Slashdot Mirror
Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages
An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."
I am going to outline why I think Global warming is bad science. I have spent some time looking into it and what I have found truly makes me wonder why some of these reports get published. It scares me that so many slashdot people believe in it. When I read the reports I find so much missing it is not funny.
.2c. So the warming trend may be as high as .7c and as low as .3c. I can see this, but add to this that the temperature measurements have a posted error correction of +/- .7c we now have a problem. The global warming that may be happening is within the error rate of the temperature measurement. If Microsoft tried to use numbers like this we would tare them apart but the global warming crowd uses them and they are ok?
The most common omission I find is the error level on charts. Take the ice core samples, what is the error level? Most I have seen have stated that the current PPM of CO2 is at an all time high! It has been stated that the current CO2 levels are 330+ ppm and from ice cores we know it has never been higher, or do we? What is the error level of the ice cores? +/- ??? If it is +/- 500ppm than the charts are junk, if it is +/- 2ppm then they may mean something. To date I have not been able to find anything that states the accuracy of the reading or the error level of the ice cores.
The general consensus is that the global temp is up 0.5c +/-
To those how would point to the chart that shows us warming, they all seem to start around 1880. This is odd as this marks the end of the little ice age, to say that we are warmer now than we were during the little ice age is, well, duh!
To those that would point to the hockey stick, this has been shown to have issues. The least of which is the 15th century portion. This portion of the hockey stick graph is based on tree ring measurements from a single tree. Once they started averaging the numbers, it skewed the chart. Not to count the errors in temperature readings before 1960.
So where is the good solid science? And please do not point to local anomies as a sign of global warming. Heck recently I heard some one say that it is getting cooler because of global warming. What? Sounds like a setup for "we will win!" Ill make you a deal, we will play tic-tac-toe and as long as I can stop you from getting three in a row, I win.
I am sorry, the science seems off and with out solid science to back it up I just can not believe the hype.