FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Rhutt-Rhoo
Posted on 03/05/2007 9:49:28 AM PST by finnman69
Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.
A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.
But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.
In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.
Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.
Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.
"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.
He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.
"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."
The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.
A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.
"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."
Off to rehab.
Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."
Wow, that's harsh!
Heretic! Blasphemers! They must be silenced NOW! Kill them all! Destroy there Careers! Humiliate them! Global Warming is the Dogma and doctrine! Earth Mother Gaia will not be amused!.............
What a wildly inaccurate headline.
Why, how can they say that when Algore, the omnipotent UN and all of the leftie newspaper columnists are saying that the debate is over and even suggesting that "deniers" (like me) should be punished?
|
The greenhouse effect is not a myth. Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history. All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real. Claiming the contrary is really stupid.
"We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going."
so basically, since CO2 was the primary culprit responsible for "global warming, climate change" whatever, and it's now fixin to be/has been debunked, they change it to "other factors are involved" to keep the argument going..
can't wait to see what else they blame it on..any FReepers out there want to take some guesses??
ML/NJ
Already there is increasing scorn and derision for his carbon offsets, and his GIM stock investment company that drives stock prices of his selected corporations with his doom and gloom predictions.
This cockroach is long overdue for some bright light of revelation into his operations and motives.
Nothing in the article says that the greenhouse effect does not exist. It says that it is not the major factor in climate change. I believe that the sun is the single most important factor in climate change. If the earth's rotational axis happens to shift a few degrees then that would cause a very big climatic change.
Yep, better cut down on all those MANMADE greenhouse gasses on Mars and Venus. This is not a debate about weather it is about economic and political control of human behavior.
And what will they confiscate next after they take away the fossil fuels?
CO2 is NOT a deadly, poisonous pollutant.
But the chemicals dumped in rivers and streams by the fabric industry in China are poisonous pollutants, they are cancer causing carcinogens used to make shiney and colorful synthetic fabrics that Hollywierdo Al Gore worshipers parade around in while pretending to be concerned about "global warming" and quality of life for the turd world's cheap laborers who are exposed daily to the chemicals.
An industry largely supported and owned by them, which caters to them and the elite in the fashion industry.
The Carbon credit scam these crooks are scheming are only going to impact the poorest people in western countries, but as usual, the loony left hasn't figured that out yet.
What will happen when you compare Venus to Mars? You'll find that Venus is warmer than Mars. It also receives 64 times the solar radiation.
In truth, there is some truth to global warming: about 1 degree over the past century, less than half of which is a result of CO2 "pollution". The result? Slightly warmer evenings and winters, particular in otherwise harsh, subartctic climates, resulting in massively improved harvests.
On the other hand, many people are scared of the ice caps melting. For Antarctica to melt, temperatures would have to increase ONE HUNDRED DEGREES for TEN THOUSAND YEARS!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
