Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:43:45 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <chimbel...@yahoo.com>
If I understand Mario's ideological position on this issue correctly it is the following: 1. He does not deny that there is strong scientific evidence for global warming. Mario responds: Santosh's ideological understanding of my common sense position on the issue of climate change and what we can do about it has some accurate observations which he has gleaned from what I have written on the subject over the years. However, his ideology has added some mirchi-masala to many of his observations which therefore need context, clarification, amplification and perhaps even correction, as shown below. His Item 1 is correct if we exclude 1940 to 1980 and 1998 on. During these periods the earth did not warm, even cooled slightly, even though the level of the clear plant food CO2 rose significantly during both periods, from a combination of natural and man-made causes. When environmental extremists speak of HUGE increases in CO2, we need to keep in mind that CO2 is probably at its highest point in recent history right now, and yet is only 0.039% of the earth's atmosphere, and only about one-third, or 0.013%, of it is man-made. Of course, these amounts are so small they are never mentioned. All we hear about are the HUGE increases which is designed to make the situation sound more ominous. Santosh wrote: 2. He does not deny the evidence that there has been a continuous increase in the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, beginning with the onset of the industrial age. Mario responds: Correct. The trace amounts of the clear plant food CO2 have been rising, from a level of about 0.028%, so now we have larger trace amounts of about 0.039%. This is good for plant growth. From the beginning of the industrial age humans have apparently added 0.013% to natural CO2. Just think about what it will take to reverse this. Even shutting down all human activity would not be enough. Thank God the global warming is most likely being caused by the sun and we don't have to shut down all human activity worldwide once we expose the scientific charade. Santosh wrote: 3. He does not deny that Svante Arrhenius showed conclusively that very tiny amounts of carbon dioxide produce a greenhouse effect. Mario responds: This theory by good old Svante Arrhenius says that 0.039% of the earth's atmosphere of a clear gas, CO2, can magically make 100% of the atmosphere act like a "greenhouse". BTW, a "greenhouse" in common parlance is a positive barrier that traps heat in order to grow crops in winter. I think old Svante Arrhenius was pulling our leg:-)) Either that or old Svante failed to observe that summers are warmer than winters and days are warmer than nights and Pluto and Mars are also warming without any humans around to create additional CO2. Why? Eureka! Because of the effects of the sun. QED. I would have to say that if old Svante's comical finding, which has no rational common sense behind it, was "conclusive", we would not have had decades long interruptions in the rise in global temperatures. Nor would we have had the serious debate that has been raging among climate scientists, many of whom were seriously warning us of the dangers of global cooling back in the early to mid 1970s even as CO2 levels were rising. Are you getting the picture? Many climate scientists have a far more plausible cause for global warming and cooling than some trace percentage of clear plant food that magically causes the entire atmosphere to trap heat, i.e. the effect of the sun. Santosh wrote: 4. He does not deny that certain changes are occurring in the polar ice caps and in the oceans on the earth. Mario responds: Certain changes are constantly taking place. Whether such drastic changes are due to the 0.74 C rise in global temperatures since 1900 to 1998 sounds more like a joke to me. That's 0.0074 C per year. Not enough to run out and buy that additional air-conditioner yet:-)) Santosh wrote: 5. He does not deny that a majority of climate scientists contend based on theory and physical evidence that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming, and therefore the latter is anthropogenic in nature. Mario responds: I think when a majority of scientists agree on a highly controversial theory that provides inconsistent predictive results but makes it easier for them to get research grants due to the alarm caused, and also has highly questionable political characters, who are known to favor one-world forms of government insisting on serious economic policy prescriptions that turn back the economic clock a century or more and impinge on the national sovereignty of every country in the world, we need to be very careful in insisting that dissenting scientists are wrong than we have been over the last several years. Scurrilous accusations by politicians and even civilians like Carmen Miranda who has accused me of being paid by oil companies to hold my opinions, and Bosco's attack on a dissenting climate scientist Tim Ball, while taking some old comment of his out of context and ignoring his recent article that I had referred to, raises questions about the motives of these accusers. The scientists whom they choose to selectively believe can also be accused of conflicts of interest based on their sources of research grants. On the other hand there are eminent climate scientists among the dissenters who have no financial axe to grind, like Richard Lindzen of Princeton, for example, whose research is entirely funded by US government grants. Santosh wrote: 6. He does not deny that a majority of climate scientists contend that some of the observed environmental effects are due to global warming. Mario responds: I do not deny that some scientists contend this, whereas others dispute this. Santosh wrote: 7. What he believes, however, is that: a. There are many politicians and some scientists who deny that global warming is taking place or that it is anthropogenic in nature. Mario responds: I do not care what scientists who are not climate scientists believe. I certainly do not care what politicians believe, until they try to cherry pick the science to impose economic policy on a global scale and try to achieve through the back door what they failed to do through the front door of socialism, i.e. bring the western economies down towards the least common denominator economically. There are many climate scientists who believe that humans are not to blame for whatever is taking place in the climate. They blame the sun, which makes more common sense to me. Santosh wrote: 7. What he believes, however, is that: b. There are many politicians and some scientists who deny that the observed environmental effects are due to global warming. Mario responds: I mentioned above what I believe about certain politicians who are pushing a socialist agenda using the environment as a front. I'm not sure what "environmental effects" Santosh is referring to here, so I will refrain from comment. Santosh wrote: 7. What he believes, however, is that: c. The predicted long-term effects and their impacts are uncertain because they are predictions based on mathematical climate models. Mario responds: Bingo. I would add that the reason for this is that the mathematical models have been unable to predict global temperatures since 1998. So, why would I believe what these models say about 2050? Santosh wrote: 7. What he believes, however, is that: c. The actions proposed to be taken to address these uncertain consequences would produce a global economic collapse or some such drastic repercussions for the major world economies, even though these economic predictions are also uncertain because they are predictions based on speculative ideological and economic models. Mario responds: This conclusion is clearly false. For example, the policy prescriptions by the environmental elite who think they know what's good for everyone else better than they do for emissions for the USA by 2050 would be equivalent to the emissions per capita in 2050 that the US last experienced in 1875 according to the economists at the American Enterprise Institute and reported by George Will in a recent edition of Newsweek. Does this make any sense to anyone with more than half a brain? It does not require any speculative ideological economic models to tell those of us with more than half a brain that for the US to constrict its economy by 2050 to reach emissions levels per capita that were last experienced in 1875 would mean economic collapse for the US economy which is the primary economic engine for the world. Add to this constrictions to the economies of the other western economies. The other major like China, India and Brazil have paid lip service to the prescriptions while refusing to agree to mandatory targets for their emissions. All the less developed countries want to be paid for their compliance. There is no guarantee that the payments will go toward curbing their emissions. One doesn't have to be Tim Ball to realize that this is all an elaborate political farce built on science that is still in doubt with all due respect to Svante Arrhenuis and Santosh, Carmen and Bosco. The biggest applause at the recent circus in Copenhagen were reserved for Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chavez when they excoriated capitalism and then demanded that that failed capitalist system compensate them for promising to curb their emissions with no guarantees that they would use the money for that purpose. Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez. With friends like these the serious climate scientists, and other serious observers like Santosh, who want to get to the bottom of whether global warming is a man made hazard or a natural cyclical effect due to the sun, and what to do about it, don't need any adversaries to raise questions about their credibility.
