Dr. Henry R. Savage: Climate change report, study unreliable

Advertisement

The media is awash with coverage of the new IPCC report summary, which expounds on human causes of climate change (global warming). I urge readers to do some truth-squading on the subject. Many untruths are becoming common knowledge in this area.

The IPCC organization and processes are corrupt. The summary report is put together by a group of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental advocacy organizations with little, if any, scientific participation.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) carries the imprimatur of United Nations and therefore is assumed to be truthful and correct. Unfortunately this has not been so in the past, and IPCC therefore has little credibility in much of the scientific community. IPCC had been at the center of the two biggest scandals in science in the last 50 years. One of their early report summaries completely reversed the conclusions of the scientists who did the work, resulting in an angry letter published nationally and signed by many, many scientists. The last report based conclusions about the Earth's temperature on some paleo climate work that indicated the last 10 years were the hottest in hundreds of years. The work was incorrect, and peer reviews of the work were inadequate, if not conspiratorial. In the first scandal mentioned, IPCC was the perp, and in the second, it was complicit.

Many are now saying that the science community is in consensus on this subject and "the debate is over." Both are horribly untrue. The scientific literature is filled with papers by brilliant workers seeking answers to questions central to the debate. Some examples are Earth's radiation properties, paleo temperature determinations and equilibrium CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It's well known and understood that water is the major greenhouse gas and CO2 is a minor contributor. Models of the atmosphere amplify the CO2 effect with assumptions that are very poorly supported by the science, hence the many questions that need to be researched.

Dr. Henry R. Savage

Steamboat Springs

Comments

id04sp 7 years, 6 months ago

What's the problem with global warming? Isn't warming an environmental stress that will accelerate the pace of evolution and result in better human beings in the long run?

I mean, if we are a product of evolution, then ice ages and diseases and all that other stuff provided the stresses which produced Homo Sapiens and our big ol' brains, right?

We who know that evolution is a fact, and not a theory, should welcome climatic change as an opportunity to evolve our race to yet a higher form. Those who live in the future will look back at us as a bunch of primitive and ignorant beings who barely had the intelligence to get to the Moon. They'll be thanking -- well, something -- for the fact that global warming produced their lofty intellect and raised the future human-derived species up from the muck.

0

RouCou 7 years, 6 months ago

Who are you Dr. Savage? What are your credentials and sources? Some Scientists? What brilliant scientists, name them and their data. I looked for a Dr. Henry R Savage and could find none in the related scientific community. I would bet that the majority of the Scientists (If You Can Name Them) have their work funded by:.. Let me see someone like EXXON::

0

RouCou 7 years, 6 months ago

You mean the Cato Institute with Rupert Murdoch (FOX NEWS) as one of its former board members. You meant the Cato Institute that takes donations from Exxon? You mean the Cato Institute that is partially funded by the Castle Rock Foundation (the RIGHT hand of the Coors family). You meant the Cato institute that is partially funded by the Charles G Koch. Koch industries was indicted by U.S. Justice Department in 2000 for "environmental crimes" at a Corpus Christi, Texas, refinery . Shall I go on:..

0

RouCou 7 years, 6 months ago

P.S. Dr. Patrick Michaels has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Dr. Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association.

0

id04sp 7 years, 6 months ago

Those of us who understand the magnitude of what's happening know that a tiny % of CO2 (a few parts per million) is insignificant compared to water, methane and other naturally occurring gases which we cannot ever hope to control. Methane, for example, is far more damaging and it erupts from the seabeds and swamps in quantities that make any possible CO2 contribution insignificant by comparison.

In the meantime, all you "sky is falling" types are devoting your energy to something you cannot hope to affect in any meaningful way, and that keeps you from taking on something where you might make a difference.

Anyone who's had a course in analytical chemistry and thermodynamics can do the math to understand that the ability of CO2 to hold heat cannot possibly account for the rise in temperature of the atmosphere. It's just not enough. By the way, the "greenhouse" effect refers to the ability of a gas of a certain mass to hold a certain amount of heat and absorb and release it at a slower rate than some other gases. It's not about some fantasized big pane of glass in the sky that's made out of CO2. In a greenhouse, it's the lack of circulation of air which allows it to heat up and then release the heat when the sun goes down, keeping the plants warm. People who don't understand these simple facts about how the physical process works have no business at all delving into the controversy, because then it just comes down to wanting to believe the side that shares your favorite political views.

Science has a terrible history when it comes to giving a voice to those with a political or financial agenda. A Ph.D. is a license to ignore the facts you don't agree with, and an excuse not to question the facts you do agree with.

You want to save the planet? Go to school, take the science and math courses, and become capable of doing the analysis yourself. That way you won't be fooled by people who are in it for a buck, or for a lame-brained political cause.

0

another_local 7 years, 6 months ago

It is disingenuous that someone would propose that the financial and political agenda lies on the side of those concerned about anthropomorphic global warming. Ask yourself who stands to make money by not acting on what we know.

But then, isn't that the kind of smoke screen those with an agenda unsupportable by facts would resort to?

Methane from the sea bed? No doubt. It is not necessary for man-made impact to be wholly accountable, there only needs to be enough to tip the balance; the proverbial straw. The facts are that the temps are rising and the glaciers are shrinking and the change is accelerating.

Maybe we will just all die off from cancer and other diseases caused by our own pollution first and none of this will matter.

0

id04sp 7 years, 6 months ago

Go down to the Florida panhandle and take a walk on the beach and look at the clumps of tar that seep up from the seabed.

Pollution must be good for evolution, because we're here despite all that naturally occuring petroleum polluting the ocean. Could we be cleaning ourselves out of existence by removing the stimulus for natural selection?

Think about that one.

Want an example? The polio epidemics of the mid-20th century were a direct result of the fact that closed sewer systems prevented children from being exposed to the polio virus during infancy when they have the ability to obtain natural immunity. When exposed later in life, they developed polio. That's when Drs. Salk and Sabin saved the day with their vaccines.

Why should we be so sure that interfering with the normal course of evolution is a good thing? Maybe the higher CO2 will turn out to be a good thing in the long run. How do we know it won't?

0

another_local 7 years, 6 months ago

sbvor... please tell me about cigarettes too... please tell me that nicotine is not addictive and that they don't cause cancer. I really want to believe what the "scientists" working for the tobacco companies tell me... just like I want to stick my head in the sand and belive the oil companies about global warming!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

0

id04sp 7 years, 6 months ago

Local,

You would freeze to death in the winter if you had not starved to death first if there was no oil being consumed in this country.

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

0

another_local 7 years, 6 months ago

And that has to do with....? I don't see anyone advocating not using oil.

0

another_local 7 years, 6 months ago

sbvor,

Good to see that you and the other members of the cult of denial, wishful thinking and willful dissinformation are diligent in your efforts.

How will you explain your irresponsible advocacy to your grandchildren? We didn't know? It took 20-30 years to overcome the nonsense propogated by the tobacco industry but at least that issue mainly impacted those who chose to smoke. This issue has effect on all of us. The "debate" has continued for 20 years now and most people are "getting it" no thanks to you.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.