bal Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
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 the first Canadian Ph.D. 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.
You forgot about stinger.Cold Dirt is just proud that he finally found someone who shares his opinion about global warming. About time, I mean you and CA can't be the only wackoes out there!
I'm not even going to respond because no matter what I try you either ignore the thread or disregard any evidence presented to you.
This is for you CurrentAffairs:
Hey Dirt... let's start with this.
Do you agree that the average world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so? At this point, I don't care the reason behind it. I just want to know your opinion on whether the world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so. Yes or no?
Cold Dirt is just proud that he finally found someone who shares his opinion about global warming. About time, I mean you and CA can't be the only wackoes out there!
Moderator's Warning: |
Yes I agree the temp has changed.....but its from the sun getting hotter not man made.......
funny how quickly you environmental nuts dismiss someone that has a different outlook on this junk science called global warming......yet cannot explain why the southern ice caps are getting thicker..............
Hey Dirt... let's start with this.
Do you agree that the average world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so? At this point, I don't care the reason behind it. I just want to know your opinion on whether the world temperature has gone up in the last 25 years or so. Yes or no?
The important fact is that yes, the planet's median temperature is warming, no?
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.
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun.
Actually over the last century it has gone up about .7 C. So what?
It has been hotter, it has been colder.
Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice? Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land? What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth? How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C? Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?
Link please.
What is "it"? The median temperature?
And are you denying that the median temperature has consistantly risen in the last 25 years or so?
Weather measurements have been recorded since 1861. Take a guess at what is the hottest decade.
Sure temps fluctuate.
This is just too damn rediculous to even reply. You can't be serious.
:rofl look at your own chart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The so-called Global Temperature measurments.
Absolutely look at your own chart, It has risen it has fallen.
How about 100 years ago, how about 2000 years ago, how about 4000 years ago?
Hmmmm so there is a natural fluctuation that has occoured ever since there was climate.
I want you to provide me with a link. You have a tendency to blow stuff out of your a$$... I want you to provide back-up for what you write.
Because they are simply the uncontrolled recordings from a mass variety of sources. To believe that until very recently we had an accurate, within a few tenths of a degree, median global temperature is folly.Why do you call them "so-called"? Do you think they are made up?
And the 25 years before that?I did. I'm not sure what you're seeing, but you might need glasses. In the last 25 years or so, it looks like the average global temperature has risen by 0.3.
So this may not be the warmest period the Earth has ever experienced.Well, according to the chart, it was -2.5 100 years ago. Doesn't take Einstein to figure out that it wasn't the warmest period. As for 2000 and 4000, how the hell am I supposed to know?
It rose then it fell then it rose again.Take a look at the chart and tell me that the weather has not steadily increased over the last 100 years. Even global warming naysayers agree that this is a FACT.
Partially true I think this graph is self explanatory. There's a divergenceThis is out of my area of "expertise," but why can't it be both? From what I know about it, it appears that the normal cycle of the earth is also being accompanied by man made global warming. Why does something like this always have to come down to an either/or?
A highly mis-leading statement. What you've dishonestly left out is that the increment is global, not regional. No it has not been hotter in the last 650,000 years though it has been far colder before.Actually over the last century it has gone up about .7 C. So what? It has been hotter, it has been colder.
Humans weren't exactly really around back then. At least not civilized or established. So can't really tell you.Stinger said:Tell me this were we better when the northern states were under ice?
:rofl How much of Greenland stinger?Stinger said:Were we better when the people of Greenland were able to farm their land?
Another dishonest spin. Earth has no optimum temperature. However life as we know it on this planet does, and melting of the polar glaciers as well as droughts everywhere and wild weather cycles is certainly not optimum for life today.Stinger said:What is the exact precise temperature that is best for the earth?
There you go again spinning. As if to judge that earth has an optimum. I'll answer this question after you answer this. Are you asking about an optimum for the planet itself or for life on the planet today?Stinger said:How do you know it is? How do you know it won't be better if we warm up another .5 C?
:lamo, the one time that neocons care about the economy. No stinger, the benefits far outweigh any of the costs. Old industries that refuse to go green would be forced to shut down and new high tech green industries would rise in their place. Yep, certainly more beneficial than the costs. Where'd you get your 0.5 figure from? Care to back it up with a credible source?Stinger said:Would the cost of trying to prevent that .5C increase be commensurate with the benefits, if we even know that it wouldn't be better if we did increase .5C?
that's not entirely true. WE do see what is happening today from the current warming. Freak weather patterns, droughts, failed monsoons, causing billions of dollars lost - ie cold snap that hit California and the produce lost.We don't have alot of information about what it is like when it is moderately warmer than today.
It will be even more costly if we don't give up on fossil fuels, not carbon. There is such a thing as carbon neutral. However fossil fuels only add more greenhouse gases as well as a whole lot of other nasty things - ie diesel fuel that release carcinogens.Dezaad said:On the other hand, it will be costly to give up Carbon. And we do have some ability to measure what that cost will be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?