I Thought The Science Of Global Warming Was Settled
by Big Dog on Mar 17, 2009 at 02:46 Political
The global warming fanatics and Gorebots all say that man made global warming is an absolute certainty and that the science is settled. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue mostly because he is a charlatan and would get his lunch handed to him in a real debate, so he just says the science is settled. I have always said that I do not believe in man made global warming and that warming and cooling cycles on the Earth have occurred for a very long time, long before man was here, and that they would continue. I also believe that it is related to sunspot activity.
However, I also said that we should certainly do research on the issue. I don’t believe the science is settled but believe we should look into it and see if there is a link to man (one big enough to make a difference). I don’t think we should spend a fortune on something that is unproven.
No matter what I say to the global warmers I hear that the science is settled and that ALL scientists agree. Well, maybe there are a few who don’t but all the cool ones do. Then how do we explain this:
“But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. WISN [emphasis mine]
Now here we have a group of scientists who have conducted experiments and concluded that the changes over the past century were natural. How does that square up with the global warming scammers and their claim that it is all man made and that it is getting worse? How does this square up with the “all scientists agree and the science is settled?”
I guess these guys did not get the memo…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: al gore, global warming, nature, scam, science
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
The only way to get clear data on this is for scientists to perform experiments and data analysis without an initial bias. Bias affects the interpretation of results and the writing of conclusions. Science is supposed to be unbiased. That’s theory but in practice it is never so.
How can we see reality if all we are looking for is proof of our own opinion?