What does this have to do with whether it can be a pollutant or not? Are you saying it isn't a pollutant because plants use it? roflmao
You must be asking Walter this question.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Is it now?
Makes sense considering the article I posted about the comparison of the OJ Simpson trial to climate change and politics.
Same can be said for polls on the Kennedy assignation or birthers.
This has nothing to do with facts or science.
Nothing.
Sorry...assassination.
OJ
Listen to these idiots.....
YouTube - Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the Greenhouse Effecthttp://climatecrocks.com/
In terms of human life anything can be a pollutant if there is so much of it that it threatens life. It simply depends on how the word is defined.
As for CO2, no it is not strictly a pollutant since it is a natural substance, but please note that when humanity becomes involved in the process of creating CO2 it is almost always a part of a process that does pollute.
Debunking nonsense can actually reinforce the fallacy. So, why give those who sow disinformation more venues to sow more false information. They repeat the same false claims over and over again. Confronting the falsehood necessarily means that you have to repeat it. It doesn't matter if they're shown to be wrong, they still repeat the same nonsense.
Familiar statements are more likely to be accepted as true, even after someone is shown that the repeated meme is false.
Anthony Watts has been shown that even with the urban heat effects, the poorly sighted stations, and the station moves, the material effect on the surface temperature record when these biases are accounted for is null. But that hasn't stopped him from crusading onwards.
It won't stop you either. Cognitive dissonance is a hallmark of a denier, not a sceptic.
Familiar statements are more likely to be accepted as true, even after someone is shown that the repeated meme is false.
Anthony Watts has been shown that even with the urban heat effects, the poorly sighted stations, and the station moves, the material effect on the surface temperature record when these biases are accounted for is null. But that hasn't stopped him from crusading onwards.
It won't stop you either. Cognitive dissonance is a hallmark of a denier, not a sceptic.
At warmalarmist website Skeptical Science, they’ve published a ‘scientific guide’ that purports to correct mistakes (huh!) in ‘The Skeptics Handbook’, that tour de farce of denial circulated by second-rate journalist brilliant amateur climatologist Joanne Nova. Guidebooks and Handbooks are all very well, but really they’re just recipe books -- collections of facts or nonsense lacking the philosophical underpinnings to enlighten disciples on how they should argue rather than just what they should say. We would therefore like to direct our readers to a perhaps overlooked dissertation that fits the denialist credo perfectly: On Bull****, by Princeton academic Harry Frankfurt.
What makes Frankfurt’s exposition so relevant is the unassailably-argued distinction it draws between bull**** and lies. Now, certain hotheaded warmalarmists have in the past accused us deniers of the occasional lie. Such accusations miss the fundamental point that to lie, one has to know, and even care about, the truth. As Frankfurt says:
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bull**** requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bull****ter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
The application to climate denial is obvious: we don’t care what it is that’s causing global warming climate change (if indeed it’s even happening); we only care to persuade people that a single factor, CO2, isn’t, and we can achieve this by bull****ting rather than by the usual tedious scientific practice of falsification. Thus set free from having to provide a believable description of cause, our arguments can have far greater leeway. They don’t even have to be consistent: it’s the sun, it’s the planets, it’s cosmic rays, it’s El Nino -- it’s self-contradictory, but it doesn’t matter. The Friends of Science understand this very well. Lord Monckton, we’re sure, understands it even better than Frankfurt.
Students of denial should read and commit to memory the whole thing, and use its precepts with renewed fervor in their blog diatribes. Because they are so pertinent to our cause, though, we reproduce here the closing two paragraphs:
“The contemporary proliferation of bull**** also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “anti-realist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth
about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
What makes Frankfurt’s exposition so relevant is the unassailably-argued distinction it draws between bull**** and lies. Now, certain hotheaded warmalarmists have in the past accused us deniers of the occasional lie. Such accusations miss the fundamental point that to lie, one has to know, and even care about, the truth. As Frankfurt says:
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bull**** requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bull****ter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
The application to climate denial is obvious: we don’t care what it is that’s causing global warming climate change (if indeed it’s even happening); we only care to persuade people that a single factor, CO2, isn’t, and we can achieve this by bull****ting rather than by the usual tedious scientific practice of falsification. Thus set free from having to provide a believable description of cause, our arguments can have far greater leeway. They don’t even have to be consistent: it’s the sun, it’s the planets, it’s cosmic rays, it’s El Nino -- it’s self-contradictory, but it doesn’t matter. The Friends of Science understand this very well. Lord Monckton, we’re sure, understands it even better than Frankfurt.
Students of denial should read and commit to memory the whole thing, and use its precepts with renewed fervor in their blog diatribes. Because they are so pertinent to our cause, though, we reproduce here the closing two paragraphs:
“The contemporary proliferation of bull**** also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “anti-realist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth
about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
“But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bull****.”
Carry on bull****ting!
Carry on bull****ting!
Deutsche Bank Debunks Skeptics, Focuses Investment on Global Warming Solutions
Deutsche Bank's Climate Change Advisors released an excellent report this week drawing the “clear conclusion” that “the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat.”
The report, “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments,” deftly refutes each of the major conspiracy howlers often made by climate skeptics and deniers – that global warming is a hoax, that the globe has been cooling since 1998, that higher temperatures caused by CO2 emissions will be good for people and agriculture, and of course the Climategate nonsense alleging climate scientists are part of a grand conspiracy.
“The claims of conspiracy are not borne out by the facts,” the report states.
The bank’s Climate Change Advisors, working with the Columbia University Climate Center at the Earth Institute, easily debunked each of the denier myths, and noted that extensive scientific studies have confirmed the world is facing a long-term climate threat.
"Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years. Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking,” the report states.
Deutsche Bank is investing heavily in clean energy projects around the world, shifting the focus of its vast $700 billion in assets towards finding viable solutions to the climate threat. The bank is ditching 19th century coal burning technology, noting that "clean coal" is a myth too.
“Coal is basically out of the game,” according to Mark C. Lewis, Deutsche Bank’s managing director of its Global Carbon Markets desk.
But the United States is largely losing out on the momentum generated by Deutsche Bank’s investments, due to the lack of a coordinated national plan to confront climate change in the U.S.
While Deutsche Bank is financing some Minnesota wind farms, the United States is receiving far less attention from the bank than it might have if there were climate legislation on the books.
Kevin Parker, global head the Deutsche Asset Management Division, bluntly describes why the U.S. isn’t on the bank’s radar. “They’re asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry,” Parker says.
While Germany, Italy, Spain and China are enjoying large direct investments by Deutsche Bank out of its $7 billion expressly committed to climate investments, only $45 million is being invested in the United States.
Deutsche Bank's Climate Change Advisors released an excellent report this week drawing the “clear conclusion” that “the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat.”
The report, “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments,” deftly refutes each of the major conspiracy howlers often made by climate skeptics and deniers – that global warming is a hoax, that the globe has been cooling since 1998, that higher temperatures caused by CO2 emissions will be good for people and agriculture, and of course the Climategate nonsense alleging climate scientists are part of a grand conspiracy.
“The claims of conspiracy are not borne out by the facts,” the report states.
The bank’s Climate Change Advisors, working with the Columbia University Climate Center at the Earth Institute, easily debunked each of the denier myths, and noted that extensive scientific studies have confirmed the world is facing a long-term climate threat.
"Furthermore, due to the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the lag in response of the climate system, there is a very high probability that we are already heading towards a future where warming will persist for thousands of years. Failing to insure against that high probability does not seem a gamble worth taking,” the report states.
Deutsche Bank is investing heavily in clean energy projects around the world, shifting the focus of its vast $700 billion in assets towards finding viable solutions to the climate threat. The bank is ditching 19th century coal burning technology, noting that "clean coal" is a myth too.
“Coal is basically out of the game,” according to Mark C. Lewis, Deutsche Bank’s managing director of its Global Carbon Markets desk.
But the United States is largely losing out on the momentum generated by Deutsche Bank’s investments, due to the lack of a coordinated national plan to confront climate change in the U.S.
While Deutsche Bank is financing some Minnesota wind farms, the United States is receiving far less attention from the bank than it might have if there were climate legislation on the books.
Kevin Parker, global head the Deutsche Asset Management Division, bluntly describes why the U.S. isn’t on the bank’s radar. “They’re asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry,” Parker says.
While Germany, Italy, Spain and China are enjoying large direct investments by Deutsche Bank out of its $7 billion expressly committed to climate investments, only $45 million is being invested in the United States.
New Study finds extensive Collusion by Climate Scientists
University of Narbethong press release: (embargoed to noon, West NZ time).
A new study in the University's Sarah Palin school has found extensive and worsening collusion by climate scientists.
In their analysis of the hockey stick, Wegman and colleagues showed that Michael Mann had written at least one paper with each of his co-authors. The social networking analysis was so ground-breaking that the authors were able to avoid the use of either a control case or a null hypothesis. Dispensing with control cases has been an important part of much innovative science for centuries culminating in the discovery of cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann.
Recent studies in the Sarah Palin school of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing have extended Wegman's finding. A meta analysis of 832 climate scientists found that the average number of papers that climate scientists have written with their co-authors is always at least one.
The new studies were delayed by the need to incorporate innovative mathematics expounded by Professor Ian Plimer. Plimer is a leading Australian scientist who is highly regarded by leading Australian scientists such as Ian Plimer. Among his great discoveries such as the Sun being made of iron is the less-noticed finding that the result of averaging numbers depends on the order of averaging. This analysis builds on work by Michael Crichton's book State of Fear demonstrating differences in temperature patterns by plotting them on different scales. When analysing sea-surface temperatures in Heaven + Earth, Plimer brilliantly extended Chrichton's approach by comparing graphs with both axes different. This is such a dramatic breakthrough and that even a warmist like Professor David Karoly acknowledges that the comprehensively referenced books by Plimer and Chrichton should rank side by side.
Plimer's re-writing of the laws of artithmetic provided a challenge that the Narbethong study addressed by extensive computer calculations. For each climate scientist the number of papers with co-authors was graphed on 10,000 randomly chosen scales. Each graph showed that all of the 832 climate scientists studied had written at least one paper with each of their co-authors.
Wegman's work was extended to a longitudinal study to see if the situation is getting worse. The additional computing demands reduced the Narbethong study to only 1000 graphs plotted for each climate scientist, but this was sufficient to show that for the overwhelming majority, the number of papers written with each co-author increased over time.
Michael Mann is not alone.
University of Narbethong press release: (embargoed to noon, West NZ time).
A new study in the University's Sarah Palin school has found extensive and worsening collusion by climate scientists.
In their analysis of the hockey stick, Wegman and colleagues showed that Michael Mann had written at least one paper with each of his co-authors. The social networking analysis was so ground-breaking that the authors were able to avoid the use of either a control case or a null hypothesis. Dispensing with control cases has been an important part of much innovative science for centuries culminating in the discovery of cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann.
Recent studies in the Sarah Palin school of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing have extended Wegman's finding. A meta analysis of 832 climate scientists found that the average number of papers that climate scientists have written with their co-authors is always at least one.
The new studies were delayed by the need to incorporate innovative mathematics expounded by Professor Ian Plimer. Plimer is a leading Australian scientist who is highly regarded by leading Australian scientists such as Ian Plimer. Among his great discoveries such as the Sun being made of iron is the less-noticed finding that the result of averaging numbers depends on the order of averaging. This analysis builds on work by Michael Crichton's book State of Fear demonstrating differences in temperature patterns by plotting them on different scales. When analysing sea-surface temperatures in Heaven + Earth, Plimer brilliantly extended Chrichton's approach by comparing graphs with both axes different. This is such a dramatic breakthrough and that even a warmist like Professor David Karoly acknowledges that the comprehensively referenced books by Plimer and Chrichton should rank side by side.
Plimer's re-writing of the laws of artithmetic provided a challenge that the Narbethong study addressed by extensive computer calculations. For each climate scientist the number of papers with co-authors was graphed on 10,000 randomly chosen scales. Each graph showed that all of the 832 climate scientists studied had written at least one paper with each of their co-authors.
Wegman's work was extended to a longitudinal study to see if the situation is getting worse. The additional computing demands reduced the Narbethong study to only 1000 graphs plotted for each climate scientist, but this was sufficient to show that for the overwhelming majority, the number of papers written with each co-author increased over time.
Michael Mann is not alone.
Another eminent scientist sees the light.
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News
Here is a link to the complete letter, you ought to give it a read Walter
You can, and should, read the entire text of Prof. Lewis’s letter by following the link here.
He doesn't mention anything to discredit AGW. It was mostly complaining of about the bureaucracy of the American Physical Society. He was upset that his view wasn't being put forth so he tried to get a petition going for open discussion. That failed, and so now he's wagging his tail and using climategate of all things to back up his claims. Someone should let him know that that ship sailed.
Sucks for him.
But if he was a true scientist, and didn't care about the bureaucracy, he would post his 'science' on an open forum. They're free, and if he has a credible argument, I would like to hear it. But the "I hate my employer" spiel doesn't really do much for his case. Hopefully, now that he is free from their cold-hearted clutch, he can give us some insight into why the science of AGW is a sham, other than complaining about the obvious bureaucracy that corrupts every industry.
I can complain about Fox News and republican oil bureaucrats until the cows come home. But a better argument is the scientific claim that anthropogenic factors are the strongest influence on climate change right now. And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
Sucks for him.
But if he was a true scientist, and didn't care about the bureaucracy, he would post his 'science' on an open forum. They're free, and if he has a credible argument, I would like to hear it. But the "I hate my employer" spiel doesn't really do much for his case. Hopefully, now that he is free from their cold-hearted clutch, he can give us some insight into why the science of AGW is a sham, other than complaining about the obvious bureaucracy that corrupts every industry.
I can complain about Fox News and republican oil bureaucrats until the cows come home. But a better argument is the scientific claim that anthropogenic factors are the strongest influence on climate change right now. And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
He's gone Emeritus.
Dr. Lewis deserves some respect for work he has done, but not for his opinion on climate science.
Want to know what's really ironic? Oh it's damned good irony too. Lewis rants in his letter about climategate and the fraud. If you remember your climategate mythology, we were supposed to be suspicious, because CRU cannot account for historical documents. With that, an interview Hal Lewis gave to the American Institute of Physics:
Dr. Aaserud:
Your papers — correspondence, notes, manuscripts, things of that sort — what's the status of those? That's another thing we're interested in.
Dr. Lewis:
Yes. I really don't have them, you know. I've long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that's what you mean.
Aaserud:
No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
Lewis:
There are lots of things, but they're scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I'm actually doing these days.
I mean, that's pretty rich don't you think? How many researchers have been involved in collecting temperature data in the UK? How many formats has the data gone through? Yet, it's fraud when data cannot be accounted for? So...don't cite any papers by Lewis? Should we still respect him for the work he did?Your papers — correspondence, notes, manuscripts, things of that sort — what's the status of those? That's another thing we're interested in.
Dr. Lewis:
Yes. I really don't have them, you know. I've long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that's what you mean.
Aaserud:
No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
Lewis:
There are lots of things, but they're scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I'm actually doing these days.
Unbelievable. Well, really nothing is unbelievable anymore from the deniers...
In my opinion it is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that I am just of this opinion because it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans(including myself).
A case could be made that I do indeed enjoy incandescent light bulbs over fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?
It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?
Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia explain that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”
Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” near the end of this post:
Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”
Last but not least I will present a quotation from an article by Amitakh Stanford, I got the inspiration to research and write this post because of this. I had never heard this perspective in the media clearly presented like that:
Keluar #8 - Up, Up and Away In the Hot-Air ETS
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”
A case could be made that I do indeed enjoy incandescent light bulbs over fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?
It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?
Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia explain that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”
Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” near the end of this post:
Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”
Last but not least I will present a quotation from an article by Amitakh Stanford, I got the inspiration to research and write this post because of this. I had never heard this perspective in the media clearly presented like that:
Keluar #8 - Up, Up and Away In the Hot-Air ETS
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”
In my opinion, when someone states their opinion that our current climate change is brought about mostly by natural factors, and then moves right into the costs and policies they find objectionable, it's pretty clear to me that their opinion isn't being guided by anything like evidence...people often deny reality when the solution to a problem is unpalatable. It's basic human psychology.
And back on the physicists:
And back on the physicists:
What colour is the sky in your world? Mine was a nice blue this AM but is now white from aircraft.