Topic category: Climate/Climate Change/Weather
Does this IPCC climate scientist now admit "Global Warming" is natural and not caused by humans?
Addressing the fact that satellite datasets show the average global temperature has not warmed in more than 18 years, Dr. Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and who is also a top scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told Bavarian Radio:
“That does not surprise climate scientists like me at all, as for us this is completely normal,” “When one takes a look at the development since 1900, that is the last 110 years, then we see that it has not always gone up. Rather it has progressed in waves. This is why it is necessary to look at long time periods.”
It is encouraging that Dr. Latif now acknowledges what more and more scientists are coming to understand. There is no connection between human activity and global climate change, either warming or cooling. It's all part of perfectly natural climate cycles that are confirmed by historical and geological records. Current long term gradual warming is viewed by most scientists as the continuing rebound from Little Ice Age cooling which followed Medieval Warm Period warming.
Nobody, not even the most ardent warmist, has attempted to claim that human-caused global warming could possibly have occurred prior to 1950. Now Latif reveals his belief that global temperatures will rebound from the nearly two-decade warming hiatus because that's what they've done in waves for the past 110 years!
So, if those prior waves of warming followed by cooling were caused by natural processes independent of human activity, why should anyone believe recent warming from the late 1970s through early 1990s is anything other than a natural cycle?
What does the IPCC warmist camp claim? That warming of the late 20th century must be due to human activity. But in all these years since they've been making those claims, there has never been a single credible scientific paper that has been able to discern any human component to the natural climate warming "wave" of the late 20th century. All they have for proof are a host of suspect computer models that have failed utterly in their prediction of the warming hiatus ("wave" of cooling) experienced over most of the past two decades.
The reason warmist theory is crumbling is because it is based on the fraudulent "greenhouse warming theory". Proposed in the late 19th century, that theory was discredited by serious scientists in the early 20th century and lay in ashes until revived as the tool to dupe the public in the 1980s. Experimentally rebutted, the greenhouse warming theory is not even appropriate for greenhouses! The predicted effects of this discredited theory on global climate have not materialized and, in fact, the opposite has been observed (mid-topospheric tropical region warming is absent, some cooling noted; warming of polar regions more rapidly than other areas, among the best-known predictions, has not occurred). While Arctic polar ice went through a cyclical minimum, it never reached the liquid north pole state reached decades earlier (in the 1950s) and all the while, Antarctic polar temperatures have been in a steady decline for many decades. In the past two years, global sea ice has begun to rebound, again, flying in the face of discredited warmist "greenhouse gas" theory.
The warmist camp has been very adept at confusing the public by making an equivalence between "global warming" and "climate change caused by humans". Yet, beyond the macro level, there is absolutely no legitimate scientific basis upon which to stake a claim that human activity can alter global climate to any discernible degree.
The claim that atmospheric CO2 leads to climate change cannot be substantiated by either climate science or observation. Indeed, real world experience tells us that climate change affects atmospheric CO2, not the other way round. So those who cite changes in atmospheric CO2 as evidence of its causing warming are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading.
Why does global climate change affect atmospheric CO2 and not the other way round? Because oceans cover 70% of the planet and global climate is very sensitive to ocean temperatures. Oceans both heat and cool from natural causes, primarily changes in solar activity. Those changes in ocean temperatures impact both climate and atmospheric CO2 because 60% of the annual atmospheric CO2 cycle of gain and loss is from ocean emission (in warm seasons) and ocean absorption (in cool seasons).
It is no wonder, then, when warmist climate "scientists" write papers claiming that the recent northern hemisphere frigid winters are due to -- surprise -- "global warming"!
And we're supposed to believe that?
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)
 Major sources of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 are terrestrial plan growth and decay (about 40%) and ocean emission and absorption (warm and cold water) of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is not static and is dependent on the annual cycles. Overall change is due to any slight imbalance in that cycle. These cycles have been going on since long before humans appeared. In Earth's climate history going back 600 million years, there has never been a climate change causative correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate. [see Primer on CO2 and Climate, Dr. Howard C. Hayden, 2008, Vales Lake Publishing, LLC.]
 What To Do When Your Theory Comes Crashing To The Ground In Fiery Flames?
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.