Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[GaryC 7]

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1965

[mmarlo 1]

Who's being swindled? The huge multi-billion dollar conglomerates that produce cars and turn coal into energy, or our children and their children, and the massive numbers of other species that are being wiped out by disease and other results of global warming? The most conservative approach is to err on the side of caution and protect life, not the already mega rich who might have to cut into their profits to take into consideration the future of our species. What is amazing is how many of these handful of rebel scientists who say global warming isn't caused by human activity are being funded by the huge corporations that stand to lose from policy changes to help the environment.

[GaryC 7]

Who's being swindled? The huge multi-billion dollar conglomerates that produce cars and turn coal into energy, or our children and their children, and the massive numbers of other species that are being wiped out by disease and other results of global warming? The most conservative approach is to err on the side of caution and protect life, not the already mega rich who might have to cut into their profits to take into consideration the future of our species. What is amazing is how many of these handful of rebel scientists who say global warming isn't caused by human activity are being funded by the huge corporations that stand to lose from policy changes to help the environment.

Listen to yourself will you? The real truth is that GW is not real. You want to point your finger at big business without even looking at the facts. The people that are being swindled are you and me! Because of this lie that is GW we will have higher taxes and less freedom to choose how we live our lives. The earths climate changes all the time. It does it with our without humans being here. That is the real truth. The GW people are using this to control us and to make themselves rich at our expense. Do me a favor. Actually go out and research it for yourself. Look at both sides. The liberal media and politicians are suppressing the truth because they know their views can't stand the light of day. They strongarm anyone that disagrees with them. The end result is the casual observer only gets one side. Think for yourself!

[Alex+R 0]

Gary, while it is true that the Earth's climate changes all the time, this change is quite different. I think you need to at least review the data. And also to admit that if you aren't a scientist your ability to analyze that data is somewhat limited.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, while it is true that the Earth's climate changes all the time, this change is quite different. I think you need to at least review the data. And also to admit that if you aren't a scientist your ability to analyze that data is somewhat limited.

Your right, I am no scientist. But believe it or not I have done my best to look at all the evidence myself. That is why I have to opinion I have now. I see that the data that the GW advocates use is flawed and cherry picked. I don't take my marching orders from big business or Rush Limbaugh. I think for myself. I can dig it up if you want me to but I saw a research project done by a university that had nothing to do with big business or a political party that showed our temp has stabilized and even gone down in the last 20 years. I have seen other studies that show Antarctic temps going down and the ice mass going up! If you want me to dig them up I will. This isn't just some idle time waster for me on VJ. It's something that I have looked at and followed for years. At first I was suckered in by it. But the more I read and the more I understood the underlying reasons why this is being pushed so hard the more I found myself in opposition to it.

[Alex+R 0]

But Gary, 9 times out of 10 your posts are from conservative websites or tiny online magazines.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess we should just go on deforesting the Amazon, and save a bunch of money by building a hundred or so new coal fired power stations across the US.

Edited March 12, 2007 by erekose

[tmma 467]

Gary, while it is true that the Earth's climate changes all the time, this change is quite different. I think you need to at least review the data. And also to admit that if you aren't a scientist your ability to analyze that data is somewhat limited.

Your right, I am no scientist. But believe it or not I have done my best to look at all the evidence myself. That is why I have to opinion I have now. I see that the data that the GW advocates use is flawed and cherry picked. I don't take my marching orders from big business or Rush Limbaugh. I think for myself. I can dig it up if you want me to but I saw a research project done by a university that had nothing to do with big business or a political party that showed our temp has stabilized and even gone down in the last 20 years. I have seen other studies that show Antarctic temps going down and the ice mass going up! If you want me to dig them up I will. This isn't just some idle time waster for me on VJ. It's something that I have looked at and followed for years. At first I was suckered in by it. But the more I read and the more I understood the underlying reasons why this is being pushed so hard the more I found myself in opposition to it.

I can attest such studies exist-the ice masses/shelves DO receed and advance periodically regardless of atmospheric content. Speed of advancement or retraction MAY be the compelling factor here; and the truth is that data has not been accuratly collected and studied long enough to make any sweeping determinations as to causation at this point.

Can't find the reference but several independent ( multi national, non-partisan or non-government backed) research studies state such.

argh-busy right now-I'll add more later as this is the area of climatology and meteorology I am currently concentrating on.

edit to correct-LOL-typing too fast-LOL

Edited March 12, 2007 by tmma

[GaryC 7]

But Gary, 9 times out of 10 your posts are from conservative websites or tiny online magazines.

As long as the data is correct then what difference does it make what the leanings of the site are? Do you just dismiss out of hand any data because of the source? The facts are that this has become a political issue. The left leaning sites will give the pro-GW side and the right leaning sites give the anti-GW side. If you let your personal political beliefs get in the way that means you will only be getting one side of things. I am not asking you to convert to conservatism, only to look at things with an open mind regardless of where the data comes from.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mmarlo 1]

So wait, what exactly are you asking me to do? To think for myself ("Think for yourself!") or to adopt your truth-by-assertion statements ("The real truth is that GW is not real.")?

I'm unfamiliar with the liberal media you speak of. The one I'm more familiar with is the one that regurgitates everything that comes out of this administration's mouth without analysis. For example, every time you hear the phrase "anti-American", you should probably ignore the entire story.

I do have a background in research, hence the Ph.D., and my guiding belief in life is probably to question everything. Unfortunately, the narrow criticism and analysis that all mainstream media provides leaves common people having to do a research project on their own to try to piece together the facts that can critically affect their lives and their children's lives. What I've seen from your posts is a lot of regurgitation of neo-con rhetoric, but I fail to see the incisive ability to analyze and unfold the true nature of problems through critical thinking. Instead, you make assertions with strong words and therefore they are the truth. Science and logic play by different rules.

I'm pointing my finger at big business while looking at the facts. There is ample evidence that the same companies, like Exxon-Mobil, that stand to lose profits from greater restrictions on emissions are the ones that are funding the anti-GW "science" and giving huge cash prizes for studies that cast doubt on GW.

There's a time and a place for conspiracy theories, but this isn't one of them. Nor is, for example, the attack on Evolutionary Theory by a handful of crackpot "scientists" that say they are fostering the nature of scientific endeavor by subjecting the theory to criticism. But in science, you don't establish a hypothesis as a theory without rigorous experimentation and the ability to make testable predictions that explain otherwise unexplainable variations in the data.

Higher taxes result in less freedom? I'm pretty sure that the inability to breathe and the other horrible health effects that come from pollution, not to mention the literal end of the survival of our species, are a bit more restrictive of our "freedoms" than higher taxes. And who is proposing higher taxes? Increasing emissions standards and requiring companies to protect the only world we have to live in is not "increasing taxes".

[Alex+R 0]

I still don't get why this issue is political, Gary.

Some businesses and industries tend to fall on one side of the spectrum more than the other though. I guess that might explain the politicization of science in cases like these?

[mmarlo 1]

I see that the data that the GW advocates use is flawed and cherry picked.

When the national academy of science from every country in the world supports the hyptothesis that GW is real, it's not "flawed" and "cherry picked". These people aren't throwing sh!t against the wall and seeing what sticks.

[mawilson 2,133]

Higher taxes result in less freedom?

They result in less money

[GaryC 7]

I see that the data that the GW advocates use is flawed and cherry picked.

When the national academy of science from every country in the world supports the hyptothesis that GW is real, it's not "flawed" and "cherry picked". These people aren't throwing sh!t against the wall and seeing what sticks.

But thats not true! There are plenty of reputable scientists from many countries that don't buy into this whole idea. They are just being silenced. I have posted many stories about the disagreement among climate experts. But because they are posted on a conservative site they are dismissed as being a front for big business. You refuse to see the other side.

[mmarlo 1]

I see that the data that the GW advocates use is flawed and cherry picked.

When the national academy of science from every country in the world supports the hyptothesis that GW is real, it's not "flawed" and "cherry picked". These people aren't throwing sh!t against the wall and seeing what sticks.

But thats not true! There are plenty of reputable scientists from many countries that don't buy into this whole idea. They are just being silenced. I have posted many stories about the disagreement among climate experts. But because they are posted on a conservative site they are dismissed as being a front for big business. You refuse to see the other side.

Um, sorry, it is true. OK, maybe Vatican City doesn't have a national academy of science, but in preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies of all G8 nations (including the US National Academy of Sciences), joined by those of China, India and Brazil, called on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off global warming. "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify prompt action," their statement said. "It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."