And what do you say about Response when I put "global warming is false" in the firefox address line On That Site
According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:
"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9
The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, accuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.
And I do seem to remember some 'paper' awhile back which said that trees emit more CO2 than automobiles, (thus cutting down the rainforests is a method of stopping global warming...) :fencing:
and when I put "global warming is false" into Internet Exploder's address line I got
Amazon.com: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death: Books: Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institute by Ronald Bailey,Competitive Enterprise Institutewww.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761536604?v=glance
Letter from Frederick Seitz - Global Warming Petition Project
... Review of Global Warming Evidence. Below is an eight page review of information on the subject of "global warming," and a ...www.oism.org/pproject
"There is nothing so powerful as truth" - Daniel Webster. Global Warming and Modern Environmentalism. from Fascism, Environmentalism, and the Third Way. July 30, 2002 ... Editor's Note: This article on global warming, as well as separate articles on ozone ... crowd almost universally dismisses the anthropogenic-CO2/global-warming hypothesis as false ...opinionet.com/staff/gw1-switalski.shtml?PHPSESSID=4b320eb96a6f8c21f...
Global Warming: True or False?
... Global Warming: True or False?* C. O. Brittle, University of Michigan ... This paper is an attempt to examine this interplay, using the issue of global warming as an example ...http://www.riskworld.com/Abstract/20.../ab02aa028.htm
A False Consensus on Global Warming? - Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)
Naomi Oreskes looked at 928 peer-reviewed studies in a data base on "climate change" and found "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" on the Greenhouse Theory. ... A False Consensus On Global Warming? Dennis Avery. Do all of the world's climate scientists agree that humanity is causing dangerous global warming ...http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articl.../jan_10_05.htm
I deleted the link to The Sierra Club since they obviously support the Global Warming Theory, (They must have had the word 'false' somewhere on the page. [aren't search engines wonderful?] )
Since I can't argue with people who do this all the time; and since I will undoubtedly deal with the weather no matter what it is for the rest of my life, I'm only willing to spend a little while longer trying to find a 'Scientist' I respect enough to talk about it with.
Oh, one more thing. You said that Physicist's aren't expert enough to dispute the climatologists and to debunk their modelling efforts. I ask you, "Where did the climatologists get their modeling codes?" Check back, and you'll undoubtedly discover that ALL of the climatologist's codes were originally hydrodynamic codes written by Physicists and modified for use by the climatologists.
This is a little later. The first link I chose to check is the last one above.
A False Consensus On Global Warming? by Dennis T. Avery
The "climate change" keywords also yielded one of the most famous studies in modern climate science: Gerard Bond's 2001 Science paper, "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene." Being a historian, Ms. Oreskes may not have recognized that Bond's physical evidence of past climate cycles trumps the unproven Greenhouse Theory. In a seabed sediment core, Bond found a series of moderate, natural climate cycles—roughly 1500 years long, plus or minus 500 years. They stretch back hundreds of thousands of years. His 2001 paper confirmed the cycle's link to variations in the sun's irradiance, through carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the sediments.
Ms. Oreskes should have looked under "climate variability." Bond and his colleagues don't think our climate is changing so much as varying naturally, but in roughly predictable ways. There's been a whole series of Chapman conferences on climate variability, with another proposed this year at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
Three other papers found under "climate variability": Switzerland's Jan Esper and Fritz Schweingruber studied tree line changes in the mountains of Siberia, where the boles of one tree variety are preserved—living and dead— for hundreds of years. They found the treelines around 1000 AD were 30 meters higher than today, indicating the Medieval Warming had higher temperatures than we do. They also found the treelines had receded around the year 1350, at the start of the Little Ice Age, and advanced again with the Modern Warming.
Berger and Von Rad retrieved a 5000-year sediment core from the Arabian Sea—and found the same 1500-year cycle already found by Bond in the North Atlantic. It revealed the unnamed cold period before the Roman Empire, the 1150-year Roman cycle, the 900-year Medieval cycle, and the beginning of the Modern Cycle. Each cycle moves Earth's temperatures 2 degrees C above and then 2 degrees C below the long-term mean.
J.P. Kennett and a scientific working group on "Climate Variability and Mechanisms" concluded that Earth's climate in the past 10,000 years "is now known to have been highly unstable and prone to major, rapid changes, especially warmings, that occurred briefly within a few decades or less. . .The scientific community has made major strides in documenting the history of millennial-decadal scale climate change. . ."
There's no need for scientists to vote on whether the Earth has warmed in the past 150 years. Ms. Oreskes and the UN bureaucrats just need some way to distinguish their Greenhouse Effect from the natural cycle.
Let me suggest one: the Greenhouse Theory says CO2 will first warm the atmosphere above the Earth. The atmosphere will then overheat the planet by radiating heat from above.
So far, the Earth's surface is warming two or three times faster than the atmosphere. That's a big Mother Nature vote against the Greenhouse Theory.