30 tys. naukowców przeciwko oszustwu

Cortez

Zobacz też: viewtopic.php?t=3011

30 tys. naukowców przeciwko oszustwu "globalnego ocieplenia"

Zaczęło się Smile

"Nie ma dowodów, że emitowane przez człowieka gazy cieplarniane wywołają zmiany klimatyczne. Ponadto, istnieją naukowe dowody, że zwiększenie stężenia dwutlenku węgla w atmosferze powoduje skutki korzystne dla środowiska roślinnego i zwierzęcego." W linku pełna treść petycji i ponad 30 tyś. nazwisk amerykańskich naukowców. Tama zaczyna pękać?"

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

P.S Mógłby ktoś choć trochę na Polski?

AndyPSV

ocieplenie wynika z tego, ze slonce zmienia swoja temperature, na marsie i innych planetach zaczynaja sie tworzyc morza uplynnione (roztapiac lody), wiecej w Esoteric Agenda i EndGame Aleksa Jonesa; a co2 to dla roslin tak jak dla nas hajs; wczesniej w sredniowieczu temp. byla o 2.5 C wieksza; podatek weglowy jest wprowadzony po to, aby miec fundusze pod NWO

Cortez

Z tym ociepleniem słońca to jakoś nie chce mi się wierzyć, ale na poparcie tej tezy mam tylko 1 argument.
Albowiem, ocieplenie jest spowodowane wyższą temperaturą słońca, no tak, ale temperatura na ziemi wzrasta nagle od kilkuset lat (100? jak podają oficjalne źródła), a przecież te kilka set lat w porównaniu do kilku miliardów lat to nic. Dlaczego temperatura słońca zmienia się tak nagle, w tak krótkim (jak na te miliardy lat) czasie?

Pozdrawiam.
_________________
"Sekretarz generalny ONZ, Kofi Annan mówi, że nie widzi żadnych powodów dla, których należałoby zaatakować Irak. A ja widzę ich aż pięć: Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco i BP." - Jay Leno

goldbug

Obejrzyj sobie GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE na google video to się dowiesz nieco naukowych przyczyn dlaczego globalne ocieplenie nie jest spowodowane przez ludzi.

Poza tym? Dlaczego Grenlandia nazywa się jak się nazywa. Czyli Greenland - Zielona Wyspa. A no dlatego, że była zielona Wink

wcześniej zanim pokryta została lodem.

Cortez

Hehe znam historie z Greenlandią, jak przybyli tam wikingowie to po zielonej trawce popierdzielały zające, a teraz co sie porobiło.

Czyli co wachania temperatury słońca ? Smile

_________________
"Sekretarz generalny ONZ, Kofi Annan mówi, że nie widzi żadnych powodów dla, których należałoby zaatakować Irak. A ja widzę ich aż pięć: Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco i BP." - Jay Leno

goldbug

Cortez napisał:

Hehe znam historie z Greenlandią, jak przybyli tam wikingowie to po zielonej trawce popierdzielały zające, a teraz co sie porobiło.

Czyli co wachania temperatury słońca ? Smile

Tak. Zgodnie z tym filmem, w którym przedstawiona jest opinia różnych naukowców winą za zmiany temperatury obarczane jest Słońce.

goral_

goldbug napisał:

Cortez napisał:

Hehe znam historie z Greenlandią, jak przybyli tam wikingowie to po zielonej trawce popierdzielały zające, a teraz co sie porobiło.

Czyli co wachania temperatury słońca ? Smile

Tak. Zgodnie z tym filmem, w którym przedstawiona jest opinia różnych naukowców winą za zmiany temperatury obarczane jest Słońce.

Jak pamiętam z lekcji geografii, nie tylko słońce ale i sama ziemia, która nie krąży wokół słońca (znów to słońce) po idealnej tej samej elipsie, tylko ma odchyły co jakiś czas, to samo z rotacją samej ziemi.
Nastąpiło już przecie jedno zlodowacenie i to bez udziału przemysłu Smile

To całe zamieszanie wokoło "ocieplenia" przypomina mi scenę z "Faraona" gdzie tracący poparcie faraon wykorzystuje zaćmienie słońca do udowodnienia ludowi, że jest zesłannictwem bogów.
A co dodaje smaczku całej tej zabawie w kotka i myszkę. USA, Kanada to dwa największe truciciele na świecie! USA nie podpisały żadnych umów o ochronie środowiska.
W UK za pierwsze ileś tam kilowatów płaci się drożej, też po skurwysynie dbanie o środowisko:) Wiadomo, że im więcej prądu zużyjesz tym tańszy będzie na koniec rachunek - gdzie więc zachęta do oszczędzania? Więcej oszczędzisz, za droższy prąd zapłacisz!

ICRF

Spoko już środowiska lewacko-faszystowskie myślą nad nowym fetyszem, którym będą sie pałować "GŁÓD i Drożejące ceny żywności"
Cool

Cortez

"John Coleman, legendarny założyciel telewizyjnego kanału meteo The Weather Channel, zwrócił się z listem otwartym do obrońców środowiska. Apeluje w nim, by nie robili ludziom wody z mózgu."

http://www.pardon.pl/artykul/5132/najwieksze_oszustwo_w_historii

Teoria, że niedokońca chodzi w tym Global Warming o pieniądzę, ale o łagodne odzwyczajenie ludzi od paliw kopalnych, jest bardzo interesująca.

_________________
"Sekretarz generalny ONZ, Kofi Annan mówi, że nie widzi żadnych powodów dla, których należałoby zaatakować Irak. A ja widzę ich aż pięć: Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco i BP." - Jay Leno

Bimi

Cortez napisał:

Teoria, że niedokońca chodzi w tym Global Warming o pieniądzę, ale o łagodne odzwyczajenie ludzi od paliw kopalnych, jest bardzo interesująca.

gdzieś to było na naszym forum: spalanie węgla jest bardziej nieekologiczne od spalania ropy gdyż przy tej samej energii produkuje więcej co2.
to samo z gazem ziemnym - w holandii podatek drogowy za auto z gazem jest większy niż za benzynowe.

najważniejsze to nie zmniejszać popytu na ropę - po to jest dziś ekologia Smile

a w międzyczasie trzymać w ryzach podaż surowca... biznes doskonały.

Piioottrr · Dołączył: 29 Mar 2011 Posty: 990

http://www.truthwinds.com/siterun_data/e.....1311700951

Cytat:

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavour with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analysing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO_2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Dr. Evans to move from being a warmest to a sceptic.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence, I was once an alarmist, but I am now a sceptic.

Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying.

This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planets temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to the extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.

The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climates models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above.

During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves the climate models are fundamentally flawed and they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point official climate science stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory this just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by /dampening /the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances; otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise - surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade yet they have the gall to tell us its worse than expected. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewerage or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%!

The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com <http> <http://sciencespeak.com/. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results global warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.

So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results and why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources this is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25-30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory which is based on a guess about moist air and is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions is to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold, in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you’ve been had!

Rozmawialem ostatnio z pewnym "wystraszonym ziomkiem"
W trakcie rozmowy zapytalem, czy naprawde wierzy w globalne ocieplenie
Odpowiedzial: "ty chyba telewizji nie ogladasz" Very Happy

Piioottrr · Dołączył: 29 Mar 2011 Posty: 990

http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming.....al-warming

Cytat:

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is inconvertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

Wiecej szczegolow tutaj:

Cytat:

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group's Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming Visit Site

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.'

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Excl.....al-Warming

manhattanman

6 listopad, a ja w krótkim rękawku siedzę i pije bronka na balkonie jakbyśmy co najmniej mieli lato. no cóż.. rok temu wszystko było mega zajebane śniegiem. no tak tylko póltora roku temu aktywność słoneczna była tak niska, że naukowcy przecierali oczy ze zdumienia czy to jest w ogole mozliwe. wiecie co mysle i do czego nawiązuje. bedzie rok cieplej i dziwaczniej niz zwykle, a pozniej wszystko sie uspokoi. Wink

Bimi

THE MYTH OF THE 97% CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS

What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Claims continue to be made that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” That’s what Secretary of State John Kerry told graduating Boston College students. It’s what President Obama said in his State of the Union address and a recent tweet.

There’s just one problem – aside from the fact that this assertion is being used to help justify policies and regulations that are closing down fossil fuel power plants and crippling our economy. The claim is completely bogus. As Heartland Institute president Joe Bast and climate scientist Roy Spencer make clear in this article, the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%.

What is the origin of the false belief that nearly all scientists agree about global warming?

Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have "crippling consequences," and that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers - all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes´s definition of consensus covered "man-made" influences but left out "dangerous" - and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus.

dalej: http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_myth_.....8/Y/M.html

Bimi

To trochę nawiązuje do newsa powyżej

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers

Good news for viewers of BBC News: you’ll no longer be subjected to the unhinged ravings of climate deniers and other members of the anti-science fringe. In a report published Thursday by the BBC Trust, the network’s journalists were criticized for devoting too much air time (as in, any air time) to unqualified people with “marginal views” about non-contentious issues in a misguided attempt to provide editorial balance.

“The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” the report reads. “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.” So far, according to the Telegraph, about 200 staff members have attending seminars and workshops aimed at improving their coverage.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of having one fringe "expert" come in to undermine a scientific consensus, the report points to the network´s coverage of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in September released a report concluding, with 95 percent certainty, that man-man climate change is happening. As was their due diligence, BBC reporters called a dozen prominent U.K. scientists, trying to drum up an opposing viewpoint. When that didn´t happen - probably because 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening - they turned instead to retired Australian geologist Bob Carter, who has ties to the industry-affiliated Heartland Institute.

dalej: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staf.....e_deniers/

Goska

Na temat zmian klimatycznych w Kanadzie
http://losyziemi.pl/kanada-meteorolodzy-.....matycznych
"Rzecznik kanadyjskiego rządu poinformował, że pracujący w rządowych placówkach Kanady meteorolodzy mają zakaz wypowiadania się w mediach na temat zmian klimatycznych. Powód? - Meteorolodzy nie mają odpowiedniego wykształcenia i kwalifikacji, by udzielać się w takich tematach jak zmiany klimatu - wyjaśnił rzecznik."

realista

Wot i suprice Smile

jako, ze teraz Ruskich nikt nie lubi to na pewno w mainstreamie sie takowa informacji nie objawi, jak zreszta sami co jakis czas zauwazacie - a se mysle moja mala glowa, ze informacja raczej interesujaca:

http://wolnemedia.net/ekologia/tej-zimy-zacznie-sie-mala-epoka-lodowcowa/
_________________
Brak ideologii jest najlepszą ideologią.

de93ial

Mini epoka owszem jest prawdopodobna, ale ma mało wspólnego z kątem nachylenia Ziemi względem Słońca.

Jak kogoś naprawdę interesuje z czym to jest związane polecam kanał na YT:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
_________________
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Punkt startowy dla wszystkich.
http://trivium.wybudzeni.com/trivium/
Wersja PL

Bimi

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

dalej: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-arti.....ge-skeptic

Ihlet

de93ial napisał:

Mini epoka owszem jest prawdopodobna, ale ma mało wspólnego z kątem nachylenia Ziemi względem Słońca.

Jak kogoś naprawdę interesuje z czym to jest związane polecam kanał na YT:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers

Dzięki za kanał. Koleś ma dobrze poukładane pod czaszką. W poniższym filmiku zawiera przekaz, pod którego w większością mógłbym się podpisać:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-auk5Zs.....cD2WBPby3z

Bimi

Bóg z nami · Dołączył: 27 Mar 2013 Posty: 266 Post zebrał 0 sat Podarowałeś sat

Cortez napisał:

Z tym ociepleniem słońca to jakoś nie chce mi się wierzyć, ale na poparcie tej tezy mam tylko 1 argument.
Albowiem, ocieplenie jest spowodowane wyższą temperaturą słońca, no tak, ale temperatura na ziemi wzrasta nagle od kilkuset lat (100? jak podają oficjalne źródła), a przecież te kilka set lat w porównaniu do kilku miliardów lat to nic. Dlaczego temperatura słońca zmienia się tak nagle, w tak krótkim (jak na te miliardy lat) czasie?

Pozdrawiam.

Każy lekarz rodzinny potwierdzi, że w czasie pisania wojego postu conajmniej kilkanaście razy ciśnienie u Ciebie poskoczyło wukrotnie a serce zwiękzsyło woją objętość też kilkukrotnie. Patrząc na przyrost objętości Twojego serca od narodzenia musisz uznać, że aktualnie jesteś bliski implozji lub jak będziesz biegł do autobusu za szybko to tam możesz wyrządzić komuś krzywdę swoimi pękającymi tętnicami.

Interpretowanie danych przyczynia się do poznawania informacji.
Faraon opierał się na błęach logicznych i przywoływał słońce (a jak się spóźnił to słońce jego...) - korelacja nie jest implikacją.

Mistrz słowa panuje nad myślą...
_________________
2 palce i 2 palce to 1-szy,2-gi... 4 palce
a^2+b^2=c^2=> trójkąt jest prostokątny

A heliocentryzm? To jeszcze wiedza, czy już wiara?

Bimi

The Danger of Climate Change Evangelism

We have been conditioned with the belief that human activities are increasing the incidence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is the prime cause behind global warming and climate change.

We are also led to believe that science is predicting that the consequences of this will be catastrophic to the earth and threaten our very existence.

Most of what we read within the mainstream media today, and from the politicians, has the above assumptions subliminally embedded within the various narratives. Government policy towards carbon emissions and renewable energies reflects these beliefs, as hard caste scientific and moral truths.

The public are continually told that the vast majority of the world’s “scientists” are in general agreement about man-made global warming being the cause of climate change, and the potential damage it will do to the earth. However, the reality is that there may actually not be more than a couple of hundred people in the world who really understand the science of climate change, and are experienced and qualified enough to make a valid scientific opinion.

The public are confused more when evangelists from both sides of the debate put their views forward using statistics, information, and arguments that are convincing. Many of these stalwarts on both sides make a professional living through the speakers’ circuits, turning the global warming and climate change debate into an entertainment spectacle. What makes this even more sinister, is the vested interests some of these parties represent.

Climate change models are built upon limited sets of assumptions which make them far too simplistic for the task of making accurate predictions about global warming. There is no generally agreed theory that explains global warming and climate change in existence today.

No model can predict changes in temperature, and layout climate change scenarios with any degree of accuracy. However the earth has warmed up much less than what most global warming models had predicted.

The opinion of Nobel Prize winner James Lovelock, the creator of the GAIA hypothesis, reflects the above. He was quoted as saying…..”The problem is that we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.”

Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring also predicted that all the birds would be killed through the use of DDT during the 1950s and 60s – a prophecy that never happened.

Alarmism clouds scientific judgement and this is very much the case in the global warming and climate change debate.

Global warming and climate change cannot be considered a ‘settled science’, as it is portrayed today. The truths about the matter are still yet to be understood.

First it must be understood that global warming and climate change are not interchangeable terms. Global warming concerns the rise in average temperatures across the globe. Is this really occurring? And, how much is humanity actually responsible for this phenomenon?

These are very interesting scientific questions where there is a diverse range of scientific opinions today. We still require answers to tackle the second part of the equation, climate change.

We know that climate change is occurring on a continuous basis. We also know that climate change also changes habitats. How we tackle climate change, if in sense of the word, we can do nothing but adapt to climate change, depends upon answering questions about global warming.

However, climate change is not just an earthly phenomenon, it is an interplanetary one. Climate change may have more to do with solar energy, than with man-made CO2 emissions.

This is only an observation, but if this observation has some validity, then the whole ‘science of climate change’ is about to enter a new paradigm of explanation in the next few years by the scientific community, just as quantum replaced Newtonian physics concepts just on a century ago.

The evolution of science is not being factored into the global warming debate, and this is the biggest mistake being made at the moment by global warming proponents.

If humankind is not influencing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions, then the real issues at hand are completely different. The issue is not about abating global warming, but more about the changing habitats and environment humankind faces in the future.

The destruction of the forests, animal species left to go extinct, the creation and growth of unsustainable cities, water management and the pollution of the earth’s oceans, and the application of non-renewable energies, and not to forget poverty, migration, and population growth, are the real issues that must be engaged by humanity.

Humankind must learn how to adapt to a continually changing environment. This means both natural and human induced changes. This is where the real crises exist.

Climate change will destroy some societies on one hand, but nurture others on the other hand.

We have to learn to understand how the earth is a cradle for humankind. And then importantly, how we must exist within this cradle, in a coexisting manner.

Charles Darwin’s message was not about survival of the fittest, but one of co-existence. Darwin’s hinted the solution in the concluding paragraph of his The Origin of Species where he said…”It is interesting, a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborate forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

Carbon emission controls and other political solutions will not solve any of our real problems.

We don’t really understand the science of climate change, and can’t even say for certain whether the world is going through a period of global warming, due to the multitude of factors and influences involved.

Over the last decade or so, the influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on global temperatures is just coming to light. The PDO is a cycle of different sea circulation patterns that changes over a 30 year period. A number of scientists believe that this PDO phenomenon is vital to our understanding of global warming and climate change, although we are still in our early years of understanding how the phenomenon really works. According to Dr Roy Spencer, the PDO phenomenon can be used to explain Artic ice melting over the last 30 years. The PDO phenomenon can also explain why Antarctic ice is actually increasing.

Some scientists are even claiming the world is heading into another ice age right at this moment.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) only exists within the earth’s atmosphere in trace amounts, at around 380ppm. It is an important nutrient for flora, a building block for all life on earth. CO2 being an invisible gas will not hold onto and trap heat within the earth’s atmosphere.

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, which primarily evaporates from the oceans and is responsible for both reflecting and trapping heat within the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, and higher concentrations are actually beneficial to plant life on this planet.

The global warming issue is full of opinions, as we don’t know the facts today.

We also live in the fallacy that humankind has the power to fix any global warming problem. This is in the light of the success the world had in limiting chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerants and aerosols, in eliminating the hole in the ozone layer back in the 1980s. This belief that we as humans can control the environment is arrogance in the extreme.

The proponents of global warming would have the world belief that it controls its own destiny in terms of being able to control the environment. Is this living in true reality?

When we connect morality with truth, inquisitions, purges, and clampdowns on the unbelievers usually occur. This is where the global warming evangelists can take us, back to the ‘dark ages’ of science and understanding, to where the earth was once flat.

Perhaps the last words of this article should be left to the Canadian limnologist David Schindler, who said “To a patient scientist, the unfolding greenhouse mystery is far more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. But it is slow reading, with new clues sometimes not appearing for several years. Impatience increases when one realizes that it is not the fate of some fictional character, but of our planet and species, which hangs in the balance as the great carbon mystery unfolds at a seemingly glacial pace.”

Prof. Murray Hunter

http://www.4thmedia.org/2015/09/the-danger-of-climate-change-evangelism/

Bimi

Is There a Climate Crisis? The Science Says Not Now and Not in the Future | William Happer

Goska

Jestesmy w innej przestrzeni kosmicznej. Zniknely nasze gwiazdy !!!!