© Original content written by James R. Carlson
I recently visited the San Diego zoo and met with a couple of polar bears while there. They were playing in the pool and having a splash and weren’t too worried about the temperature around them. Next to the polar bear exhibit, however, was a large scale graph (20 feet tall) of the upward trend of CO2 levels that many claim is making things hotter around the world. But aside from the propaganda at the zoo and elsewhere, global warming is a myth. The truth is we are witnessing something very different. Polar warming, not global warming, is what the scientific data says we are seeing, which is why we see some polar bears floating on ice cubes up north instead of living it up in San Diego’s zoo.
Science is not always for the scientist. Al Gore is not a scientist yet he is the chief propagandist for global warming worldwide claiming he stands for scientific integrity. He says that manmade CO2 is causing changes in temperature but he says this with religious conviction and not scientific analysis. The trouble with the belief that global warming is real is that people don’t seem to know what science is really all about and how conclusions should be made based upon scientific data. Here’s a brief outline:
- Science begins and ends with data. Philosophical science does not require empirical data but empirical science does. Without the data born of experiment, there is only philosophical or religious perspective.
- Science shows relationships between parametric data obtained in a test and develops functional mathematical formulas that show these functional relationships. These formulas show the causal relationships between various parameters of data and how the natural world works together.
- From the math of empirical science comes the principles of science or laws of nature. These principles, or laws, are expressed in mathematical, not polemical terms. Taken together (data, math/causality), this is how science arrives at natural laws; but we are often told that philosophical science is good enough, when it really isn’t. The world of global warming is not lacking in philosophical perspective. However, empirical science requires the testing of that perspective, which requires real data.
NASA has a website dedicated to the data associated with global warming (see links below). From this you can see for yourself that the data shows polar warming at the North Pole where the polar bears are beginning to float on ice cubes made of icebergs. This then shows that global warming is nothing more than polar warming and we need to refine our perspective apart from philosophical and political demagoguery.
I was an intern at NASA Ames in the Fall of 2008. I learned then that money for research didn’t always come from tax payer dollars. Often money comes from grants that people write proposals for. And when the money comes from grants, reports have to be written to show what that money was spent on. So if NASA employees use grant money for research, the reports they write on their research are more of a receipt of the money spent than a peer reviewed science paper. And the joke goes that if you write a report then you have to present (a trip to Las Vegas anyone?!). Peer review happens later at a presentation at some seminar after the report was written, not before. So the volumes of reports published on the subject of global warming do not represent real science as much as the real money that scientists have made from global warming.
Scientists and Al Gore alike want to make money. Gore has made more than $400,000,000.00 but how much have the scientists made off the fad of global warming? Global warming is a gravy train for anyone who wants to jump on it. Reports do not represent science as much as the money people have made off of global warming. The media often says but ignores here the motto, ‘follow the money!’
Science is supposed to follow the data. The NASA data graphs show polar warming. Couple with that the real data of CO2 levels taken over an 11 year period (see link below) that show the increase of CO2 in both northern Alaska and in Oklahoma. The measure in both places agree but the capture of CO2 levels in northern Alaska suggest that this is nature made CO2 and not manmade CO2. Following the data, we can see that nature made CO2 is causing the changes in the temperature of the North Pole – not manmade CO2.
Manmade CO2 has been accused of causing global warming but the data shows that nature made CO2 dwarfs the production of manmade CO2. And water vapor is far more prevalent in our atmosphere, which dwarfs the level of nature made CO2. Manmade CO2 doesn’t have a chance in influencing our global climate.
When CO2 levels rise, the temperature rises as well (the effect of “positive radiative forcing”). But while the popular idea is that man is causing this, the data shows (both in Alaska and Oklahoma) that nature is causing this. The difference between the data from Alaska and Oklahoma is minimal. The data from the northern most part of Alaska shows that it is as far removed from manmade CO2 as possible for measurement. And as it agrees with the data in Oklahoma, manmade CO2 is not changing the total value of nature made CO2 by any appreciable degree. Nature made CO2 is in the driver’s seat.
As we follow the data, polar warming is being caused by nature made CO2, which causes the ice to melt at the North Pole, which causes the water to evaporate, which causes the water vapor level in the atmosphere to rise, which causes the temperature to rise…and on and on. This is an explanation of causality that is scientific, based upon data, and makes sense.
Global warming does not show causality but only speculation (philosophical science) about the association between manmade CO2 rising and temperatures rising. This association is not causality and without a causal relationship born of data, there is no science for global warming.
Global weather patterns have been described as stochastic systems or as chaotic systems. As global warming advocates advocate an analytic solution to this problem, they oversimplify the problem and guess at the solution. Instead of making the problem worse by guessing, we need to work the problem of science without political confusion. Liberals always oversimplify solutions that make problems worse. Killing the American economy won’t fix the rise in temperatures at the North Pole.
Global warming advocates have a political agenda. Environmentalists at large have an appetite for political power and are addicted to power like a drug. Take away their power and they will have withdrawals like a heroin addict. But that is what has to be done. Take the political element away from global warming so we can focus on the science, which readily points to polar warming caused by nature made CO2.
I’ve shown you the data and the causality for polar warming and removed politics from the mix. Maybe we should reserve science for the scientists who get peer reviewed before they publish and reserve legislation for legislators who give us a chance to see what they want to pass into law before they pass it. Show me the data, the math/causality, and the legislation; put up or shut up!
DDT was an environmental problem that followed the data/causality/legislation path and succeeded. They showed the many instances (data) of dead animals, fish, and wildlife and the connection (causality) with DDT. They put together legislation we could debate on together as a nation (remember: We the People?) to end the production and use of DDT. This passed and we have a better environment for it. Put up or shut up is not an idle statement. Either show us your data/causality/legislation or take a hike. If you don’t have it, then you don’t have it!
We live in a society of increased confusion. It is time to make sense out of this issue. Polar warming makes sense when one follows the data. The causality of increased temperatures follows the increase of nature made CO2. And the political agenda is simple enough to prevent radical environmentalists from destroying our economy for a rush of power. Put up or shut up; it’s as simple as that. Show me the data, show me the math/causality, and show me the legislation. It’s up to you.
NASA Data Graphs