I never thought I’d link favorably to a post on the Huffington Post, but today I found one worthy of praise, written by Harold Ambler and entitled “Mr Gore: Apology Accepted.“ Ambler is a self-identified liberal and Obama-voter, yet he points out how global climate change (formerly man-made global warming) is a complete hoax, and in fact the biggest con ever pulled on the entire human population.
In the article, Ambler points out how the data used by Al Gore and other “scientists” in the matter is wrong, and also how Climate has always changed, including how the Earth has indeed experienced climates a great deal warmer than our current one in the last millennia.
First, the expression “climate change” itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots — and even revolutions, including the French Revolution — were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
The hoax of Climate Change has been co-opted by the media and the United Nations. New evidence that we are actually entering a cooling trend is changing the minds of many scientists throughout the world, but their research and thought is being stifled by the press, by the United Nations, and by politicians.
Ambler points out, rightly, that Al Gore’s reference to global-warming skeptics as “flat-earthers” is wrong. I contend that in some ways it is apt. The idea that most medieval scholars believed in a flat earth has been somewhat debunked. The idea of the spherical Earth was prevalent in the Middle Ages. The real comparison to today’s global warming debate is the debate in the middle ages of the place of the Earth in the Universe. It was the “consensus” of scientists in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance that the Earth was the center of the universe. The view was also held by the prevailing governments of the time, backed by a mistaken view that the Earth as center of the universe was Christian doctrine. It was these few scientists, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, and others, went against the prevailing politics and scientific “consensus” based on new evidence. As history has shown us, these scientists were persecuted for it.
We are doing the same thing again today. Whatever one’s view on global warming, the fact that so many scientists have come up with such divergent data (a great many for the idea of man-made Climate Change ruining the earth and an equal number or greater number debunking the theory) should give one pause to at least consider the fact that it is not scientific consensus just becase Al Gore, Kofi Annan, and a few other politicians, scientists, and media talking-heads have declared it so. Welcome to the new Inquisition. This time, it’s the religion of the environmentalists is king, and anyone who does not adhere to it will be declared a heretic.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
I keep seeing this “hoax” and “Biggest con” remarks by climate sceptics.
But why would we do this? There is absolutely nothing to be gained by a hoax. It also doesn’t explain why over 99% of those who are qualified to make the statement, agree with climate change.
Surely if it was a hoax, the numbers would be more like 50/50.
Those who cause the pollution on the other hand, have a real incentive to ‘fudge the figures’. Millions of dollars worth of incentive in fact. Why do the sceptics never question the motives of the coal and oil industry?
Or is the aquisition of money holier that the earth?
The big question of course is – what if the Environmetalists are right? And how will you feel if, due to your lobbying, we do nothing to stop it? How will you explain that to your grand children?
@Graham – you are way off when you claim that 99% of those qualified agree with GW. But the bigger miss here is your ponderance as to why? It’s simple. There is a great desire amonst politicians to redsitribute wealth, and GW is a wonderful vehicle for doing that. Their goal is to cause those who produce CO2 to have to pay for their “assault” on the planet. There are huge sums of money and power to be had if this plays out.
As someone who does research on impacts of climate change, it is very apparent in phenological shifts in biological proccesses (as a starting point); look at the plethera of articles published in Ecology for instance. There would actually be a larger profit in finding quantitative disruptive evidence against climate change and negative coorelations of trends in CO2 relating to climate change. Unfortuantly, there have only been fact-thin statements made for profit by not-so-integrity bound scientests that are few and far between. Please, I invite you to look at phenological shifts in biological trends of all sorts of organisms from plants to animals. I know its sometimes hard to keep an open mind when democrates try to seise a movement for political gain. But the hoax is trying to disprove the democrates instead of listening to the people who have seen so many changes. Don’t make this political is the point. Democrates have, and I do not agree with it. Make an unbiased choice, not based on media, or peerless-reviewed documents or news articles quoting meaningless figures. Go take a look at the hardworking research published all around the world from people no different than you and me.
The reason for the hoax is good old fashioned money as well as bizarre ideology. It is the tax scam and the grants and graft that propel the promoters. Every kid graduating from college knows how to order fancy coffee and speak global warming , er excuse me, climate chance. CO2 is not poison …animals (you and I and our cows) produce it and plants consume it and give us oxygen and fruit and vegetables and lovely trees.
@Ron – Maybe you should broaden your horizons and take one of these “ideologic climate change/global warming classes” and see for yourself what is being taught. Maybe then you would not have to take other people opinions as your own. FYI: CO2 creates acidic water which is poisonous to most aquatic life. Take a look the bleaching of coral reefs. Also, too much CO2 skews C:N balance in plants that makes plant fiber less digestable due to all the lignin that is being created. In addition, these are not predictions, these are documented events that are occuring all around the world. It would be more profitable to disprove global warming with solid, peer reviewed evidence, than support it.
Ken,
I think you are too busy drinking the global warming kool-aid to see that there are indeed many scientists, in fact many who have written peer reviewed articles that refute man-made global warming in some shape or form. This site has links to many of these peer reviewed articles. Also see here.
Climate change ( once called global warming because the earth is really cooling in parts of the world and the title had to be changed) is a complete hoax. It just a scam for our governments to rake it more tax money and redistribute wealth to 3rd world countries via the UN. The notion that man is can change the climate to a global level is crazy. The earth is constantly going thru cycles over the past 4 billions years. Remember the ice ages. The sun the ( the bright object in the sky) impacts all of the climate on the planet. Solar flare activity/sun spots and the release of solar radiation creates the ‘global warming’ trends that we have seen of the past few years. NOT FROM THE IMPACT MAN. The recent scientific data (the media does not reveal) says the sun is experiencing a decrease in solar flare activity/sun spots resulting in recent cooler temperatures, colder winter, and heavier snow falls hence a possible cooling period. Pretty typical if you grew up and live in the NE and midwest US. The real facts need to be told and not some science fiction dreamed by the left.
Just who in the Hell came up with this cockeyed idea that corbon dioxide is pollution. I’m 59 years old and I went to school back when the idea was to actually teach, not indoctronate the kids. For example, I learned in school that we all inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, which plants inhale and use to make the food we eat and all the pretty flowers and such. If we remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere all the plants will die, and then we will all die. If too much CO2 were bad for plants, why do people with greenhouses go out and buy machines to pump more CO2 into the greenhouses to make the plants grow. I’m not a scientist, but God has given me something some of these global warming scientists seem to be missing. It’s called common sence.
@David –
Well, your common “sence” (nice spelling) doesn’t seem to be enough to help you figure out that people put CO2 in the greenhouses to MAKE THEM WARMER. No one ever claimed that CO2 was poison that kills people. That is what is so unbelievable about right-wingers who refuse to believe that the climate is changing at an uncharacteristically rapid pace. Global warming has been spun into whatever people want it to mean. Very few people bother to read the science that has actually been done on the subject. And then we have to hear this garbage about it is a big scheme and there is no real science behind it. What a bunch of crap! I’ve never spoken to one republican who is actually educated on the subject of climate change. What I see the cherry picking of insignificant facts which are the regurgitated words from a talk radio host’s dialogue who knows absolutely nothing about science. All I ever hear that the idea is all “made up by the media and Al Gore” The reality is that the whole issue turned into a political debate instead of what it should be. Al Gore didn’t just come up with a bunch of graphs and phony experiments, he cited a credible panel of over 2,000 climate scientists worldwide. Many other climate scientists worldwide show similar findings. And yes, these people who STUDY Earth science are quite aware of the Earth’s history and climate changes within it. They are also quite aware of sun cycles and the effects of them on the climate. However, I don’t think conservative disbelievers are quite aware of anything other than that they want to disagree with the left. If this is just a hoax put on by the left, then why would the rest of the world care? Yes, there are a few skeptics. That is how science works. Nothing is ever 100%. You have a hypothesis and you test it, over and over again. You never say that anything is definite, you say “I have strong evidence that…” However, to say that a majority of findings are a hoax because it conveniently agrees with your political agenda is complete ignorance.
The burden of proof seems to have left the building.
Here are a few incovenient facts.
The earth should have a blackbody temperature of about 5 degrees C. The average surface temperature is 15. The average atmospheric temperature is -5. There is loss of heat energy by reflection of about 10 degrees. The higher surface temperature is caused by air pressure, or more formally adiabatic lapse rate. There is NO energy trapping at a lower elevation. Greenhouse gas heating would cause the entire atmophere to heat. But that is impossible. The maximum temperature is 5 degrees C. The oceans which are in contact with vast vocanic ridges, have an average temperature of about 0 degrees centigrade. The atmosphere, which is in contact with outer space, has an average temperature of -5 degrees centigrade. Data from Mars is online, the same laws of the Universe and calculations apply, here:
http://www.climatehoax.ca/climate_model/mars.html
It is amusing to me that the writer of this article compares climate change skeptics to scientists who first challenged the “flat earth theory.” The only people skeptical of climate change are paranoid, and uneducated on the issue. The believe what they read and hear through conservative propaganda rather than examining scientific manuscripts and findings themselves. This brings me hope in that such individuals rarely end up in a position of power. The people who are calling the shots are because they were intelligent enough to come to the truth that climate change is largely a result of human activities.
The Holocene era has actually been a period of extremely stable climate. This stable climate has allowed human civilization to flourish into the destructive force it is today. Had the climate been as erratic as it is capable of being and may be as a result of climate change our species might not have made it this far to screw it up for ourselves. It is correct that the Earth has seen many periods of climate change in it’s history. It is the rate at which the climate is currently warming which is of concern. Rapid warming trends have in the past caused mass global extinctions such as “the great dying” which resulted in an estimated loss of 95% of Earth’s biodiversity. When the planet experienced a brief warming period during the Paleoithic age the earth warmed slightly dumping mass quantities of fresh water into the world’s oceans. This resulted in dramatic slowing of the ocean currents that regulate temperature, plunging the planet into an ice age. So yes, global warming can cause cooling trends. Our planet is due for an ice age anyways.
In response to Paul Beach- You’re telling me that the average temperature of the oceans is the same temperature that water freezes at? It is flawed logic such as this that will be climate change skeptics ultimate demise.
The current climate change rift in society reminds me of the civil rights era in which ignorant, angry individuals tried to fight the evolution of society using faulty information based off of irrelevant and unreasonable fears. Personally I am embarrassed for such individuals.
you nipple.
Global cooling was the big thing in the 70’s because the earth was cooler, everyone made a huge fuss. the earth is warmer and now some people are making a fuss again.
The earth’s temp changes it’s normal all of the planets are warmer. Are we responsible for the changes in the whole universe?
General Electric will profit from global warming hoax. They have a proposal to the congress that will allow them off shore loans without taxation.
these are the same people who contributed huge to john kerry, Can’t tell me he doesn’t have his hands in that. A man who fights for his country comes home and throws his ribbons over a fence exclaiming that America needs to wake up once and for all. Any man who dishonors his country by that or not raising his hand to his heart to the national anthem such as obama does not have my respect or vote.
Fact: The earth as well as other planets are warmer
Opinion: Humans are the cause
Fact: There are companies and Politicians Who profit from each other and Win votes for political agenda (GE donated millions to kerry)Due to Global warming.
Opinion: Humans are the cause
Fact: people freeked out about global cooling in the 70’s and the earth did not die
Opinion: humans were the cause
Fact: the 1st an 2nd winners of American Idol received hybrids instead of mustangs
Fact: Global warming was the cause.
Point is the only thing that will come out of global warming is more money for government from the tax payers, more votes for government officials who do what it takes to keep their agenda afloat, and more expensive vehicles, and other supply for the people. And it continues to help the left move closer to socialism.
“In response to Paul Beach- You’re telling me that the average temperature of the oceans is the same temperature that water freezes at? ”
Satellite infrared detectors register -18 degrees centigrade. I used data for the -5 degree rought calculation. A more sophisticated Excel sheet gives -15 degrees. Surface temperature is about 14 degrees. This is not the same as average atmospheric temperature. The temperature change with elevation is called adiabtic lapse rate. The decrease with elevation is minus 6-7 degrees per kilometer. The average atmopheric temperture is agreement with satellite measurements.
The AVERAGE ocean temperature at the surface is certainly well above freezing. However, at depths were the sunlight does not penetrate, it is close the the freezing point.
I’m not clear about your civil rights remarks. I don’t need a servant to shine my shoes, or a lackey to “peer review” my opinions.
The true motivation of the scpetics is clear…it’s not about the science, it’s about tax! Climate change is an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because it upsets the right-wing view of low taxes, and minimal interference in people’s lives. Clearly, to combat climate change certain taxes on polluting services etc will have to rise and there will be increased regulation. However, just because you don’t like the *idea* of climate change doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t happening. The overwhelming majority of informed scientists (and I’m one) accept the science. It’s largely only the uneducated and/or politically-motivated who can’t see it.
Luckily, the people who count (most business leaders and most politicians) accepted the science years ago. The rest of you are just going to have deal with it.
What is the difrerence between co2 emitted from Australia, and co2 from China,
or India? Carbon tax in western countries won’t change the amount of the nasty
vegetation supporting c02 in the atmoshere. Big industries will relocate to
countries that don’t care how much c02 in the atmosphere, and didn’t sign
kyoto protocol. If Marx was alive today he would feel victorious
LOL at the politics on here. Some say look at the facts, some research for themselves, and then we have bloggers come on and say you dont like the idea of “climate change” because of your political party. In all seriousness if you came on and said that this article is incorrect because of a person’s political preference, then shut your pie hole. I enjoyed reading this article and I will keep my views to myself. I will say this however, from my observations I have noticed that the people who dont think for themselves republicans and democrats alike, they agree with global warming and the hype, and those that research/think for themselves(again republicans and democrats) they think its bogus. YOU decide, dont let others tell you what THEY think, and for the love of god, dont just disproove someone on the basis of their political party. After all its just an illusion of choice.
@Rush –
Co2 makes a greenhouse warmer?
I really think you need to gey YOUR facts right.
Co2 does NOT make a greenhouse warmer…it helps plants grow.
Co2 neither warms nor cools….the sun does that…or did you miss that lesson in school?
CO2 traps heat like a blanket. Ever come back to your car after it has been outside in the sun all day. Its a lot hotter inside the car than outside because it traps the heat. This is so obvious it worrisome to me people don’t get that and say cute things like “its the sun not co2″. Its amazing to me these same people can manage a typewrite and the internet. What this article fails to tell you is that the ratio of scientists that still believe global warming is cause by man is 820 to 1. I’m sitting on the side of the room with 820 people. You can sit on the other side and contemplate how the world is really flat.
@critch<-Reply – Quote
The glass and metal of the car contain the heat, co2 has NOTHING to do with it, and the vast majority of the 820 you mention are environmental specialists….people who would not have a well paid job if they told the truth, their jobs where created by the global warming scare/hoax, it is called vested interest.
Our planet has had in its past far more co2 in the atmosphere, and we are still here, Earth can cope with far larger amounts of atmospheric co2 then it has now
All trees/plantlife grow better when there is far more co2 in the atmosphere…why?
Granted it would change the way we would have to live, sea levels would rise, it would change weather patterns.
Maybe you should go and really study the subject, do you believe everything the govenment tells you?
If it amazes you that people who doubt(with very good cause) can use a keyboad, i am not surprised at all that you would believe media hype and be manipulated so easily.
You really need to go and learn basic science, find out what CO2 does, wikipedia is a good start.
Like it not the facts are that so far this century there has been NO warming at all.This obviously interferes with the doom-laden prophecies of the mainly left wing (I wonder why that is)global warmers.Overall ice coverage is increasing,there are more Polar Bears now than 40 years ago and overall sea levels are not rising.Basically this generation is being asked to sacrifice growth and prosperity because people in the future,a hundred years or more,Might be worse off.To make a real difference to carbon emmissions by man made machinery would mean raising prices and costs to such a high level that in the real world it could not be achieved without a complete breakdown of the western world as we know it.It would also be political suicide.Future generations would still be better off ,if global warming happened,but perhaps marginally less better off.The whole argument for drastic carbon reduction as things stand is nonsense.Politicians know it.It is more likely an attack on global capitalism.
Of course there are things to be gained… Money… Remember Al Gore’s documentary? Wonder how much that movie made…@Graham -
@Graham – Graham you just showed why I see it as a hoax.
99% of people don’t believe it. You are wrong.
Not even 99% of scientists believe it.
Your response is typically unscientfic and doesn’t sway real scientists….
From your post you sound like you have no scientific training at all….
what about the children….. we should act now…. life on earth is threaten… All of this with no evidence whatsoever.
Provided it is done for pure enjoyment then it’s a hoax as far as I’m concerned… but I am prepared to call it a deliberate scam by self interested parties if you like.
That is very easy for me to believe…..
Earth to Graham…. Science is about observations, hypotheses and facts…. not belief. Belief is for religion.
Graham the real question is not whether the Envionmentalists are right… they’ve been wrong so far and they will continue to be wrong… the real question is…..
Graham…..Are you part of the scam that could bring misery to millions around the world? or, like my fellow sceptics… are you opposed to it?
David Harper
Engineer
Australia
P.S.
(Engineering is an applied science. I studied physics and chemistry as part of that degree and worked in a research laboratory for many years…. do I qualify as a scientist… not in your book I suppose…. because I’m not a climatologist….. because if I was a climatologist I would have to believe it otherwise I would be fired by my superiors for not supporting their scam.)
@Sal – What a load of crap from you, Sal! Go read the articles in depth. Not one of these articles is saying that either climate change is not happening or that humans are not the cause. You are extraordinarily dishonest to state that those articles, which are peer reviewed, are in any way, shape, or form disagreeing that climate change is happening or is anthropogenic. They are explaining various aspects of how the climate systems work and what the various drivers of climate change are. Go read them!
I never said that the climate is not changing. In fact it is changing constantly. The earth is cooler today than it was in 1998. This recent article by the BBC, hardly a right-wing rag, shows that our climate models did not predict the cooling we’ve experienced since 1998.
It appears as well that the oceans are cooling as well:
Let me repeat myself. I am not saying that global warming is not happening. I am also not saying that it is not man-made (if it is indeed happening, which the evidence seems to dictate we are going through a cooling cycle).
What I am saying is that the evidence is far from certain, and that the governments of the world have latched onto the hysteria and are looking at economically destructive policies based on uncertain science to which we have new evidence which still needs to be digested.
Why don’t you “climate change” fanatics realize that governments have no intention whatsoever of seriously reducing carbon emissions in the near future,if ever.To do so would mean the virtual destruction of the western economies and the way of life you have all known and loved.China will not seriously reduce carbon emissions at this time;she has too much to lose.The same goes for India and Russia.The USA,Britain and Europe will pay lip service to the idea and tinker around the edges,just enough to raise a significant amount of tax with which to finance,in Europe’s case,their dreams of a socialist super state.Africa can’t afford to get involved,and the oil producing countries won’t be too keen to give up any part of their main source of wealth. Sooner or later the Green fanatics will have to accept that wind-mills are no substitute for power stations.These will have to be built,either coal,gas or nuclear if you want to carry on playing on your computers and don’t want to be dependent on Russia for energy.If the world was really in danger of disapearing in the next 100 years governments would be forced to declare a state of emergency and prepare for large scale public order problems.It isn’t of course and they won’t.In the real world,warm or not,the human race will adapt,and continue to prosper.It wouldn’t if it followed seriously the demands of the demented anti capitalism fanatics.Do you really want to reduce this generation and the next to poverty because the world MIGHT be a degree or so warmer in the future?The future will deal with it ,and if it happens,which most likely it won’t,people will adapt.At the moment there is NO warming;there hasn’t been this century.Don’t be panicked.Frightened people are people that can be controlled and manipulated.
@Sal – According to NOAA this decadal (about 14 years) temperature cycle seen as seen in the ocean surface, the cycle looks almost exactly the same now, as in the 90’s. In fact, the lowest temperature average it warmer than in the 90’s. Go look at NOAA website yourself. http://ioc3.unesco.org/oopc/state_of_the_ocean/sur/pac/nino3.php To use this fact thin article to prove anything is pointless. (Western Washington University?????)
Secondly, of course governments are not going to reduce emissions to a level that is sustainable ecologically. I believe the hope is to voice a strong opinion to get governments moving in the right direction to level emissions while other sources of energy can be implemented in greater numbers. Additionally, citizens can adopt a more sustainable lifestyle while still enjoying the highest standard of living (which is currently not in the U.S.). Of course the loudest voices are the ones that are also the most radical, it goes both ways. The point is to meet somewhere in the middle. It is the job of scientists and informed citizens to carry this cause, not governments. Governments will always side with big business and hang on to power as long as possible.
BTW. Go check out the damage being done by the mountain pine beetle to see the real effects of climate change and then get back to me.
In response to critch and your hot car. Co2 has nothing to do with it. When short wavelength infared light passes through the window glass they slow down, (known as propagation delay), in the process they loose energy, (given off as heat warming the glass), once through the glass the light is at a lower energy level, hence longer wavelength, which now is unable to pass back through the glass but is reflected back into the car. eventually these longer wavelengths are absorbed and reflected about the interior of the car eventually loosing energy in the form of heat. Window tinting will prevent the passage of short wavelength infared hence a much cooler car.
Your green house operates upon the same mechanism. Co2 is introduced for the plants benefit otherwise the Co2 in the greenhouse will become depleted thus starving the plants.
Plants consume Co2 during photosynthesis in order to produce sugars, Oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis however respiration still occurs during photosynthesis and a small amount of Co2 is released and oxygen is consumed, however at a much lower level then the products of photosynthesis are.
While the atmosphere operates on the same principle however here the glass is replaced predominantly by water vapour, most commonly in the form of clouds. Ionised particles, (ozone). Gases etc.
Incidentally Co2 is a poisonous gas as is pure oxygen.
Also sea water does not freeze into ice at 0 degrees centigrade. the temp which sea water freezes depends upon its salinity.
How many times must it be said before it sinks in,THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING AT THIS TIME;THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING THIS CENTURY.Stop panicking for heavens sake.Future generations will manage their own affairs.Worry about something that affects us now if you must worry about something.
Let us assume, (big leap of imagination required here), that Co2 is the major cause of (sic) global warming. All people talk about is co2 reduction.. Why????
Co2 can be delt with in one of two ways, either by reducing or using it.
It is quite obvious that co2 reduction is a difficult aim to achieve globally so
for gods sake instead of introducing co2 limits etc.. USE IT.
The best way to get rid of it is with plants. Replant the great forests that once graced the landscapes. Bamboo the fastest growing plant on the planet. Has anyone seen the floating floors made entirely from bamboo? Great. Lock up the co2 in your floor, furniture, paper etc.. The possibilities are endless.
We can produce as much co2 as we want as long as we deal with the excess. There job done….
Flash, I’m glad you understand the ways we can reduce Carbon emissions, now if only more people would understand the importance of Carbon sinks. It’s obviously not that easy but it can be part of the solution.
You skeptics always always quote and reference articles against warming without reading much peer (non obscure journal) reviewed literature. Here’s one from Yahoo saying there has been no cooling like so many of you have said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling
@Ken: There is much peer reviewed literature combating the idea of global warming. The articule you presented is a non-scientific study conducted by the Associated Press, hardly a bias-free organization.
The Associated Press is a well known and internationally recognized source of news and reality. Climate change may be controversial but what is not, is that weather is getting more severe each passing year. Whether or not you agree with the politics or the science or neither, if you recognize that our climate is shifting in some way every year we must as human beings, work towards helping those displaced by the rising tide so to speak. This will not just affect the so called third world of which you speak so disdainfully. Places like New Orleans, parts of Florida and even higher up on both coasts will start to suffer from the ferocity of these storms and other events. Preparations must be made to provide aid, shelter and other help to those in need or how can we have any sort of moral or ethical authority from which to harangue the left or the right for their downfalls?
Many scientists involved with the study of the climate positively do not agree with the so called concensus;actually there isn’t a concensus.Most of the media outlets have bought into this man made climate change nonsense and it is hard for those who oppose the hysteria to get their views published.The IPCC has been virtually fraudulent in a lot of it’s so called evidence;take for instance the “hockey stick” graph which has been exposed more than once.The IPCC however refuses to give up on it.The current chairman of this organisation is not even learned in climatology;he is an engineer.Most of the people involved in this man made climate change panic are of the left,some have utopian ideas about redistributing wealth to the poorer nations.To me this seems to be an attack on western capitalism,and a cynical ruse to enable large scale taxation.Read the evidence from the other side.In Britain we face imminent disaster from a complete breakdown of the power supply because politicians in thrall to “climate change” have neglected to replace suitable systems for generating power.Millions have been wasted on wind turbines(tax payers’ money)which can not possible supply any where near the energy needed.This is the true disaster;the destruction of western economies and society in the near future unless common sense is injected into this whole sorry affair.
the ocean is salt water (it freezes at alot lower temp.)@Jason -
@Graham –
You ask why people would push a “Global Warming” hoax if it wasn’t true.
Power. Power to dictate to the people what they can and cannot do. Many environmentalists hate cars, the modern life style, and capitalism,and would gladly see it all go away. They would love a warm little “Kumaya” life where we forage in the trees for our substance living where we do no harm to fern or foal.
How can you ask why? Why would Hitler exterminate the Jews? Why would Mo Tse Tung and Stalin murder millions and millions of their own people. Why do men beat their wives?
Power.
@Graham –
those one liners you make are stupid
“have less kids, save the planet”
“what will you tell your grandchildren”
blah blah blah
Dear All, I read your comments (very patiently), I just ask you all one question, Climate Change real or NOT, I don’t know, but I know one thing, there is a right way of doing things and a wrong one. Now tell me, this have you ever seen the residential areas near a tyre factory, they couldn’t even hang their clothes on a clothes liner, coz they would all get black, people had to smeel poor quality air, and if they sneezed there were black particals shooting off their noses.
That’s the reality, I have seen and much worse. Think of people who live under the fly path of airplanes close to the Airports.
People living in big cities, who have to inhale all the smoke the cars are throwing.
Ok let me take you back 20-30- years, people used wood or cow dung cakes to make food, which produced a lot of smoke, have you seen kids coughing away from the kitche, or the one who is cooking with watering eyes, coz of confined space and poor ventilation.
We all know, all of us do, we all walk on streets, drive our cars and live in houses, or units, or other dwellings, We have made this world an acid factory, cylinders going off now and then.
I only know this, whatever we use and most of it is simply toxic, in the growth (greed) we have destroyed forests, killed animals and are responsible for the extinction of many species.
Can we just simply look back and say, no it’s wrong, who cares who makes money out of this, atleast there would be much lesser mess, less smoke and poison. Whats wrong with hybrid cars, and no Gm food, can’t we just take a break and clean up our mess.
Cooling period or what, I am sorry, It simply has become unbearable, any one remembers, the hot day were enjoyble to, there was something different about them, not any more…………………………………………..
With Regards to All
@Ken: You want peer-reviewed papers that are skeptical of anthropomorphic climate change? Here’s 450 of them (warning: PDF link). And with the source data for the Global Climate Change hypothesis now in doubt, anyone who is NOT a skeptic at this point needs to have their head examined.
About the 450 peer reviewed papers. I’ve gone through many of them myself, why I have no idea, but several trends seem to show.
Geophysical Research Letters is one common source. The journal contains letters that are not peer reviewed; fyi. Additionally, you’ll see that many of the sources are not journals but letters which are, again, not peer reviewed. Also, if you see “New Concepts” or “Bulletin” or “Progress” or what have you, those are also not peer reviewed and catalogues that are prized for their “quick” dissemination of knowledge into the community regardless of their facts.
Energy & Environment’s editors are openly against global warming and are the only journal that have allowed so many fact thin publications about this subject.
The Journal “Climate Research” has been criticized that is does not vet its papers properly indicated in 2003 when half of the editorial staff resigned.
The GSA Today is the Geological Society of America’s monthly news magazine. I see several articles in this group about this subject. Here is GSA’s official stance “The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.”
There is more but I digress. Next Post.
Yes I see where the editor of these says that Energy & Environment is a valid journal but the entire scientific community knows if you have something skeptical about Climate Change or Global Warming you go to E & E. E & E also makes up for a huge portion of these articles along with the “Climate Research.” So, to make things fair, if anyone who supports Climate Change or Global warming uses a similarly vetted journal with a process similar to E & E, I’ll never cite or consider it. It is literally one of the only “havens” for AGW in the world.
Finally. I love it. You say, “here’s the papers,” but you’ve obviously read few or none of them. They don’t even dispute global warming! They show skepticism for man-made global warming is all! Even if the 100X more published data than these measly 450 cherry picked, shaky publications, (half of them contradict each other) were wrong; why wouldn’t we want to reduce our carbon footprint, or drive more fuel efficient cars, or plant more trees, or make buildings that have less impact on the environment, or become more energy independent.
No one understands here that unless there are people that take things to the extreme, no one listens. That’s why there is compromise and negotiation. You have two polar opposite ideas so you can come together and do some good. I’ve never said that we should go to the stone age or live like animals, but it really isn’t hard to see that what we do to this planet has been without regard and ignorant to say the least. Why not recycle or consume less or just care. Is it that much to ask.
You here hate “hippies” and “tree huggers” but if not for them the clean water act or clean air act would never have been created and we’d still be crapping in the same water we drink. Our power plants would still be giving off carcinogenic gases literally killing workers and communities down wind. Why not care just a little. Don’t drink the global warming, climate change cool aid. Fine. But actually understand that there is little or no place on this planet that you cannot measure the effect humans have had on it. We’ve changed the earth more in just 150 years than it has ever changed in the past excluding 65 million years ago (snowball earth took millennia, as did the continents breaking apart if you believe those). We could be suffering an extinction rate only seen a few times in all geologic record.
Say what you want about global warming but there are still vast problems such as invasive species, habitat fragmentation and destruction, overexploitation, loss of genetic diversity, and more going on at the same time. Why do we have to be so selfish that we cannot see what damage we’ve done and are so calloused that we do not care either. Believe what you want but how about you try opening your mind to understand that you can make a difference and not all “environmentalist” are power hungry, fear mongering, money gathering, socialists. Sorry for the length.
I’m not even going to talk about the leaked emails yet because alas I do have a life.
But, quick comment, if you believe exactly what the times online said about those papers and exactly what the drudge reported on, then you have no basis and you have shown your bias boldly and show that you look at one side of the issues. Go read the responses to each accusation from those articles. Furthermore, no where in any of the emails is there mention of a hoax, conspiracy, or complete falsifying or anything of that nature in all the 100s of emails. I’d say, if anything, the conspiracy theories are losing their teeth if anything.
Hmmm…seems to me that if all of the proponents of this “Climate Change” religion (including governments and their friends) wouldn’t be making a ton of cash on this it might be a bit more believable, however the money and the associated power grab this is going to give governments and their political lackeys somehow makes me a real skeptic.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/
Melting Glaciers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34114537/from/ET/?beginSlide=1
Mountain Pine Beetle
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html
Acidic Oceans
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Surface Temperature (NASA)
Some quick reading for you all.
@Graham –
The former US vice president is in line to make a large profit from a firm producing smart meters which monitor household electricity use.
He is a partner in a Silicon Valley venture capital firm which invested £45 million in Silver Spring Networks, a small California company which has been developing technology to monitor household power use to make the electricity grid more efficient.
Last week the US Energy Department announced £2 billion in grants and a proportion of that, thought to be more than £305 million, will go to utility operators with which Silver Spring has contracts.
The venture capitalists who invested, including Mr Gore, now look set to receive a handsome return.
Since leaving office Mr Gore has campaigned relentlessly on green issues. His 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth”, which followed his attempts to educate people about the dangers of global warming, won an Oscar for best documentary. It showed Mr Gore giving comprehensive slide shows about the catastrophic effects of climate change. He has presented the slide show more than 1,000 times.
Mr Gore, who won a Nobel Prize in 2007, has also just published his latest book on global warming “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis” which advocates new energy saving technologies and policies.
Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million.
He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.
Mr Gore said yesterday it was “certainly not true” that he was going to become a “carbon billionaire” and that the suggestion came from global warming deniers.
He said: “I am proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years. And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values.” At a hearing earlier this year on clean energy legislation, Mr Gore was challenged by Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, over his investments.
She said: “The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”
Mr Gore said: “I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it.”
He added that he had put “every penny” he has made from his investments into the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection, which campaigns for solutions to climate change.
In a heated exchange Mr Gore said: “If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”
Mr Gore said he was “proud” of his record of investing in green technology.
But global warming sceptics are not convinced. Marc Morano of climatedepot.com said: “Al Gore wants to become the first carbon billionaire and he is poised to do it.
“As much as Gore’s made now, it is going to be a piker league compared to what he is going to make in five years if all these new carbon trading mandates go through.”
Read up first, then make statement you think are true!
@Nick – Sorry Nick. Critch was not trying to say co2 was causing the inside of the car to be hotter. He was making what is called an analogy. Trying to help you understand the concept. I’m afraid that is never going to happen. People like you you jump on what you feel you can rapidly disprove instead of actually trying to learn from what you are are reading. Do a little research and you will find that co2 is a cheaper way to help heat a greenhouse, which increases profits for the growers. Open your mind, you will find tons of great knowledge out there.
moving away from the science debates. If we do want to reduce CO2 surely the easiest, cheapest and most effective way to do this would be introduce the death penalty on a large scale around the world. In the world there are millions of lifers with no chance of parole who we are wasting our valuable resources on.
By definition these people add nothing productive to the world and they cost huge amount. Why doesn’t the world governments/leaders sure they want to reduce CO2 and execute these people. Tax and cutting jobs isn’t the only way to cut CO2.
who s with me and how do I get Al Gore to back my brilliant idea.
You guys need to get reasonable like this guy http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/we-dont-know-is-better-than-global-warming-global-cooling-or-they-are-wrong/ it will go a long way toward gaining some truth to the matter and stop all the BS that is spewed from both sides
Does anyone remember the slogan of the experts in the Sixities when we were told that unless popuplation controls were strictly imposed, especially in Third World countries, “by theyear 2,000 it will be standing room only” on the planet? I am not in climate change denial. But I recall how in the Sixties, precious funding went into pressuring Third World countries to cut down on procreations. How the UN set up a special agency; how condoms were freely distributed to villages in Africa. Today, Russians are given one day off in a year to stay home and try for babies; France awards bonuses to mothers who have more than two children; and Britain’s population is 12million short of the forecasts set by experts twenty years ago. Yes, something is happening or has happened to justify the label “climate change” but don’t let the doomsayer “experts” panic you that they can see even into the near future. And please believe me that I have not been paid to say this by the oil or coal companies!