On Friday, October 19, 2007, ABC's 20/20 program included an eight minute segment on man made global warming. I have seen many TV segments and programs about global warming, all of them contained false information, but Friday's 20/20 segment was the first one I've seen that was truthful.
It was gratifing to see the expose of the plotting of carbon dioxide above temperature on the same chart. I've been writing about this on my web site for years, in fact the last time I wrote about it was only one week ago when I commented about the October issue of National Geographic Magazine which also contained this ploy of placing the carbon dioxide plot above the temperature plot - see text below.
Let us hope that this 20/20 segment is merely the first of many telling the true story of The Man-Made Global Warming Myth.
October 15, 2007 - Comments on the insert in the October 2007 issue of the National Geographic Magazine
Greetings National Geographics, Shame on you - you of all people should question statements before repeating them.
I am writing you about the global warming insert included in your October 2007 issue. While there are a few things I like about it, there are more things I do not like - first the things I like.
ONE: I like the Vostok ice core temperature plot from a data set provided by the U.S. Department of Energy. I did not know the Department of Energy was a source of data sets. I've been using the sets from NASA, which NASA distorts by the application of median mathematics - I call it VooDoo mathematics. I studied your plot closely and I could not find the same distortations. Your plot is better than mine. I went to the Energy Department's web site, but I could not find where they keep their data sets. Would you please send me the web addresses of the data sets that you used? Thank you.
TWO: The second thing I liked is the plot of sea levels. It is the first plot of sea levels I have seen and I am glad to have it. My current thinking is that the dropping of sea level will be the best indicator of the end of the top of our current normal and natural up temperature fluctuation and the begining of the slide down to the next Little Ice Age - due sometime in one to three hundred years from now. Again, would you please give me the web address of the sea level data set? Thank you again.
Now the things I don't like:
I don't like the text titled 'CO2's Modern Imprint'. It is entirely false - the spin doctors are now working in the science of climate. You are merely repeating the false statememts without question that are being made by the climate clowns. Let us consider each falsehood one by one.
ONE - You wrote: 'The rise of CO2 levels from 280 parts per million at the advent of the industrial revolution to 380ppm today is the major factor driving a one degree F rise in the average global temperature during the past century.'
Donald Eric Davison: This is false. The current rise in temperature that the planet is experiencing is the result of a normal and natural up fluctuation of temperautre and CO2 has very little part in the rise. The temperature of the planet always fluctuates and since the start of the current interglacial period, temperatures have had about thirty-four up fluctuations in the range of 54 to 60 F degrees - what comes next is down fluctuation number thirty-four because temperatures have always fluctuate down after fluctuating up - the down fluctuation should start sometime in the next fifty years. I myself hope that the start will be sooner rather than later so that the climate clowns like Al Gore, Dr Mann, James Hansen, etc, and now National Geographic will end up with egg on their faces from being proven wrong. You and the other climate clowns are giving the greenhouse effect of CO2 too much credit in the warming of the planet.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas in that it will block certain wavelengths of heat, but once there is enough CO2 in the air to block all the wavelengths of heat that CO2 can block, any additional CO2 will not block any more heat. Man-made CO2 is all additional CO2 which is not raising the temperature because it is not blocking any wavelengths of heat. I did not create this theory, but I support it because it is proving to be true, there are positive observations in the real world that support the theory - eight thousand years of man-made CO2 has not raised temperatures accordingly.
TWO: National Geographic wrote: 'The pace of warming has accelerated: 11 of 12 warmest years on record have occured since 1995'
Donald Eric Davison: In the main, this statement is false, but if you want to be picky, it can be said to be technically correct, but misleading, it depends on what number of years is the record you are talking about. On the same page there are plots of temperature and CO2 going back 400,000 years. If that is the record you are talking about, then the statement is false because there have been many times in the 400,000 years in which temperature has been higher than the years since 1995. If the record you are talking about is only our interglacial period, your statement is still false because there have still been more times in which temperature has been higher than temps since 1995. If your record is only 127 years then the statement is technically correct, but misleading. Temperatures have been on an up fluctuation during all of the last 127 years so it is to be expected that later years would be higher than earlier years in the 127 year period, so the statement has no value in the debate on global warming - it's merely hype.
What's special about the last 127 years you ask: Some climate clowns do not consider any other method of reading temperatures as being valid except for those taken by thermometers, but that record only goes back to 1880AD, 127 years ago. I do not know which climate clown made this 11 of 12 warmest years statement first, but all the other clowns were quick to pick it up and run with it, Al Gore, James Hansen, and now National Geographic. The lie has been repeated so many time that now most people believe it to be true - Herr Goebbels would be proud of you. If you repeat a lie, you are as bad as the original liar.
THREE - National Geographic wrote: 'Because the Earth's surface heats up more slowly than the atmosphere, temperaures have not yet caught up with the escacating concentrations of CO2.'
Donald Eric Davison: This is a cop out in order to expalin away the lack of temperature rise due to the very big man-made rise of CO2. Whoever told you this is blowing you off. Take a look at your own plot of CO2. Go back eight thousand years, yes, I said eight thousand years. Go to the down dip - from that point, CO2 starts to rise up - that is the first footprint of man-made CO2, the record shows that it began eight thousand years ago. Now look at your plot of temperature. Also go back eight thousand years to that high peak (61+degrees F). Observe what temperature has done in the same eight thousand years that CO2 has been going up like a rocket to the moon - it has been going sideways - fluctuating between 54 and 60F degrees, but still merely going sideways. Where is this big rise in temperaure that CO2 is supposed to cause? CO2 and the climate clowns have had eight thousand years in which to raise temperatures. They have not done it because the heat is not there, it is not going to happen. In eight thousand years of rising man-made CO2 there is no positive observations in the real world that man-made CO2 has raised temperatures. Instead of listening to the lies of the climate clowns, you should pay more attention to your own plots - there is more truth in them than in the climate clowns. (except for your placement and size of the CO2 plot on top of the temperature plot - that's a NO NO)
FOUR - National Geographic plotted: The plot of carbon dioxide was made larger and placed above the plot of temperature, giving the impression that it happened before temperature.
Donald Eric Davison: I find fault in National Geographic's placement and size of your carbon dioxide plot. When we have two or more plots on the same chart, placement on the charts is very important, which plot is to be on top? - which on the bottom? Whichever one is placed on the top would receive the impression that it happens first and that the other plots were merely following the first plot. This would be acceptable if the first plot did happen first, but in the case of carbon dioxide that is not true before 6000BC, the start of evidence of man made CO2 in the records. Before 6000BC, temperature did its own thing, it fluctuated up and down, and carbon dioxide always did lag behind temperature. So, it is misleading for National Geographic to place carbon dioxide above temperature. Al Gore did the same lie in his movie. You don't have to do everything Al Gore does. Think for yourself, but be honest.
The correct position is for both to be together, that is, the low reading from the last ice age for carbon dioxide should be on the same line as the low temperature reading also from the last ice age. And it follows that the first high of carbon dioxide in the interglacial period should be on the same line as the first high of temperature in the interglacial period. This will establish the placement of both and the ratio between the two, this ratio should be maintained for all the years afterwards until the end of the interglacial period whenever that will be(20K from now). Doing this will fix the movement of carbon dioxide at about the same size as the movement of temperature. This is the only proper way to compare temperature and carbon dioxide. After 6000BC, the addition of man made carbon dioxide has caused carbon dioxide levels to go up by themselves, leaving temperature behind.
National Geographic has the size of the movement of carbon dioxide before 6000BC about twice the size of the movement of temperature. This should not be done, it is a distortion. In spite of these distortions, if National Geographic would merely look at their own plots they should clearly see that this very large rise in man made carbon dioxide has not produced any kind of rise in temperature, which is still going along sideways below many higher past peaks - which proves that this increase in man made carbon dioxide does not increase temperature. Al Gore and the other climate clowns do not have any positive observations in the real world to confirm their contentions. They only have a belief, which others must believe without question and without proof - and sad to say many people do believe without question and without proof - a world gone mad.
Donald Eric Davison
donald@dialup4less.com
Index Page of Donald Eric Davison
Files of Action Without Reaction:
September 24, 2007 - Photo of the first working Action Without Reaction Machine:
Photo taken on September 24, 2007 in Michigan, United States
What you are looking at is the first working machine that produces a force in a controlled direction and reduces the counter force in the opposite direction to less than ten percent. The result is forward motion with very little backward motion, which means that the machine is able to move along without pushing backwards on anything, not the ground nor the air. Believe that this machine works, I have had this machine moving along my driveway without pushing on the driveway.
'Motion Without Pushing Backwards' - A New Branch of Science
An Apparent Law of Physics: Archimedes said: "Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth". He knew that in order to push the Earth he would need to push backwards against something else. In order to push anything we need to be able to push backwards against something else in return. This has been an apparent law of physics. The absolute obedience to this law has prevented space science from developing a mechanical means of pushing space vehicles, that is, until now. Since I have developed this new and useful process by which an electrically powered mechanical machine can deliver a force that will push a vehicle forwards without the need to push backwards against something else in return. Mankind can now bypass this apparent law of physics when it is useful to do so. Mankind will find it useful to do so in order to gain the ability to push space vehicles long distances.
Letter to Archimedes
Good news Archimedes, today you would not need a place to stand in order to move the Earth. I have invented the necessary machine for you to move the Earth while standing on the Earth. January 12, 2008