"Politically correct" BP grossly misrepresents the real (and natural) basis for climate change, aka, global warming.
A recent visit to the British Petroleum (BP, http://www.bp.com) website revealed a statement about climate change that is either based on ignorance or designed to be "politically correct" rather than true. This prompted my response to BP via their online contact form for environmental issues dealing with climate change:
You state in your section on Climate Change: "Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from an estimated 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to 380 ppm today. During the last century, the earth’s surface temperature rose by about 0.6°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that it could rise by between 1.4 and 5.8°C by the end of this century."
Are you not aware of the lack of correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2? The data are clearly uncorrelated during the 20th century record. While correlation cannot PROVE cause and effect, lack of correlation will DISPROVE cause and effect.
Data over the 600,000-year Vostok ice core record show temperature changes LEAD changes in both methane and carbon dioxide by 200-800 years, i.e., temperature changes first, then methane and CO2.
In the scientific method, a theory is shown to be invalid if one can cite a single contrary example. There is a record spanning 500 million years that is contrary to the theory that rising CO2 causes climate change.
During the worst "snowball Earth" ice era of 450 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was 15 times higher (about 5700 ppm) than at present (see Dr. Tim Patterson's work).
Are you aware that the greenhouse effect is NOT a significant contributor to climate change? (see Dr. Marcel Leroux's work in addition to a host of other qualified subject-matter experts who've investigated climate change forces).
During our travels through the US and UK, we used to use BP products regularly when we had the opportunity. However, since you've taken the absurd position of the IPCC that flies in the face of clear contrary scientific evidence, we have avoided BP and will continue to do so until you come to your senses.
Significantly, BP fails to acknowledge the clear scientific evidence that tells us humans have no capacity to change climate. Such evidence is available in the paleoclimate record of climate change over the past 500 million years (roughly 10% of Earth's existence). Since the historic climate record clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 is insignificant as a climate change force, perhaps it is time to stop wasting money and energy on false theories about global climate change due to CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Across the paleoclimate record, solar activity closely matches global climate variations. Despite BP's inability to deal with the obvious, which would you suppose is more important to climate change, solar activity or atmospheric CO2?
A few other inconvenient facts BP fails to acknowledge:
not unprecedented, similar to warming at end of Little Ice Age and beginning of Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods
has not continued into early 2000s with a slight cooling trend observed over past nine years
Since CO2 changes lag global temperature changes by 200-800 years, rising levels of atmospheric CO2 during the past 100 years could well be a response to ocean warming at end of Little Ice Age or during the Medieval Warm Period. In any event, the 100-year record of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are highly uncorrelated, thus proving no "cause and effect" relationship over that period.
The scientific record is clear. There is no evidence human activity has any significant effect on global climate. Yet politicians and some government scientists continue to claim humans are changing the climate and that a warmer climate would be disasterous.
Yet, which would you prefer, a warmer climate or a colder one?
Finally, consider this question: If we suddenly realized that a new ice age was beginning, what could humans do to prevent it?
The answer is clear and obvious. Nothing.
When they continue to claim human activity of any kind could have a significant impact on global climate, BP, Mr. Gore, and the IPCC are seriously misleading the public -- and if they actually believe their discredited theories, they are seriously kidding themselves.
Global Warming, Myth or Reality?, Dr. Marcel Leroux, Springer-Praxis Books, 2005.
The Chilling Stars - A New Theory of Climate Change, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Dr. Nigel Calder, Icon Books, 2007.
Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007.
Shattered Consensus - The True State of Global Warming, Edited by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a collection of articles by eleven authors, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.
The Satanic Gases - Clearing the Air about Global Warming, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Cato Institute, 2000.
Meltdown - The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, 2005.
Biography - Bob Webster
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.