A Very Inconvenient Peer-Reviewed Climate Study
Canada Free Press: Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence, according to an inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Meanwhile, Al Gore said today in Norway, "We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency, a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here."
(HT: Tom Hemphill)
13 Comments:
By your impeccable logic that anything published in a peer-reviewed journal must be correct, I am sure you'll now agree with Paul Krugman's conclusion that:
"an expansion of world trade, and especially of manufactures’ exports from low-wage countries, has coincided with a fall in the real wages of less-skilled American workers (and with rising unemployment in other advanced countries)." (Krugman, J. International Econ, 50(1), 2000, p. 51-71)
Al Gore also said the Bush's tax cuts would cause a recession. Instead we have the largest economic expansion in the history of economic expansions. Maybe Al Gore is a contra indicator and the world will actually get colder.
Back in 2000, when Krugman made his observations, Al and Bill told America that we were enjoying "the best economy in 150 years." Q3/00 GDP was down 0.5% and that was followed by yet another GDP decline in Q1/01--both GDP declines starting on Al and Bill's watch. Greenspan later described the accompanying stock market collapse as the most sudden and violent plunge ever recorded in American history. Trillions of dollars evaporated. Maybe those events affected Krugman's conclusions.
There are 2 arguments:
1. We're polluting the earth.
2. Earth is getting warmer.
Even if those 2 arguments are not connected, even if there's no correlation between global warming and pollution, how can someone be motivated to poopoo Al Gore's effort to cut emissions into atmosphere?
We all benefit from cleaner climate.
Man made global warming is a religion, we have consensus, and you Dr. Perry are a denier, and if you continue to post such nonsense the great Pope Al I will certainly shut your blog down and force you to see the "truth".
We're polluting the earth.
If you're talking about CO2 then the obvious solution is to stop exhaling. You go first, OK?
"We all benefit from cleaner climate."
But none of us will benefit from the diminished economy that comes with Gore's proposals on how to get from point a to point b. And getting to point b isn't even a sure thing, by far.
Th federal deficit is one of those great presents that we are giving to our children. We should add the environment to that list. Why in the world would I do something right the first time? It is the American way to give the problem to the next generation.
When our children are fixing the problems that we created, I hope they still have the money left over to put me in a nice retirement home.
Victor, first off I think you're refering to the debt, not the deficit. There is a difference.
Also, given that there isn't any way to "stop" global warming, no matter what the cause, isn't the strongest gift we can give our children is a strong economy so they can readily adapt to any changes that might occour?
If one takes action at great cost which has no material effect on global warming while completely ignoring all other environmental and humanitarian concerns, what benefit is conferred on mankind or the planet.
Clean drinking water, diseases like malaria & AIDS, worldwide loss of topsoil, crop diseases such as wheat rust, deforestation, habitat loss...there are many important issues that are being sidelined due to the global warming hysteria.
Right now there is a wheat rust that is spreading across Africa and the middle east which is set to go global. We haven't any wheat variety that can resist this disease and the funding for wheat research has been cut in last decade. Imagine what happens if one of the major staple crops like wheat fails. Just google search Norman Borlaug, one of the world's leading experts in plant pathology and wheat research (also a Nobel peace prize winner).
There are many important issues that are not being dealt with due to Al Gore's exercise in cascade theory.
There are 2 arguments:
1. We're polluting the earth.
2. Earth is getting warmer.
Even if those 2 arguments are not connected, even if there's no correlation between global warming and pollution, how can someone be motivated to poopoo Al Gore's effort to cut emissions into atmosphere?
A) If CO2 is not warming the earth there's no basis to call it "pollution". Think of it as plant food.
B) It costs a lot more money to use energy that doesn't emit CO2
". . . how can someone be motivated to poopoo Al Gore's effort to cut emissions into atmosphere?"
Because he is spreading lies to scare people into adopting his socialist agenda. That's how.
Al Globe will not be mocked.
Post a Comment
<< Home