Without Carbon Dioxide, There Would Be No GREEN Movement

I’d like to show Mr. Gore what he can do with his “hockey stick.”  There is a much larger body of evidence supporting the assertion that the impact of man on global temperatures is negligible than the evidence supporting the assertion that man is the primary culprit in climate change.  The scientific evidence is strong enough to show that “man caused climate change” is questionable at best.  If you actually bring common sense into the equation (which seems to have been completely left out of the “global warming” argument) “man caused climate change” seems even sillier.

Yet governments around the world, including ours, are still grasping at the few remaining straws of this myth in order to sell a scheme that would allow them to tax us and regulate nearly every aspect of our lives.  It’s the scheme known as cap-and-trade.  List ANY area of your life that does not in some way involve the use or production of carbon.  Bet you can’t.  Everything you touch is either made from carbon based materials, or produced with energy from carbon based fuels.  Even if you are the one person in 300 million who eats only food grown by the sweat of your own labor, using only rocks for gardening tools, and compost for fertilizer, just the simple act of you breathing during your labors produces carbon.

If we allow the government to falsely classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant instead of the plant food that it really is, and allow them the authority to regulate it, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE AREA OF YOUR LIFE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT CONTROL.

Think back to your elementary school experience and recall your study of a process known a “photosynthesis.”  Wikipedia says of photosynthesis that “photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth.”

Carbon dioxide is plant food.

Isn’t it just the slightest bit ironic that without carbon dioxide, there would be no “green” movement? Without it, the green movement, and all plant life on earth, turns brown.

More commentary embedded in the article below.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

BBC NEWS

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.  (Moose farts.)

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun. (Really?  Who would have thought it?)

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.  (Remember the faulty data that proved Al Gore’s “hockey stick” graph was just a bunch of “hockey?”  Kind of casts a shadow on the assertion that solar influences play little/no role in global temperatures, doesn’t it?)

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. “Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity,” said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  (Whenever you hear anyone, especially a scientist or politician, speak in absolutes, you should hide your wallet and run for cover.  Had he phrased his assertion differently he would sound more credible.  Perhaps something like “it doesn’t seem likely that solar activity is the cause…”  The IPCC has also been exposed as politically tainted group which further degrades their credibility.)

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specializing in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.  (You’ll never hear this in the media formerly known as mainstream.  If you do hear anything about it, it will be reporting that is aimed at discrediting Mr. Corbyn.)

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.  (If proved correct, you will never hear about it in the media formerly known as mainstream.  If Obama and the democrats have their way with their plans to control the media, you’ll never hear about this at all.)

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.  (I never saw that one coming, at least until I took my third grade science class.)

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. (Again, a revelation to those who have been educated in the public school system in the last 15 years.) The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”  (Just as I said with the liberal IPCC earlier, this guy could rephrase his statement to make himself a lot more credible.  Since the “science” of predicting climate change is about as accurate as forecasting the weather (wrong 90% of the time), these scientists should leave themselves more wiggle room.)

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.  (That seems to be the most realistic view based upon the evidence thus far.)

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.  (Just ask Al Gore.)

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.  (For those not in the know, “Met” is short for meteorological, which means “weather.”  The problem with using historical weather data to predict the climate is that there is only about 100-150 years of reasonably accurate weather data.  In the BILLIONS of years of the history of the earth, that is the equivalent of a blink of the eye.  That is exactly why GEOLOGIC data is more accurate, because the data obtained spans millions of years.  The geologic data DOES NOT SUPPORT man caused climate change.)

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.  (Waffling?  Uncertainty?  No.  Just qualifying his answers to cover the inaccuracies of his predictions.)

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.  (That explains why we are having the coldest year in a very long time.)

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?  (Higher taxes, ruined economies, and destitute populations because their governments have sold them out.)

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.  (It’s going to do BOTH, just like it has since before man was a gleam in God’s eye.)

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: