effect that offsets it.  Therefore, all of the models are wrong. In plain English, this means that increased CO2 will not warm the planet. Whoopee! You can read more about this in the attached newsletter, Access to Energy, with the article beginning at the bottom of the first page. (I've been a subscriber for over 30 years.)  For more background, and what you should do, please read on. As most of us know, Earth has warmed by about 1 degree over the last century.  It has been much warmer in the past, and we are still here.  It has been much colder in the past and we are still here.  Today we are in one of the better heat ranges.  Of course, at some point it would be too hot to sustain life as we know it.  As most of us also know by now, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "greenhouse" gas.  That means that it tends to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape into space.  CO2 is what humans and all animals exhale after breathing in oxygen.  It is also what is produced when we burn so-called fossil fuels like wood, coal and petroleum products.  No one doubts the benefits of the energy we get from these inexpensive sources.  Furthermore, plants need CO2.  Increased CO2 has greatly improved the growth of plants and trees.  However,  a legitimate concern is whether there is a serious or even catastrophic downside because of CO2's greenhouse effect.  Studying this issue has been the right thing to do to. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas, which means that its effect in and of itself is small.  There is not much of it in the atmosphere, about 300-400 parts for every million parts of air.  However, we are adding to it at a fairly good rate.  Given the economic realities, there is virtually no chance that countries like China and India are going to stop or even slow down very much.  To hear some people tell it, the very existence of mankind is threatened. That is, of course, unless we here in America turn our lives upside down and spend trillions of dollars on more expensive energy.  That will apparently convince the rest of the world to do the same.  Well, maybe not, but at least we'll be "green" --  green and poor.  Have you ever noticed that the poor people of the Third World don't care about being "green?"  Food and shelter come first. President Obama has advisors who are committed to the belief that humans are causing global warming and that we need to stop it.  Their mantra is "the science is settled."  I do not believe that they are intellectually honest.  Why else do they refuse every offer to debate the scientific issues?  Why do they resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the evidence? They will never admit that they are wrong, and Obama is not going to hear anything else. The information in the attachment is not going to get to him. Can you imagine Al Gore walking into the Oval office and saying, "Mr. President, there is new evidence on global warming.  It turns out that I was wrong.  There's no problem. We don't have to do anything about it."  It has been said that Al Gore is going to make a billion dollars off of cap and trade.  In my view he would deserve to make even more if he actually helped save the planet.  But he and the others who stand to make money or wield political power don't want to hear the good news.   And they won't unless you and others do something about it.  Last Friday, Glenn Beck interviewed Christopher Monckton, who briefly presented what I've discussed above.  This is probably the largest exposure this will get in the mass media.  If this troubles you, please tell others, including your elected representatives.  Spread the word: the sky is not falling.


Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)