A solution to global warming – pollute more!
Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth’s surface.
Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
[…]
Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.
This trend received some publicity under the term “global dimming”.
Rising Sun (BBC)
Clean air makes bright skies
But in the 1980s, it appears to have reversed, according to two papers published last year in the journal Science.
[,,,]
The reversal of “global dimming” has been proposed in some circles as an alternative explanation for climatic change, removing the need to invoke human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Dr Wild dismissed this picture. His analysis suggests that “global dimming” and the man-made greenhouse effect may have cancelled each other out until the early 1980s, but now “global brightening” is adding to the impact of human greenhouse emissions.
“There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn’t due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations,” he told the BBC News website.
“During the solar dimming we had really no temperature rise. And only when the solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect, and that is only starting in the 1980s.”
Just in case you thought you were alone in your confusion.
Heh, global dimming, warming, brightening… it shows that the earth has probably been doing things that we have been blissfully unaware of for thousands, if not billions of years. Now that we have the ability to measure and record data we jump at every change. The scientist should take a step back and think before they make the pronouncements. Perhaps it is all just part of what normally happens. I imagine that we affect it to some degree but we really just don’t know how much.
‘Scientists’ don’t cash in by telling us everything is fine, and certain politicians can’t realize their dreams of taxing and controlling the ignorant masses without creating a climate of fear. Global warming is their ‘solution’ to this problem, it’s almost the perfect solution too because there are so many variables and unknowns that any data can be used to ‘support’ anything.
Krakatoa’s explosion in the 1800’s threw more crap into the atmosphere than the whole industrial revolution – was the planet better or worse afterwards? who knows? we’re still here though.
There was a clear bet made about 6 months ago by a Russian scientist….he said in 10 years temperatures would be the same or lower than today. He based his bet on solar energy variations.
Essentially, the sun is going through a natural cycle.
Gather the data…..
Conservatives just pretend to be confused by this stuff, right? I mean, after all, Albertans would be on welfare if not for Petrodollars, so its in their narrow self-interest to go around saying that the science is confused and the best bet is to keep pumping.
The idea that the effects of global warming might be counteracted by pumping certain kinds of (light reflective) particulates into the atmosphere is hardly new, nor the idea that as air pollution lessened the effects of global warming might be exacerbated. These are more like predictions of climatologists being born out by actual research than any “refutation” of the notion of global warming.
It isn’t really that hard to understand. Neither is the idea that an increase in temperatures might, through various mechanisms, cause changes to the Gulf Stream that might bring colder weather to Europe and North America. In fact, there are historical precedents for just this occuring.
It’s significant that Republican Pollster Frank Luntz claimed that the “science was closing the book” on the global warming issue as a political issue for Republicans. Basically, arguing against the reality of global warming is becoming alot like arguing for Intelligent Design. In fact, if you look at alot of the Conservative Think Tanks (in the U.S., they) “do” both Global Warming as myth and Intelligent design as science.
Bigcitylib,
There’s a theory that milk causes health problems. Just in case it does, but without being really sure whether milk or something else is the cause, we should all stop drinking milk and eating dairy products. Dairy herds should be destroyed. Cheese should be disposed of safely.
Those who disagree with this strategy must be reviled for acting in their narrow self-interest, and accused of being in the pockets of the dairy industry if they point to any evidence countering the arguments of the true believers. And those whose health might suffer because they can no longer have dairy products should be grateful that they have the opportunity to sacrifice themselves to such a noble cause.
Please understand three truths about climate change. First, climate has always changed; it is a system of remarkable complexity. Second, according to IPCC scientists, nothing in the Kyoto accord will have any measurable effect on the rate of warming. Third, if you imagine a world in which CO2 is not emitted from human sources, you have just described a planet without people.
What is ‘hard to understand’ about climate – at least for me – is that facile theories which reduce its genuine complexity down to a sound bite or two are taken so seriously by so many otherwise intelligent people. I can only conclude that Mother Nature is replacing God as an object of societal worship. And why not? We can feel as if we are appeasing this new god by actions we can take individually, and we can feel superior to non-believers without actually sacrificing very much. She doesn’t demand much from us in terms of intrusive commandments that limit our rights to self-expression.
The environment deserves to be treated with respect. Please do not confuse CO2 with actual pollutants. It is a sad irony that the Kyoto Accord has served to divert so much attention and funding from genuine environmental problems, the solution of which would change lives today.
The one certainty is that no one can be 100% sure that:
1. global warming is a long-term trend
2. That it is caused by man-made factors.
Those who assert pro or con to be absolute fact (suzuki et al) are not scientists but preachers of intolerant political dogma.
Dear Halfwise,
Produce for me some theory that says milk causes health problems. Otherwise admit that the first half of your post is bullshit.
As for the otherwise intelligent people, well most of us have some scientific training, or are at least willing to defer to those who have scientific training. The leader of the anti-global warming forces right now happens to be a bad sci fi writer, who in the past has argued that feminists secretly rule the workforce and that the Japanese are coming to take over America.
Your point about CO2 and pollutants is well taken. Global warming is not our only environmental problem.
Read somewhere (trying to remember the source…long time ago) that some scientists have identified (an approximate) 8000 year natural cooling/warming cycle on good ol’ earth. We are supposidly on the warming stretch. I am going to try to track down the book. Anyone else read/heard of this?
Bigcitylib,
I don’t believe the dairy-is-bad argument, but lots of people seem to. Check out http://www.notmilk.com/milkatoz.html for a list of afflictions (A to Z) blamed on milk, and the various papers cited for the causality.
I studied climatology in the 1970s when the big deal in all the refereed journals was anthropogenic global cooling, and I paid enough attention to graduate in a related field. I know that Crichton gets press, for being as media savvy as some of the global warming types, but he is hardly the ‘leader’ of any research – this is about science not politics, or at least it should be. Research should just happen; my suspicion is that research IS being led, but sadly, led by funding which is conditional on reporting a preconceived ‘right’ answer that aligns with the ideology of the funding source.
Here is a quote that provides a different perspective:
“Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.”
You can find reasoned non-Crichtonian research all over the place, performed by people who set aside the dogma of the global warming alarmists and get down to the real science. May I suggest http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/, the source of the quotation above.
Bigcitylib, let me say thank you for at least taking the time to engage in a discussion about this. I wish more people would.
Consider this:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind we find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”
Stephen Scheider, Stanford Climatologist
That is not a scientific approach!
I guess we’re all supposed to ignore the Medieval Warm Period that started around 1000 AD; no cars what could have caused it? And the Little Ice Age in the 14th and 15th centuries. The slight warming of the earth in the last 20 years is a burp when compared to the fluctuations of a 10 billion years old planet.
Dear Halfwise,
Let me just focus on one thing, your claims re
“anthropogenic global cooling”. You’re quite right, in the ’70s there were a number of scientists who felt that the planet might be getting colder, perhaps because of an increase in industrially emitted particulates. This was advanced as a hypothesis, and was fairly quickly disproven. That’s how science often works. There was an interesting article in the New Scientist about a month ago where one of the scientists who advanced this hypothesis back in the 70s(Sorry, don’t have a link and can’t remember the name)complained that this was now taken to be evidence against global warming. He long ago changed his views and has now joined the concensus view.
On the other hand, I myself first heard the term “Global Warming” in one of Ursula K. Le Guin’s novels (maybe “The Left Hand of Darkness”)from the 1970s. It entered the Global conciousness in the late 80s, and since that time the ranks of legitimate dissenters like your Pielke has diminished. That’s also how science works.
Can’t write more today. Am currently working on a post about the Best Rock Band on the Planet back at my Blog. Come see for more details.
Bigcitylib,
I’m in favor of debate, and don’t mind being on the ‘minority’ side on this one, since climate doesn’t respond to polls regardless of their outcome.
In this debate I’m not even so sure about the minority vs majority numbers – in the late 1990s over 19,000 climate scientists signed the Oregon Petition challenging the so-called consensus that you refer to.
We could debate the cause of global warming based on examining its rate. The rate of arctic warming over the last three decades is virtually the same as the rate of arctic warming over the first 4 decades of the 20th century, before that 30 year cooling period whose cause remains troublesomely elusive. If increased anthro CO2 is the driver of warming, I would expect that rate to have accelerated not remained the same. This is the kind of evidence that makes me doubt the self-assured conclusions about the cause of warming.
But my real problem with the Kyoto machine is the fact that WHATEVER we do about ‘global warming’, it will amount to nothing more than a symbolic gesture. The claimed benefit of full compliance with Kyoto won’t even be measurable.
I can’t help but conclude that something other than objective reality is driving this mass movement. Hence my thoughts about the new religion of Mother Earth worship. Mankind seems hardwired to feel guilty about stuff, and offer sacrifices while seeking forgiveness, all the while looking around to see whether we are being more holy than our fellow sinners. For me, those instincts ought to be directed towards Someone with a better track record than a bunch of climate scientists and their models.
Eat crow Chretien, Martin, Maurice Strong…. CAW..CAW…Caw… +
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an “emerging science,” one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today’s global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont. + more
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Jesus, Maz, they had to go as far as Poland and Australia to dig up sixty names. Thats not very impressive.
Halfwise,
The Oregon Petition was a fraud and you know it. A good number of alleged signatories didn’t remember having signed it. Most did not seem to exist in the first place. You see, your peddling crap the same way the IDers do. And this is the point, fewer and fewer “real scientists” disbelieve global warming.
Therefore the political machine pushing your views have to recruit more and more wingnuts to the cause to make the case. Hence Crighton.
Tim Flannery wrote a book recently. Bush contacted him personally.. Kinda odd.
Tony Blair wrote a note to Flannery about his book. What are the odds? Not bad for a realativly little known author.
The book, *The Weathermakers* seems like required reading before venturing to comment on global warming. TG
Comox100
Bigcitylib,
The petition was a fraud? Well, it’s had some criticism, but nothing more serious than what the IPCC has been subjected to in the generation of its summary reports, which lost the nuances and cautions of the underlying detailed studies. And that’s a sign of the politicization of this whole debate.
I hope we can keep this debate above the level of accusations of ‘peddling crap’, but if you think it adds to the tone, I can send that right back at you. If your facts are no better than your spelling, you’re in crap of your own making.
Halfwise,
The Oregon Petition was a fraud. Alot of the people on it were unaware that they had signed the thing. Another bunch did not exist.
And the people who put out the Oregon petition were a bunch of nut-jobbers who fraudulently claimed to have something to do with the National Acadamy of Sciences. Do you remember in my first post on this topic when I mentioned that the same people spouting the anti-global warming line had links to creationists. Well, guess what, the OISM has links to them as well.
Halfwise, I am trying to talk science, and you are bringing in IDers, Creationists, and survivalists out in the bushes of Oregon. Do I have to call it crap one more time?
bigcitylib,
Our part of this debate began with you saying that conservatives just pretend to be confused, and their narrow self-interest keeps the oil pumping.
My responses have emphasized two themes:
1) I am a skeptic because information that I trust shows that the world is warming, but not at a rate that suggests anthropogenic causes;
2) the “we must do something even though it won’t make any real difference” response looks to me more like a new religion than science.
You dragged in ID and survivalists (!), and while I appreciate you making me do my homework on the Oregon Petition, it doesn’t change the two responses.
You HAVE managed to reinforce my belief about the true believers of the ‘religion’ of global warming, by conveniently failing to address the utter futility of the Kyoto Accord, while insulting people who don’t happen to share your opinions on a deeply complex subject.
Throw another bigcity virgin into the volcano, buddy. It’ll help just as much as all your hand-wringing about our carbon-based economy, which by the way keeps the lights on in the hospital, and the beer cold in your fridge.
I’m out.
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits…..Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world”
Christin Stewart former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Hmmm……are global justice and equality climatic conditions?
Dear Halfwise,
The evidence you’ve so far provided in your case contra Global Warming includes:
1) Some weird anti-milk website neither I nor probably anyone else had heard of before you gave the link.
2) A conservative “think tank” that lives in the bushes in oregon and, in addition to preaching against the reality of global warming, argues for Creationism, and publishes books on surviving the nuclear holocuast (they’re survivalists). This think tank produced a bogus document in the late 90s purporting to give a list of 19,000 scientists who did not believe in global warming. Most of them appear nowhere else but on the list and, as it turns out, one of the names on the list was Ginger Spice, who had never heard of the OISM.
I hope the “information” that you “trust” is something you’ve kept in reserve, as it were, and will still be willing to provide in future.
Finally, the effectiveness or lack of the Kyoto accord is an entirely different argument from whether or not global warming exists and is manmade. Once I’ve got you to recognize science from pseudo-science, we can move on to practical responses to the problem.
hmmm, let’s all hide under a big pile of coats (as Homer would say), continue to drive ooowwwwrrr biigggg SUVs, and hope that our grandkids have some type of future. Na, forget that, screw em all. I WANT WHAT I WANT! GO CHUBBS MCHARPER!
Bigcitylib,
I wasn’t going to carry on with this, but I can’t let your morning post go without a response.
Kyoto’s supporters include every nutjob on the left, Kyoto’s opponents include every nutjob on the right. Let’s call the nutjobs a draw – they aren’t contributing anything.
By the way Paul McCartney’s wife Heather Mills is an active campaigner against milk on behalf of the Vegetarian and Vegan Foundation. I’m willing to bet more of the Foundation members are on your side of the climate change debate than on mine.
If one of your two best arguments is that you didn’t know there was a controversy about milk, so therefore there can’t be one, and the other one is that a petition got Geri Halliwell’s name put on by some prankster (it was caught and removed by the independent auditor, by the way, and the Perry Mason on the list turned out to be a PhD Biochemist), you have a problem with your arguments.
My final words to you on this thread:
Climate change is real, and always has been. But the recent rate of temperature change falls within the ranges of previous rates of temperature change. Stopping emissions of anthro CO2 won’t make any measurable difference to the climate, but would cause massive social misery. So what is the problem that you plan to solve, and how do you plan to do it?
“Practical responses to the [climate change] problem” are the same as they have always been: adapt, get out of the way, or perish. Practical responses to pollution and public health problems, on the other hand, are being underfunded because of all the attention and funding for Global Warming.
You have your eye on the wrong target, bigcitylib, and the more you write, the more you prove it.
The ONLY thing we know FOR SURE about global warming is that we know NOTHING for sure!
Watching the debates between opposing scientists I have witnessed FAR too much spin-doctoring to blindly believe what appears to be just the PROPAGANDA of the newest CRISIS INDUSTRY.
And to those SELF-RIGHTIOUS,FLOCKMINDED GUILT-MONGERS that love to tell the rest of us they know BETTER….KISS MY ASS!
Oooohhhh……that felt good!
There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
The Sunday Telegraph (UK) ^ | April 9, 2006 | by Bob Carter
Posted on 04/09/2006 8:30:27 AM PDT by aculeus
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated – ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as “if”, “might”, “could”, “probably”, “perhaps”, “expected”, “projected” or “modelled” – and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century – a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records – has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues,… +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611937/posts
maz2:…re my previous post…have you read anything re a natural 8000 year cooling/warming cycle on terra firma? I don’t recall my source and am trying to find it.
I think I’ll skip over rebutting the stranger stuff above me in the comments.
Dealing with the post, the effects of particulates close to the ground on reducing light reaching the ground is well known, and is old news.
This does not slow down global warming as the sunlight is not reflected back into space. It can, however, cause one’s ground-based temperatures in such areas to be off.
Particulates in the upper atmosphere is thought to reduce global warming as water droplets form around the particles resulting in increased cloud cover, reflecting more light back into space, cooling the earth.
Of course, clouds at night slow down the rate of heat radiating from the planet, so….
Also, some suspended particulates are not very nice to the ozone layer.
Finally, because I can’t help myself, I just have to say something about that ‘Global warming stopped at 1998’ bit… it’s a piece of misleading BS accomplished through statistical cherry-picking. 1998 was the warmest year on record. 2005 is merely the second warmest year on record. Drawing a line between the two produces a meaningless decline.
Let’s cherry pick some more: the slope from 1999 to 2005 is upwards. The slope from 1997 to 2005 is upwards. Actually, picking any year since god-knows-when and comparing it to 2005 produces an increase.
Then again, you could compare 1945 to 1975 and pronounce global warming in the 20th century to be a hoax as there’s a clear drop (the mid-1940s were hotter than their surrounding years, some of the 70s were a bit cooler.)
The point is the overall trend (I learned this in Grade 7 science class): It’s upwards.
Incredibly so since 1980.
When I said
“Actually, picking any year since god-knows-when and comparing it to 2005 produces an increase.”
As I was meaning to type:
“Actually, picking any year EXCEPT 1998 since god-knows-when and comparing it to 2005 produces an increase.”
Science was never “my thing” but if either Maurice Strong or David Suzuki are taking one side of an argument–and they seem to be saying the Global Warming is a Huge Issue and needs to be dealt with (do I smell a new industry, where BIG $$$$$s are to be made if we follow them down this road?)–my instinct is to believe in the truth of the other side, or at least to remain neutral.
Only in Canada could two such charlatans become such gurus–and government funded ones at that.
Years ago, a friend of mine who was teaching biology at a Canadian university told me about a friend of his who had been a student assistant of Suzuki’s. The study was on fruit flies, I guess the field where he made his name. When the data didn’t match Suzuki’s hypothesis, he apparently threw it out.
I realize that this is third-party and only hearsay, but something about Suzuki’s exhibitionism and his downright lies about the Christian Church during the Middle Ages in his series “A Planet for the Taking,” run on the CBC and bought by school boards across Canada, suggest that it might be true.
“Don’t confuse me with the facts,” and “Show me the money,” could be his and Mo Strong’s mantras.
More from the prepritors of HOT AIR what will the wacky wads at GREENPEACE do now?
…cleaner air???
Ha! Guess these scientists haven’t been in Calgary during a Chinook or a temperature inversion, sick brown air surrounds downtown.
Let alone Mexico City where it burns and stings your eyes and lungs to just visit.
Forget the Olympics in China. Can’t imagine all these athletes breathing the air there, bad enough in Athens…
Garry P.: 4 hits of about 7,350.
Entered into Google: 8000 year cooling/warming cycle.
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Cooling, warming, is irrelvant; a normal characteristic of a dynamic system. … but mostly natural) have placed us in a warming cycle that promises to …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301186/posts – 29k –
Crisscross – News – Crichton best-seller stokes fire over global …
The earth has been forever warming and cooling, warming and cooling. … However, from 8000 BC to 1650 AD the human population expanded from 10M to 500M and …
http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/326480/all – 223k – Cached – Similar pages
[PDF] Societal Adaptation to Abrupt Climate Change and Monsoon …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
if warming-caused ice-melt and hydrologic-cycle intensification at high … Dull, R. A. (2004) An 8000-year record of vegetation, climate, and human …
dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001606/01/NPSocietal_Adaptation.pdf – Similar pages
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Cooling, warming, is irrelvant; a normal characteristic of a dynamic system. … but mostly natural) have placed us in a warming cycle that promises to …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301186/posts – 29k –
Thanx maz2…will start to dig…was thinking of a book title but it must not be the only one around.
Thanx again.
Please inform me what the weather will be like in Edmonton area on Sept 06. Planning an outdoor BBQ for a grad party. If you can predict 100 yrs into the future, that shouldn’t be too difficult.
Have all these global warming nuts forgotten that old commercial DON’T FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE
Pollute more,sun rays can’t get thru the gunk and therefore stops global warming. Will Strong DS, Martin or Chretain be around to see if it really happens. What will future historians have to say their misplaced fears.
maryT: “…what the weather will be like in Edmonton area on Sept 06.”
The weather will be depressing, Edmonton will still recovering from the 2006 Stanley Cup playoff loss to Calgary…then there’s the Stampeder’s…
Kursk’s comments about religious dementia are quite telling. Talk about a select group from which to make generalizations!
In judicial terms this would be an instance, at the very least, of hard cases making poor law.
Running something of a control on this “evidence” might involve slightly larger samples as well comparative groups.
In my experience of religious people as opposed to “tolerant” secularist individuals I find both groups to contain the demented and the naive.
Were I to enumerate the hallucinatorily-affected from the non-religious group I might note from the twentieth century alone: Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot — just as starters. Not really an inspiration for arguing the santity of the non-religious mind given that collectively this rather small sampling of the non-religious
were responsible,in less that a century,for the murder of more people than all religious groups in history . . . and then some.
So much for progress in the area of psychological research. Thank God … er science for peer review.