An Inconvenient Truth...

[JMD]

Your assertion is sily but amusing.

Actually, I find you quite amusing. There are absolutely no facts to support your claims. I like how you sidestepped my questions though. Nice one.

 

[User Name]

More truth, inconvenient to Algore and the ignorant masses of Kool-Aid drinkers...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

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 was a climatology professor 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. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

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.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. 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.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. 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." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." 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.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

 

[TheDoctor]

There are no facts in this article backing up any of the assertions. Thanks for the laugh though. I wonder if the author of this piece has collected and spent his $10,000 for manufacturing this article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

 

[TheDoctor]

First bush admitted that mankind is contributing to climate change and global warming. Now Exxon is agreeing with this concept. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.html

Big Oil behemoth Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped any pretense of questioning whether global warming is real. Now the company is seeking to position itself as an active player in efforts to lower greenhouse gases.

"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it," Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs, told reporters on a conference call Thursday.

The call came less than a week after an international panel of hundreds of scientists said new research showed global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was primarily responsible for the most significant factor in temperature change — greenhouse gases.

"Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there," Cohen said on the call, which was arranged in part to allow Exxon to state its position on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report.

When pressed, Cohen said "there is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," and emphasized that Exxon is working with various policy groups and universities to find ways to produce energy while lowering greenhouse gases.

Cohen's statements appeared to be the most definitive yet in the company's effort to show Exxon cares about climate change and wants to do something about it.

Now that even Exxon Mobile is giving up the pretense that there is no link between greenhouse gases and climate change, I hope that other will follow suit.

 

[Beca]

First bush admitted that mankind is contributing to climate change and global warming. Now Exxon is agreeing with this concept. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.htmlNow that even Exxon Mobile is giving up the pretense that there is no link between greenhouse gases and climate change, I hope that other will follow suit.

First tobacco producers and then global warming....can you IMAGINE what could've been accomplished with the time and money spent denying BOTH of these realities (not to mention the lives that could've been saved).

 

[TheDoctor]

Vice President Gore and Sir Richard Branson are creating a prize for getting rid of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/tech/main2452384.shtml

) Former presidential candidate Al Gore has joined forces with the British financial heavyweight Sir Richard Branson to offer up a $25 million reward to inspire innovations in the field of combating climate change.

In an exclusive London interview with CBS News Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith, Gore said: "What we are facing is a planetary emergency. So some things you would never consider otherwise, it makes sense to consider."

Branson announced the "Earth Challenge" prize Friday morning at a news conference in London with Gore, who served as vice president under Bill Clinton, and then failed in a 2000 White House bid before becoming a vocal environmental activist.

His recent documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is credited with bringing the issues of global warming and carbon emissions much nearer to center-stage in the American media - in addition to creating an Oscar buzz and rumors of Gore being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Branson, chairman of the wildly successful Virgin Group, said the prize will go to whoever comes up with the most innovative way of sucking harmful greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

"The Earth cannot wait 60 years. We need everybody capable of discovering an answer to put their minds to it today," Branson said at the news conference. "The Earth cannot wait 60 years."

 

[NELSON]

First the Nobel Prize, then the White House!!

 

[TheDoctor]

First the Nobel Prize, then the White House!!

You left off the Oscar (that will be the first event). After the Oscars, then the Nobel Prize and then the White House.

 

[NELSON]

You left off the Oscar (that will be the first event). After the Oscars, then the Nobel Prize and then the White House.

WOW!! The triple crown!!

 

[Charade]

First bush admitted that mankind is contributing to climate change and global warming. .

Now you believe him?

I think he's lying.

 

[TheDoctor]

Now you believe him?

I think he's lying.

Even a blind hog can occassionaly find an acorn. bush may actually be right for once (these occassions happen very rarely but they can happen).

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The "Global Warming" panic is based on one-sided research that ignores events or areas that are cooler than normal.

 

[LakeAriel]

The "Global Warming" panic is based on one-sided research that ignores events or areas that are cooler than normal.

One sided?

 

[jimmiej]

Now you believe him?

I think he's lying.

Kind of a double standard by the left, don't you think?

 

[NELSON]

(2007-02-11) — Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores in upstate New York report brisk sales of the new Global Warming Shovel which hit store shelves just in time for this week’s 9.5-foot snowfall.

The shovels, made of a rigid form of lightweight GORE-TEX®, are specifically designed to remove the kind of snow spawned by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “no matter how deep it gets,” according to the manufacturer.

Later this week, the company will also roll out its new Kyoto Mittens, “guaranteed to protect the wearer from the inconvenient truth of global warming-induced frostbite.”

 

[rockbottomsound]

With all this talk of "facts" and the pro-man-made global warming faction on here constantly be-rading everyone else with their opinions by stating:"where are your facts? Where is your evidence?"

I've yet to see what bit of "proof" "evidence" whatever that links power plants, auto's or anything man-made with any warming trends. I see a bunch of rhetoric on both sides with scientists XYZ that graduated from Harvard or MIT or yardvark A&M whatever with all of their various opinions, but no facts or evidence that clearly point to power plants, cars etc.

Where are the factual links to these man-made sources? So far all I have seen are opinions and conjecture?

 

[disneyfan67]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy of arguing about global warming on a web site that's devoted to everything Disney and what Disney does?

Think about it for a second.

The WDW complex in Florida alone leaves a huge carbon foot print that can't be ignored. WDW has more hotel rooms on site than than the entire city of Boston does. (Look it up in the official guide books) Imagine the amount of electricity and water that's required to heat, clean, and house all those people. Look at the amount of landscaping and grass cutting that has to be done to those 47 square miles of Disney property. Not all of it is swamp land you know.


You have 4 huge, beautiful theme parks and two water parks that must require an awesome amount of power, water, and fuel to operate on a daily basis. Then factor in the transportation that is required just to get around the WDW compound and move all the guests from one place to another. That doesn't even include the enormous amount of off site traffic that comes in the main gate everyday. How many off site resorts and condos are out there, who's sole purpose is to provide lodging to Disney visitors? Imagine the power and resources they use to keep running?

Let's factor in all the pollution that is made by jet travel to Orlando or the large amount of auto traffic as well. The Magic Kingdom in 2004 had over 16 million guests in just that one park alone! How many people visit Orlando every year? I've seen figures around to about 35 million a year. Talk about leaving a huge carbon foot print! Orlando is now considered by many to be the vacation capital of America. Is it necessary to use this much resources and create untold amounts of pollution just for an amusement enterprise?


The reason I bring this up is that I never see or hear people talk about the sacrifice that will have to made if some of these new proposals become reality. It easy to say, "Hey let's cut our pollution output", but you never hear what kind cuts or pains will be involved. It's going to require more than just driving around in hybrid cars and saying you're concerned about global warming. If it's true what some of those scientists say, then we as Americans need to see upfront what the real costs will be and what we will have to sacrifice. That goes for everything we do in this country. I'm just using Disney as a example. I like to see some open hearings on the global warming issue in this country and give the American people the total picture.

 

[User Name]

I said it before and I'll say it again. Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy of arguing about global warming on a web site that's devoted to everything Disney and what Disney does?
Think about it for a second.
The WDW complex in Florida alone leaves a huge carbon foot print that can't be ignored.

Apparently, it's confined to one eating establishment in Tomorrowland...


Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

...

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.
"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."



FURTHER evidence to the contrary of the Kool-Aid drinkers.

 

[User Name]

And, it's nice to know that the open-minded, fair-thinking, unbiased left is accepting of other people's ideas.

Hypocrites.

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 12, 2007

Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.

"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."

 

[Charade]

Apparently, it's confined to one eating establishment in Tomorrowland...


Cosmic rays blamed for global warming