I didn't read through 22 pages so this may have already been posted. I'm somewhere between skeptical and undecided personally, but found this interesting. Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007 Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Thi s in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. S o how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite&n b sp;easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speec h and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only co nsider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at th e University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dar es to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the infor mation, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask i f we a re to advance in the right direction. Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
In line with the post above and other anti-Chicken Little posts in this thread, here's an open letter from Dr. Tim Ball (same author in above post) regarding the global climate change, signed by 59 other scientists and researchers, all with their professional and common sense still fully intact: Open Kyoto to Debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Financial Post, Published: April 6, 2006 An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Dear Prime Minister: As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science. Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary. We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy. "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next. We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic. CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources - - - Sincerely, Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa ... Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant... Illustration: ⢠Black & White Photo: The Earth. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=b703a122-f20b-4cce-8a05-c773e7f878ec
To the contrary, I do not believe the majority of Americans are capable of using scientific logic or reasoning (I am not being sarcastic here). You need a certain educational background. The typical American adult can't even add 1/3 to 1/4, why would you expect him or her to understand the scientific method and statistical correlation & causation? This is why politicians can get away with policies based on "science", because most people can't distinguish good science from bad.
the chance the sp makes an upward move tomorrow is near to 50%, the chance he is higher in then years from now is slightly above that. conclusion: sometimes longer is easier.
I can project S&P will be about 2846.87 by December 2147. But who is going to prove me wrong. S&P is not as complex as the global weather system. S&P records all the back to day one. You can not buy option on S&P longer than Dec 2009. No market maker want to take risk farther out!!! Longer is not easier. There is no "temperature" before thermometer was invented. There was no reliable surface temperature record before 1850, according to Wikipedia. Whatever temperature data before invention of thermometer are pure wide ass guessetimates. One cannot even control or measure the average temperature of a big Walmart or stadium to within 5 degree from one end to the other. It is ridiculous that the "global warming" chicken little can determine 0.5 degree increase in the earth "average" is caused by human.
It's a total waste of time to argue with this guy. No way, no chance in hell you will be able to talk some sense into him.
awesome clip. (This link is dead, just search for it on yahoo videos). I hope Al Gore runs, ... I could beat that clown in a run for the presidency. Wow, History might be comparably kind to Bush, when Gore is considered. A fat pig american traveling the world first class scaring the hell out of people... All bush did was try to liberate some people nad remove a very real threat in a combustion chamber that was/is the future starting point of WWIII Al Gore graduates from Concordia Sebastien Cadieux & Brian Hastien Issue date: 4/3/07 Section: News PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 1 The Link (Concordia University) MONTREAL (CUP) - Concordia president Claude Lajeunesse was booed as he took the stage to give Al Gore an honorary doctorate from the university on March 22. The brainchild of Concordia Student Union president Khaleed Juma, the doctorate was presented while the crowd, present to listen to speeches from Gore and David Suzuki, filed out the exits after the question and answer period with Gore was cancelled. The talk took place in the cadre of Less Talk, More Action: A Youth Action Summit on Climate Change, organized by Youth Action Montreal members and Concordia University students Peter Schiefke and Mohamed Shuriye. Gore and Suzuki's message was clear: The world is in imminent danger if we continue our current habits and don't change towards a more eco-friendly society. The former U.S. vice-president's speech was effectively his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth with updated statistics, and presented by an angrier, fist-shaking Gore. His presentation was halted at least twice as opponents to his agenda began to shout out. They called him a liar and a villain, and screamed, "What about your swimming pools?" in regards to recent allegations that the monthly electricity bill of Gore's estate rivalled a year's bill for the average American home. This led Gore to joke, "I don't even know if you guys are left- or right-wing". Suzuki also made a 45-minute speech on the topic du jour. The speech was punctuated by numerous bouts of applause from a rather enthusiastic audience. He espoused that the media should play a more central role in the way it informs the public, saying, "Over half of all Nobel Prize winners are telling us we could have as little as 10 years to avoid a catastrophe and this is pronounced by our media as 'not newsworthy'.
Posted by Bitstream: CHRISTOPHER BOOKER UK Daily Mail Tuesday, March 13, 2007 **Big Snip** >More seriously, because CFLs need much more ventilation >than a standard bulb, they cannot be used in any enclosed >light fitting which is not open at both bottom and top - >the implications of which for homeowners are horrendous. A: I'm not taking a position here on GW or the impact of various light bulbs, just reading and observing. B: There is an incredible amount of spin and outright BS in the article that Bitstream posted -- for an example and due to lack of time, I'll just pick one point and respond. I am a developer/homebuilder in SoCal. We are required by California Title 24 (energy bill) to include a minimum percentage of "High Efficacy" lighting in our new homes. This pretty much means CFs at this point. The above posted snippet is so wrong it's laughable (and remember, I install them in every house I build and have to have them inspected by a certified inspector). CF's don't require more ventilation, they require less. I install 17 of them per house and not a single fixture is vented on the top (in fact, Title 24 FORBIDS venting in this way and requires us to use AIRTIGHT and INSULATED fixtures on the topside. Also we install completely sealed fixtures in our bathrooms top AND bottom per manufacturer recomendations. Anyone can write BS on the internet. Go to Home Depot or Lowes and look at the Halo cans (or go to manufactures website or the Cal Title 24 website) and see for yourself. (we use a Halo #H272ICAT in case anyone wants to confirm my facts.) JB