the Free Hypnosis Social Network
Sacred Cows and popular beliefs -- "Every body knows Global Warming is a scientific fact!"
I share this in the context of looking at the way every day trances transform beliefs and opinions into facts-
Warmest regards,
Michael E.
=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+gl...
Division of Canwest Publishing Inc.
Quick links:ShopLocal,Obituaries,Horoscope,Lotteries
HomeNewsOpinionBusinessReal EstateEnergyMoneyMarkets on FPSportsEntertainmentLifeHealthTechnologyTravelJobsCarsHomesClassifieds
Scientists pull an about face on global warming
BY LORNE GUNTER, FOR THE CALGARY HERALDSEPTEMBER 19, 2009COMMENTS (59)
Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?
Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.
Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.
Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.
When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.
So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?
Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.
But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.
"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."
But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.
While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.
Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.
In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.
But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?
My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.
Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Warmest regards,
Michael E.
=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+gl...
Division of Canwest Publishing Inc.
Quick links:ShopLocal,Obituaries,Horoscope,Lotteries
HomeNewsOpinionBusinessReal EstateEnergyMoneyMarkets on FPSportsEntertainmentLifeHealthTechnologyTravelJobsCarsHomesClassifieds
Scientists pull an about face on global warming
BY LORNE GUNTER, FOR THE CALGARY HERALDSEPTEMBER 19, 2009COMMENTS (59)
Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?
Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.
Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.
Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.
When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.
So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?
Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.
But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.
"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."
But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.
While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.
Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.
In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.
But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?
My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.
Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Roy Hunter on
-
Hi Michael,
Thank you for posting this. It was an interesting article.
Over a year ago I heard a credible scientist interviewed on radio who also stated similar views. He said that sunspot activity was the number one cause of global warming in the 20th Century "...as evidenced by the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars, which mankind obviously did not cause." He also stated (as in the article you cited) that we have had a cooling trend since 2001 because of a significant reduction in solar sunspot activity. It was his opinion that "carbon footprints" caused only 3/100 of a degree difference in world temperature.
Regardless of one's views regarding carbon footprints, the information was certainly thought provoking; and should make us want the topic researched without bias.
Best wishes,
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
Permalink Reply by Randall Winter on -
Interesting article.
It seems that nothing has meaning until we give it.
Or, change the trance, change the meaning.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan French on -
Thank you Michael. You echo a concern of mine which is: how in the heck do I interpret data in a subject in which I have no real knowledge?
I find that it comes down to who resonates with me (or I with them), who seems reasonable and tight in their logic, who has a proven track record for me of being on-target in the past.
This goes for health care reform, the war in Afghanistan, our economic crises, politics of all kinds...all of it. But when I put my own leanings aside, I find it very hard to sort through the information in any kind of reliable way.
So people: what ideas do you have about sifting through information for some semblance of truth?
Susan
www.hypno4success.com
-
Permalink Reply by Randall Winter on
-
Susan
I agree with your statement that it comes down to who you resonate with that gives meaning to you.
With science, there is no agreement with one "side" or the "other". There's only ideas and opinions and money and egos. Scientists love to see their name in ink (i.e. published).
As Michael said, "the context of looking at the way every day trances transform beliefs and opinions into facts . . .", is the point. We are all in a trance that results in beliefs and opinions, therefore it is up to the individual to give meaning to something or not. Either way it is the same.
It comes down to whatever serves you and brings you into your bliss!
Personally, Global Warming doesn't bring much bliss to me. Today, I'm much more interested in learning to love myself on a moment to moment basis, (redo my trance to the opposite), and enjoy the bliss that comes from that. Yeeea, love trance!
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Atkinson on -
Regardless of your views, there is very profound video on You Tube from a 13 year old girl.
"The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes"
Being the internet genius that I am (not), I could not figure out how to post the actual link. But if your interested, it is well worth the watch, especially when you remember she is still just a child.
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Atkinson on
-
Michael, I think this is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0
Dennis Atkinson said:Regardless of your views, there is very profound video on You Tube from a 13 year old girl.
"The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes"
Being the internet genius that I am (not), I could not figure out how to post the actual link. But if your interested, it is well worth the watch, especially when you remember she is still just a child.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Witherspoon on -
Yes a well indoctrinated child that can see the injustice but does not see the reason exists. We will never have a Utopia, it has been tried before and Utopias always fail.
Dennis Atkinson said:Regardless of your views, there is very profound video on You Tube from a 13 year old girl.
"The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes"
Being the internet genius that I am (not), I could not figure out how to post the actual link. But if your interested, it is well worth the watch, especially when you remember she is still just a child.
-
Permalink Reply by John Bittner - Ocotillo Hypnosis on -
The writer of this article seems ignorant as to how science works. This is evident in drawing an analogy between various figureheads, such as the Pope, and a lone scientist. Scientific "fact" is simply a matter of consensus. This consensus is based upon observation and experimentation. Consensus does not require that everyone blindly agree with majority opinion either. Science advances because those who disagree with the consensus have a framework of scientific method to prove the consensus wrong.
I doubt that anyone in the scientific community is at all suprised when computer models fail to predict with unfailing accuracy, yet Mr Gunter, who is columnist, not a scientist, is ready to throw up his hands and say because we cannot know for certain, there's no point in trying to use our intellect and science to plan for the future.
So who is in a trance here? Those who choose to believe an overwhelming consensus of the world's climatologists or a guy who writes a column for a paper in city whose economy is tied to oil and gas exploration and the oil-sands industry in Alberta?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on -
More == FYI --
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzOD...
Taking a bite out of climate data
The Dog Ate Global Warming
Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?
By Patrick J. Michaels, National Review Online
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren't talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world's first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known in the trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human influence on global climate."
Putting together such a record isn't at all easy. Weather stations weren't really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.
So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren't the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren't specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.
It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).
Enter the dog that ate global warming.
Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world's surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.
If we are to believe Jones's note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can't be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there's no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
- Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on
-
HOT-HOT-HOT
Can you remember when lying to the public and congress was a serious crime?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-...
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.
There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.
Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
--------------
=^..^=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
----
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on
-
HIV Science Implodes Next - Spread the Word-
Many people reacted as if I had insulted their religion when ever I suggested that I didn't think that man made global warming was based on scientific evidence...
Michael E.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/global_warming_science_...
January 31, 2010
Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent
Rick Moran
The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens - yes dozens - of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.
Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus "science" on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in theTelegraph :
Dr North next uncovered "Amazongate". The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest - as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain's two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.
A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of "extreme weather events" such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages - when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water.
This is a great story. It has everything a media outlet could desire; scandal, conflict of interest (IPCC head Pauchuri runs companies that benefited from climate scare stories), government cover ups - why then, has this unraveling of the basis of climate science that posited catastrophic man made warming not been making any news at all in the United States?
It's too easy to simply claim "bias." Media outlets don't pass up juicy stories that could potentially increase their readership and revenue for ideological purposes (except the New York Times - and even they could spin all of this to show skeptics to be using flawed arguments like the liberal Guardian is doing in England).
Perhaps its time to ask why this story being revealed overseas with new revelations almost daily in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Timesonline, and other Fleet Street publications can't get any traction here. Blogs like Watts up with That andClimate Depot are keeping us informed of the latest from England but we hear crickets chirping when it comes to stories from major newspapers and - outside of Fox News - the cable nets.
As global warming the political movement is losing its scientific justification, the American people - who will be asked to foot the bill to the tune of trillions of dollars if Obama goes ahead with his "green" plans - are grossly uninformed about the state of the debate. Until the media starts to give this story the coverage it deserves, that state of affairs will not change.
--
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan French on
-
Amen and halleluah, Roy.
What I don't get is why we shouldn't see the necessity to clean up the environment even if caused the raining of diamonds and gold?
And, for those of us who take vaccines, are we not doing so out of the intention to be on the safe side? Ditto car insurance, home owners insurance, etc. Since none of us know for sure and there is such sharp disagreement, why wouldn't it simply be safer to consider that global warming might be a problem that to ignore with skepticism and mockery?
I smell "money" here. Why would we NOT want to err on the safe side? What do you guys think?
Susan
Roy Hunter said:Hi Michael,
Thank you for posting this. It was an interesting article.
Over a year ago I heard a credible scientist interviewed on radio who also stated similar views. He said that sunspot activity was the number one cause of global warming in the 20th Century "...as evidenced by the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars, which mankind obviously did not cause." He also stated (as in the article you cited) that we have had a cooling trend since 2001 because of a significant reduction in solar sunspot activity. It was his opinion that "carbon footprints" caused only 3/100 of a degree difference in world temperature.
Regardless of one's views regarding carbon footprints, the information was certainly thought provoking; and should make us want the topic researched without bias.
Best wishes,
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Barry Neale replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Hypno-Jay replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'What is your favourite tool ?'
Roy Hunter replied to Hypno-Jay's discussion 'Wow'
Spellbinde, Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com and 2 other members joined Michael Ellner's group
Spellbinde, Suggestive Celine -"The Queen of and 3 other members joined Leshem Yosef's group
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS