FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.6°C in the last 100 years (IPCC)
“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
With the release of Al Gore’s propaganda movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and with the help of the liberal media establishments the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no scientific proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no consensus on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are positively biased, Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising milimeters not feet, computer climate models are irrelevant, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are not caused by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.
Thousands of links debunking the global warming hysteria.
Please, more half-brained “scientists”, the issue is not global WARMING, but climate CHANGE. Surely everyone agrees it cannot be a good idea to pump toxins into the environment whether they cause climate change or not – someone throwing an apple core into my garden may not cause me a problem, eventually it may rot away – but I don’t want it to happen and that is really what the intelligent discussion is about. There is no safe level for many toxins that industry dumps and the reason many of them exist is laziness or lax laws not a necessary evil. Pollution is absolute, impact may be different than we understand but I’d really rather not take the risk thanks
Dude.It would not be life with out risks.
Gag me with a spoon. Everyone should check out the main topic link. It presents a mountain of evidence against AWG. Leaves me with a months work of review and feeling like an “OJ” juror!
Scott===I’d love your comments on the link site. Nothing conclusionary==just if anything hits you as “remarkable?”
I am struck by how complete it is. Can every aspect of the pro AGW debate be wrong?===EVERY aspect?
An admittedly quick look through the “authorities” quoted on the Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource Web site shows a remarkable number of suspect organizations. For example, The Heartland Institute, funded or closely linked to Exxon and hardly partial in the debate (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org/).
In the PR world, these organizations are called “AstroTurf” – they look like grass roots movements but they’re fakes, fronts for pushing the agendas of those who finance them.
When you see claims like “13,000 scientists say that…” check the names. Once such scam revealed that most of the “scientists” were students (many of non-science subjects) and included such well-known scientists as Perry Mason and somebody claiming to be one of the Spice Girls.
Any subject that is constantly talked about and hyped on the evening news, day in and day out, is probably questionable at best and a flat out lie at worst.
#1 – Polluting the Earth can have bad results. Taking away real cars, eliminating so called “urban sprawl”, regulating our energy usage, dictating what light bulbs to use, etc. is much WORSE. If you measure it by lives damaged, going down the AGW road, will harm many more people.
#4 – You criticize the sources, but then think IPCC, Algore’s crowd, the Sierra club, don’t have an agenda and bias?
I thought I read that the north pole ice cap is almost completely melted. Isn’t this the main habitat of polar bears?
OK. It’s easy to see how companies whose profits are threatened by environmental controls could have an active agenda to deny climate change.
What exactly though is the ‘liberal’ agenda here. If the Sierra club has an agenda what is it?
#6: You criticize the sources, but then think IPCC, Algore’s crowd, the Sierra club, don’t have an agenda and bias?
I didn’t criticize all the sources, merely pointed out that many of the so-called “authorities” are paid by Big Oil and other interests to present cases that are frequently partial, distorted and/or downright false. Just because Maximillian Tünderphart PhD states an opinion, it doesn’t mean his opinion is valid. To start with, what’s his PhD in? Baroque organ pipe scaling? And that means his opinion on climate change is worth anything? Maybe it is, but probably it isn’t, especially if he was paid by an interested party to express it.
When it comes to climate change (and quite a few other things), I prefer to heed only peer-reviewed papers. There’s a higher chance that they’re right than with some random “authority”.
#8 – Pat
>>If the Sierra club has an agenda what is it?
“To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.
This would distinguish them from Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal, oil companies, and the paid shill “scientists” who argue against the impact of “climate change”.
On the web site linked to by this post (which is a little difficult to track down the sponsors of), posters include such visionaries as naysayer Michael Crichton, and kookie Richard Lindzen, who claims that smoking isn’t bad for you.
In general, follow the money.
# 7 shizzaq : I read that the north pole ice cap is almost completely melted. Isn’t this the main habitat of polar bears?
No, actually, they are quite rare at the pole. A wayward exemplar may wander that far north now and then but will probably head south soon as he must hunt to eat and the best hunting is further south. While polar bears usually hunt from ice, they also must get onto land to breed.
Fine. Maybe this registers with the republicans :
(1) Do nothing about it … and WE ALL DIE
(2) Do something about it … and money is WASTED
Option (2) is best. Please just leave these decisions for smart adults. OK?
Um .. global warming is a bunch of crap? No shit.
This page is a good resource, but the design could use some sprucing. I’m disappointed that the chart of solar output vs temperature isn’t on the page.
They go off onto too many tangents. Oil drilling in Alaska has nothing to do with global warming science.
Global warming proponents take as a model the ozone debate from the 80s/early 90s. CFCs were banned, then ozone levels increased(a good thing). The theory that natural forces were the likely cause was ridiculed, and found contradictory to the consensus of scientists who used their models as proof. However, that situation involved actual manmade chemicals, not carbon dioxide and methane. Also, the CFC levels increased in the atmosphere through the late 90s, while ozone levels increased before that.
We’re wiping out ecosystems and species at an amazing rate. You can’t go anywhere in the world without finding garbage.
Basically we’re animals that shit in our own nest.
You’re citing a fucking blog against all of the peer reviewed scientific data available? What is the source of that graph? The cite from which you got it isn’t talking.
They just quote, get this, a meteorologist (meteorology is a field totally unrelated to climatology) and Michael Crichton (science fiction author and medical doctor, i.e. no credentials).
Let me know when you find the source for this total bullshit. Until then, I will not have very much respect for DU’s newest editor.
Anyone else notice that out of the long list of papers on that stupid blog, not a single one is peer reviewed?
BTW, here’s a link to an article about the panel that vindicated hockey stick graph. It still stands.
Panel Supports a Controversial Report on Global Warming
So, with peer review and a panel of experts supporting the hockey stick graph and no source of data other than a blogger’s fantasy land, I’m sticking with science.
Apparently, the oceans turning acidic decades earlier than previously expected.
The acidification of the ocean due to increasing CO2 is a problem on its own.
Climate change is. I think its safe to say that it is warmer now than in any time in recorded history. Otze and other much less note worthy finds would had decayed long ago if some of those highs were right however it is likely that the climate was fairly mild back when Caesar was a kid and hippos did once live in the British Isles but that was before polar bears evolved.
The planet is getting warmer. The Greenland Ice sheet may be going away fast and the arctic sea ice may or may not all melt this summer.
You guys work it out.
When we look at our perception of climate change we discover something remarkable in it’s conception.
A few men have successfully united the world using fear and catastrophe resulting in us reaching for solutions to a problem no one is sure exists.
Given this, I would think time and resources could be better spent solving real problems and not wasted in the process of chasing phantoms.
#12
Not quite right. If global warming is real, then only most of us die. The rest will live on and breed babies capable of leaving in a toxic environment. 😉
The problem is that people think that any climate change is bad and must be stopped, but what are the long term affects of stopping what could be a natural phenomenon?
#10, Mister Mustard, “This would distinguish them from Dick Cheney’s Secret Energy Cabal, oil companies, and the paid shill “scientists” who argue against the impact of “climate change”.
Your statement would be believable if the oil companies weren’t getting filthy rich BECAUSE of the global warming, climate change hysteria.
Anyone else know that Christopher Monckton, author of the non-peer-reviewed farce of a graph, is a journalist (i.e. not a scientist of any kind) and a mouthpiece for ExxonMobil?
Science and Public Policy Institute — Wikipedia
Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming — New York Times Business section.
They got you looking up because if you see whats going on down here…….
#10 – JimR
“Your statement would be believable if the oil companies weren’t getting filthy rich BECAUSE of the global warming, climate change hysteria.”
Then why are they spending so much money trying to “debunk” it?
Peer reviewed paper of Richard S. Lindzen.
“Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus”
link to peer reviewed paper
Good lord, who has the time to read through and digest all that stuff. Perhaps the sheer volume of it (including the data mountains from the pro-AGW crowd) might indicate the true difficulty of finding much in there that’s actually useful.
Besides, most folks seem to be too ingrained in thinking locally to get themselves to care much in a personal sense about what’s happening far away or on the other side of the planet, etc.
It sure is true, though, that summer temps around here (upstate NY USA) are definitely taller than they were when I was a kid. If they keep going up, we’ll probably just have to make the best of the situation…whoever and/or whatever caused it.