Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by Mez353



Answer the question Mez. Temperatue is not driving CO2 is it!
We can rule that out thanks to you. There is no debate on it.
If CO2 is rising independantly from Temperature, as you have shown. And that rise is due to humans, as you have shown. And CO2 effects temperature and will cause temperature to rise, as it has historically according to your source.
That means AGW is real.
Thanks for proving AGW for us.

I love it when a plan comes together.


I'll let you get back plagerizing short stories.

reply to post by The_Liberator


I’m glad you’re back Libby honestly as it was your thread and I didn’t want to see you leave it. But you are wrong, I will listen to what you have to say, read the information that you provide and take it on board. I’m also looking at the counter argument as well, why can’t you understand that? It seems that as I have a different opinion to you then my opinion is not valid and I’ve shown you and your most agreeable friends that actually it is. Deny that the debate is open if you like, I’ve tried to show you that it’s not. If you can’t accept that then I feel that you should leave this thread as you’re not contributing anything further and just being obstinate for no reason.

reply to post by atlasastro


Like Libby you won’t take on board anything that counters your argument for AGW so there is no point to this thread anymore. Yes you are all right and we are all wrong. We should be shot. Happy now?

reply to post by Mez353


Dude, I took what you presented on Board.
What you presented detailed Athropogenic CO2 releases that effect temperature. That are independant of previous temperature/CO2 relationships specifically because you told me that CO2 is rising independant of temperature, at faster rates then temperature. That this is released by humans, and that historically CO2 effects temperature and has historically led to temperature rises and that this relationship is perservering.

So, what you presented was support for AGW.
I took it on board.

So thanks Mez, once again.
I pointed it out to you, a couple of times.
And then you said "but da world is flat".
Sure, it is a counter argument Mez, sure mate, the world could be flat. Keep up the good work bro.
No really. I mean it.
You might be right. Really, no really. I mean it.
No, you are really right. Relax. You are right.
Just like your short story.
No mate ,not plagerized, it was all yours.
Really it was.
No, you wrote it. Like the earth is flat.
Yes, you did. Just keep telling yourself that.
I understand, you ere going to tell people you copied it, but all your research on the flat earth made you forget.

reply to post by atlasastro


I should be flattered by your interest in me but I think you are a male so sorry, I’m not gay.
I presented a lot, you read one link. You read the site that showed that statistically it does point to CO2 contributing to AGW. But it also said it was not conclusive (you ignored that bit). I showed you both sides of the argument by contributors that do take on board the other point of view and deal with it rationally and in most cases discuss it objectively, not scared to tackle the subject and entertain the other point of view. You for some reason still think that AGW is a closed shop and no one is entitled to any other opinion.
The other links show a more objective argument against AGW. You don’t want to discuss them because you will not read them.
Whilst your on, can I have your opinion on what your country’s consultant said about AGW (www.theaustralian.com.au...) and also your opinion on the British Antarctic Survey concerning retreating glaciers and flourishing phytoplankton absorbing all the CO2?
Also, what is your opinion on the list of quotes I posted by scientists that do not agree with the AGW theory?
What about the comments section of each skeptical science link I posted that shows hundreds of comments discussing whether AGW is real (by default proving that the debate is still open)?
Read them and then come back to me and stop focussing on one link that I provided in a juvenile attempt to bolster your own ego. Then again, I imagine it is hard to do, being an Australian.

Wow this is still going strong lol, that there should prove that the case is not closed. The way I see it, we have two groups of rich powerful people, looking to make a buck on BOTH sides of the issue. One group that is making a whole lot of money off the way things are, and another group salivating at the aspect of passing a global ponzie scheme that would allow them to make a lot of money off carbon credits. Do I believe in AGW? No, I do not. Do I believe in climate change? Sure, the climate has always been changing, and probably always will until the sun eats up the solar system in a most spectacular way. I live as clean as possible myself, hunt, use all of the animal I possibly can, reuse, recycle etc. Not because someone told me some nightmare scenario will happen if I don't, but because that is how my family has lived for generations. Use what we need, and try to leave some for the next generation, leave as little damage as we can.

I love it when a plan comes together.

By the way Scrote, seeming that you enjoy following me around I can’t wait for you to stick your oar in on Libby’s over dramatic post about leaving his wife because she’s a climate change denier (whatever that means). While you’ve been sleeping (alone probably) alot has been happening over there and most posts are about your friend/mentor/chain jerker being a delusional control freak who won’t listen to anybody else’s opinion and leaves his wife and kids in the lurch. Go on, stand by him on that thread. I dare ya! If you do then maybe he’ll buy you an Apple TV. Hum de hum.
Here are my ‘just for laughs’ back at you, cut and pasted of course, you little psycho.

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

I’m glad you’re back Libby honestly as it was your thread and I didn’t want to see you leave it. But you are wrong, I will listen to what you have to say, read the information that you provide and take it on board. I’m also looking at the counter argument as well, why can’t you understand that? It seems that as I have a different opinion to you then my opinion is not valid and I’ve shown you and your most agreeable friends that actually it is. Deny that the debate is open if you like, I’ve tried to show you that it’s not. If you can’t accept that then I feel that you should leave this thread as you’re not contributing anything further and just being obstinate for no reason.

Thanks Mez....glad to be back!

Now, back to what I was saying.

I don't quite think you understand why I get so frustrated, so please let me explain myself.

You have said things in your posts that are demonstrably untrue. It's been awhile so I don't remember exactly, but if you like I could point them out to you.

I, on the other hand, do not do this. If I state something as a fact, it is because I know it to be a fact.

Now, when you say something like "the global temperature has not warmed in unison", that is simply not true. All evidence we have says that yes indeed the globe is warming.

However, when I point this out, you do not say, "oh, you are correct Liberator.....thank you for pointing this out to me".

No, instead you ignore it and go onto another subject.

That is why I get so frustrated debating deniers.

2 questions for you:

1. what do you feel is melting the Arctic Ice if not CO2? (and please Google "is the sun melting the Arctic" before saying "IT'S THE SUN!"

2. why do you think the permafrost is venting methane (and remember that methane is 20-70 times more potent as a green house gas than is CO2) at a rate not seen for the last 400,000 years?

www.youtube.com...

And I suppose it's a coincidence that 2010 is the hottest on record and the last decade was the hottest decade on record.

Mez, I appreciate your ability to stick with the debate....it's very impressive. But facts simply say that you are wrong and we are screwed.

In any case, would you please answer the above 2 questions? I'd love to know your answers.

reply to post by Mez353



Mez, Mez, Mez. Now I know I have you on toast.

Still plagerizing Mez? Hows it working for you?
The article you link from the Australian is actually from an engineer who made accounting software.
As usual, deniers scrap the bottom for any opinion to support the denial.
His, is merely an opinion. Like yours.

Hows that flat earth going Mez.

Still pretending are we?


You can try and insult me all you want Mez.
The facts are:
You are a liar.
You were caught lying.
Then you descended into Denial.
You presented evidence that supports AGW.
Then you ignored it.
Again you descended into Denial.

That is all you have Mez.

BTW dude, I bet the recession has hit you hard. I can tell, you are probably redundant in the real world and now you have a hobby as a denialist. Maybe your wife can pay you to do a few chores around the house instead of pretending you are a short story author.


This is too easy.

Also, thanks again for providing evidence that humans are driving CO2 rises and that this effects temperature due to a perservering relationship between CO2 and temperature. Just like in the past when CO2 drove temperature changes.
Thanks Mez for proving AGW.

And let me add....

The above explains why I get so frustrated. The reason I get so ANGRY is because we are not talking about a video game or about whether UFO's exist; we are talking about the future of our planet, and our kids future...including the future of my 9 month old son.

The irrational thinking of deniers confuses the public, and leads them to believe that there is still serious debate when in reality there is none.

Because of this, half the population still believes that global warming is either a hoax or is not something we need to worry about. Meanwhile the Titanic is sinking and the iceberg is visible in plain sight.

You and your denier friends fiddle while Rome burns and my son lives in Rome.

But I do understand why you get frustrated Libby, you can’t stand someone having a different opinion and will not allow them any attempt to back it up. As this does not conform to your dictatorial ways we are tagged as being deluded and deniers. Your other epic thread shows that you think this even about those closest to you. I have my own opinion on that but right now I do think that you have suffered enough.
As for accusing me of changing the subject, cheap shot. I have answered all of the questions you asked and I will accept as fact any fact that is proven to be so, by that I mean that I can verify it and not because YOU say it is at the end of your sentence. I have posted facts as I have shown just how much of a discussion is still ongoing about CO2, whether it can be attributed to temperature rise and if it is the sole driver. This is a fact as the evidence I’ve presented shows the magnitude of the discussion in many forums, papers and panels. Can you answer the questions I posed to you , Mel and Scrote earlier in the thread? I’m still waiting for your opinion on the BAS survey too.
Also, read the above reply to Scrote as this applies to you too:
‘what is your opinion on the list of quotes I posted by scientists that do not agree with the AGW theory?
What about the comments section of each skeptical science link I posted that shows hundreds of comments discussing whether AGW is real (by default proving that the debate is still open)?’
I will answer your questions in due course, in the meantime we are waiting in anticipation for YOUR answers Libby, will we have to wait a long time yet again or are you going to start another epic thread in order to avoid them?

reply to post by atlasastro


Silly Billy.

reply to post by The_Liberator


“what do you feel is melting the Arctic Ice if not CO2? (and please Google "is the sun melting the Arctic" before saying "IT'S THE SUN!"”

The Arctic Ocean Model (1), accounts for the million-year temperature fluctuations, this model has been in existence for 30 years and is generally accepted theory. This model describes how the temperature variations are driven by a fluctuating or oscillating ice cap in the north polar regions. The main feature of this model was the understanding and acceptance that the massive Polar ice cap could not have developed, and continue to develop, without a massive amount of nearby moisture to feed and grow the ice cap. This source is obviously the Arctic Ocean, which obviously had to be open—not frozen over—during the development of the ice cap. As the cap grew and the sheet extended, the ocean closed up and this mechanism interrupted the moisture supply by freezing over.

This brings us to today, where we have an Arctic Ocean that is frozen over with an ice cap that not being replenished, so it must shrink. When the cap shrinks, more of the Sun’s radiation is absorbed and the Earth will heat up, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open as we can see is happening now with the North West Passage (first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906), then the ice cap can begin to re-form. The fact it was navigable 100 odd years ago shows that the cycle of expanding and melting ice sheets exists.

When the ice cap expands, it reflects (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun. this results in a cooled atmosphere. However, the enormous and continually expanding ice cap acts as an insulator and reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss of heat from the Earth. This means that the Earth below the ice cap cools more slowly and maintains an open ocean as the ice cap expands. This is a blip where there is now an out of synch fluctuation between atmosphere and Earth. Now this may seem odd, but many trip points have them, much like the tripping points attributed to global warming and the resultant runaway affects. In mathematics it’s called a bifurcation system . With this model, the suggested trip times for the change are interesting as 500 years was the original estimate, changed to 50 and, most recently, down to 5 years. What this implies is that as the ocean is has opened up today, we should start to see a reversal of the temperature within the coming decade.

(1) Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
See www.sciencedirect.com... in=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000008658&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2529830&md5=6977c5ad5c4fe8266a5351bc1ff6fabc&searchtype=a

“ why do you think the permafrost is venting methane (and remember that methane is 20-70 times more potent as a green house gas than is CO2) at a rate not seen for the last 400,000 years?”

Now this is a good question. Methane is the most important greenhouse gas, especially as there is an abundance of it on the earth and it is continually released in large quantities globally. Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is released from previously frozen soils in two ways. When the organic material—which contains carbon—stored in permafrost thaws, it begins to decompose and, under oxygen-free conditions, gradually release methane. Methane can also be stored in the seabed as methane gas or methane hydrates and then released as subsea permafrost thaws or by sea bed dislocation (earthquakes, open faults and plate tectonics). Both the storage and the release of the methane is natural and driven by the local conditions.

www.skepticalscience.com... The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. It is more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Research results show that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is already a significant methane source: 7 teragrams yearly, which is equal to the amount of methane emitted from the rest of the ocean. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons.

Sub-sea releases of Methane are called clathrates and these can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition. "The CSIRO and other scientists around the world examined ice cores in Greenland and found that during the Younger Dryas event between approximately 12,800 to 11,500 years ago the increase in atmospheric methane of that time was not sourced from clathrates under the ocean "but from ecological sources such as wetlands""
"We know that emissions of methane are increasing now and that some sources might emit even more with warming, causing a positive climate feedback, or amplification. But this finding suggests that the clathrate source is less susceptible than recently feared,” Dr Smith says."
"Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered that only one percent of this dissolved methane escapes into the air – good news for the Earth's atmosphere."
"We found that the ocean has an amazing capacity to take up methane that is released into it – even when it is released into shallow water," said Valentine."
"This lead the authors to hypothesize that most of the methane is transported below the ocean's surface – away from the seep area. THEN IT IS OXIDIZED BY MICROBIAL ACTIVITY."

So the scientists are saying that Methane released from the seabed has little effect, even in shallow waters. Any warming would be produced from surface release of Methane from the huge Wetlands in Siberia and Canada, although this amount is much smaller than the amount held under an ice shelf or ice cap. The release is even more prevalent in the tropical wetlands and these are tiny compared to the wetlands in Canada and Siberia.

Wetlands are thought to be responsible for 70 percent of global atmospheric methane from natural sources—but not all wetlands are created equal. Water level, soil temperature, vegetation and topography all affect a wetland's methane production, complicating estimates of emissions from specific areas. www.scientificamerican.com...

So what do we do now, go around and drain or fill in all the wetlands?

Originally posted by The_Liberator
And let me add....

The above explains why I get so frustrated. The reason I get so ANGRY is because we are not talking about a video game or about whether UFO's exist; we are talking about the future of our planet, and our kids future...including the future of my 9 month old son.

The irrational thinking of deniers confuses the public, and leads them to believe that there is still serious debate when in reality there is none.

Because of this, half the population still believes that global warming is either a hoax or is not something we need to worry about. Meanwhile the Titanic is sinking and the iceberg is visible in plain sight.

You and your denier friends fiddle while Rome burns and my son lives in Rome.

You can grandchildren as well.

The New Scientist had an article a couple of months back about denial, not just the GW variety but denial behaviour in general. It showed quite clearly the various steps of denial. We have history as our friend here in being able to look back at what was denied and yet subsequently shown to be true. By cross referencing behaviour, language etc etc you can identify denial behaviour.

The GW skeptics are in denial it is so freaking obvious, absolute classic behaviour. The consequences (ie excuses for those who have implement change but don't want to !!!) are also following the classic path. All very sad and you have to wonder about the mentatlity of a denier seeing their psychological profile down in black and white for all to see and yet they continue.....DUH

What the article did state is that there is only one way to counteract the denier and that is to not ignore them, always reply politely and accurately with the truth and get them to explain their viewpoint. Now I understand your frustration, I succumb to it now and then but we just have to plod on. Remember our kids and grandkids need us give them a secure future and not one blighted by war as nations scramble for the limited resources (water, arable land etc) that will be left.

Aah go on, please relate to us ‘deniers’ all of the details of denialism as described by the New Scientist. No need not to.

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded,

“We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”


HERE are the other 99 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 0.7°C 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 favorable 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 activists 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”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and water - can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization, wrote,

“the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialized countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years - so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:

“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback - and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money - under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures - in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change skeptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said:

“We - along with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated,

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.



There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Just for fun!

reply to post by The_Liberator


The game ain't over for me until I run out of ammo.

Originally posted by Mez353
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded,

“We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

THAT IS NONSENSE. NOT WORTH RESPONDING TO.

HERE are the other 99 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.

NONSENSE. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

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.

AGAIN, NONSENSE. WE HAVE RAISED CO2 BY NEARLY 30 PERCENT....THAT MEANS THE EARTHS 'BLANKET' IS 30 PERCENT BETTER AT TRAPPING HEAT.

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

SO WHAT? THERE WERE ALSO PERIODS IN THE EARTHS HISTORY WHEN FLORIDA WAS UNDERWATER AND EVEN A TIME WHEN THE ENTIRE EARTH WAS ONE GIANT ICEBALL. SO WHAT IS HIS POINT?

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

IT IS BELIEVED THAT THAT IS BECAUSE THE SOOT THAT WAS ALSO EMITTED HAD A COOLING EFFECT DUE TO GLOBAL DIMMING. THAT'S WHY SCIENTISTS ONCE THOUGHT WE MAY BE IN FOR AN ICE AGE. HOWEVER, SOON THEREAFTER, THE WARMING EFFECT OF CO2 OVERTOOK THE COOLING EFFECT AND WE HAVE NOT COOLED FOR DECADES.

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.

AND AT THAT POINT WAS THE PLANET HOSPITABLE TO HUMANS?

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

AGAIN, THESE ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF A FOURTH GRADER WITH AN AVERAGE IQ. SO WHAT?

THE EARTH FLIPS FROM HOT TO COOL STATES AND IF WE FLIP TO A HOT STATE, WE ARE DONE FOR. THAT IS THE END OF THE STORY. CONVERSELY, IF WE FLIPPED TO A COOL STATE WHERE ICE COVERED NEW YORK 2 MILES THICK, WE WOULD ALSO BE SCREWED.....BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. MY POINT IS THAT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE CLIMATE WAS IN THE PAST. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CLIMATE IS HOSPITABLE TO HUMANS.

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

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. THE SUN HAS BEEN QUIET FOR DECADES, AND THE OCEANS HAVE ABSORBED HUGE AMOUNTS OF HEAT THAT SIMPLY CANNOT BE ACCONTED FOR BY ANY OTHER MEANS.

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

EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT HAS AGREED THAT AGW IS REAL AND A SERIOUS THREAT. EVERY ONE OF THEM. NOT JUST THE IPCC.

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

THAT IS BLATENTLY FALSE. THEY WERE VINDICATED BY SEVERAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.

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.

INCORRECT AND EASILY DEBUNKABLE USING GOOGLE.

11) Politicians and activists 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

INCORRECT, THEY HAVE BEEN RISING AND ACCELERATING IN RECENT YEARS. GOOGLE IT.

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

NONSENSE. THAT'S LIKE SAYING WEIGHT GAIN IS TOO COMPLICATED TO BE CAUSED BY CALORIES ALONE.


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”.

MORE COMMITTED BUT STILL ABOUT AS IGNORANT AS THEIR FOOLISH AMERICAN COUNTERPARTS.

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

THAT IS TRUE.

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”

AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED. CO2 IS A KNOWN GREEN HOUSE GAS AND WE HAVE INCREASED IT BY 30%

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED. AND TO CALL IT SHALLOW SCIENCE MEANS THAT HE HASN'T A CLUE WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

THAT IS TRUE. BUT THE FACT THAT CO2 RAISES TEMPS IS SETTLED.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

CO2 IS NOT MINOR. IT IS A SMALL FRACTION OF THE ATMOSPERE BUT ITS EFFECT IS HUGE. THAT IS NOT IN QUESTION BY ANY SERIOUS SCIENTIST.


19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

GOOGE THAT AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THOSE WHO SIGNED IT HADN'T A CLUE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.


20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

ALREADY ADDRESSED ABOVE.

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

AND PROFESSOR SNOOP DOGG SAYS THAT CLOUDS ARE REALLY GOD PUFFING MARIJUANA. WHERE THE HELL IS THE EVIDENCE. QUOTES MEAN NOTHINGS OUT OF CONTEXT.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

INCORRECT. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF.

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

GLACIERS ARE DISAPPEARING AT A RATE NEVER BEFORE SEEN. GOOGLE IT.

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

THAT IS INCORRECT. THE ARCTIC IS WARMING FASTER THAN ANY OTHER PLACE ON EARTH. GOOGLE IT.

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

INCORRECT. GOOGLE IT.

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and water - can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization, wrote,

“the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialized countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years - so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:

“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback - and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money - under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures - in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change skeptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said:

“We - along with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated,

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.



There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Just for fun!

edit on 21/12/2010 by Mez353 because: Move 100) to the fecking top of the list!

I didn't feel like responding to all of them because the first 25 or so that I responded to (above) were all just nonsense. I feel like I am debating a 4th grader.