I have for long been a keen supporter of the theory that climate change is to a great extent "man-made". After having watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", I came to believe that the evidence was irrefutable. Also, I was led to believe that there was a consensus among scientist and that the only ones who questioned the Climate Change Theory were pseudo-scientists paid off by oil companies. Besides, who could possibly gain from the scare mongering surrounding climate change?
Well, first of all, if somebody tells you that there is a consensus surrounding a scientific issue, you can expect that this is not actually the case. The reality is probably that those who voice a different opinion are being silenced and ridiculed. Also, you have to "follow the money" to find out if the "consensus" is really just something artificially created through selective funding. If the truth was really what we were aiming for, how come so much money is spent on linking the naturally occurring carbon dioxide to climate change while so little is devoted to other very serious environmental problems?
Another thing to look into is the effects of the doomsday reports on climate change. Who benefits from it?
Well, one would expect that if there had really been a consensus, we would have gotten a lot farther in the development of renewable energy. I am all for developing clean energy sources and funding research into technology that makes us less dependent on oil. But instead of focusing on things that might actually make us more prosperous, much energy is being devoted to 1. pump money into research that "proves" the connection between carbon dioxide and climate change 2. spreading fear about the possible effects of climate change 3. spreading the idea that we humans bear responsibility for climate change by living, breathing and consuming, and most importantly perhaps, 4. setting up the stage for a necessary global governance.
So in the end, the Climate Change Conference that will be held in Copenhagen has very little to do with saving our planet and a lot to do with control over people's lives. A "war against CO2" has about the same probability of success as a "war against terrorism". Therefore, if they want to control our daily lives, focusing on CO2 is a great way to go. We are all guilty of emitting CO2 simply by breathing.
2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.
If you wish to learn about alternative theories on climate change, you may want to watch this documentary in 8 parts.
The debate about whether on not man-made climate change is real is not over and certainly not proven beyond doubt. Perhaps we humans have some effect on climate change, but the evidence so far is not convincing, and alternative theories need to be heard and given as much funding as the carbon dioxide theory.
Are you willing to give up your rights to a world government without evidence that we are the cause of climate change? Do you agree with those who call for population reduction as a mean of curbing climate change although there is nothing to support their claims that we are too many on the earth?
We are walking on a very dangerous path toward a new world order, and they see us as parasites who need to be controlled. When we realize that they are using climate change as a reason to fight against us, we should be concerned.
Posts
I did not read the full article, but looked at it long enough to see that yYou mention both the Inconvenient Truth and the Great Global Warming Swindle.
ReplyDeleteI have never watched Al Gore's movie, but I do think that scientific observations point toward climate changes accelerated by men, not purely natural.
I did watch the Great Global Warming swindle though, and it's a terrible documentary, full of mistakes, misrepresntation, misinterpretation, false experts, forged graphics; its conclusions are bogus and/or useless.
Read scientific journals, you'll get the truth about SCIENCE.
Thanks for your comment, Hugo.
ReplyDeleteBoth documentaries try to prove a specific point, gathering evidence that supports it, and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. The point is that there is no consensus on the climate change issue like some would like to make us believe. A lot of factors are involved in climate change (among others sun spots), so it is almost impossible to make somewhat accurate predictions about the future. Yet, from the media, we just hear that we KNOW what effects CO2 have on climate and how many degrees the temperature WILL rise, and politicians are using the theory of man-made climate change to assert greater control over our lives.
In the end, we need to be open to alternative theories, and scientists who wish to do research on these should be able to get proper funding.
(Also, I think you should have taken the time to read through my whole entry before commenting)
Lina,
ReplyDeleteLet me first tell you what you are right about.
Yes, I should have read your entire blog post before posting a comment, it's more decent.
Second, yes, the issue of climate change is too complicated to reduce it to "Humans producing CO2 = bad = we'll all die".
However, there is a clear misunderstanding of the issue from your part.
The mere fact that you reply the following in the comment section tells a lot: "Both documentaries try to prove a specific point, gathering evidence that supports it, and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between"
You are somewhat correct, both documentaries do exactly what you say, but you are missing the point of my comment, perhaps I was too subtle...
The point is that this is NOT how science works. Scientific research does not work by assuming a conclusion and then trying to find facts to support it.
Scientists will pose hypothesis, test them, perform measurements and observation and THEN, they analyze the data and try to come up with conclusions.
Every scientists came with the conclusion that recent climate change are most likely caused by humans, yes, every, even the skeptics. What they do not all agree on, but most do, is the effects of the warming, and the feedback effects that will occur.
Anyway, I already wrote way too much for nothing; my point was that you should read SCIENCE stuff instead of POLITICAL stuff if you want to talk seriously about climate change, but now that I have read your whole article and seen you talk about NWO and ways to control our lives, I have very little hope left that someone like you will do her job and truly do the research and read scientific papers...
It's so much easier to just say that people are brainwashed, the media is lying, politicians want to control us, blah, blah blah...
Thanks for your input.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that "Scientific research does not work by assuming a conclusion and then trying to find facts to support it." But isn't it ironic then that this seem so be the way that the climate change scientists have been working as was discovered through "Climategate"?
Also, you need to make a distinction between the documentary film makers and the scientists. That the film maker has an idea about what he wants to get out of the documentary doesn't mean that the scientists he interviews have a conclusion before they start their research and only look for facts to support it.
The scientific research on climate change should be un-biased and many possible causes need to be taken into consideration, which is not the case when only those who wish to study the CO2 connection to climate change are given proper funding.
It is unfortunately also impossible to separate science from politics, because scientific research requires political support in order to reach us. It is politically incorrect to question the theory of man-made climate change so even if a scientist finds conflicting evidence, we might not find out about it as he may be ridiculed or ignored.
But isn't it ironic then that this seem so be the way that the climate change scientists have been working as was discovered through "Climategate"?
ReplyDeleteI came back from a 3-week vacation on Sunday so I was not aware of that "Climategate", I will need to look into that as I have quickly read about it somewhere else too...
From what I understood, it's a bunch of emails, some quite old, that were made public by a hacker, correct?
The "worse" thing that they seem to reveal is that some people said to each other to destroy emails because of the existence of public information acts, and others talked about trick for graphs. That's about it or there is more "incredible" things about it?
The authors did not try to hide the fact that they were genuine apparently, so obviously it's not that much of a scandal...?
What are the most shocking things I should learn about?
It is politically incorrect to question the theory of man-made climate change so even if a scientist finds conflicting evidence, we might not find out about it as he may be ridiculed or ignored
No, Richard Lindzen publishes papers in scientific journals even though he is on the skeptic side...
Just to prove that point, go look at this article from New Scientist. They asked scientists what they think of the coming Copenhagen conference on climate change, guess who comes third... him!
Reading too much about conspiracy theories can be harmful to your mental health, watch out!
j/k ;-)
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteIf you're really interested in truth, I suggest you read some more about what was leaked in these emails.
Try here for example, for a few choice emails, or this for a more comprehensive analysis.
It can be hard for people when long-held beliefs are challenged by reason, but there's no need to revert to ad hominem attacks.
It is certainly no exaggeration to state that those who support the theory of man-made climate change get more attention than those who don't. It is also a fact that climate change gets a lot more attention in media than any other environmental issue, which is a huge shame, because there are things out there that definitely deserve more attention.
ReplyDeleteWhen informing oneself one can't remain in ignorant bliss, and perhaps I would be happier if I didn't care to look into anything, but I have no desire to go back.
When one starts to look into issues, one realizes that something is wrong. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist, then so be.
Yes tt, it is hard to challenge long-held beliefs. I have for long been a strong supporter of the theory of man-made climate change, but when I see how they are taking advantage of people's fears to get their agenda through and viciously defending themselves from those who wish to bring forward conflicting evidence, I can't help to become suspicious.
@tt
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links; I read a few articles from the Power Line blog and went through the article at scienceandpublicpolicy.org. I did not find anything very convincing though, because they talk a lot about the politics and cannot point to real data manipulation or obvious abuse by the scientists.
The article from scienceandpublicpolicy.org does present scientific interpretation though but it's misleading and often self-contradictory. I like the part for example when the author denounce what he calls statistical abuse only to do the exact same thing right after, quite funny...
Anyway, if you do find a passage which is particularly convincing in your own opinion, please let me know.
@Lina
It is also a fact that climate change gets a lot more attention in media than any other environmental issue, which is a huge shame, because there are things out there that definitely deserve more attention.
Agreed, except perhaps for the "more" in "more attention"; because even though there are other important environmental issues, I do consider global warming to be the most important as it could lead to changes that humans have never faced before.
Now, don't take me wrong, I am not worried at all... I do think that the consequences are way too hard to predict to freak out, and it's going to take way too much time for us to see these consequences. But the fact is that our planet received a huge amount of CO2 in its atmosphere and things are going to change. Everybody agrees on that, no?
when I see how they are taking advantage of people's fears to get their agenda through and viciously defending themselves from those who wish to bring forward conflicting evidence, I can't help to become suspicious.
Don't you see a problem with that statement that you make?
You just confirmed what I am trying to explain to you. If you want to discuss climate change, discuss the science behind it, not the people who talk about it. Yes, I know that it's more complicated than that because there is money involved, politics involved and so on.
But I never ever hear skeptics bring scientific arguments. All they do is bash the explications for man-made global warming, without bringing alternatives theories, and talk about the agenda of people who supposedly try to control others with climate change fear.
But again, I know you're going to say that it's because dissent scientists don't get the funding and so on... and that's when I have to call for a conspiracy theory syndrome, as nothing could convince you of the opposite. Your mind is set.
I mean, how can you learn about what scientists say when you consider them to be part of a huge conspiracy? How can you call yourself neutral when you claim that the minority is right and majority wrong?
But anyway, I wanted to try to discuss the issue using a slightly different approach, because of the fact that you said that you were a "believer" of man-made global warming before. This could help see if we agree on the science behind climate change or no. Ok, so here's the idea: Let's pretend that you and I know nothing about the political aspect of climate change, and even nothing about climate change itself.
ReplyDeleteHum, it's going to be to long for here, go read the rest on my page if you want...
There are agendas on both sides of this debate. That's the point - there is still debate. But some sections of society want to declare the debate closed, and actions taken.
ReplyDeleteHugo said:
I like the part for example when the author denounce what he calls statistical abuse only to do the exact same thing right after, quite funny...
I see you don't refute their claim of statistical abuse though. The burden of proof of AGW lies with those parties who are attempting to impose global governance and carbon taxation and trading on the basis of science.
To try to artificially separate science from the environment in which it is conducted, including the political environment, is reductionism that I find difficult to understand - preferring to look at things more holistically. Everything from the peer review process, to which scientists are interviewed for the mainstream media is subject to political/economic pressures, and when policy is formed from the science, it is formed by politicians not scientists.
I too come from the position of believing in AGW a few years ago, and to my embarrassment also campaigned a little bit to increase awareness! I prefer to follow the truth whereever it leads me though (even though it's hard to admit you were once wrong, because many people regard it as an indication of unreliability, rather than honesty), and having looked more into the science and the political and economic environment, I have the feeling it is some kind of 'nobel lie'.
I agree we have severe global ecological problems, but fear that trusting a psycopathic elite to provide solutions to based on a flawed climate hypothesis is a recipe for genocide.
Here is a good site which provides information about the motive behind the AGW movement.
Andy
@tt
ReplyDeleteThere are agendas on both sides of this debate. That's the point - there is still debate. But some sections of society want to declare the debate closed, and actions taken.
My point is to talk not about the agendas but the actual science, which you have nothing to say about I guess as you did not reply to my question concerning the climategate...
What did the "scandal" brought up that should make me change my mind about the impact of humans on the climate?
I see you don't refute their claim of statistical abuse though.
Good point!! OK, so the problem is that the article says this:
"we can use the same global temperature data as the UN itself to deliver a result precisely the opposite of that which the UN’s climate panel tries to draw."
Then, what they do is put 4 graphs showing temperatures. The first one is from 1994 up to today and each graph is then shorter in time. Obviously, since 1998 was the hottest year, and 2007 the coolest (for that period), what happens is that you go from a rise in temperature to a decline.
The first problem is that the graphs use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, does not really matter but it's just weird and gives the impression that the numbers are bigger...
Second, most important, is that using these graphs is completely useless, as it uses a period of time too short to be useful for anything. We know that 98 was hot because of El Nino and 2007 cooler because of La Nina. The genereal trend is that it's still going up, or might be stabilizing because of countries like China and India pumping SO2 in the air (that's a whole other subject by the way...).
Ok, so the point is that they are abusing the data by doing so, but were their attacks or abuse justified or not?
I consider that they are wrong to do so. The "abuse" they talk about is the fact that climate scientists will show graphs only for a specific period of time as well. But there is a HUGE difference. Climate scientists use a certain time frame, usually from 1880, or 1920 up to today, because that's what we are interested in, the period when humans might have an impact. Skeptics mock this by taking a period that suit their ideas that global warming is fake. Do you see the difference?
On one side they want to study a certain period and draw conclusion, while on the other they have a conclusion and try to find graphs that suit it.
Of course you'll say that this is what both sides do, but I would disagree completely... and this shows me that skeptics are good at raising doubts where there is none.
Now don't take me wrong, there are doubts of course, but not concerning the warming trend...
Concerning the two links you sent. The one from Wikipedia concerning the peer review process is missing quotations and is a joke... it's clearly a random opinion, nothing serious, and states the obvious idea that, of course, peer review literature could be controlled, but that falls in the conspiracy theories once again as you would require a tremendous amount of people to control the information in such a way that nobody is able to denounce that. A small elite of politicians with agendas is not enough...
Second link, you sent quotes that are supposed to show the motive behind the AWG movement? These are only quotes, nothing more... plus, once again, can't you use something yourself? You can only send links?
In other words, can't you discuss climate change? or can you only discuss the people who discuss climate change? Any useful information to share?
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that the idea of changing data to 'hide the decline' is an abuse of the scientific process?
I'd say...
"So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip."
...is evidence of abuse of science too. Not think so?
Ok, to discuss a small point of climate science specifically, why does the CO2 level in all the graphs I've seen seem to be driven by temperature changes rather the other way round? Looking at these graphs you could be forgiven for thinking that high CO2 levels reduce global temperatures. I don't claim to know of a plausible mechanism, but science is always incomplete - and the absence of a theory doesn't imply the absence of a mechanism. Also, I see in these historical CO2 graphs such as this, that the CO2 level is higher than is has been for at least 800,000 years. Assuming these graphs were derived from honest data, how many years does each reading from 500,000 years ago represent? what is it's resolution? and what is it's accuracy? I'd honestly be interested if you're aware of some scientific papers on this (and can point me towards them). The point here is, are we sure the CO2 level has never been as high as it currently is, even for a decade say?
You don't seem interested in human psychological reality. Science is a human enterprise, and as such is influenced not just by reason and logic (as you may like to believe), but by psychological pressures brought about through the social, political and economic environment. Accepting these self-evident tenets seems to constitute conspiracy theory to some people - who seem to prefer to not to listen to arguments that might confound their simplistic view of the world.
Andy
Hugo,
ReplyDeleteHuman has an impact on climate change, just as animals and plants. The problem is that scientists changed data to make it look MUCH MORE worst than it is in reality.
In anycase, we should still stop using fuels from fossil energy for different reasons than climate change, because fuels from fossil energy pollute the air and are the main reason why the Middle East is a war theatre.
What the power elite along with the UN wanted to do was not to change this, but just make you and I pay a carbon tax.
Above all, the Copenhagen treaty (that will never be signed) was not going to change anything, but lead us forward a World government.
I personally thanks the hackers who got those email conversations out there!
Thanks tt, I find your comments very insightful.
ReplyDeleteThe point of science is to better understand our world, and our knowledge should evolve as we continue to make more discoveries. A few decades ago we were worried about global cooling so it hasn't been very long since we started to believe there was a link between CO2 and climate. It is therefore naive to think that we now have the answer to such a complex issue as climate change and that we can stop looking at other possible factors. It is even naiver to believe that we have the answers on how to stop climate change. Should we even attempt to control the climate?
All climatologists are aware of that many other factors than carbon dioxide affect climate, like the sun and cosmic rays. We just don't hear about these in the media.
Here is an interesting article on the "consensus":
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9763
Hello people,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would love you to go watch a 4-part video when you have the time, it will take you less than 40 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Personally, when I want to know about climate change science, that's the kind of information I listen to...
@Andy
tt: Don't you think that the idea of changing data to 'hide the decline' is an abuse of the scientific process?
Yes, it is wrong to forge data, obviously...
But is it the case in that example? No:
it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
I'd say...
"So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip."
...is evidence of abuse of science too. Not think so?
Again, same thing. It is abusive to purposely add/remove value to data in order to get to a precise conclusion. Was it the case here? No. Read the context!
to discuss a small point of climate science specifically, why does the CO2 level in all the graphs I've seen seem to be driven by temperature changes rather the other way round?
From what I recall you are absolutely correct, CO2 has been lagging throughout history. The question you should be able to answer yourself then is this: Does it mean that CO2 levels are ONLY a consequence?
It would be foolish to simply answer 'Yes', as CO2, while lagging, could also be a cause of warming, being one of the many positive feedback that can occur. So without even referring to any scientific papers, your own common sense can answer your question I am sure...
But, just in case...
Here
Here
Here
Finally, if you're interested, a
generel overview from NewScientist
@Sracine
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that scientists changed data to make it look MUCH MORE worst than it is in reality
Evidence?
What the power elite along with the UN wanted to do was not to change this, but just make you and I pay a carbon tax.
This reminds me something... did I ever mention that I was in favor of drastic actions to cut CO2 emissions? Or in favor of paying carbon taxes?
Again, this Climategate issue is ridiculous because people draw so many conclusions regarding the science behind climate change and that is what I am concerned about, because the science itself is not affected by the emails at all. There is nothing there that suddenly should make scientists change their mind about what the scientific data tells us.
If people change their mind concerning the political aspect, well it's their right, but it's a shame, because it simply shows that they don't care about the science, only about the people...
@Lina
ReplyDeleteA few decades ago we were worried about global cooling
Wrong.
That's one of the reasons why I posted the link to the video in my previous comment.
It is therefore naive to think that we now have the answer to such a complex issue as climate change and that we can stop looking at other possible factors
Who says they have all the answers? Skeptics seem to have the easy answer of saying that everything is natural and that humans cause nothing, but besides them, I am not aware of anybody saying that we -now have the answer-!
It is even naiver to believe that we have the answers on how to stop climate change. Should we even attempt to control the climate?
Stop? Who's talking about stopping? The point is to not mess up the atmosphere too much, so that it remains relatively stable, preventing strong natural feedback effects to come into play. Are we sure that we can do that? No... Are we sure that doing nothing would cause positive feedbacks? No...
Should we try to control the climate? No... and we don't. Well... actually we do some controlling using various chemical products to force rain or disperse clouds, but that's something else... (heard of Moscow's mayor idea for preventing snow accumulation this winter?)
All climatologists are aware of that many other factors than carbon dioxide affect climate, like the sun and cosmic rays. We just don't hear about these in the media.
Well stop listening to the media and listen to scientists more then... because guess what, it's not the scientists who predicted global cooling as you mention in that same comment, it was the media. Oh but now that it's on "the other side" it's fine to listen to the media? lol
Finally, concerning the article you proposed,
it had a good approach at first, as it wants to discuss climate change using a scientific approach.
I noted a lot of misrepresentation and wrong conclusions though. Actually the main problem is that the article gives a lot of true facts that are simply irrelevant, trying to distract the reader from the original goal which was to discuss the science of climate change.
There are way too many to list them here so I'll just give 2 examples:
1) The CO2 lagging problem, as I mentioned in a previous comment...
If CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases, it does not make sense that CO2 can be the cause of temperature increases.
2) The author discusses other causes for climate change, which is legitimate, because obviously CO2 is not the only cause of global climate variations. The problem is that by doing so, the author seems to imply that scientists forget that CO2 is not the only cause... does he think that they are all idiots who do not know what they are studying? Who knows... but anyway, his most important point is that the Sun is the main driver, not CO2. That is obvious and correct! But what he fails to mention is the fact that scientits are well aware of that and it is actually one of the reason why we are trying to understand the impact of humans on the planet's climate, because for a few decades now, the sun's activity is not correlated with the global temperature... so the idea is to try to explain why... humans producing CO2 is one of the possible contributing factors.
Hej Hugo,
ReplyDeletehere is a paper from "James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything."
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Read the rest here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
I had a lecture with a climatologist a few weeks ago, and he said that because there are so many factors that co-operate in affecting the climate, it is impossible to try to make predictions. So if we can't make accurate predictions, how can we expect policies to lower CO2 emissions to have the desired effect?
ReplyDeleteHe also stated that it is a very young science and that we don't have a lot of data. We have only had the opportunity to measure global temperature since the mid 19th century, and then we didn't have many measuring stations either.
So in the end, based on the knowledge we have today, policies against CO2 is like giving medicine to a patient without knowing what disease he has. We can't fix the problem before we know what caused the problem.
Obviously, it is wrong to declare that the debate is over when so many unknowns exist.
@Sylvain
ReplyDeleteT'as rien d'autres que des blogs comme source d'information?
@Lina
Any paper to suggest? Any scientific explanation to discuss? besides "this guy said"...
Oh ya right, I forgot: because of climategate we cannot trust any scienctific paper ever written on climate change because we now know that it's all bogus and "this guy" you mentionned confirmed it, since he says it's a young science without a lot of data, so it must be the case!
Come on guys, at least TT did bring up some interesting points...
I had forgotten to reply to something by the way.
TT:
You don't seem interested in human psychological reality. Science is a human enterprise, and as such is influenced not just by reason and logic (as you may like to believe), but by psychological pressures brought about through the social, political and economic environment. Accepting these self-evident tenets seems to constitute conspiracy theory to some people - who seem to prefer to not to listen to arguments that might confound their simplistic view of the world.
My favorite subject of discussion on the web is religion, so yes I am interested in human psychology a lot. But no, I disagree concerning science. Even though it is an enterprise done by humans, the goals, results, techniques, are independant of the person achieving the job.
Of course it's complicated and humans do make mistakes, but that's why science is always refined, tuned, reevaluated, and so on... at the end of the day, the name of the person on the paper is pointless, the contain matters.
Don't fall in the pitfall of people like creationists who try to associate theories like evolution by natural selection to a person, rather than a body of evidence. I heard, no latter than yesterday, a person saying that scientists accept evolution only because of the book Origin of species...
We are far from that cocnerning climate change, but there are similarities. Some people are trying to promote the false idea that scientists find human-made climate change probable only because of a few documents written by a few people here and there.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
ReplyDeleteFun, even if it is exactly the opposite of what is behind ....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hENJlWwrg_4
I did found some real fraud! well, in my opinion at least...
ReplyDeleteGo read the last blog post.
Thanks for the link Mr. Zaine. I will have a look at it.
ReplyDeleteHugo, the "guy" we had the lecture with happens to be a scientist, but not on the "right" side I suppose.
@Lina
ReplyDeleteOh, the guy was a scientist, thanks for pointing that out, now it's much more reliable.
So what did he say again?
- because there are so many factors that co-operate in affecting the climate, it is impossible to try to make predictions.
Because he says so?
- So if we can't make accurate predictions, how can we expect policies to lower CO2 emissions to have the desired effect?
I am not in favor of policies specifically for CO2 emissions either, but we cannot discuss WHY because you skeptics don't know what they're talking about.
- it is a very young science and that we don't have a lot of data.
Again, because he says so?
- We have only had the opportunity to measure global temperature since the mid 19th century, and then we didn't have many measuring stations either.
And these measurements are worth nothing?
- based on the knowledge we have today, policies against CO2 is like giving medicine to a patient without knowing what disease he has. We can't fix the problem before we know what caused the problem.
Well you obviously have NO idea what the problem is indeed, so ya, I am glad that you don't get to try to fix the problem...
- it is wrong to declare that the debate is over when so many unknowns exist.
So many unknowns... for you.
See, I can do rethoric talking too! It's so much fun! It requires no effort at all!