Filed under: Politics | Tags: Climate Science, CO2, Obama, Politics, Professor Salby
Professor Murry Salby in London, March 2015
Dr. Murry Salby is an American atmospheric physicist in Australia. He has been on a lecture tour in Europe, explaining his new research. His research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, are revealed including its increase during the 20th century. His analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emissions. Sounds complicated, but it will throw a big monkey wrench in the IPCC “consensus,” and President Obama’s fixation on “carbon pollution.”
Well, we just ‘celebrated’ Earth Day, and the president said:
Our carbon pollution has fallen by 10 percent since 2007, even as we’ve grown our economy and seen the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record. We’ve committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China has committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, there’s new hope that, with American leadership, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to prevent the worst impacts of climate change before it’s too late.
And from Rupert Darwall, writing at City Journal:
And yet, highly credentialed scientists, including Nobel Prize–winning physicist Ivar Glaever, reject what is often called the “climate consensus.” Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of the group’s statement that evidence of global warming was “incontrovertible” and that governments needed to move immediately to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Sixteen distinguished scientists signed a 2012 Wall Street Journal article, in which they argued that taking drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy—an effort that would have major effects on economic growth and quality of life, especially in the developing world—was not justified by observable scientific evidence. And, like Giaever, they objected to the notion of a climate consensus—and to the unscientific shutting down of inquiry and the marginalization of dissenters as “heretics.” Most recently, renowned climate scientist Lennart Bengsston stepped down from his post at a climate-skeptic think tank after he received hundreds of angry e-mails from scientists. He called the pressure “virtually unbearable.”
Another dissenter, the American atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, has produced a serious analysis that undermines key assumptions underpinning the AGW worldview. His work and its reception illustrate just how unsettled climate science remains—and how determined AGW proponents are to enforce consensus on one of the great questions of our age.
Dr. Salbly’s story is astonishing. Pure science which involves research, testing of hypotheses, doing it all again, and seeing what is supported by direct observation, good honest science without pre-conceptions is in direct conflict with the quest for grants and publicity, and especially the “settled science” which is the basis for getting those grants and awards. Settled science does not exist in the scientific profession. Everything is open to what is supported by direct observation and what can be established by someone else repeating your experiments. Climate science has been captured by politics. There is no such thing as “consensus” in science.
The article is long, but the story of what happened to Dr. Salby is important, as is grasping the nature and consequences of his work. Apparently true believers in Australia aren’t about to allow anyone to cast a skeptical eye on their claims. Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated Dr. Salby’s work. Dr. Salby presents research that challenges the IPCC “consensus.”
As I wrote in an earlier post, Christina Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate change admitted that the goal of environmental activists was to get rid of Capitalism as an economic development model. She also thinks the world has too many people and wants to get rid of significant numbers of them. Never mind that you could put the entire population of the world in Texas, with the density of New York City. So you can see, it’s all about carbon dioxide!
With the hard Left, the issue is never the issue. In this case, it’s grants for wind farms and solar arrays, electric cars, (which by the way are not selling) and now Obama’s crusade to save Americans’ health from the ravages of too much CO2 — you know, the stuff we exhale every time we breathe.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment