orach24463_cj
The following document cites 1100 scientific skeptic papers disputing the so called “consensus” that co2 is the primary cause of catastrophic climate change. Below is an exerpt from one of them:
Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 41-48, March 2011) – Norman R. Paterson
The paper states that: “According to popular belief, recent global warming has been caused largely by greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, accruing in the atmosphere, and man is responsible for most of the ~120 ppm increase in CO2 over the last 100 years. This article cites a number of recent peer- reviewed scientific papers, and finds that contrary arguments by a growing body of scientists are generally supported by better empirical data than those that favour the ‘anthropogenic warming’ hypothesis. These arguments invoke the effects of solar irradiance and ocean–atmosphere interactions, both of which have been shown to have warming effects at least as great as those claimed for CO2, and to be based on sound, well-understood scientific theory. Furthermore, the global warming models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others have in some cases been shown to be incorrect and contrary to current temperature statistics. For
PROJECT’NO.’ REPORT’NO.’ VERSION’
The paper concludes by stating:
“As a preliminary conclusion of this chapter we simply note that there are strong scientific currents of dissent and continuing questioning on most aspects of climate change and anthropogenic global warming, and it happens also to a large extent in the peer-reviewed mainstream journals of “normal science.” Thus the claim of a near 100 % consensus and lack of dissent on key aspects of AGW is simply not true, and likewise, the claim that “mainstream science” is closed off to dissenting voices is also not true.”
The truth is their is no scientific consensus that co2 is the primary cause of catastrophic climate change. Over a 1000 scientific papers cite the sun and ocean currents as having an equal or greater impact on the climate than co2 does. Moreover, over the past 16 years or more there has been no rise in global temperatures despite the rise in co2. Condemning humans to a slow motion economic suicide and genocide by denying them access to affordable and reliable energy from the abundant fossil fuel resources is despicable. Power to the people not the powerful politicians, their crony green capitalists and environmental movement friends and so called climate change “scientists” whose catastrophic climate change predictions have been proven by reality to be false.
The paper you quote was written by a 91 year old miner. Not a climatologist.
Its primary arguments are:
It’s the sun – refuted by comparing solar activity and global temperature:
It’s Cosmic Rays – refuted by comparing cosmic rays and global temperature:
CO2 can’t be responsible: compare outgoing earth’s radiation over time and compare to CO2 concentrations
Models are wrong: Compare IPCC model predictions to actual temperatures
His paper is simply a “greatest hits” of denier arguments, not even an analysis of what it promises in the abstract – to evaluate reliability of data.
The overwhelming evidence against Climate Change Alarmism can no longer be denied. The facts are the AGW models were wrong. A rise in co2 has not resulted in a rise in global temperatures as the models predicted. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming…
The Skeptical Science Blog you cite is a well known anti science blog full of rigged data and erroneous arguments that are easily refuted.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/05/more-shamele…
As to the the scientific paper reference in my above post being written by a “91 year old miner” just what are you smoking?http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf
The report was written by Emil Røyrvik
SINTEF ICT, Technology & Society, Senior research scientist
Again, you refuse to see the truth about the outcome of the false belief in Climate Alarmism has on humanity and nature. Denying people access to cheap and reliable energy from our vast and abundant fossil fuel resources are paving the way to a slow moving genocide & economic suicide http://wp.me/p36QXu-as
In reply to one of your below posts: Thanks for admitting that the AGW Alarmists true agenda is population control based on fear mongering and lying to people about Catastrophic Climate Change. Again a favored tactic of the left is to mock people who disagree with them instead of addressing the facts. As to your assertion that population control as a means of “saving the earth” from the impact of all those pesky humans who are “a plague on the earth” is really in their best interests, 1930s Germany had a similar ideology of a “Master Race” purging the world of undesirable “useless eaters”.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craz…
So when judging my posts as “bizarro” I suggest you do some soul searching and see that the roots of your misogynist ideology is not only “bizarro” it is pathological.http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-…
Reading comprehension: fail.
Comprehensibility: fail (misogynist???)
Violation of Godwin’s Law: Success
Replying to yourself: Success
Reposting from thread to thread: Success
Congratulations – you are now qualified to argue tirelessly against logic, common sense and science.
Failure to comprehend the sinister underpinnings behind the false belief in Catastrophic Climate Change. A+
“Most climate scientists trace global warming to the relatively rapid buildup of atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels long sequestered deep underground.
Though only 0.04 percent of all the gases in the troposphere, where weather happens, CO2 is second only to water vapor as the most abundant greenhouse gas. And where a water molecule may remain airborne for up to 10 days before returning to the surface as rain, a newly emitted molecule of CO2 can remain in the air for centuries.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have reached the highest level in at least 800,000 years, reaching 395 molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of all gases in the atmosphere – 395 parts per million – some 45 to 50 percent higher than preindustrial levels.”
from the article link.
The information countering Climate Alarmism is now so overwhelming that even the mainstream media is starting to report on the inconventient truth that despite the rise in co2 emissions global temperatures have remained stable for 16 years or more now. Ihttp://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-cli… In a sane world this would be good news. People can stop feeling guilty about destroying the earth from fossil fuel co2 emissions.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416 No need to commit economic suicide in the name of saving the planet.
“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40-year low. Over the past 20 years, sea level has risen by about 5 centimeters an ominous trend unless you’re aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, global sea level has risen 120 meters.”
So why are the Climate Change Gurus doubling down on their fallacious and dire predictions of Climate Catastrophe from hurricanes, drought, the sea rising to swallow up New York, etc.? Could it be it is all driven by the quest for power and wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity?http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c… Do any of the Climate Change Guru’s leading this Apocalyptic End of the Word Quest for a “fossil free” world care that if they achieve their goals the planet will also be pretty people free? Or is a people free world the hidden agenda of the Climate Change Guru’s? In their nihilistic world view Human’s are “killing” the earth and must be expunged in a slow moving genocide to “save the planet”. Denying people access to affordable and abundent energy from fossil fuel is just one way of driving more people into poverty and an early death.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Sickos.http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/345-9/
You keep posting articles from business papers and bizarro blogs as proof that AGW doesn’t exist. Please just find one peer reviewed scientific paper that claims anthropogenic CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming.
What is with the bizarro claims that climate change gurus are driven by the quest for power wealth plus a good dose of fear and loathing of humanity? Can you even name a guru driven by his/her loathing of humanity? It really sounds like you have a severe case of “shoot the messenger”.
It appears you did not read my post.
Humans are a ‘plague on Earth’: Sir David Attenborough warns that negative effects of population growth will come home to roost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough He is considered as one of the most renowned environmentalists of all time
“Humans are transforming the planet in ways that could undermine any development gains. Mounting research shows that the stable functioning of Earth systems – including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles – is a prerequisite for a thriving global society,” he writes, with colleagues.
Prof David Griggs, director of the Monash Sustainability Institute in Australia, argues in an article in the journal Nature that it is no longer enough for countries to solely pursue the poverty alleviation targets enshrined in the millennium development goals (MDG) that were agreed in 2000 but run out in 2015.
As to your claim that my references are “bizarro” I beg to disagree The references link to scientific data that is irrefutable. Stop denying the fact depriving people from cheap and abundant fossil fuel is a slow motion way to economic suicide and genocide promoted by a false belief that co2 emmisions are destroying the planet
Earth is finite. At current growth rates, humans double in population every 70 years.
Stating those facts doesn’t mean that environmentalists loathe humanity, it means that they love it and want to prevent what happens to every other species when their population overshoots what their environment supports.
If you don’t think humanity transforms the earth in ways that undermine development gains I invite you to breathe the air of Beijing, fish in the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone, hunt the passenger pigeon and drink the water of the Ganges.
As for the bizarro nature of your links, I would ask that everyone visit your favorite link to your eponymous blog and judge your credibility for themselves:https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist…
Your own words indict you more powerfully (and humorously) than I ever could.
Thanks for admitting that the AGW Alarmists true agenda is population control based on fear mongering and lying to people about Catastrophic Climate Change. Again a favored tactic of the left is to mock people who disagree with them instead of addressing the facts. As to your assertion that population control as a means of “saving the earth” from the impact of all those pesky humans who are “a plague on the earth” is really in their best interests, 1930s Germany had a similar ideology of a “Master Race” purging the world of undesirable “useless eaters”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craz…
So when judging my posts as “bizarro” I suggest you do some soul searching and see that the roots of your misogynist ideology is not only “bizarro” it is pathological.
Reading comprehension: fail.
Comprehensibility: fail (misogynist???)
Violation of Godwin’s Law: Success
Congratulations – you are now qualified to argue tirelessly against logic, common sense and science.
Are 98% of all scientists wrong about climate change? I think not. I find it difficult to ignore the rapidly increasing warming of both polar ice caps, the change of oxygen level in large parts of the oceans (fish cannot live in these areas), the devastating rise of the oceans and the violent destruction of many of our cities by floods, tornadoes and hurricanes. And of course, even if you do not accept climate change, we all should be concerned about the fact that we will eventually run out of oil and gas. Also, fracking is probably causing small earthquakes where it is being practiced indicating that we may be playing with fire with potentially large earthquakes.
Rob Dekker likes this.
undoubtedly, this is economic sabotage. bleed’em dry with money, hopefully, they’ll go bankrupt. that’s their thinking it seems.
btw, Why is oil pipeline going south to the Gulf if its destined to go to Asia? wouldn’t the route be shorter if the they took a westernly route????
Sounds like “economic sabotage” indeed when the truth is clear co2 is not the main cause of climate change the sun is.
Here is the data on the influence the Sun has on the climate
And here
NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”
and here,
Fritz Vahrenholt: The Cold Sun “‘I feel duped on Climate Change”
Also, “global warming stopped 16 years ago”
The only reliable source you quote (interestingly without providing a link) is NASA. Let’s see what they have to say about the sun’s influence on their award winning climate site: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
Oh look – a sidebar on the right hand side captioned “Is the sun to blame?”
“How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends?
Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn’t appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.”
DF: South is where the refineries are. Canadians don’t want the pipeline traveling through their own country. The US Gov’t behaves like a 3rd world banana republic when oil is involved, so the Canadians don’t have to endanger their own environment.
German Renewable Energy Goes down the tubeshttp://notrickszone.com/2013/02/24/germanys-renewa… “Worse, the more wind and solar systems get installed, the more intermitently the conventional systems end up running, thus making them far less efficient and costlier. Result: Germany’s entire energy production system is rapidly becoming sub-par. That’s bad for the environment, the consumer’s pocket book, and for the country’s global competitiveness.
Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.”
Again, reality disagrees with the warmest theories of renewable energy as a viable replacement for cheaper, more abundant and reliable energy from fossil fuel. Before their Warmest false belief in man made global warming does more harm to the poor and nature Warmests need to take a deep breath and wake up to the fact they were wrong. CO2 is not the main driver of Climate Change the Sun is. Renewable Energy is a pipe dream. Their pie in the sky dreams of a “fossil free world” do great harm to the poor of the world. The only people who benefit are the powerful in government and their crony Green capitalist friends.https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist…
“At the end of the day, if the Greens cared about the air, the temperature and the trees, they could care about the data used to track these things. They would care about the outcomes. Anything less is just “seeming” to care.”
The truth is the warmest or greens don’t give a f@#$ about the truth. All the Warmests care about is feeling” good about themselves for saving the earth from “climate change”. Admitting they were wrong would make them feel bad about themselves.
The poor can just “eat cake”. Admitting the truth would just upset all the acolades, money and power the elites in the Green movement get from their false belief in Climate Change. Power,money and accolades from their peers in the elite Green movement is what counts. Affordable and reliable power from fossil fuel for the people that would raise them up from poverty is forbidden.
Sickos.
I followed his blog and was captivated by the dizzying intellect on display. For example: The reality is the Leftists sees a woman’s right to choose an abortion as a tool for achieving their real goal of saving the earth from overpopulation which is in “the common good”.
I had no idea a single feverish sentence could do so much damage to grammar, logic and common sense. Continuing the the same vein for many many paragraphs, the post finally culminates:
The radical Left in main fear and loath humanity. They believes humanity is responsible for destroying the planet and through use of a strident cacophony of lies have conned their followers into believing they are on humanities team when in fact they are not. The Left is on the team of death. Death to humanity that is. According to the radical left population control and more poor people are in the the best interests of “the common good.” Especially if you are in 1% on top of the heap who calls the shots.
This must be what mommy is warning me about when we have the talk about the dark corners of the Internet. Those radical lefties are terrifying.
The truth about the ideology of the Left is “terrifying” One of the favored tactics of the Left is to mock anyone who disagrees with them in an attempt to evade the truth. Instead of denying the truth why not do some soul searching and respond to the facts.
Again, reality disagrees with the so called Climate Change “Scientists”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-… CO2 man made emissions play a minor role in climate change.
It is the Sun Stupid.
“The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.”
Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2, that is the major driver of climate change can be found here:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yo… PLUS a former warmest, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt,”TheColdSun” who now believes it is the Sun (not co2) that is the major driver of climate change
Warmists are now admitting that their goal to stop global warming is impossible to achieve. http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/22/trapped-stefan-rahmstorf-declares-pretending-to-be-better-than-facing-reality-playing-into-skeptic-hands/Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are useless and waste billions of dollars that could be spent in a much better way on other things like creating jobs and alleviating poverty and disease. Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to pursue something that is not only unattainable but waste billions of dollars on useless activities that causes great harm to poor people? Could it be money and power plus a good dose of hatred towards humanity? https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-sin
Money quote from “Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2”:
Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world. “Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has at least five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine river has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.
The ftp link you post of the ocean temperatures show them rising. Shocking! Check it out for yourself!!!
Do you know you have been scoring points for the evil leftists with those links? In my ideal world you would be a double agent draining funds from the Merchants of Doubt while creating arguments so perfect in their inanity that they drive people to believe in AGW. Unfortunately it is more likely that your unwitting links to papers and data that contradict your conclusions simply reveal a lack of wits.
Sorry but you just admitted that co2 is only one possible cause of climate change. The fact the Sun is also cited as a cause of climate change is the point. Reducing c02 emissions is not the answer. Humans have no control of the Sun. Ergo it is pointless and wasteful to spend billions of dollars on trying to stop climate change via alternative energy which is more costly and toxic to the environment than fossil fuel.
If the sun were increasing in intensity, that would be true. Unfortunately it is not – sunspots have been decreasing since the 1950’s.http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
If global temperature followed the sun, it would be decreasing.
So – why is air temperature remaining at record levels and ocean temperature increasing if not for the sun? CO2.
FYI, Here is the data on the influence the Sun has on the climate
And here
NASA on the sun: ‘…tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.”
and here,
Fritz Vahrenholt: The Cold Sun “‘I feel duped on Climate Change”
Also, “global warming stopped 16 years ago”
You keep quoting NASA on the sun. Please see right hand sidebar on NASA’s climate site about the sun’s effect on global warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
No one denies that the sun has an effect on climate. However, the sun’s irradiance is decreasing while the temperature has been increasing.
Warmists are now admitting that their goal to stop global warming is impossible to achieve. /Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are uselhttp://notrickszone.com/2013/04/22/trapped-stefan-… Thus all the government policies to stop global warming are useless and waste billions of dollars that could be spent in a much better way on other things like creating jobs and alleviating poverty and disease. Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying. Why would anyone in their right mind continue to pursue something that is not only unattainable but waste billions of dollars on useless activities that causes great harm to poor people? Could it be money and power plus a good dose of hatred towards humanity? https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-an…
“Higher Energy Costs = More Poverty = More Children Dying.”
I’m sure this claim could be addressed by anyone who cared to think about it (or read one of my previous posts). But here goes….
A carbon tax could easily be rebated to low-income households. So higher energy costs need not be a regressive burden on the poor and still put energy-saving incentives in the right places.
Also, it’s possible that global warming is more of a danger to the poor than modestly higher energy expenses. Heat can kill, and not everyone can afford a/c. And the expense of a/c can take away from other purchases that promote health (such as health insurance). So mitigating the effects of warming as much as possible can be a net gain for low income households.
It is a lie that if the government has control over our vast fossil fuel resources energy will be more fairly distributed and lead to a “cleaner environment” Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the UK government control over energy resources has led to poor people freezing to death. All around the world billions of people have no access to electricity and are condemned to live in energy poverty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Government control over energy has also led to so called “green energy” that is more costly and toxic to the environment than fossil fuel energy.https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/green-e… The people should not be denied access to abundant and affordable energy from fossil fuel when the alternative is more expensive, scarce and in many case toxic “green” energy. The people who benefit from “Green Energy” are a corrupt few in government and their crony green energy industry friends who use confiscated tax payer dollars to line their pockets while the poor people are forced to pay higher prices for electricity and fuel. See the http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/ Power to the People Not Corrupt Politicians and their Crony Green Capitalist Friends. Higher Energy Costs = More Poor People = More Children Dying
Than there is the fact that reality disagrees with all the Climate models “proving” co2 as the main driver of climate change.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/22/model-data-d…
Germany has a highly regulated energy industry with a fairly high renewables quotient. There have been some recent complaints about its solar program, but I don’t think it’s causing people to freeze to death.
And in the US, government “control” over water and air have led to cleaner water and air for all, which benefits the rich and the poor alike.
If the concern is with with the “energy deprived,” surely that can be taken care of with funds other than those used to protect the environment. It’s not a false choice of either/or. How about ending subsidies for hugely profitable companies and using those funds to help those who are “condemned to live in energy poverty”?
“Higher Energy Costs = More Poor People = More Children Dying”
You keep posting this, even though I explained why it isn’t necessarily the case. Just repeating something over and over won’t make it true.
I’ll add another reason why those connections aren’t necessarily true. Say the price of gas goes up 30%. If your next car is 30% more efficient, then it doesn’t cost you a penny more to drive around as you did before. So higher prices can lead to greater efficiency which results in no increase in expenditures. It may even lead to savings.
You keep ignoring reality.
German Renewable Energy Goes down the tubeshttp://notrickszone.com/2013/02/24/germanys-renewa…“Worse, the more wind and solar systems get installed, the more intermitently the conventional systems end up running, thus making them far less efficient and costlier. Result: Germany’s entire energy production system is rapidly becoming sub-par. That’s bad for the environment, the consumer’s pocket book, and for the country’s global competitiveness.
Call it communist power management. In the communist days it took 10 men to the job of one man in a free market. On the energy market, it takes 5 green generators to do the job of a single conventional generator.”
Again, reality disagrees with the warmest theories of renewable energy as a viable replacement for cheaper, more abundant and reliable energy from fossil fuel. The fact is warmest need to take a deep breath and wake up to the fact the Co2 Climate Scientists were wrong. CO2 is not the main driver of Climate Change the Sun is. Renewable Energy is a pipe dream. Warmests pie in the sky dreams of a “fossil free world” do great harm to the poor of the world. The only people who benefit are the powerful in government and their crony Green capitalist friends. https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/leftist…
Higher Energy Costs from Renewable Energy = More Poor People = More Children Dying
Err – if conventional systems run intermittently, it would be expected that they are more costly. On the other hand, the more used renewables become cheaper. That sounds like an excellent result if you want to have renewable power instead of carbon based power.
“Renewable Energy is a pipe dream.”
Not in Denmark, apparently. “[E]arlier this month Danish wind turbines sent nearly 4 GW into the electricity grid, only about 800 MW shy of meeting the nation’s entire energy needs. (Though in reality the energy is sold to other European countries.) The Danish government has targeted wind to produce half its electricity by 2020, double its current rate.”http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/artic…
“You keep ignoring reality.”
You keep ignoring my points. Since you didn’t dispute my argument that higher energy prices can lead to more efficiency and therefore may not lead to more expenses and more poor people, I assume you concede the point. Again, just reposting your claim won’t make it true.
Sad what this fellow wrote, it will not matter at all if we do not stop the warming,
What will money matter if there is a major crop failure and there is no food in the market? We got a taste of Global Warming and this is just the start.
These people that charge at what they call “warmists” will just fade from the scene.
At some point the author needs to stop and recognize that his fantasy about the wacko fringe of environmentalism having a meaningful impact on politics is just that. The more the alarmists exclaim their alarm, the more the public yawns.
Keystone is probably inevitable. You know what else is inevitable? That the climate change alarmists will lose. Whether or not their apocalyptic predictions come true, we’re not implementing any more policy to address them than we are policy to address the coming rapture.
It’s pretty amazing that so much so-called “science” about global warming has its basis in fuzzy models later found by real statisticians to contain significant errors and in repeatedly corrected data (as one example, NASA’s Global Institute of Space Studies initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931, respectively. After questions were raised by a scientist named McIntyre, GISS rejiggered the list to show 1934 as the warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. Since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs as 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921 and 1999. The institute blamed “a minor data processing error” for the changes. How many statistical and “minor data processing errors” exist in these models and how much faith do you have in numbers that keep changing?
I have also read that if we don’t go forward with the pipeline, the Canadians plan to sell the oil it to China, so I’m not sure our failure to participate will have much effect globally. (Might be better here since we do have much stricter clean air and environmental rules than China.)
I have also read that the Canadian federal National Resources Department already determined that heavy (tar and) crude is not more corrosive than light crude and that Batelle Labs studied it and says that six of the seven Canadian diluted bitumen crudes have lower corrosivity than the Western Canadian Blend, a conventional crude. Not only that, but all seven of the Canadian diluted bitumen crudes have a lower corrosivity than Mexican Maya crude and Colombian crude from the Rubiales Oil Field, which have been transported by U.S. pipelines for more than 40 years.
The Congressional Research Service says that opponents of the oil sands tend to ignore a significant stage in the life of a fuel – the combustion phase – which accounts for 70-80 percent of emissions. On a lifecycle, or well-to-wheels, basis, greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands are on par with the average barrel of U.S. imported crude oil (See IHS CERA’s report).
Hard to know who to believe sometimes.
Warmists are in denial about the fact their models got it all wrong.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/All the so called “peer-reviewed” papers “proving” man made climate change were wrong. Whereas 450 peer reviews skeptic papers were ignored by the scientists promoting man made climate change http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-45…Than there is the inconvenient truth that March was the coldest year since 1659http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/hadc…
If you are right, all those climatologists are either more ignorant than Watt or involved in an incredible conspiracy. Let me think about who I should trust…
Which one of those 450 papers states that the atmosphere will not warm as CO2 increases? Which of them attributes the increase in CO2 so a cause other than man?
March is the coldest _year_? In any case, HADCET is representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. Global climate is something else entirely.
Again, reality disagrees with the so called Climate Change “Scientists” Why is it so difficult to accept this? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/20/its-the-sun-…CO2 man made emissions play a minor role in climate change. It is the Sun Stupid.
“The results of this gross error of scientific judgement is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections. The NOAA SSTs show that with CO2 up 8% there has been no net warming since 1997, that ,the warming trend peaked in 2003 and that there has been a cooling trend since that time.”
Another paper that confirms that is is the Sun, not CO2, that is the major driver of climate change can be found here:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yo… PLUS a former warmest, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt,”TheColdSun” who now believes it is the Sun (not co2) that is the major driver of climate change
Dude – did you even read the paper you say confirms that it is the Sun, not CO2? Here is a quote:
Some who dispute the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change argue that this two-year period shows that Earth’s climate is not getting any warmer. But climate is a complex system, Sirocko said. And a short-term, localized dip in temperatures only temporarily masks the effects of a warming world. “Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has at least five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”
Moreover, the researchers also point out that, despite Central Europe’s prospect to suffer colder winters every 11 years or so, the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine river has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change.
The paper confirms what everyone knows – the sun AND CO2 (and another 3-4 significant variables) drive climate. Does CJ Orach know you are scoring points for the evil Leftists?
You convinced me. All those climatologists are now looking up at that big yellow ball of flame in the sky wondering how they missed the obvious.
