Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"

  1. #1
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836

    "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"

    by, Timothy Ball



    "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 one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. 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."


    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm
    Last edited by john; 09-29-2009 at 05:48 PM.

  2. #2
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Hey now I want people to look at the 7th paragraph down and look at what he says at the end:

    "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."



    Now while I did not put the date up here the link is here and the date he said this was Feb of 2007. Yes I know Adumbical would like people to think this information was "NEW AND CREDIBLE INFORMATION" (as Adumbical likes to say) but the fact is it was not new information. This information has been out for some time (and yes this proves I am not psychic (just well informed)). The thing is intelligent people did not need the head UN scientist to finally say it for most of us who are informed to know it already.


    Are you starting to get why they are now starting to call it "global climate change"

  3. #3
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Now lloyd wants to talk about CO2 that is put out by volcans put forgets in the other thread he just help me prove other gases are global warming gases. He forgets that volcans puts out more then CO2 there are 4 others.


    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
    Last edited by john; 09-30-2009 at 03:35 PM.

  4. #4
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    I think its about time you found ONE climate scientist (i want to make sure however of his qualifications before its certain ) who supports your postion.

    BUT DID YOU REMEMBER WHAT I SAID WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT CONTRADICTED AND I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU FOR DAYS NOW.
    THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE THE MAIN CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE. please try to refute it.

    FROM THE EPA: GREENHOUSE GASES CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSHPHERE ARE LARGELY DUE TO MAN'S (not cows. lol)
    ACTIVITIES.

  5. #5
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Dumbass, I gave you this link:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

    and the thread that says 31,000 scientist IN JUST THE USA. Even youR own links only effect a number of those and YOUR SIDE HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS, AS YOU CALL OUT ABOUT THE 31,000 THAT ARE AGAINST MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

    You then wonder why I call you a dumbass, you put up the same arguement, I discredit it and showed your side to have the same problems as you call out on mine.


    By the way, ONCE AGAIN, your scientists have been proven wrong on their predictions time and time again. The scientist on my side have been proven to be correct. HOW ELSE TO YOU THINK I CALLED THE COOLING TREND IN THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS A FULL 6 MONTHS BEFORE EVEN YOUR SCIENTIST SAY IT WILL HAPPEN NOW.



    Am I more intelligent then your scientist on climate change? Well am I?

  6. #6
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Mt st helens produced between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of co2 when erupting. That amount still doesnt come close in comparison to the SEVERAL HUNDRED BILLION TONS PRODUCED ANNUALLY BY HUMAN ACTIVITY.

    VOLCANOES, SWAMPS, OCEANS (OCEANS JOHN LOL) VEGETATION AND OTHER SUCH NATURAL FACTORS ACCOUNT FOR ROUGHLY 33% OF THE ANNUAL CO2 OUTPUT. THIS IS CLOSE TO THAT OF ALL (ALL JOHN) THE WORLDS HERDING HERBIVORES (COWS ETC) AND ALL OTHER ANIMALS
    (DEATH, METHANE, DESTRUCTION OF VEGETATION ETC AS WELL AS HUMAN ACTIVITY. OF ALL THE THINGS WHICH ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE OUTPUT OF COW ANNUALLY, THE PORTION WHICH VOLCANOES REPRESENT IS VERY MINIMAL.

    WHILE THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR IS SUDDEN (AND WORKS MORE TO COOL)
    AND DIES AWAY, CO2 POWER IS LONG LASTING.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Bingo. Timothy Hall is the former head of Friends of Science (lol) a non profit
    that "WAS CLOSELY LINKED TO THE OIL INDUSTRY." Surprise, surprise.

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    That should have read Timothy Ball.

  9. #9
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    REPOST:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.

    However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.

    Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases."

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



    So now dumbass dont try and take a certain section of the atmosphere and then try to say something different. I know your reading skills and would then miss the big picture and take a certain section and say something different that is the mistake ether you do on purpose or are just to dumb and dont understand.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is it any wonder Havakasha (aka: lloyd) never defended this in the original thread (post 85):

    http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthre...?t=2666&page=9

    Then tries to bring up an already proven to be false arguement in this thread. Please read the last part carefully. I knew he would try what he did, lloyd just because you put it in a different thread does not make what I said less true.

    Dumbass you cant take one level of the atmosphere and use that as the basis for an arguement that only works with your dumb twit friends not here.

  10. #10
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Bingo. Timothy Hall is the former head of Friends of Science (lol) a non profit
    that "WAS CLOSELY LINKED TO THE OIL INDUSTRY." Surprise, surprise.

    Hey dumbass you didn't bother to read the first post did you.

    "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?"


    What have I told you about your double standards and if you dont let them go you will always lose the arguement, because your arguements will look stupid because you acnt have it both ways DUMBASS. How many times you have to be told. NEVER MIND YOU WILL NEVER GET IT.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •