CO2 Doesn’t Cause Global Warming But If It Did We’d Have Global Cooling….Or Something

 

Nothing by the BBC about the founder of Greenpeace coming over to the dark side:

Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S lawmakers on Tuesday.

He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’

 

Hmmm….all a bit inconvenient…especially for politicians arguing about it in PMQ’s and telling us CO2 is the most dangerous substance on Earth essentially….and all with nobody to challenge and disabuse them as the BBC fails miserably to do its job properly.

 

 

However the BBC is happy to report that the ‘slow down’, as they term it, in global warming has a cause….that must be what…cause number 341?

…and it’s not global cooling……

Smell of forest pine can limit climate change – researchers

New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.

Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.

These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.

The authors believe that this is playing a significant role in reducing the impact of rising temperatures. They argue that this effect is likely to strengthen in the future.

 

 

Oh……so global warming will actually be producing global cooling?

 

err……

 

 

 

Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to CO2 Doesn’t Cause Global Warming But If It Did We’d Have Global Cooling….Or Something

  1. Mark II says:

    Don’t worry the BBC has found out that everything is going to be OK with the planet…

    New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change.

    Scientists say they’ve found a mechanism by which these scented vapours turn into aerosols above boreal forests.

    These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form.

    Of course it isn’t all plain sailing…

    The scientists stress that the new understanding is not a panacea for climate change as forests will stop emitting vapours if they become too stressed from heat or lack of water.

    However, Dr Ehn believes the vapours could have a significant impact in the medium term.

    “If you go into a pine forest and notice that pine forest smell, that could be the smell that actually limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world.”

    So if we all go out and buy a few dozen pine scented air fresheners we can save the planet.

    Full story here

       28 likes

    • Bob Nelson says:

      So what they are saying is that mankind really doesn’t have to do anything. Nature and Mother Earth will take care of things as they always have and rebalance our global eco-systems. The deep oceans and the pine trees have it sorted. Excellent.

      Can we now stop wasting money, please.

         38 likes

    • pah says:

      My first reaction to such stories is that someone involved in all this has got something to sell. So don’t rush out just yet for your air freshener – you may be just falling for the trick! 😉

         6 likes

  2. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Well, the BBC must be biased because it hasn’t reported the publication yesterday of “Climate Change Evidence and Causes”, by (jointly) the (US) National Academy of Sciences and the (UK) Royal Society.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/now-the-two-most-famous-scientific-institutions-in-britain-and-the-us-agree-climate-change-is-more-certain-than-ever-9155396.html
    The report is well worth a read for those who want to find out (but don’t bother if you already know more than the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society).

       7 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      It’s OK – Harrabin had an extended item on the Radio 4 8:00 “news” yesterday morning to tell us that these 2 distinguished societies were betraying their roles as guardians of genuine science giving their joint imprimature to the cod-science behind the MMGW fraud. Bishop Hill exposes the societies’ alarmism. Mind you, AFAIAA, the BBC has been unusually silent on this one since Harrabin’s announcement.

         20 likes

      • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

        Well, that’s obvious then. Who do we believe? The combined output of the scientific academies of the UK and the US, or an internet blogger who writes “I haven’t had much time to look at it but my initial impression is …”?

           6 likes

        • John Anderson says:

          Sir Arthur

          I suggest you check back on the history of all this. The Royal Society was not founded to politicise science. Its recent Presidents – none of whom are climate scientists – have done exactly that. And a lot of RS members have quite properly objected to these attempts to turn the RS into a propaganda outfit.

             35 likes

          • mikef says:

            Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) has written an excellent paper – “Nullius in Verba” – analysing the activities and propaganda efforts of the RS.

               18 likes

        • Umbongo says:

          Oh dear, your ignorance is showing.
          Bishop Hill – or Andrew Montford, an actual scientist although in chemistry – is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion which torpedoed Mann’s credibility below the water line and, with it, one of the warmists’ favourite piece of (non)evidence for CAGW. He has a day job, hence his admission that he hadn’t yet had the time to analyse the societies’ statement in his usual thorough manner. The tragedy is that these societies, whose histories are more distinguished than most, have committed their names and reputations in support of cod-science.

             28 likes

        • Ken says:

          The problem lies in the political leaderships of such august organisations as these sciuentific institutions.

          When you actually examine the scientific method in the alarmist climate research papers, you find it lacking. ALWAYS. The extensive use of models to demonstrate a hypothesis is invariably twisted to be inapropriately and fraudulently used as verification of a hypothesis. You cannot use a model of a hypothesis to validate a hypothesis.

          This belies a fundemental weakness in science where the reputation of an organisation is used to lend credibility to a theory, in lieu of actual evidence.

          The great thing about science is that the discipline in sticking rigidly to the scientific method means that people can specialise in increasingly small fields of research and collaberation between disciplines works on trust that the scientific method and peer review ensures the highest standards of integrity and accuracy and honesty in the scientific discovery… The problem with that is that groups of dishonest scientists can easily get widespread acceptance for such specialist views and that such views can become accepted and mainstream with barely anyone of a different discipline ever actually examining the validity of the claims made. the 97% consensus is a case in point. The actual number of scientists used for that consensus is 75 out of 77!

          The actual methodology of alarmist “climate science” is the reverse of the scientific method. Empirical evidence is rejected if it does not match the hypothesis. Editors and journals are bullied. Evidence is cherry picked, data is hidden and not disclosed. That is NOT science. Yet it retains the credibility falsely lent to it by serious scientific institutions, ran by people who support the consensus without ever EVER looking at the actual climate science itself. For example. Paul Nurse has never ever examined the climate science in-depth. He has made several announcements which prove it as he has made glaring errors in his assumptions of climate science.

          Just because the heads of such respected institutions back a particular scientific theory, does not make that theory correct. In climate science, there has been an enormous amount of overt fraud carried out to protect the “faith” of CAGW. Even when ALL the real, empirical evidence falsifies (and increasingly so as time advances and the divergence between prediction and reality increases) the CAGW hypothesis, these “scientific” charletons still keep up their dishonest pseudo science.

          Now it has come to a point where not only the reputation of individual scientists, universities and institutions are threatened by the truth, but the reputation of science itself.

          How do these institutions now examine the climate “science” and excuse themselves from the only conclusion that can be drawn from the utter lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperatures? Perhaps this is why these institutions have not come clean and are sticking it out as long as possible? Reputation is everything. As your argument shows. You are engaging in argumentum ad authoritatem. The argument of authority. This does nothing at all to prove your point. It merely borrows the reputation of others to lend creedence to an argument that has not otherwise been proven by evidence.

          We see the same with the infamous 2006 meeting at the BBC where the BBC dropped their impartial treatment of climate science and agreed only to present the “alarmist” view. This was not (as the BBC had stated) because of the strength of the science at all. As the list of attendees (which the BBC went to great and expensive lengths to hide) proved, there were barely any scientists in attendence, and NO sceptical scientists in attendance at all. The meeting was between BBC staff and “green energy” insiders. It was as blatant a case of insider dealing and corruption as you are ever likely to find, as these people who were set to make a fortune from inneficient and expensive “green energy” if they could get the impartial BBC to become advocates of green energy in spite of the science and the evidence.

          Whenever anyone makes a scientific claim, without pointing to the actual evidence in support of that claim, then I become sceptical. argumentum ad authoritatem; argumentum ad populum; argumentum ad nauseam or any of the other Logical Fallicies, do not prove CAGW hypothesis. The actual measured empirical evidence rather falsifies the CAGW hypothesis instead, regardless of what the highly regarded scientific institutions, or the BBC says.

             26 likes

          • OldBloke says:

            Well written Ken. If I may be allowed, I’ve cut and pasted your paragraphs into my diary on Climate Change.

               6 likes

          • Richard Pinder says:

            Very good, but I would add, that I, and I think scientists such as Corbyn and Svensmark would say that Climate science is still alive and well, but hiding under the skirt of Astronomy, while waiting for the Green monsters to leave the room.

            But it look as if the Green monsters are going to do more and more damage, before this madness ends.

            God knows what will happen with the Royal Society, but the fellows will eventually have to chose whether to side with or purge the Green monsters from the Society.

               1 likes

        • Ken says:

          “Well, that’s obvious then. Who do we believe? The combined output of the scientific academies of the UK and the US, or an internet blogger”

          In short, I believe the actual measured empirical evidence. That is the ONLY source of scientific truth and if that empirical evidence disagrees with the hypothesis, then the scientific method demands that I reject the hypothesis.

          I could not give a rat’s behind what a blogger, or the head of the Royal Institute (not a climate scientist) says.

          I ONLY look at the evidence. What does the evidence say? CAGW is falsified!

             24 likes

          • Richard Pinder says:

            I believe Einstein said something like “It would only take one scientist to prove me wrong” after he was shown a list of over a hundred signatures from scientists who thought his theory of relativity was bunkum.

               2 likes

        • London Calling says:

          ASG – “who do we believe?” Make up your own mind on the evidence, and don’t give us that “appeal to authority” tosh. The quoted authorities are first class passengers on the gravy train that is alleged Calamitous Warming… which doesn’t exist.

             10 likes

          • mikef says:

            The Royal Society describes itself (modestly) as “a fellowship of the world’s most eminent scientists”. Last year it added Bill Bryson to its fellows. An agreeable and entertaining writer, certainly, but eminent scientist? But he is on message for the greens.

               8 likes

    • Richard Pinder says:

      GOOD GRIEF

      “it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion as a body upon any subject”

      They have broken the “Nullius in Verba” promise, for political reasons, so I presume they censor (Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich, 2009), (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) and anything by Henrik Svensmark, which produce the facts, evidence, correlations, observations and results from experiments that produce scientific proof that the left-wing ideologues that dominate the Royal Society, are dragging the institution further and further into the gutter of disrepute.

         3 likes

  3. deegee says:

    I’m a newbie. Didn’t we always have pine forests?

       13 likes

  4. Rob says:

    I love how these scientists can keep a straight face when saying something like this. They are worth their salaries just for the brass neck. If Patrick Moore wants another job why not try advertising or coming up with excuses or slogans to hide the truth?

    Worthy winners include:

    Islam- the religion of peace
    Football – the beautiful game
    I was attending my cousins wedding
    We thought he/she was with an Aid Convoy

       9 likes

    • Ken says:

      I have a lot of time and respect for Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. He is a scientist and ecologist who cares about the environment and the planet and who believes in the scientific method and in the pursuit of persuasion to nudge corporations to behave ethically, profitably and in an environmentally responsible way.

      This is one of the reasons that he left Greenpeace. He did not agree with the communists who moved into the organisation and saught to use it to destabalise the Western economies and attack industry, ignoring science and rationality.

      He is entirely correct to state that CO2 is not driving the climate. There is no indisputable evidence in the real world to suggest that it is. In fact, looking at the last 70 years, there have been less warming years than there have been cooling and level years.

      The earth cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s, (leading to fears of another ice age) then warmed at the same rapid pace as the 1920 – 1940 rate, to mid-way through the 1990s and then the average temperature levelled off until today almost 20 years later. Whilst it is true that the average temperature today is very slightly higher than 70 years ago and that the 20 year (1970s to 1990s) warming phase pushes the 70 year trend up slightly, if we look at the last 10 years, it appears that the earth may be entering a mild cooling phase. If it does that for another 10 years, then by 2024, we could be looking at a trend over 80 years which overall is completely flat. Hardly the stuff of Catastrophic climate change.

      Yes that looks like cherry picking on my part, but no worse than the cherry picking of the alarmists who reject any trends other than the very carefully selected ones they allow to be used.

      By cherry picking start and end dates, one can find warming or cooling trends. IF the CAGW hypothesis were correct, there would only be upward trends from the 1940s onwards, no matter what start dates one picked.

         30 likes

  5. Gabble Ratchett says:

    Well that it explains it then. I’ve been splashing cedarwood aftershave on for years and my house is bloody freezing.

       14 likes

  6. johnnythefish says:

    Yet another hypothesis to add to the ‘settled science’.

       1 likes

  7. Richard Pinder says:

    Both Patrick Moore’s had been on the side of the scientific method for some time now, one of them said man-made Climate Change was bunkum.

    “There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming” But then if you now include the most up to date calculations, using a tried and tested theory based on the thermodynamics of a pressure induced laps rate, related to an equilibrium of heat transfer, then you get a man made warming of less than one thousandth of a Kelvin. The only problem left for these calculations is that scientists are not able to distinguish between volcanic and man-made CO2, so that is why it would be less than one thousandth of a Kelvin.

    As for pine tree aerosol induced cloud albedo, that is a new one on me, because this has never showing up in correlations. The only correlations that include a known mechanism are with Cosmic Rays, which leads to how Astronomers have predicted the coming mini-ice age.

    To witness the biggest contrast in Cloud albedo in the Solar System, you would have to pick two photos of the Pacific Ocean, both taken at midnight GMT, from geostationary satellites over the International date line, picked from a database that includes one photo per day, which I think goes back to the 1980’s. You then pick from thousands of photos. (1) The cloudiest (2) the least cloudiest.

    I wonder if the morons at the BBC assume there has been a massive increase in the number of pine trees, especially in the Pacific Ocean area.

       2 likes