About That Global "Warming" I Have Heard So Much About
IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”
A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”
Hmmmmm.....maybe that is why the "consensus" keeps getting smaller every day....
Even better, the data is starting to show that the climate is not only cooling but it has been doing so for some time now!For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of “global warming.” Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore’s movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more. “An Inconvenient Truth” was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out….
CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s not a problem. The problem is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy. As your Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says “cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” This is not the time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will surely do. I believe the majority of your constituents will suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.
There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades.
Evidence for this comes from the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit and the Hadley Climate Research Unit while evidence that CO2 levels are continuing to increase comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
Professor Don Easterbrook one of the principle speakers at the recent World Conference on climate change held in New York in March this year attended by 800 leading climatologists, has documented a consistent cycle of warm and cool periods each with a 27 year cycle. Indeed the warm period from 1976 to 1998 exactly fits the pattern of climate changes for the past several centuries long before there were any CO2 emissions. Greenland Ice core temperature measurements for the past 500 years show this 27 year cycle of alternating warm and cool periods. Recently the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased again from 1976 to 1998 and has been decreasing ever since.
STOP RIGHT THERE and read the section that I emphasized...SCIENCE is showing that climate change is cyclical and has been going on for longer than there has been CO2 outputs! Mankind is not "causing" climate change - it is a regular cyclical thing. Just like all the "deniers" have been saying all along!
Many have been saying for a long time now that the hysteria over "global warming" was simply a scam - that it was not based in sound science. Well now science is proving that out. I wonder what the global warming acolytes will have to say about this....no there is no need to wonder I know already that we will be called deniers of science. But given what we are seeing now we KNOW who the real science deniers are.....
Labels: Global Climate Change
posted by The Lady Logician at
11:17 PM
4 Comments:
The idiocy of this, and so many other "denier" arguments actually takes the fun out of the argument. You make it too easy.
A couple of things:
1. Never cite a meteorologist as a source when discussing climate change... it puts you in the camp who confuse "weather" with "climate" (i.e. "it snowed in June this year, obvious climate change is a farce!"). That's like consulting a car salesman for auto repair.
2. It's climate CHANGE. This is one of the ways advocates or responsible stewardship have failed in framing the debate. As I understand it, the instability of the climate, and the increases in rapid changes are the true concern, not simply the temperatures.
And you haven't really supplied any proof of the assertion in your final paragraph.
For readers coming after me, a word of wisdom before the ridiculousness here sets in: ANYONE who tells you the are certain climate change is or is not man made is an idiot, and not to be trusted as a source of reason.The only statistical consensus is that there is a lack of a consensus. And considering the risks, if you are completely full of it LL, what would an intelligent species do? What would a belligerent ideologue do?
(Hint: this post exemplifies the answer to the second question in a way)
By
Jason The, at 1:47 AM
The problem with your "we should do something just in case" argument, Jason, is that it brings us things like the ethanol boondoggle and corporate favoritism disguised as a cap and trade tax.
And your final paragraph seems a little trite considering the last decade of "the science is settled" shrieking.
By
Cameron, at 9:24 AM
My main notice is when then climate panic crowd goes into defense mode it is "climate change" for the climate changing is inevitable if you go OUTSIDE. If you pay your rent they can keep it at 72 degrees if you don't go out. But global warming has been written off. Man made? Doubtful, but destroying an already horrible economy on a whim of just in case, is pure evil. Pity the man who seeks to profit on other's misfortune. Cap and trade should just be relabelled smoke and mirrors.
By
Racer X, at 10:11 AM
There are two main problems with jason's rather superficial argumentation. The first one is that the only reason it is "climate change" rather than global warming is that the globe isn't warming. The entire theory of manmade climate change, and the Holy writ of the IPCC report, is concerned with WARMING, and the pace of it. Calling it climate change is just a fancy way of trying to keep the scam alive despite the overwhelming evidence.
The second question, of what "an intelligent species would do" is also a false choice. One choice is to indulge a worldwide shutdown of human energy production, costing some $70 trillion by "consensus" estimates, and killing millions of people as a side "benefit." Before an intelligent species undertook such a thing, they would be absolutely certain that the catastrophe being avoided was more severe than the catastrophe being perpetrated. This requires us to be not only dead certain that human CO2 emissions are causing the world to warm, but that such warming WILL be a world-destroying catastrophe. Now frankly, I'm fairly certain that human-generated CO2 doesn't matter much-- a 50% reduction is only about 1 part per million of the atmosphere-- but even if it did, do I really care if the Fourth of July is two degrees hotter?
Which brings us to the flip side. Obviously the cost of preventing the catastrophe is huge, requires decades to create, and depends on near-certainty of predicting future events based on shaky and unreliable computer models. On the other hand, we can REMEDIATE the problems of warming-- building sea walls, relocating people, re-engineering crops, etc.-- for a lot less money, within a year or two of seeing the need, and we don't really CARE what causes the warming, IF it warms to a degree we find problematic. That's what an intelligent species would do-- ADAPT.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home