Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? (Evidence it is not man made)

Canada Free Press ^ | Feb. 5th, 2007 | By Timothy Ball

[AaronInCarolina]

The basis for anthropogenic GW is the basic physical fact that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations will alter Earth's radiative balance.

Cogitator, please elaborate on what you mean by "Earth's radiative balance". Without detail, that phrase could mean almost anything.

[technomage]

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.

I do realize that. It is why I said most scientists, not all scientists. Most did believe the earth was flat, or at least said so in their writings. There were some brave souls that risked everything when pronouncing the earth was round, but they were definitely in the minority.

[r9etb]

It is why I said most scientists, not all scientists. Most did believe the earth was flat, or at least said so in their writings. There were some brave souls that risked everything when pronouncing the earth was round, but they were definitely in the minority.

Nope.

Here is a useful, if Wikipedia-based, discussion of the topic.

[cogitator]

Numerical units are Watts per m².

[Mike Darancette]

androgenic

Producing male sex hormone???

[Roberts]

bump

[Rodney Kings Brain]

I know, I know - I actually was reading an article about pre-hormones last night and slipped up. Thank you for pointing it out!

[AaronInCarolina]

Thanks for the graphic, cogitator. So, based upon this graphic, you are basically describing the insulative effects of greenhouse gases retaining heat from the sun to a larger degree than without greenhouse gases, am I correct? Given that assumption, would not the effect be most pronounced when measured at night, when the sun is no longer directly heating the earth? Do you know if any of the greenhouse gas effect proponents have specifically proven that evening temperatures in particular display the presence of a retaining insulation? Is it reasonable to assume that the spread between temperature highs and lows should be minimized as a result of an insulating layer of greenhouse gases? Has this phenomena been observed? I am asking these questions seriously, because I have not heard whether phenomena that should be associated with an insulating layer of greenhouse gases has truly been proven, beyond the obvious suggestion that apparently increased daytime temperatures are the result of these greenhouse gases.

[syriacus]

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

LOL!!

[6ppc]

The consensus on androgenic global warming may not be as strong as the media would have us believe. There are a lot of legitimate scientist who do doubt the C02 hypothesis.

The media is in a frenzy trying to brainwash everyone in sight because they know the evidence is against them. Notice the push to start ignoring and trivializing anyone who doesn't accept the "consensus" opinion?

[plan2succeed.org]

I read this article. I see what the professor said about the big lie, about propaganda, about people being intimidated and afraid to tell the truth. I can tell you that is exactly my experience too, only with the American Library Association and its efforts to ensure children's access to inappropriate sexual material and criminal's access to children. And I intend to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. Tim Ball's article will help.

Here are the sentences I find key that apply to the ALA:

• Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
• This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
• No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier.
• What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
• Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
• In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
• Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
• I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
• Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
• Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists.
• This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
• Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet.
• Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
• Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be.
• Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

Now I won't tip my hand further to the ALA and tell it exactly what applies where, but I am preparing a major piece on the ALA's propaganda, and Dr. Tim Ball's article will be prominently mentioned as it illustrates quite a lot analogous to the ALA's agenda to sexualize children.

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

[technomage]

Just got back in and took a look at your post.

Seems my memory may have let me down. Thank you for straightening me out. :)

[Rummenigge]

got me :)

[Rodney Kings Brain]

Thank you and good luck with the ALA - this is a major issue that needs to be addressed. I know many librarians are opposed to using technology to block information and that is tragic.