Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

[Big Don]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

DailyExpress.co.uk EXCERPT:Tuesday December 15,2009
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

 

[Tez3]

When reading the Express you have to keep an open mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express

and no 9 in this list
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html

 

[blindsage]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

DailyExpress.co.uk EXCERPT:Tuesday December 15,2009
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Plenty of evidence. Absolute "proof" no.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

That's a statement, not an argument.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

Dates and sources please.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

Relative to what temperatures?

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

Sure, but which periods since human life has existed?

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

And? Another statement without an argument.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

Define long term please, and give sources for consistency with trend.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

Source please.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Suggest? Any actual proof of that?

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

"A large body"? "Suggests"? But you complain about how pro-AGW proponents talk about the science?

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

SMH, sure they have, but there is further evidence conveniently ignored to make this statement.

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

One scientist? That's the argument?

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

So now people not believing in it is an argument for why it's not true?

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

Oh, ok. Not really sure how big a role wind farms play in the debate over whether AGW is happening or not.

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

?!?!? So scientists are right when they agree with your pre-determined ideas?


Woo-hoo that was fun, let's do it again!!!!

 

[terryl965]

Well whether or not if it is happening means very little to me since I will be dead and gone way before we crumble. Now my Great Great Great Great Great Great Great well you get the idea and by then nobody will know me and I will know no-one.

 

[Sukerkin]

Altho' it is an important argument as to whether the human contribution to climate fluctuation is significant or not, the major detail, for me, has always been that it only makes sense to learn how to do things we want to do more efficiently and cleanly.

What has happened on that front is that the 'special interest' groups have been working overtime to the extent that, here in the UK, we are dangerously close to an absolute commitment for the building of huge windfarms.

Why is that bad? Because the primary pillar of the "Humans are Naughty Planet Killers" camp is that CO2 is the be all and end all of global warming - care to guess what the major problem with wind-power generators is? It's counter-intuitive to their image but the construction of a wind turbine creates more CO2 emissions than it ever claws back in it's operation (something I have argued to be likely ever since I saw their generation statistics).

What we need is fusion power but fission will do for now. The 'green power' proposals are frills and fancies not serious solutions (tho the contracts for their control systems we will fulfil just as sincerely as we will the nuke stations (those ones that I said three years ago were going to be built regardless of what the governments public position was )).

The IR dipole 'solar' panels seem a brilliant alternative (working day and night or even underground) but there are a few technical problems and I am still not convinced that other vested interests will ensure that they will not see the light of day.

 

[K-man]

Well, there is so much conflicting arguement about that I don't know which way to turn. I do believe humans are approaching plague proportion on this small orb and that the current rate of consuption is not sustainable. How much of global warming is attributed to human activity may be open to debate but the planet does seem to be warming and the ice caps are melting. To do nothing does not seem to me to be an option. However, I fail to see that adding taxes will reduce greenhouse emissions either. Taxes will drive manufacturing offshore to countries that don't care about emissions leading to growth in unemployment. I feel that, as a global community we need to look at stopping clearing of massive tracts of forest, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reducing the rate of population growth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Just my 2c.

 

[JDenver]

The items on this list are plainly ludicrous to me. There is no comparison to any previous sea level rise or temperature rises in Earth's fossil record versus what we've seen in 100 years. That's about as indisputable as anything else in science.

I trust global warming as I would evolution. Evolution hasn't been 'proved' by science either, it's a ridiculous standard to hold anything to.

I find it comical that a handful of scientists could be weighed against thousands of their peers as if there were an equal, vigorous debate going on. There isn't.

Frankly, at least in Canada, the vast majority of people believe that we are causing this and that we need to do something. I suppose the minority will come along kicking and screaming (and maybe claiming an international socialist plot).

 

[Phoenix44]

I personally believe the evidence supporting human contribution to global climate change is quite compelling. Plus, it makes sense. I mean, if you run your stove, oven, microwave, computer, and all of your lights in the kitchen, doesn't your kitchen get a little warmer? Likewise, with all the industry, cars, and other activity on our planet, is it really that difficult to believe the climate could warm?

But even if you choose not to believe in a human component, that still isn't an argument against trying to minimize the impact. You may not believe that a virus causes hepatitis, but would you want a transfusion that wasn't screened?

 

[David43515]

To Blindsage:

I can only point you to more info on point #3.

In my archialogy classes in college we were always told that pollen samples and tree ring samples both showed that the mean temperature in Europe during the middle ages was much higher than it has been in the last two centuries. On the other hand, we also used references such as old newspapers from the end of the 19th century to show that the river Thames froze over enough for skating much more often than it has in the 20th century. So there`s alot of temperature fluctuation both ways.

Sorry I can`t be more specific, college was just too many years ago and I just teach ESL now.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The items on this list are plainly ludicrous to me. There is no comparison to any previous sea level rise or temperature rises in Earth's fossil record versus what we've seen in 100 years. That's about as indisputable as anything else in science.

I trust global warming as I would evolution. Evolution hasn't been 'proved' by science either, it's a ridiculous standard to hold anything to.

I find it comical that a handful of scientists could be weighed against thousands of their peers as if there were an equal, vigorous debate going on. There isn't.

Frankly, at least in Canada, the vast majority of people believe that we are causing this and that we need to do something. I suppose the minority will come along kicking and screaming (and maybe claiming an international socialist plot).

But don't you find it at least a bit odd that, when grant money is all being funneled into those who agree with AGW, that there is now a consencus. Poeple seem to be that way when "Big Oil" is fulfilling the grant.

And what about the e-mails showing the possibility of coersion of scientists or the intentional skewing of data? That doesn't concern you in the least.

 

[girlbug2]

I find it comical that a handful of scientists could be weighed against thousands of their peers as if there were an equal, vigorous debate going on. There isn't.

To know that there isn't an equal, vigorous debate going on, you would have to know the exact number of climatologists in the world, be privy to all their conversations about the subject, and know how to tally them up on one side or the other. Obviously, such a thing can be neither proven nor disproven. There isn't one single person in a position to definitively rule on it.

OTOH, those who believe that climate change is man-caused, have been given much more of the world's stage on which to express their views, so that the general perception might be that there is a consensus.

 

[Marginal]

To know that there isn't an equal, vigorous debate going on, you would have to know the exact number of climatologists in the world, be privy to all their conversations about the subject, and know how to tally them up on one side or the other. Obviously, such a thing can be neither proven nor disproven.

It's not possible to prove whether or not a climatologist exits? What that climatologist's view point is? It's impossible to count the number of studies? Really?

 

[kaizasosei]

We need to start making the cannon that nasa came up with to shoot excess waste into space.


j

 

[K-man]

We need to start making the cannon that nasa came up with to shoot excess waste into space.


j

Litterbug!

 

[celtic_crippler]

?!?!? So scientists are right when they agree with your pre-determined ideas?

Are we talking about the same scientist who were recieving government grants because they were saying we were contributing to glogal warming? Those same scientist who were just busted for lying about it when their e-mails on the subject stating otherwise were recently discovered? Those guys? Right?

 

[JDenver]

1. The handful of emails were, in essence, nothing. They talked about needing to bolster the evidence....gosh, I wonder why? Seems you could have bludgeoning good evidence and some folks still don't believe you.

Also, again, I take the emails of 3 or 4 people and weigh it against 30 years of peer reviewede science by hundreds of world renowned experts.

2. As for all those scientists getting government grants, it's way off base. In fact, at least in the U.S under the Bush regime, funding to any organization involved in global warming science was scant.

Secondly, it's like funding the arts. When you fund an art project, you're not funding the result. Most funds go to STUDYING climate change, the conclusions are whatever they are. Why, for example, would a Canadian government, uninterested in acting on global warming, only fund PRO-global warming science?! That makes no sense.

Lastly, we're talking about evidence from the Japanese, the Germans, the Dutch, American, Russian, Chinese, from government organizations, ngo's, individual scientists, universities and so on. I'm not so sure we could so easily question the motives and integrity of ALL of them like this.

 

[cdunn]

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

1. The handful of emails were, in essence, nothing. They talked about needing to bolster the evidence....gosh, I wonder why? Seems you could have bludgeoning good evidence and some folks still don't believe you.

Also, again, I take the emails of 3 or 4 people and weigh it against 30 years of peer reviewede science by hundreds of world renowned experts.

2. As for all those scientists getting government grants, it's way off base. In fact, at least in the U.S under the Bush regime, funding to any organization involved in global warming science was scant.

Secondly, it's like funding the arts. When you fund an art project, you're not funding the result. Most funds go to STUDYING climate change, the conclusions are whatever they are. Why, for example, would a Canadian government, uninterested in acting on global warming, only fund PRO-global warming science?! That makes no sense.

Lastly, we're talking about evidence from the Japanese, the Germans, the Dutch, American, Russian, Chinese, from government organizations, ngo's, individual scientists, universities and so on. I'm not so sure we could so easily question the motives and integrity of ALL of them like this.

Seems not these governen grants:

The University of Georgia professors in two schools landed a $447,000 grant from NASA that will offer undergraduate students a chance to study the impact of climate change on birds.

A new three-year project, funded by $634,000 from the U.S. Geological Survey, will bring together a team of experts to learn how to model, study and predict the influence of the changes.

A Western Washington University teacher has received a grant to work with NASA to study global climate change, according to a university release.
Andy Bunn, an assistant professor of environmental science at Western's Huxley College of the Environment, is part of the $289,000 grant to study how the planet's cold-weather forests are responding to climate change.

The National Science Foundation has awarded more than $84,000 to a Grand Valley project aimed at measuring how fast oceans can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The research project is under the direction of associate professor of geology Figen Mekik who said the project is meant to unlock one of the big mysteries in how human activities affect climate change. “To understand and mitigate climate change, we need to look at the Earth’s history,” said Mekik

All of these U.S. government funded programs presuppose that climate change is occurring, and in at least one, that man is the cause.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's a 'baby and bathwater' scenario at present. No matter how hard 'they' press the 'serious science' button, the data on hand is nowhere near enough in quantity or accuracy to draw conclsuions from. Conversely, no matter how hard 'they' protest the unproven nature of mans contribution to climate change, it still makes sense to work towards doing things less wastefully and reduce pollution.

The thing we have to watch for are idiotic 'solutions' like the Toyota Prius that actually causes more pollution of a more dangerous nature than an 'ordinary' car.

 

[celtic_crippler]

1. The handful of emails were, in essence, nothing. They talked about needing to bolster the evidence....gosh, I wonder why? Seems you could have bludgeoning good evidence and some folks still don't believe you.

Also, again, I take the emails of 3 or 4 people and weigh it against 30 years of peer reviewede science by hundreds of world renowned experts.

You wonder why? Let's see... just a few things come to mind...

Because they're unethical. Because they're greedy. Because if the governmnet knew there was no way to affect the eventual outcome they would stop the funding.

They pretty much didn't do themselves any favors by lying about the evidence they were presenting.

I'm not saying climate change doesn't happen or is happening, but I think our role in it is probably much less than what has been claimed.

Significant climate changes have occured throughout history, long before man started mass deforrestation or driving cars. For example: Greenland was "green" when the vikings first settled it...before it became more "white" with the Little Ice Age that ushered in the Dark Ages.

2. As for all those scientists getting government grants, it's way off base. In fact, at least in the U.S under the Bush regime, funding to any organization involved in global warming science was scant.

Secondly, it's like funding the arts. When you fund an art project, you're not funding the result. Most funds go to STUDYING climate change, the conclusions are whatever they are. Why, for example, would a Canadian government, uninterested in acting on global warming, only fund PRO-global warming science?! That makes no sense.

The government is not the only contributer. Tons of cash has been pumped into this research. You must consider all the sources of the funding and what their agenda might actually be.

You may find this article interesting and enlightening:
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=284


Art and Science are two different animals. To compare the two is like saying eating fried chicken has the same nutritional value as eating an apple.

Government funds the study of science because it impacts public policy and, especially in this case, because large lobby's are being impacted by it.

The government is an old pro at tweaking or spinning data to suit it's agenda.

Lastly, we're talking about evidence from the Japanese, the Germans, the Dutch, American, Russian, Chinese, from government organizations, ngo's, individual scientists, universities and so on. I'm not so sure we could so easily question the motives and integrity of ALL of them like this.

There are scientists that support it 100%, some that dispute it 100%, and those that feel the evidence is still inconclusive either way.

I've no doubt that we (humans) have an affect on the planet. From mining to dumping toxic waste in rivers, to irrigating arid land to produce crops, to hunting the wooley mammoths into extinction... We have changed and affected our envirnoments to some degree since day one...

However... I take what I hear with a grain of salt and I don't think we're standing on the precipice of oblivion just yet.

It's a 'baby and bathwater' scenario at present. No matter how hard 'they' press the 'serious science' button, the data on hand is nowhere near enough in quantity or accuracy to draw conclsuions from. Conversely, no matter how hard 'they' protest the unproven nature of mans contribution to climate change, it still makes sense to work towards doing things less wastefully and reduce pollution.

The thing we have to watch for are idiotic 'solutions' like the Toyota Prius that actually causes more pollution of a more dangerous nature than an 'ordinary' car.

There you go being all logical and reasonable again. What's wrong with you? Don't you know the sky is falling? Didn't you read Superman? Do you want us to end up like Krypton? You know, they didn't listen to Jor-El and look what happened...:lfao:

Do we really need a "Chicken Little" approach to encourage improvement? As you point out, this "fear" approach ends up producing things that can be more dangerous simply because of the resulting urgency to "fix" the problem. "Quick! We have to provide a pacifier before the peasents are at the doors with the torches!"

I'm all for developing and researching new science in regards to energy production for several reasons, least of which is "global warming."

I'm also against polluting our planet... and feel there's much room for improvement on several fronts. I just don't think Armageddon is around the corner and know that the Earth, as does the universe and everything in it, goes through different cycles.