This 53-minute documentary offers an alternative explanation for climate change that is based upon a relationship between cosmic rays, the sun and the earth’s clouds.
Because the findings contridicted the so-called “scientific consensus” that CO2 was responsible for climate change, the author of this study was unable to get his workÂ published in a scientific journal.Â This is the same corrupt peer review processÂ exposed in ClimateGate thatÂ Â is leading to censorship of studies that contradict the C02 theory.
Very interesting take on climate change. Would have been nice though for them to have made a prediction of the climate for the next few years.
To predict future climate would be a prediction without certainty, which is known as speculation, or more commonly known as a guess. It is not the role of science to guess. Why don’t you just put all possible contingencies on a cork board, stand 15 feet away from it and throw a dart? What the heck, that would be about as accurate as any computer model. The best possible thing we can do is prepare for a change in the climate, warmer or colder, because the climate, just like everything in the entire universe, changes.
Why? What makes you think it can be predicted like that? The Carbon dioxide pushers couldn’t get it right. Perhaps these scientists are wise enough to realize that predictions years-out are useless.
The reason I wondered about a prediction, is that in the film they talk about the past climate changes, if they are so certain that their interpretation on past climate is correct for the past, then sureley a prediction for the future would be a good test of their interpretation. There does seem to be a correlation between sun spots and temperature, so a prediction could be forwarded there. I do understand that climate changes can take 100’s of years, and a trend is difficult to detect at any point.
Thanks. I can agree with that. But my point of view is that predictions can not be made with any kind of certainty, especially with this dynamic, chaotic system we call the atmosphere. I think any kind of certainty drops exponetially the farther into the future the predictions are projected. No matter what the past climate can tell us. For instance I think that I can say with a great amount of certainty that there are cycles that we are not even aware of. Cycles that take hundreds of millions of years to unfold. I believe we are unable to predict anything because not all of the variables are known to us, and they may not ever all be known.
These comments describe exactly what I have believed for years. Rember that, for a theory to become a scientific fact, it must be predictable and cabable of replication. So far, the theories of ‘global warming’ ao ‘climate change’ do not exhibit either of these characteristics. It is not sufficient to fit a model to prior data; the model must also be proven to predict future results. I am not aware of any numerical results that were predicted 50-100 years ago that have actually been verified. Until this happens, the theories are nothing more than conjecture.
By the way, while this study may not have been peer-reviewed, a similar one has been: http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
The worrying thing is that there is a huge POLITICAL will behind carbon tax. Are OUR politicians afraid of upsetting the UN,World poverty action group.
Either they are Drugged on CO2, just Idiots,wishing to play Saviour,or in for a big Paycheck.
What they are dismissive of ,is Real science,Real data and real Voters
Who is/are the PUPPETMASTER[s]
Whenever in doubt about something in politics, just follow the MONEY.
Very true Dan. Now you’re sounding rational. Continue in this vein, and also be unbiased… Don’t be a site based on hypocrisy, it would be a grand waste of time and effort.