Those who have been following the manmade global warming debate are well aware that every time the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues another dire pronouncement, the media report the bad news every hour on the hour.
However, what if a new scientific study concluded that the IPCC cherry-picked data concerning CO2 levels in the past in order to make it look like today’s levels are out of the ordinary. Would the media report that?
Well, an article written by scientists Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project was published on Monday making exact this claim (emphasis added throughout):
While Antarctic ice core records supposedly 'prove' a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data. Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles. Nevertheless, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today's 385 ppm.
The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.
Wait a minute. So, the IPCC only incorporated the lower CO2 data to calculate the amount of the gas present during the pre-industrial period? Doesn’t that basically guarantee that today’s numbers would be significantly greater? Isn't that what is referred to on Wall Street as "cooking the books?"
Of course, in this case, the book-cooking is to advance global warming hysteria:
In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."
Hmmm. So, that means that since 1812, there have been three years when CO2 levels were higher than today’s, with two of them occurring in the 19th century before the start of the Industrial Revolution. And, this assessment is supported by another scientist’s work:
In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
As such, the article concluded:
Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.
But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history.
As this is clearly occurring in America as well, the onus is on our media to actually report skeptical scientific studies such as this so that the United States doesn’t get sucked into the largest, and most costly, science scandal in its history.
Or is that asking too much?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Interesting item from 'The
May 14, 2007 - 10:42 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsInteresting item from 'The Financial Times':
"How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent light bulb? About US $4.28 for the bulb and labour - unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about US $2004.28, which doesn't include the cost of frayed nerves and the risks to health.
Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).
According to an April 12 article in 'The Ellsworth American', Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridge's House to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the states "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billioniths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommened that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a "low-ball"estimate of US $2000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the US $2000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant."
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Please thanks for pointing th
May 14, 2007 - 16:10 ET by danboPlease thanks for pointing this out. And please periodically repost it. Too often the Greens run off half cocked as they do with AGW. They never think of the potential problems. As with DDT, to save a few birds and the possability of someone getting cancer from DDT. Well we've killed millions of people to avoid that.
Makes me think of getting rid of my flourescents and putting in good ole incandescent light bulbs.
Again.
Thanks.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Abject proof that one should
May 14, 2007 - 16:11 ET by NL207Abject proof that one should NEVER trust the government to do anything they could do for themselves, in this case, sweep the debris into the dustbin and dump the dustbin into the garbage can.
We ran into that same BS afte
May 14, 2007 - 16:17 ET by danboWe ran into that same BS after Katrina. If we had listened to these idiots there would be a decontamination barrier from west of New Orleans to Pensacola. Because of the mold.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Will the media start doing their jobs?
May 14, 2007 - 10:48 ET by c5thenAt a time whan many in the MSM are berating themselves and their collegues for not being critical and skeptical enough of the information coming out in advance of the Iraq war, you would think that this global pehnomenon would be the perfect opportunity for them to prove that they've "learned their lesson".
But saddly, the MSM is no longer interested in reporting the facts and digging for the hidden agenda to expose and allow the general public to make up their minds. They are engaged in heated and focused opinion shaping and thought modification.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.
"...then we stand on the
May 14, 2007 - 11:14 ET by SumricaHmmm....I wonder what legal remedies there might be against scientists that massage and cherry-pick data to arrive at a pre-determined result. Have them hiring lawyers at great expense in defense of fraud and conspiracy charges? Fines? Jail time? Loss of academic and professional credentials?
Maxi-vacation
May 14, 2007 - 11:48 ET by acumenPlanning that next vacation from reality? Then you and your family MUST visit the United Nations latest themepark - Magic Concensus. Feel good about yourselves as you enter a never-ending fantasy world to be taken for a ride among characters, tall tales and exhibits that will leave you wondering; How did they do it? Your imagination will come alive as you experience lectures on selected science presented by convincing actors, singers, politicians and other regarded-high experts. Enjoy a frontstage pass to a place "where showbiz is" while exploring a world of awe-inspiring possibilities, endless wonders and no-octane thrills.
Conditions - Package only available to humans in rich developed countries. All fees include gloom, boredom and 3 squares a day. Subject to 1000% UN tax.
"...taken for a ride..
May 14, 2007 - 12:46 ET by PunditDotCom"...taken for a ride..."
Sure got that right!
In fact the good Doctor alert
May 14, 2007 - 12:11 ET by dscottIn fact the good Doctor alerted the scientific community back in 2004 that there was a problem with CO2 measurements and that cherry picking was occuring. Did the MSM take notice? Of course not, that would derail the whole scam especially since the Mann hockey stick was debunked around then. So let's sum up this whole fiasco: 1. Mann hockey stick falsely claimed that global temperatures were rising in an unprecidented manner (by deliberatly denying the Medieval Warming). 2. We have Al Gore Proclaiming the world is going to flood from rising ocean levels (despite the IPCC saying it's only 17" under flawed modeling and not bothering to acknowledge sea levels were 18" higher than today during the Medieval Warming). 3. Now we have CO2 levels in dispute indicating they were as high back in the 1800's as they are now. In other words, CO2 like temperature is naturally variable.
AGW at this point is dead, there is absolutely no justification to advance this theory as a reasonable assertion or probability. Billions of dollars have been diverted from more worthy societal problems in the name of political correctness.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
CO2 Causing Climate Change IS a Fraud
May 14, 2007 - 12:29 ET by DrColesThank you for the article! It's a start. I have aleady commented on this subject.
Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html
Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.
Unfortunately, we can no longer trust most of the media for information, as they no longer assign "Reporters" that investigate then report on a subject, most just parrot or reinterpret the information to fit their bias, thusly we have a world of disinformation and junk science.
CO2 levels did not rise pre t
May 14, 2007 - 15:48 ET by dahliatraversCO2 levels did not rise pre to post industrial revolution?? This is HUGE! The entire premise of AGW would be out the window.
Yes, by all means, hold open, unbiased hearings on the science of climate change. Please lead the way, Canada. We're too dazzled by Al Gore down here to do anything rational like actually test the theory of AGW.
The lefties have done such a
May 14, 2007 - 16:15 ET by NL207The lefties have done such a good job of smearing Dr. Tim Ball that many who might well understand the implications of this will simlpy dismiss this report even if they see it.
Climate change: More than o
May 14, 2007 - 16:23 ET by JDWClimate change: More than one billion people may be forced from their homes between now and 2050
Exaggerated?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists