Evidence against Global Warming...Recent Article

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by sitarro, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Finally an article on the "global warming" scam that actually makes sense.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

    There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
    By Bob Carter
    (Filed: 09/04/2006)

    For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
    Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

    Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

    Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

    The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Or the lack there of.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    hmmm by a couple of hours. I wonder why i didnt see it?
     
  4. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    while the theory of global warming sounds plausible, and somewhat logical based on certain facts like the ozone layer being like a greenhouse roof, the more energy produced the more heat that is emitted.

    But those of us who live in the real world and have paid attention, know that the earth has been able to adapt and regenerate and rebuild itself, without any human intervention, for millions of years. We have cleaner air now than we did 100 years ago, because we have discovered better fuels other than oil and coal.

    Trees and other plants thrive on CO2 and help eliminate it by absorbing it.

    Besides, other than those who like winter and winter sports (not that I don't enjoy the occasional thrilling 60mph+ Cat ride across a frozen lake), most people here in MN would not mind a 70 degree day in the middle of January or February, as opposed to the blistering subzero cold wind that makes you feel like you will never be warm again. Most of us here would not mind being able to wear lighter clothing all year, and be able to wash our cars outside with bucket and hose instead of having to pay a full service wash to do it, otherwise the doors and locks will freeze shut. Most of us would like to ditch our ice scrapers forever, and trade months of depressing cloudy days for more sunny, breezy, skin-bronzing ones...but that ain't gonna happen unless we all move South or Southwest.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Looks like Canada is taking another look at Kyoto:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060408.wkyoto0408/BNStory/National/home


     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605


     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,219
    Excelent articles

    My only question is why is this guy signing his name

    Now, i dont doubt that the man is well qualified in his specialty, but why on earth is an economics professor involved with global warming?
     
  8. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Not sure, although economics/geography cross into each other a bit when you get into global economics,in particular, sustainable development in developing and underdeveloped nations. I'm also taking a second concentration in technology/culture/environment.
     
  9. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Also, Jake Layton is the leader of the ultra-liberal democratic party and there is a confidence budget speech coming up. Don't take him seriously.
     

Share This Page