Friday, April 20, 2007

ExxonMobile Front Group Backs Baird On Climate Change

Not surprisingly, the Fraser Institute adds its voice to the doomsayers with this piece of pseudo-analysis today. Not surprisingly, it turns out that the Fraser Institute has received thousands ($120,000) from ExxonMobile over the years to fund its climate change "research".

7 comments:

Kyoto - The Ponzi scheme exposed said...

but what did the FI study say ??

Dr. Fruit Fly is also sponsored by oil companies but somehow it is ok for him to berate children and preach the hysteria of the Goreacle ??

Go figure . .your logic is illogical.

Ding-Dong Kyoto's dead said...

lets waste hundreds of $billions, kill off hundreds of thousands of jobs and destroy our way of life.

For what ? The great GhG scam ??

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.



MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

ding-dong kyoto's dead said...

I'm a meth-addicted rig pig from Fort MacMurray, by the way.

Anonymous said...

"ding-dong" is a ding dong. He's easily lead it seems.

A sucker born every minute. We went through this before when Mulroney wanted to deal with the ozone layer - hell, fire and brimstrone an the economy and the world would end.

Well, Mulroney dealt with it and we are still here.

How anyone with any brains can fall for Baird the Spin Master's rhetoric beats me.

deno said...

Not surprisingly, it turns out that the Fraser Institute has received thousands ($120,000) from ExxonMobile over the years to fund its climate change "research".

Wow! $120,000! What is that? 8-10 months pay in the oil patch!

BCL, if you think that a measly 120,000 fiat dollars is allot of money in today’s high inflation economy I have some ocean beach property for sale near Red Deer.

I'm sure the Fraser Institute is happy to destroy their creditability by making false reports so they can get a whopping $120,000 from Exxon.

Exxon is also a contributor to David Suzuki, by your reasoning Old David doesn’t have any credibility either because an oil company has donated money to his cause.

Sometimes you sure make a huge mountain of the tiniest mole hill.

Deno

Anonymous said...

One of the most attractive features of the √Źraser Institute is that its "studies" are often so hopelessly a product of extreme right wing bias that they continually generate own goals. A few years back they produced one on whether the poor were really poor that was so bad it was hilarious. The author presented the image, so to speak, of himself rushing around town with a slide rule to find the best deal for each and every item on a "wholesome" menu. The idea was that if the poor functioned like a cost center for a large corporation they could easily live on peanuts---although they would be required to give up any recreational habits the author did not approve of.
So long as the role of pretend intellectual right wing think tank is exercised by a group that has no idea just how absurdly bad they are, all will be well and no one will pay any attention to them.
They remind me of the English foundation for the relief of poverty in Ireland that brought a French chef to London during the famine of 1845-48 to lecture on how the poor could live very well on a soup made of 5 gallons of water with a handful of veggies thrown in. They disgraced England to this day, and they brought the fathomless contempt of the Irish on the head of Mother England, not ever a good idea.

Omar Cruz said...

this report is fantastic, the infomation you show us is really interesting and is good written. Do you want to see something more? you can visit too:Great investment opportunity at Costa Rica Pacific Coast, Preconstruction condos in costa rica ,
Condo sales in costa rica, Retirement property in costa rica. Visit us for more info at: http://www.ramadajaco.com/