Criticism of Climate Change theory

Politics and religion.

Moderator: JasonNC

User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:03 pm
6) The sea level is not rising

Al Gore told us the oceans would rise 20 feet. Prince Charles told us tiny islands would be swallowed up.

The corrupt UN had a less hyperbolic projection. They said the seas would rise 17 inches by 2100.

Not according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, one of the world's foremost experts on sea levels and the emeritus head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University in Sweden.

Morner has studied sea levels for 35 years. He challenges all of the "flood" alarmists with a simple question: Where is your proof?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... -told.html
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy ... epage=true
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/ ... l-warming/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... usly.thtml

The truth is, the sea levels have been rising by an extremely tiny amount for centuries. We're talking 4 inches in 100 years. It's been going on for a long time, probably before the first factory was ever built. The sea rises on some coasts, and goes down on others. Then there's the real factor of coastal erosion and subsidence. No rock or building on any coast will be immune to subsidence. The ocean slowly eats the coasts, and the tectonic plates slowly move.

125,000 years ago, sea levels were gauged to be at our current level. But 81,000 years ago, the sea levels were apparently 1 meter higher, and yet it was much cooler as the last ice age dawned.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100211/ ... 10.59.html
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:49 pm
Just saw this one today

7) Global warming started in the 1870s?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ought.html

It’s widely believed that global warming began in the 1970s, but new ocean temperature readings show that the Earth has in fact been warming for far longer.

A study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego traced ocean warming to the late 19th century, which implies, say researchers, that the Earth’s climate as a whole has been heating up since then.

Scientists have previously determined that nearly 90 per cent of the excess heat added to Earth's climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans.

The new study, published in the April 1 advance online edition of Nature Climate Change and co-authored by John Gould of the United Kingdom-based National Oceanography Centre and John Gilson of Scripps Oceanography, pushes the ocean warming trend back much earlier.


Industrialization in the late 19th century really was virtually limited to comparatively small, select areas of North America, Western Europe, and Japan. By today's standards, the CO2 emitted by this industrial activity was obviously small and scattered. No automotive vehicles. No planes. No massive refineries. Very few smoke-stacks compared to the industrial height of the 20th century. Stocks of gas-producing domestic animals were much smaller. Human population levels were much smaller. The most CO2 emissions one saw would be the occasional coal-fired train or smelt factory. They were only common sights in only a handful of areas in the world.

Every country on Earth in the late 19th century, including the industrializing ones, was still based primarily on a rural economy. The conclusion is obvious. Natural events initiated global warming, no doubt according to cyclical patterns, unrelated to the activities of mankind.
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:10 am
No, no. You see, the Earth was so shocked by the beginning of industry and the creation of CO2 that it got really angry, and thus temperatures began to rise.
Quote
User avatar
Resident Custom Guru
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 3:30 pm
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:44 am
Just cause global warming might have already been going on doesn't mean what were doing to the environment on a planetary scale isn't accelerating it, and most definitely isn't helping it either.

Global warming might be a crock of crap but wastes and things produced every day are still destroying plenty of other things besides just the ozone, it might be possible that by giving it a name and making it seem so much worse that it is might bring more attention to all the little bits of things that do add up and do hurt the planet, people tend to ignore problems until they grow too large to ignore them any further so its a decent tactic to get people to care, after all there are much worse lies out there that don't accumulate good things, the end might justify the means for fixing some of the small problems before they get beyond fixable.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:28 pm
The reason why I am so hostile against the global warming hype crowd is because I am a genuine environmentalist and a lover of the outdoors and its critters. I feel betrayed, attacked. I feel like the elites who have hijacked the environmental movement are destroying the planet and using it to trick us, while pretending they are the sole defenders of nature. It's not a green movement, but a Gangrene Movement.

They are pinning all the troubles on a trace gas called CO2, which is ironically vital for life. CO2 and carbon are life itself, just like oxygen and H20 are.

The global warmers took over the environmental movement and conflated real human-made POLLUTION with non-human-made global warming.

Pollution in all its forms is bad, not because it's warming the Earth, but for all the painfully obvious other reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 or warming.

- polluted drinking water
- polluted oceans
- polluted air
- radioactive waste
- genetically engineered agriculture & pesticides
- endocrine disruptors that wreck delicate hormones balances
- mining pollution
- factory pollution
- military pollution
- electrical, EM frequency pollution
- landfills, river dumping, coastal sea dumping
- species die-off

All of these things are legitimate, harmful threats to the environment and its organisms. Yet we're supposed to fear the life-giving trace gas called CO2? It could double in atmospheric content and the result would be nothing, except for slightly more prosperous growth of plant life.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:59 am
Global Warming Rebellion Rocks NASA

http://nation.foxnews.com/nasa/2012/04/ ... rocks-nasa

citing

http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/50-t ... ing-stock/


Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.

" …..unproven remarks…..not substantiated…..hundreds of well-known climate scientists…..tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief…..science is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”


Letters to the top don’t get any more blunt than that.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:03 am
Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11 ... ice_cover/

The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began.


The NSIDC boffins add, however that overall the Arctic ice - while up on recent years - is below the average seen since records began in 1979. In fact, according to the Cryosphere Today website run by the Polar Research group at Illinois uni, it's down by 443,000 square km. However the sea ice around the Antarctic coasts is above average by 452,000 km2, so overall the planet's sea ice is at the moment slightly above average in extent
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:07 am
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23 ... ge_global/

More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica.

The research involved the development of a new means of assessing past temperatures, to add to existing methods such as tree ring analysis and ice cores. In this study, scientists analysed samples of a crystal called ikaite, which forms in cold waters.


The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2


The oft-mentioned "scientific consensus", based in large part on the work of famous climate-alarmist scientists Michael Mann and Phil Jones and reflected in the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that isn't true. The IPCC consensus is that the medieval warming – and the "Little Ice Age" which followed it – only happened in Europe and maybe some other northern areas. They were local events only, and globally the world was cooler than it is now. The temperature increase seen in the latter half of the 20th century is a new thing caused by humanity's carbon emissions.

Lu and his colleagues' new work, however, indicates that in fact the medieval warm period and little ice age were both felt right down to Antarctica.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:32 pm
We have been told the polar ice caps are melting. True, the Arctic ice has temporarily retreated within a short 20 year period of observation (a period of observation -- the "satellite record" -- so short that it cannot be scientifically representative of long-term trends). Yet this 'retreat' has been exaggerated. Rumours of the Arctic's demise are half-baked and rushed.

The global warmers were aggravated that the Antarctic ice didn't seem to be retreating. So they re-modulated their computer software and told us the Antarctic was in fact shrinking! Which -- in fact -- it is not.

Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25 ... t_melting/

Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.



So the Antarctic is not melting. Indeed, it is growing! Which is good news because "Antarctica has 90 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent of its fresh water."

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is ... 5700043191

Actual scientists proved this, as opposed to politicians, media hacks, and billionaires.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:45 pm
One of the fathers of the German environmental movement questions climate change theory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338 ... alist.html

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was once on the bandwagon, a real insider and leader. Now he questions everything, because things aren't adding up.
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me.


Maybe it's because the UN and the environmental movement are controlled by the Rothschild-Rockfeller group and their allies, which together as a cartel influences most of the media, the NGOs, the politicians, and even many corporations they're invested in to 'think climate change'.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to It matters!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron