Posted on 02/05/2007 9:26:36 AM PST by Rodney Kings Brain
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
*
You can't over come a faux religion with facts. Global Warming is about political power and ideology it has nothing to do with science.
I think any one who takes the time will find this amazing.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
The case against anthropogenic climate change is excellent and comprehensive.
If a scientist agrees with the global warming hysteria then he has chosen to ignore the existance of the medieval warm period in Europe.
This one fact along destroys the entire intellectual basis of the anthropogenic Global Warming theory - in pre-industrial 1100 AD Europe was 2 deg. C warmer than now.
Nothing else is needed. One contrary fact destroys a false theory. Only the socialist media with its orchestra of lies can keep Global Warming alive. If we let it.
Thank you for the link
Thank you - I am printing it out now.
Join Al Gore's fight to stamp out solar warming of the earth. Buy a parasol.
Remember, it was the consensus of most scientists back then that the world was flat! And to reject that was akin to blasphemy and could get you thrown in the dungeon or tortured.
Shouldn't we all be Celebrating Global Warming??? after all if mankind is responsible and there is no return (too late) Didn't we successfully stop the next Ice Age from destroying all of mankind???
I haven't noticed any organization touting this line yet, or is it possible that the next Ice Age is just being postponed?, which is still a cause for celebration.
So, when this consensus agrees that there will never ever be another Ice Age on this Planet, we should all stand and celebrate our success for eliminating the possibility of another Ice Age. After all, does mankind have a better chance of survival during a warming period or an Ice Age??. As for myself I will take Warming anyday over freezing to Death.
bookmark
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
If Bill didn't inhale, maybe we can persuade Al to stop exhaling.
That's got to be a substantial portion of our CO2 production.
Excellent read - a must read!
excellent site Jeff- I'vehad his link on my site for some time now- lot's of good info there from credible scientists.
Unfortunately NOONE is listening to the soundness of the actual science- why? Because, as I wrote about last night- people like California's Attorney General, see a big fat cash cow. Jerry Brown of California is set to sue car makers- 6 companies (for now) for 'contributing to global warming", and that's just the beginning- they'll be going after farmers, ranchers, businesses etc. It's the equivelent of the tobacco lawsuits- huge huge profits from this global warming scam.
The following link is a signature link and does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com
Absolutely we should celebrate! Try to imagine modern civilization with the upper Midwest under ice and most of Europe and all of Britain under the ice. The British Isles have been colonized by man at least six times and every time the ice has driven us back.
And I don't think our SUV's will save us from the next ice age. Over the last 400,000 years they've come like clockwork.
bttt
It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.And the Socialists will take credit for it for all their Looney Laws and demand more power to further protect us from < fill in the blank >.
bump
please add me to your ping list
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
The problem with this is that SETI and the Drake Equation are not equivalent. The Drake equation provide a very crude measure of the the chances that SETI will be successful ... and that's the extent of their similarity.
SETI, by contrast, is based on the testable hypothesis that it's possible for radio telescopes to pick up discernable artificial signals ... which has nothing whatever to do with Drake's equation.
That's a pretty fundamental error ... it does not suggest that his more general scientific conclusions are any better.
The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
He does not present the alternative explanation as to why, if humans are producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would NOT rise. He needed to say more than just say the ecowackos are wrong. He needed to make a concise statement, maybe a paragraph, as to WHY they were wrong and then reference the supporting research. Just waving your arms and saying everyone else is wrong itself doesn't satisfy the scientific method.
Global Warming PING!
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail DaveLoneRanger to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Calling David Horowitz! Calling David Horowitz! Clean up on aisle 5!
I don't think it's an excellent read.
No facts - no news - just the claim that everyone is out to catch the author because of his differing opinion.
I did a short research on that guy. He's part of a canadian organisation that calls themself the " Natural Resource Stewardsip Project" - but is all about global warming and why it cannot be manmade - no diversity in opinions in this institution.
So hiding behind a bullshit title there's certainly more bullshit:
The following is from sourcewatch:
According to an October 16, 2006 CanWest News article, journalist Peter O'Neill asked Harris about who financially backs the NRSP. O'Neill reported that, according to Harris, "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his [the NRSP] group." [22] Subsequently, Harris stated that there was no "confidentiality agreement". He also insisted that "it is normal for non-profit entities like NRSP to protect the privacy of supporters by not publicizing contributions." [23]
"This is necessary given the nature of the issues we address and the fact that most people do not want to be harassed by lobbyists for support of our activities," he wrote in an edit to an earlier version of this article. [24]
However, Harris declined to indicate any instance of where disclosure of funders had led to harassment or why secrecy of corporate contributions was appropriate.
Ahhhh - he may not talk about who's paying the party - is trust earned by obscurity ?
I guess not.
Oh it's "man made" all right.
Man made fear tactics to manipulate others.
No, it wasn't.
There were estimates of the Earth's radius spanning back to the ancient Greeks and before ... not the sort of thing a Flat Earther would be likely to think of.
Anybody seeing a sailing ship sailing over the horizon knew that the Earth wasn't flat ... and, in fact, that's precisely how the old estimates were made.
great read!
bookmark
"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact.
By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."
german soccer players know squat about the environment
"Look for the UCS label..."
No facts - no news - just the claim that everyone is out to catch the author because of his differing opinion. .
It doesn't mean he's wrong, he just has to demonstrate why his view is more scientifically supportable than the other side.
And as a degreed geologist I know a little about the environment.
bump
And so you prove his point...thank you!
Don't you have problems with all that aluminum foil around your head at his time of year? I would have though the static electrisity would drive you crazy. Oh, maybe that's the problem.
Show us one credible scientific exhortation that proves Man's CO2 emission cause global warming.
Ther is no consensus that comes close to defining the global dynamics of CO2 absorbtion.
Great Read.
Crichton does, however, dispute it. He flatly states that the Drake equation is meaningless, and then concludes that SETI -- that search for discernable signals -- is "a religion." He has equated the Drake Equation with the tools and methods of the search.
The question is whether such signals actually exist, which is what the DRAKE equation was all about (estimating the probability of those signals existing).
Which is exactly what I stated above. However, if Crichton is correct that the Drake Equation is meaningless, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that ... the Drake Equation is meaningless. It says nothing about the probability of success, nor the tools and methods of SETI.
So I think it is unfair to say that the DRAKE equation has nothing to do with SETI.
Again, as I noted above, it's merely a statement of chances. SETI is not the Drake equation, Crichton's claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
electricity I can spell, not type.
It is fascinating that a man with impeccable qualifications and experience can be attacked by someone with none.
It seems his concern about the debate is fully justified.
ping for later
SEE and listen to #5
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.