• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Climate Change: The End of Life on Earth?

Several weeks ago, Obama noted that the greatest threat that the USA faces is CLIMATE CHANGE! And it is often said that 97% of scientists believe that human activity is the primary cause of climate change and that climate change will soon be so advanced and devastating that there will be no chance for reversal and that continued human life on the planet might be severely threatened. So, I thought I’d follow up on this issue and I found out that these projections of Armageddon are not nearly as certain as has been projected by the left wing press and our left wing politicians.

Scientists Questioning the Accuracy of IPCC Climate Projections

I.These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry

II Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes –– the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors, and these five forcing factors are: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[74][75]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[108][109]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

III.Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown.These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports. Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

IV.Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences.These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

V.Dead scientists. This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan’s Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming] Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.
Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.

4 Responses to “Climate Change: The End of Life on Earth?”

  1. Katherine Ranft Says:

    Dear Bill,
    As you can see, I found your blog! Your insights are, unfortunately, right on the mark. Sadly, we have a president and administration that feels the need to shield the very people that should be thwarted at every turn. The sane people are told they are insane by the masterfully insane people who use lies, obfuscation and deceit to achieve a goal that no rational individual would desire. Keep writing. We will continue to read and weep. Katherine

  2. admin Says:

    Thanks Katherine. It’s all getting worse by the minute. And we have 18 more months of this administration. I just hope that the country as we knew it can come back and survive.

    Bill

  3. Sendii Says:

    Although I agree with those that have been suggesting means by which to avoid sicigfniant exposure to radiation, I am highly critical of the way the media have exploited peoples already high levels of anxiety by further raising the fear level in people, effectively causing a global panic amongst western nations regarding nuclear power and radiation. I’m not a scientist or a student studying such matters, but I think if all of us took the time to look outside of the media everyone would discover that the media has overblown this situation. It is wonderful that the world has come together to help the people of Japan, but it is also extremely unfortunate that the media and governments the across the globe have effectively raised the levels of fear and anxiety, which have been blown out of proportion. When Gregory Jaczko announced before Congress that the government in Tokyo is not trustworthy, and Washington is, has left the world in a rather idiotic panic, scrambling for potassium iodide even in Miami. It is also unfortunate that Washington should discredit the Japanese governments 30km evacuation zone, by suggesting an 80km evacuation zone. Radiation levels in Tokyo are far below potentially hazardous levels (levels at which SOME people may experience nausea and headaches), and are lower than they would be in high elevation cities like Denver, or even Paris. In Tokyo radiation levels are below .20 microsieverts, while in a city like Denver radiation levels can be between .45 and .70 microsieverts. Radiation levels in a city like Chicago or Paris can be as high as .40 microsieverts. In other words its harmless. Even in areas just outside the 30km evacuation zone, radiation levels are sicigfniantly below potentially health effecting levels at below 5 microsieverts, which amounts to 50 banana’s. If you live in the middle of a banana plantation you are exposed to more radiation, in other words, again, harmless. People who fly regularly are exposed to far higher levels of radiation, anywhere from 100 to 300 microsieverts, depending on the length of the flight. The levels of radiation within the 30km evacuation zone, although differing sicigfniantly by area, are as of now lower than what one would expect to be exposed to on a trans-pacific flight. Reports of levels of radiation that are hundreds of times higher than normal levels fail to report that the levels of radiation that begin to cause potential health hazards are 250,000 microsieverts. Which, when we compare to the highest levels of radiation outside of the immediate vicinity of the power plant, 90-105 microsieverts, we see that the current panic is baseless and has effectively caused an unnecessary panic of hoarding and unnecessary traffic congestion. The government evacuated people when levels were still well below harmful levels, and to further note, below levels one would experience from a trans-pacific flight. The government has been remarkably transparent throughout this incident, there are plenty of private online live geiger counters to see levels across the Kanto area to prove that. We must also remember that people like Gregory Jaczko, who have caused this unnecessary panic, have known political leanings against nuclear power. Jaczko is not neutral, and has more interest in exploding the situation by scaring the people with the worst-case scenarios and of apocalypse, by shouting Chernobyl; which is just disgusting. Then the media followed suit. The likes of CNN and Fox, have created a firestorm of panic, both unnecessary and dangerous. I’m not suggesting blindly following the Tokyo’s announcements, but on this occasion I think there is greater reason to believe that the government has been highly transparent. I ask those that are believing the announcements being made in Washington or Paris to evacuate areas up to 80km; why would you trust someone in Paris or Washington, who are not being fed immediate and accurate information from those at the plant this very minute, over those in Tokyo who are?

  4. Ali Says:

    Although I agree with those that have been suggesting means by which to avoid saniificngt exposure to radiation, I am highly critical of the way the media have exploited peoples already high levels of anxiety by further raising the fear level in people, effectively causing a global panic amongst western nations regarding nuclear power and radiation. I’m not a scientist or a student studying such matters, but I think if all of us took the time to look outside of the media everyone would discover that the media has overblown this situation. It is wonderful that the world has come together to help the people of Japan, but it is also extremely unfortunate that the media and governments the across the globe have effectively raised the levels of fear and anxiety, which have been blown out of proportion. When Gregory Jaczko announced before Congress that the government in Tokyo is not trustworthy, and Washington is, has left the world in a rather idiotic panic, scrambling for potassium iodide even in Miami. It is also unfortunate that Washington should discredit the Japanese governments 30km evacuation zone, by suggesting an 80km evacuation zone. Radiation levels in Tokyo are far below potentially hazardous levels (levels at which SOME people may experience nausea and headaches), and are lower than they would be in high elevation cities like Denver, or even Paris. In Tokyo radiation levels are below .20 microsieverts, while in a city like Denver radiation levels can be between .45 and .70 microsieverts. Radiation levels in a city like Chicago or Paris can be as high as .40 microsieverts. In other words its harmless. Even in areas just outside the 30km evacuation zone, radiation levels are saniificngtly below potentially health effecting levels at below 5 microsieverts, which amounts to 50 banana’s. If you live in the middle of a banana plantation you are exposed to more radiation, in other words, again, harmless. People who fly regularly are exposed to far higher levels of radiation, anywhere from 100 to 300 microsieverts, depending on the length of the flight. The levels of radiation within the 30km evacuation zone, although differing saniificngtly by area, are as of now lower than what one would expect to be exposed to on a trans-pacific flight. Reports of levels of radiation that are hundreds of times higher than normal levels fail to report that the levels of radiation that begin to cause potential health hazards are 250,000 microsieverts. Which, when we compare to the highest levels of radiation outside of the immediate vicinity of the power plant, 90-105 microsieverts, we see that the current panic is baseless and has effectively caused an unnecessary panic of hoarding and unnecessary traffic congestion. The government evacuated people when levels were still well below harmful levels, and to further note, below levels one would experience from a trans-pacific flight. The government has been remarkably transparent throughout this incident, there are plenty of private online live geiger counters to see levels across the Kanto area to prove that. We must also remember that people like Gregory Jaczko, who have caused this unnecessary panic, have known political leanings against nuclear power. Jaczko is not neutral, and has more interest in exploding the situation by scaring the people with the worst-case scenarios and of apocalypse, by shouting Chernobyl; which is just disgusting. Then the media followed suit. The likes of CNN and Fox, have created a firestorm of panic, both unnecessary and dangerous. I’m not suggesting blindly following the Tokyo’s announcements, but on this occasion I think there is greater reason to believe that the government has been highly transparent. I ask those that are believing the announcements being made in Washington or Paris to evacuate areas up to 80km; why would you trust someone in Paris or Washington, who are not being fed immediate and accurate information from those at the plant this very minute, over those in Tokyo who are?

Leave a Reply


William S. Frankl, All Rights Reserved
Design by Yikes!