No, I don't believe in them. Unless you count the one mentioned about global warming. And, even that I don't doubt - except man's role in it.
If global warming is caused by CO2 why is it shown in ice core studies that in past times when the co2 goes up the temperature goes down?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html
http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html
Home | Arguments Against Global Warming | Global Warming: Is Congress Killing the US Economy? | Skeptical Science
The Great Global Warm Up
Arguments against global warming
Information gathered by the American Policy Roundtable
Define - Global Warming
Global Warming: The hypothesis that Earth's atmosphere is warming because of the release of "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. These gases are released into the air from burning gas, oil, coal, wood and other resources which then holds heat in an action similar to the walls of a greenhouse. - Source, Public Broadcasting Service
8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Adapted from The Heartland Institute
Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall. The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.
Concern over global warming is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earths climate.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. (Go to
www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers expectations, modelers resort to flux adjustments that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says climate modelers have been cheating for so long its almost become respectable.
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCCs latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: The Earths atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the climatic optimum, was even warmer and marked a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations, observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earths climate from changing.
Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is no regrets.
The alternative to demands for immediate action to stop global warming is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called no regrets, and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."
It just seems so far out there. . .but then not.
I'm the sheep following the flock? Seriously I will never stop laughing at that one
