Validity of global warming questioned
By James H. Shott
Proponents of man-made global warming say that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, power manufacturing processes and fuel motor vehicles is seriously harming the environment. However recent evidence shows that to be a flawed theory.
Data shows that the earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term â€œglobal warmingâ€ with â€œclimate change,â€ using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
Scientists do not speak with one voice on this issue. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in physics, and is one of 650 dissenting scientists who argued against this theory at the United Nations global warming conference in Poland last December. â€œI am a skeptic,â€ he said. â€œGlobal warming has become a new religion.â€
Other opponents have made similar comments, like former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who declared, â€œSince I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain skeptical.â€
POWLHIHL! (Pulling Out What Little Hair I Have Left.)
I am losing hope. This article is, i’m afraid, going to fall upon deaf ears. After all, facts and reality have so far not mattered to the true believers. Why should they now?
The Global Warmingists are like the king with no clothes. We keep telling them they’re naked, but they think they are wearing the finest suit ever made. It’s absolutely maddening.
It is April 8th and the temperature in the Twin Cities will only reach the upper 40’s maybe 50. And the low temp is 29. The average highfor today is 53, with the average low being 33.
(Dave Dahl’s forcast from KSTP website)
The Records for Wednesday
High 83 (1931)
Low 9 (1997)
Normal high 53
Normal low 33
Precipitation Tuesday 0.00 inches
Precipitation for the month 0.47 inches (- .02 inches)
Precipitation for the year is 3.47 inches (- .71 inches)
Season Snowfall 45.0 inches
Sunrise 6:40 AM
Sunset 7:50 PM
Now, are we experiencing a planetary fever? NO!
Have we experienced a rise in global average temps? NO!
Does this matter to the President who is moving ahead with the global warming agenda? NO!
Does this matter to anybody who believes in global warming? NO!
This is an article that will be completely ignored by the believers of AGW. It just does not matter to them because without it they would have a very hard time pushing their agenda.
Under the category of the cure being worse than the disease, I submit this; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html
This is an issue that has scared the he** out of me since I first started hearing about it a little over a year ago. Geoengineering projects to curb global warming. These people are insane and are going to do irrepairable harm. Or, I fervently hope, that they will fail and discover that we can’t affect the global climate if we try.
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009
LYNDON LAROUCHE says: “Put the environmentalists in prison!”
Lyndon LaRouche has intensified his campaign against environmentalists. Now he calls them nazis, and since they are nazis they should be put in prison!
“It’s like the whole environmentalist movement. The whole environmentalist movement is one gigantic, anti-scientific fraud! There’s not a single bit of truth in any of it. It’s a faker. A guy says “I’m an ecologist, a scientific ecologist.” All right, you’re that? Well, I guess that’s better than being a toadstool, I guess, huh? Because they’re not worth anything. They’re liars! Any guy who says, “I’m a scientist,” and who says this free-energy policy is good, you know he’s a faker. He’s a fraudster. He belongs in prison. He’s committed fraud. Shouldn’t he go to prison? He’s committing a fraud which is causing people to suffer. Shouldn’t he go to prison? Well, put him in prison! They want to be institutional? Fine.”
Please look at this report of a LYM campaign, calling environmentalists nazis, on the universities in USA too!
Show this to anyone that still doubts whether LaRouche is a fascist or not, and whether the LaRouche Youthmovement (LYM) is a fascist cult or not?
You are a little fuzzy on where you stand here. I can’t tell if you’re for, or against Lyndon LaRouche. Personally I don’t know who that is, never heard of him. He sounds a bit extreme, I don’t completely disagree with his point, but I wouldn’t go so far as calling the environmentalist movement nazi’s. I would call them scocialists who are misled, misguided and delusional busy-bodies. And there is one that posted here a while ago that suggested that us global warming deniers should be loaded into a rocket ship and sent crashing into the Sun. I pointed out to him that was actually calling for our deaths, never heard back from that one.
But fighting fire with fire is fair game. Have you heard some things that have been said by the environmentalistglobalwarmingclimatechange fanatics?
Just some food for thought.
More bad news for the AGW mongers. How’s that track for no sea ice by the summer of 2013 trackin’?
A wager on our future
Which is the right evidence to follow? Both scientists who assert or deny global warming and climate changes as a result of human activities can appear wright or wrong at the eyes of readers. Whom should we believe? What should we do?
A simple hint can come following Pascalâ€™s Wager: if the attitude which corresponds most to truth canâ€™t be checked out then we could at least try to find out the more rational one. Pascalâ€™s Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. A similar wager (letâ€™s call it a sort of Wager on Survival) can be applied in the case of climate changes. We canâ€™t possibly know the right attitude until maybe itâ€™s too late. Just today in Italy on La repubblica appeared the following news: ONU 2.5Â°C more and cycle of trees will reverse â€“ According to the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) if earthâ€™s temperature will rise of 2.5Â°C more then forest will cease to lower CO2 emissions.
So, just from a rational point of view, in which way do we loose less? ignoring the problem and facing the possible consequences of that? or maybe taking actions to make our world a better place? The last option shows less drawbacks, and if the many voices rising at the moment and the Antartic Ice melting are just false signals, then we can at least try to live in a more healthy and sensible world.
“Which is the right evidence to follow? Both scientists who assert or deny global warming and climate changes as a result of human activities can appear wright or wrong at the eyes of readers.”
You have way overthought this. It’s actually quite simple. You look at what each side says, then you do your own research. What I have found with this method is that the AGW alarmists are lying. The IPCC and James Hansen et al, have based their outrageous claims on computer modeling of a complex system. One that they do not know all of the factors, and the factors they do know about they only understand a fraction of how they actually effect the climate.
The people who disagree use real data from observation and record keeping. And, you can’t refute the data. They are not guessing, or using flawed data from fantasticle computer models. Duh!!!
” Just today in Italy on La repubblica appeared the following news: ONU 2.5Â°C more and cycle of trees will reverse â€“ According to the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) if earthâ€™s temperature will rise of 2.5Â°C more then forest will cease to lower CO2 emissions.”
This is called a scare tactic. Any scientific proclamation that contains the words; if, might, may, could, maybe, or should, is what is known as junk science. This is completely meaningless, and is designed to freighten not inform.
“So, just from a rational point of view, in which way do we loose less? ignoring the problem and facing the possible consequences of that? or maybe taking actions to make our world a better place? The last option shows less drawbacks, and if the many voices rising at the moment and the Antartic Ice melting are just false signals, then we can at least try to live in a more healthy and sensible world.”
I have heard this argument before from many sources. Not the least of which was Sen. John McCain during his presidential campaign.
This is a total kannard designed to get people to except the premise that CO2 is pollution, and that we should just do something.
Just what about our world is unhealthy and unsensible? The only way CO2 is unhealthy is if it displaces enough oxygen to suffocate you. It is not poison, nor is it harmful in any other way. The current state of the planet is that it is the cleanest it has ever been since the beginning of the industrial revolution. We have life expectancies that vastly outlast the lifespan of people just 100 years ago. Get a life!!!!!
Oh, and the Antarctic ice sheet is actually expanding, exept for a small area that is melting because of volcanic activity.
Do some research for crying out loud. It’s not that hard to find information. It beats sitting around doing mental masturbation about Pascal’s wager.
That’s my opinion.
Yeah, Wilkins ice shelf Antarctica melting from global warming? That’s what they want you to think. Can you handle the truth? Cause here it is.
And I’m afraid the Arctic sea ice isn’t melting as fast as it’s supposed to be either.
Oh, I’m sorry. Did that hurt?
Oh foolish Italian Opinionist! Dare ye tell these geniuses here to consider alternatives to their mindset?? Oh ye of little faith and knowledge of the Gore-conspiracy to rule thy world?! He lost, (or was it stolen?), the US presidency and He was such a sore loserman that he has ever since plotted His world-wide takover. Only geniuses, such as those lurking hereabouts, can save us all from a socialist and Gorey ruin !
If Co2 can not heat up 2 cups of water how can it heat an ocean…?
“The Little Experiment…” taking two bottles and filling them with equal parts of water. The one bottle I completely flooded with Co2 making in have an air volume of approx (92% Co2.
The other bottle is just plain air from an air compressor, the air we breath consists of 0.03 percent Co2.
heating up the bottles to the same temperatures. I took the read outs and both were the same. One read out with the Co2 should have been a higher temperature, according to what is the Co2 law… The other read out was read, after removing it from the heat. Same read-outs.
No accelerant an any way co2… Nor heat retention..?
The professor @ MIT of meteorology ,came up with theses theories, “to replace the argon gas in double pan widows, with CO2 if it retains heat so well”,.. if Co2 retains heat so well, than why not fill the Styrofoam types of installation that is used in house with Co2…
Carbon tax is a scam…
It is marked, that as we begin to map the limits to the known universe. We have just begun to understand the limits of the very planet; we rely on for the continued survival of all dependent species.
A new Global awareness, of adverse climatic events has called us to answer, fundamental questions, about the path we are on, and the part we must play in securing a sustainable future for all.
It is important to understand and question with an open mind, the science on which much depends.
We must not discount the planets ability for radical simpatico adaptation, or second guess our earthâ€™s superior eco system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, however misguided in the extreme.
We are an integral part of earths continuing development, and consequently part of, and subject to, any eco-logical change over time.
Our carbon footprint is exponential, and correlate’s, to a rise in global ambient temperatures that are keeping pace with our species developments and expansions worldwide.
Radical global Climatic change is not new, geological samples taken worldwide show major heating and cooling event cycleâ€™s over time, the difference now, is that we are witnessing Accelerating adverse global climatic events in the life cycle of our species, that are not in line with historical trends or climate model projections, man made or not, it is prudent to take stock, and ask do we have control, and more importantly, did we ever have control.
This is why I liken, standing on the bridge of the Titanic and pondering whether we ignore the icebergs or plough through; choices soon we will all be called on to make.
If we listen to the scientistâ€™s warnings, and take avoiding action now, it will allow a small window of opportunity for corrective contingency and implementation measures; that largely depend on a global response, for the right course of action to take, in time, before any tipping point is reached.
If we ignore the warnings, and plough through, then it is business as usual, the chances are that there will be more Casualties from an increasingly unstable global eco system, which will continue to make corrective adaptive measures, as it strives to maintain global ambiance.
One of those adaptive measures could be earths natural response to a perceived global heating event, this could take the form of rapid global cooling as accelerated polar melt starts to influence the earths gulf-stream, which is the earths major heat exchange mechanism, responsible for maintaining global ambient temperatures, that all dependent species, have enjoyed, up till now.
Rapid global cooling once triggered, would be impossible to curtail, in short rapid polar melt, is a response to rapid global warming, net result , rapid global cooling.
History shows repeated warnings of icebergs were ignored, as Titanic on her maiden voyage raced to meet her fate, whilst taken hasty evasive action, she side-swiped an iceberg, which damaged bulkheads designed to keep her afloat.
When Titanic impacted, some onboard believed there was no problem, just an iceberg, after all this was the mighty unsinkable Titanic, some returned to their beds, whilst others played with chunks of ice that were strewn on deck, but in the year of our lord 1912, just Two hours and forty minutes later, Titanic unable to sustain her buoyancy, descended to a watery grave.
As 2000 and 12 approaches, we will have come full circle, Is history repeating itself or is it already too late.
Our failure to coalesce; for the long term mitigation of radical adverse climatic change, will ultimately force the planet, to make, that decision for us, whatever action we take then; will ultimately benefit the planet.
What? A well reasoned and mutlt-syllabic response?? Dan, are you ill?
Believe me… It almost got axed due to length.
Rule of thumb: comments should be shorter than the article being commented on!
Svante Arrhenius was the first person to discover the Greenhouse Effect and even the most cursory glance into how it works will reveal to you why this experiment is bogus. CO2 gas doesn’t promote heating on its own, it amplifies the heating capacity of water by bonding to water vapor. This can be tested through measurements of infrared absorption values.
Science has a LIBRUL SOSHALIST BIAS though, so go ahead and go to sleep knowing that your Christian god loves you and would never do anything to harm your precious little planet just because you live in it. When we all get microwaved because you were afraid of “losing your freedoms” please let me know if praying has any measurable effect on the outcome.
Excuse me, but I believe I also called the man a [redacted].
I’m trying to keep personal attacks out of the comments. Everyone can get quite passionate about their opinions, but it’s more productive to keep discussion focused on the issues, not the individuals.
Actually if and when sicence has a bias it is usually NOT Liberal or Socialist. What country are you from? This is right-wing Amerika buddy! Otherwise your post made sense… Welcome aboard, please post some more. We need fresh eyes as our previous pResident liked to say.