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 ...
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
An article by someone with more credentials than either of us....
I had a meterology professor here at UW Madison who questioned the science behind the global warming idea, and pointed out the fact that there were major warming periods not less than a thousand years ago. I also recall seeing a website or news story about an ice core sample having more CO2 in it during a cold (Ice Age) period than there is in the atmosphere now.
They want a global marshall plan to redistribute all resources.
http://www.globalmarshallplan.org
Thanks. That was very interesting. And as a side note, I've always thought that the dangers of secondhand smoke might be a bit trumped up, and Crichton shows how it was done.
In terms of pure science, credentials mean nothing compared to quality data and rigorous testing and a willingness to see data that contradicts a given hypothesis. Unfortunately, there is very little science, just a lot of politics. With politics, credentials do mean something and I'm glad that there is someone with both the qualifications and the cajones to challenge the "consensus".
Your statement is false in multiple ways. One, there is no data indicating, accurately and quantitatively, that the MWP was warmer than now. The intensive media and scientific examination of the "Hockey Stick" led to the NAS conclusion that paleoclimate estimation of temperatures more than 400 years ago does not yield sufficiently accurate data to allow comparison to modern temperatures. Secondary indicators like treelines do not allow statements beyond that it was warmer from 1100-1400 than subsquently in the LIA.
Secondly, the entire intellectual basis of anthropogenic GW is not based on paleoclimate. The basis for anthropogenic GW is the basic physical fact that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will alter Earth's radiative balance.
Thirded. This piece was all fluff-and-nonsense. And Ball's stating his credentials partly because he's in a court case about whether or not he's really a climate expert.
Yeah, but he says nothing. And he's in a court case about whether or not (despite his credentials) he's actually a climate expert.
So I'd wait until the case is settled to see if his credentials really matter -- if they don't, then he's as much as a climate expert as either of us. He's certainly a well-known skeptic.
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.