GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Monday, October 15, 2007

Questions for global warming 'believers'....

Tom Harris and Ian Clark (both from Ottawa) ask some questions of 'believers'....
1.) What is your climate science-related background?

Most of those grabbing the spotlight have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone climate change. What do climate campaigners like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Turner and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., know about climate science? Once merely the rallying cry of environmentalist extremists, calls to "save the planet from climate catastrophe" has become de rigueur for celebrities, media commentators and Fortune 500 CEOs seeking to enhance their green credentials. That few of them have even the slightest idea what they are talking about doesn't make any difference. As Canadian Professors Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick explained in their award-winning book, Taken by Storm, "the stage is populated by many people whose desire to save the world is deemed an acceptable, even preferable, substitute for technical understanding."

2.) How do you know the "vast majority of scientists" agree with your viewpoint?

Despite the confident proclamations of Al Gore, the only place that a climate change science consensus exists is in what Essex and McKitrick call "official science." the collective voice of governments and so-called "science authorities." But this is not real science. Among qualified researchers, there is a debate raging about the causes of the past century's modest warming. Ignoring science, but sensing a massive shift in public awareness of the issue, politicians have jumped on the climate catastrophe bandwagon.

3.) If we delayed carbon dioxide, or CO2, reduction decisions by a few years to allow examination of the science, what would be the impact on climate?

Essentially none. Even its supporters admit that complete compliance with Kyoto by all nations held to limits would result in less than a 0.1° C difference to global climate a half century from now.

4.) How closely has climate tracked CO2 levels in the past?

About 440 million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been over 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Al Gore points out that, over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a link between temperature and CO2. What he neglects to mention is that these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rise, not after it. Even over the past century, the CO2 and global warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As usual, near complete nonsense.

While certainly neither Tom Harris nor his soulmate Tim Ball (nasty little hypocrite, that one) "The vast majority of scientists" in fact do indeed agree.

Well, as represented by the National Academies of Science in their respective countries.

Each year, after an exhaustive selection process in which all members have a say, top scientists in their field are elected to the National Academy of Science. Most countries have one.

Across the membership of the national academies of science from around the world, the vast majority of those whose specialty is climate science, as selected BY THEIR PEERS, conclude and have stated in publications as recent as 2007, that climate change is real and that man has a meaningful and likely decisive causal relationship to climate change.

Sigh...

7:53 PM  
Blogger Raphael Alexander said...

The IPCC represents a fairly large census. It's one thing to be in the minority and claim the science is in error or inconclusive. It is another to blatantly deny that there is a majority census which believes in man-exacerbated global warming.

10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sigh...

Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
Are all climate alarmists assholes?

1:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A consensus of people, none of whom truly understand the science of climate since there is still so much left to learn, choose to agree that Man is catastrophically harming the planet and solutions must be found immediately through the massive funding of said people. What a surprise.

1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kapow. Tim Ball really lets then have it here:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/10/cheap-tawdry-and-useless-tim-ball-wins_08.html

2:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home