Posted on 06/10/2002 9:06:51 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
The problems have yet to be answered for.
The article provides a broad set of links to background material.
But it doesn't matter how many holes get blasted in the global warming hoax, we'll still get articles like this one that start out in the first paragraph (the only one many people will ever read) implying that the "sceptics" were wrong and it's now accepted scientific fact that manmade CO2 emissions are changing the climate, even though it goes on for another 40 column inches and offers nothing to substantiate that claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I've heard enough extraordinary claims to last me a lifetime. Time to start showing us a little proof along with the hyperbole.
What problems?
What problems?
The problems that invalidate the UN sponsored IPCC's Gobal Warming theories.
The article cites material from Daly's website, same as you, in evidence of that.
Climatic temperature is predominantly a consequence of Solar heating/cooling arising from variation of solar radiance, plus astronomical & geophysical events affecting surface & atmospheric albedo.
Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?
Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse
A Look at Environmental Changes and "Global Warming"
The Bottom Line:
|
Globally Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures
This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena, which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is near zero, being +0.04 C/decade through Feb 2002. Click on the chart to get the numerical data. |
|
Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Figure 1-1 Global warming
Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years
Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice |
Seems as though there is room for substantial doubt as to any negative effect human created CO2, Methane etc. may have on our Climate future.
At least these folks believe so:
Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Specifically declaring:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.
But then Global Warming is not an econonmist's area of expertise.
The mind boggles -- I suppose the companion publication is called Cynical Boxers? ;-)
Making money on it is.
Q. What ever happened to the whole 'world running out of oil by 2000' tempest that was doing the rounds when I was a kid in the seventies? A. It went the same way as this 24 karat bullsh1t that educated folks like Katie Couric and Dan Rather cry so many crocodile tears over.
Making money on it is.
All to true. Give an economist a project grant and they will expound on any topic as long as the well doesn't run dry.
Economist's run by the same rule a computer modelers, garbage in -- garbage out.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
If you are related to the Bagehot family of The Economist fame, do I have an answer for you (I canceled that subscription over the magazine's globalist environmental stupidity). Global warming is more a creation of large oil companies than it is anyone else, ESPECIALLY British Petroleum, Mobil/Exxon, and Shell. They want to make money playing the carbon credit market to control the global economy, especially through tax-guraanteed investment transfers to the developing world through the World Bank and the IMF (collecting political spending money with UN Tobin taxes in the Bank of International Settlements along the way). The Feds are simply doing what they have always done: responding to campaign money.
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.
