Analysis finds the Sun explains climate change, not CO2

Loading

MS @ The Hockey Schtick:

From the new SPPI & CO2 Science report:

“There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.”

“In considering Qian and Lu’s findings, it is important to note that, once again, no help from greenhouse gas emissions was needed to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of Earth’s global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. And as for the future, the two authors predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.” Given the cessation in warming observed in the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records over the past decade, it appears their prediction is well on its way to being validated.

Clearly, there is much to recommend the overriding concept that is suggested by the data of these several papers, i.e., that the Sun rules the Earth when it comes to orchestrating major changes in the planet’s climate. It is becoming ever more clear that the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has reverberated throughout the Holocene is indeed the result of similar-scale oscillations in some aspect of solar activity. Consequently, as Mayewski et al. (2004) suggested a decade ago, “significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.” We only hope that more scientists will take note and examine the intriguing relations between our nearest star and our planet’s temperature.”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Imagine that! The Sun warms the Earth and when the Sun is further away from the Earth, the Earth cools. That seems so simple that any Mann should understand.

Maybe there is a small sliver of hope that real scientists will keep telling the obvious truth and send the climate change fanatics back to their marxist hellholes.

Yes and hey, it snowed here last week. Global warming is a hoax!!!! Lol>

And pssst; your sources are paid for by big oil.

If global warming is a hoax, the worst thing that happens is we’ve made strides toward sustainable energy and cutting our dependence on foreign oil. If, as the majority of scientists believe, it’s real, the worst things that happens is we die off as a species. Which side would it be logical to err on?

I’m glad Curt keeps us posted on all the later outliers in theories of climate change. If an of these has real scientific standing, they will be accepted by the scientific community. In the mean time, “Wind represents nearly 58 percent of all new generation seen in planning stages over the next few years….” And that’s a good thing for the planet.

@Liberal1 (Objectivity):

In the mean time, “Wind represents nearly 58 percent of all new generation seen in planning stages over the next few years….” And that’s a good thing for the planet.

It may be good, or it may be bad. At this point, we just do not know. Or have you forgotten history, Lib1. I’m sure that when the first gas powered automobile rumbled down the road that people were claiming all kinds of great things that could be accomplished for our world, and the planet, by the advancement in transportation. Or the coal-fired power plant, which was relatively cheap to build and provided electricity to more of the people than ever before. Or the advancements in the lumber industry like the powered chainsaws, which allowed an entire industry sprout up and thrive during the beginning of this country’s industrial revolution.

Now, though, we see all of those things as, if not bad for the planet, then at the very least, as not helping the planet itself even if the advances made by them have helped more people to live easier lives than our predecessors.

Proliferation of windpower across this world might have negative effects for the future that we just don’t have any idea of yet.

Meanwhile, of all of that 58%, much of it will never come to pass, and of the windpower projects that do, I’m guessing that none of it will be within eyesight of where the rich and well-to-do crowd hang their hats.

@This one: Heh… tell that to the bozoids who go screaming “global warming is real!” when there’s a hot summer day.

And it’s been pointed out here before that there’s a thousand times as much grant money on the AGW side as from “big oil”

@Tom: The worst thing that can happenis that we drive up the national debt and we end up like Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Irland, Italy and others. When we flush tax payer dollars down the toilet, that is not a good thing.

@Liberal1 (Objectivity): You liberals just will never get it. Have you seen how much of the surface of the US would be needed to generate the required power?

@johngalt:
Wind power is a joke… and a bad one. I ran the numbers for my own state last year when some idiots put up a referendum on the ballot. There’s 10 million folks in this state. For them, the various power companies have 17,000 MW of installed generation capacity. Of that, about 4,000 MW is nuclear. (very little hydro – we’re flat 😉 ) So, 13,000 MW of fossil fueled capacity. The biggest windmill – a monster with a 300+ foot bladespan is 3MW. Divide… that’s 4333 bird-chomping nausea-inducing monsters to be built. It’s actually worse, because the ratings on those windmills is like the EPA mileage sticker on a new car… it only applies under ideal conditions. In this case, it’s a 20mph wind. The power you get is related to the cube of the wind speed. Let the wind drop to 10mph and you have only 1/8 the rated power. When you consider that each windmill has over a ton of rare earth magnets (only from China at the moment), tons of steel, aluminum and concrete, plus the damage done to the landscape connecting them to the grid, it’s not even sane.

@Randy:

I’m not saying I have the answer to question of replacing fossil fuels. If I did, I’d be the richest person in the history of the world (not a bad incentive, btw, to work toward it). What I’m saying is willful blindness for the sake of comfort and convenience isn’t the answer either.

@Jim S:

Not promoting wind power in the positive or negative, Jim. Just simply stating to the know-it-all Lib1 that at this point it’s entirely possible that wind power will be seen as a huge blunder in the future, or it may not. But only time will tell, and for him/her/it to right now promote it as the saviour of our planet is really stupid.

Chances are, from what history tells us, there will be some good things to come from the proliferation of wind power, along with any number of bad things, to which we, at this moment, will not have foreseen.

Wind and solar actually make it worse for the environment. Since they are at best only part time energy sources you must have conventional sources available to take up the slack at all times. Which means conventional sources will be uneven quite often in their power output which is not good for the environment. Plus wind and solar both take up huge swathes of property to operate.

You see when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, unless you have conventional means of power, you are in the dark and you refrigerator is getting warmer.

@Mully: If it wasn’t for the rate payers and government subsidies, solar and wind power would be dead ducks. For the investment made in some areas they don’t even pay for themselves. Research should be done, but with private monies. Greenies should put their earnings in these sinkholes.

@johngalt: Ok, but I guess my point is that right now we can determine that wind power is a bad idea, at least as a replacement for base load power generation. No matter how much technological improvement is made, you can never get more than 47% of the kinetic energy in the wind. As Scotty would say, ” I canna change th’ laws o’ physics” ;- )
For folks “going Galt”, well a small scale homestead sized installation makes more sense.

@oil guy from Alberta: #14
Just do a search for “abandoned wind farms”. Apparently, as soon as the government subsidies run out, so does interest in maintaining the things.

From naturalnews.com:
(NaturalNews) Literal beacons of the “green” energy movement, giant wind turbines have been one of the renewable energy sources of choice for the US government, which has spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their construction and use across the country. But high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned.

Before government subsidies for the giant metals were cut or eliminated in many areas, wind farms were an energy boom business. But in the post-tax subsidy era, the costs of maintaining and operating wind turbines far outweighs the minimal power they generate in many areas, which has left a patchwork of wind turbine graveyards in many of the most popular wind farming areas of the US.

“Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California ‘big three’ locations which include Altamont Pass, Tehachapin and San Gorgonio, considered among the world’s best wind sites,” writes Andrew Walden of the American Thinker. “In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”

Walden speaks, of course, about the birds, bats, and other air creatures that routinely get tangled in and killed by wind turbine propellers. And as far as the “post-industrial junk” language, well, if it costs too much to run the machines in the first place, then it definitely costs too much to uproot and remove them post-construction.

This whole wind energy mess just further illustrates how the American people have been played by their elected officials who bought into the “global warming” hysteria that spawned the push for wind energy in the first place. And now that the renewable energy tax subsidies are gradually coming to an end in some places, the true financial and economic viability, or lack of wind energy, is on display for the world to see.

“It is all about the tax subsidies,” writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail. “The blades churn until the money runs out. If an honest history is written about the turn of the 21st century, it will include a large, harsh chapter on how fears about global warming were overplayed for profit by corporations.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html#ixzz2RWslsIbg

@Tom: We have been funding exploration into solar and wind for decades. The economics are not there. No one is willfully ignoring alternative energy, there is no need to bankrupt our country like Spain did to use a technology before it is viable.

@Randy:

We have been funding exploration into solar and wind for decades. The economics are not there. No one is willfully ignoring alternative energy, there is no need to bankrupt our country like Spain did to use a technology before it is viable.

And what does any of that have to do with whether climate change is real?

@This one:

And your idiotic sources are paid for by foreign oil and anti-American left wing organizations. There is no anthropogenic global warming. Mann LIED in presenting his data. If Gore really believed the garbage he spewed (and that weak minds like you believe) would he really be driving around in private jets and burning more fossil fuel energy to keep his mansion lit up?

How does your fanatic obsession with ‘big oil’ explain that during the period you Chicken Littles were screaming about earth’s ice caps shrinking in the 90s, the polar caps on Mars and Pluto were also shrinking? Is ‘Big Oil” burning fossil fuels on those planets and we just didn’t know about it? Or do you think the gigantic fusion reactor our planet orbits could possibly have had anything to do with it?

Your “Big Oil” conspiracy drivel doesn’t wash. It only reveals the climate fanatic’s abysmal failure at predicting weather changes, and your lack of critical thinking skills.

@Tom:

The majority of scientists do not accept AGW as real. That is an outright leftist lie.

@Tom:

I almost spit my coffee all over my screen….and you don’t even see the irony of your use of the phrase “willful blindness”, do you?

@Tom:

I wouldn’t expect a leftist to be able to follow the discussion as it clearly requires critical thinking and analysis skills that the left does not, by definition, possess.

The ridiculous and false claims that manmade activities were causing earth temperatures to increase (and that we were all going to die unless we change RIGHT NOW to wind and solar power so as to cut fossil fuel dependency) were absolutely wrong. As more data comes out showing how the entire AGW hysteria was nothing but a hoax, even more data is coming out to prove that solar and wind power shams are nothing more than modern snake oil sales.

CO2 makes up no more than 0.038% of our entire atmosphere. The alleged changes from manmade activites don’t put a microscopic dent into the atmosphere. And the idea that CO2 is a pollutant is laughable…do you even remember your grade school biology? What do plants “breathe”? Oh yeah…CO2…which they convert using water and sunshine catalyzed by chlorophyll into carbohydrates and release a waste gas…which is OXYGEN.

So yeah…the fact that your side has been lying on the whole AGW hysteria and got politicians to waste billions of dollars on the most inefficient means of occasionally generating a miniscule amount of electricity….and now all the turbines are rusting away being unused with the loss of government subsidies….yeah…that ties in pretty nicely with the utter contemptible stupidity of the AGW fanatics.

@Pete: I find that these environmental activists have no idea what the percentage of CO2 is in the atmosphere. The candidate Obama chose for the EPA didn’t even know during her confirmation hearing. The AGW warmists have no idea what the Earth’s cycles are. They have only proxy data for the past 10,000 years. Their models are wrong and they are in this only for the research funds. They are just like Nicholas of Cologne leading the Children’s Crusade todisaster.They are leading a bunch of people with minds like children!

@Pete:

I wouldn’t expect a leftist to be able to follow the discussion as it clearly requires critical thinking and analysis skills that the left does not, by definition, possess.

By definition, huh? What definition would that be? As defined by whom, using what criteria, what evidence? Please, dazzle us with your critical thinking and analysis skills and come close to proving something on this thread.

@Pete:

The majority of scientists do not accept AGW as real. That is an outright leftist lie.

Since, again, you’ve offered nothing in the way of proof, I hope this isn’t too inconvenient:
October 21, 2009

Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
….
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

Signed by:

American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research

That’s just a fraction of the statements made and studies published on this topic by the scientific community.

Perhaps this is what you consider sufficient consensus on the topic

@Pete:

And the idea that CO2 is a pollutant is laughable…do you even remember your grade school biology? What do plants “breathe”? Oh yeah…CO2…which they convert using water and sunshine catalyzed by chlorophyll into carbohydrates and release a waste gas…which is OXYGEN.

No one is saying CO2 is unhealthy to breath. I get the feeling you’re not too up to speed on the science of climate change. I have to tell you, writing something like that is making me less likely to side with you than with the dozens of scientific organizations that you disagree with.

@Tom:
In the medical field we are not supposed to accept gifts in any form from pharmaceutical companies vecause it calls our credibility into question when prescribing meds for our patients. The so-called science of the AGW fanatics is highly questionable because they don’t get funding and they don’t get published if their results disagree with the false doomsday scenarios. This, along with the proof than Mann et al deliberately hid the Midieval warming trends when they published their garbage hockey stick graphs, along with their emails urging scientific journal editors not to publish scientists who refute the AGW scam, clearly calls into question the AGW credibility.
The malthusian predictions of Erlich’s The Population Bomb have been thoroughly discredited. The EPA absolutely did declare CO2 a pollutant. The watermelon characteristics of the environmental movement (green on the outside, red in the middle) show the true motivation of the AGW crowd. Furthermore, the majority of the members of the NOAA do not support the belief in AGW. Look up for youra elf the huge number of scientists who have disassociated themselves from the IPCC proclamations on AGW.

But I must not be up on climate science….

@Pete:

The fact of the matter is that there is a general scientific consensus on climate change. That was my claim and I can prove it. All you can do is snicker about it and call it a leftist plot, because this isn’t about science with you, whether or not you realize it, it’s just another fringe Right Wing talking point, no different than Birtherism or other assorted nonsense. For whatever reason, the Right has latched onto this, so people like you and Randy go along with the flow. Is that the definition of “critical thinking” by the way, parroting what you read on blogs? The truth is hundred of scientists in different fields, after many peer reviewed studies, have come to a general consensus that the climate is changing and humans are at least partially responsible.

I haven’t claimed that i can personally prove global warming. I don’t know about you, but when it comes to something scientific or technical outside my field, I generally tend to listen to the experts. Who do you listen to? Is this the time when you trot out some crackpot’s blog post and assume a rational person would think it in any way measures up to the mountains of testimony and evidence coming from the mainstream scientific community? You believe what you want to believe for very obvious reasons, but you’ve proven nothing aside from your resistance to listening to the very people who actually know what they’re talking about. The fact you’re evidently proud of that is just the icing on the cake.

@Tom:

Since you insist, Tom, using your Alinskyite tactics, here is a collection of websites for you to look at actual scientific data, rather than simply listing left wing agitprop groups posing as scientists like you did above.

1. http://www.petitionproject.org/ This is a site that puts their actual scientific paper out there for everyone to read, with a petition signed by over 31 THOUSAND scientists (including over 9000 PhDs), all of whom believe that AGW is based on bad computer models and false premises. The main signatory to this petition is Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the national Academy of Sciences, and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University.

2. In case you don’t want to go look at the above website, Tom, please allow me to give you the title and opening abstract of the primary review of the literature on climate for your reading pleasure:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

By all means read the entire paper and tell me again how I am not up on climate science and only spew right wing talking points. Or are you going to claim that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is funded by “Big Oil”?

3. Here is just a small list of scientists who do not support the IPPC position on AGW:
– Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
– Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
– Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
– Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU.
– Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
– Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

4. Tom, here is a small list of scientists who believe that climate change is due to natural causes, and not human activity:

– Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
– Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
– Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
– Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
– David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
– Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
– William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
– William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
– William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
– David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
– Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
– Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
– Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
– Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
– Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
– Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
– Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
– Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
– Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
– Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

4. Here is an excerpt from the book “Hot Talk Cold Science” that specifically addresses your false premise that there is a scientific consensus on global warming/AGW:

That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.

That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was “probable” and 32 percent “possible.” But 47 percent said “probably not”—far from a consensus.

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

5. In April 2012, a group of roughly 50 NASA astronaut scientists wrote a letter to the head of NASA opposing James Hansen’s insane drivel on AGW: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/nasa-scientists-rebel-against-global-warming-hysteria.php

These are just a few citations and examples, Tom. You can cover yourself with a blanket of ignorance chanting “there is a consensus” all you want, but the fact of the matter is that science is not defined by political consensus, but by actual facts and measurable, reproducible data. See, if you actually knew anything about the history of “scientific consensus” you would know that it was once scientific consensus that the proper treatment for patients with fever was bloodletting, under the commonly accepted “scientific consensus” that the fever was caused by the patient having too much blood in the body, thus making them febrile. It didn’t matter to the pseudo-educated blockheads that they saw patient after patient die from anemia, because, you see, the science had been “settled”. It was also “scientific consensus” that humans had a 5-lobed liver, and in the training of physicians the proctor would read the ancient texts during anatomical dissections, describing the 5-lobed liver, never doubting the “scientific consensus” even though every single cadaver had only a 4-lobed liver. (The texts of Galen the ancient Roman physician were based on Galen’s dissection of PIGS, who do have 5 lobed livers).

So you can spew all the politically motivated AGW garbage you want, Tom, snug in your cocoon of make-believe thinking. The computer models are wrong. The AGW cultists are wrong, and the actual scientific data that is out there proves it. There is no scientific consensus, as I have clearly shown above, but even if there was such a consensus, that does not mean such (political) consensus is accurate. Data does not lie. I have done medical research, Tom. Nothing so grand as politically motivated climate research, but I actually have been published a couple of times on some minor aspects of newborn medicine. Data does not lie, but people like Mann and Hansen most certainly do when they are willing to fudge their data – or omit any data that does not produce their preconceived results.

So go ahead, Tom. Tell me again that I am only spewing rightwing neanderthal talking points. Tell me how stupid I am for practicing healthy scientific skepticism, rather than just accepting as truth the politically motivated fanaticism of the AGW cultists. Tell me again not to believe the data I can see with my own eyes, or that there are no scientists (real ones, not liars like Mann) who reject the bogus computer modelling and questionable conclusions of the AGW zealots.

Oh, and pardon me for not being able to answer your posts earlier. I was a bit busy taking care of patients and could only get to this appropriately this morning.

Have a great day. I hope you will take the time to analyze the data, rather than further withdrawing into the AGW-Soma ignorance.

@Tom:

Wow…I just spent a half hour typing a very detailed response to your snide email, and when I hit the post comment button it just disappeared. I will try again later today. You claim “hundreds” of scientists…I will show you THOUSANDS who disagree…but I must take care of patients first before proving you wrong.

@Pete:

You claim “hundreds” of scientists…I will show you THOUSANDS who disagree…but I must take care of patients first before proving you wrong.

Your post will likely show up. I have had a few that didn’t post immediately on this thread. When it does, I hope it starts with addressing the organizations listed in the letter I posted above. You’ve already sweepingly called into question the professional integrity and ethics of a vast swath of scientists whom you claim are “accepting gifts’ to publish studies favorable to global warming. If you’re going to construct your conspiracy theory based upon smearing a large group of real people, I hope you at least have the decency to put forward a large group of detailed facts proving your charges, considering the damage you and those like you are potentially doing to these scientists personally and professionally. At the end of the day, those like you and the troglodytes you help elect into Congress will in large part own the effects of global warming upon the planet and your decedents. I hope you’re comfortable with your legacy.

@Tom:

Tom – I will post a series of shorter posts that will include the entirety of the longer post that disappeared. Let me say quite clearly that this idea of “scientific consensus” is totally misrepresented by you on the left. The only consensus that exists in science is when the observable, measurable data supports whatever theory is being discussed. The AGW fanatics have turned this aspect of science upside down in their political drive to shut up those who are presenting real data that disproves the entire AGW hoax. It is interesting to me that you have steadfastly refused to even acknowledge the falsification of data from Mann regarding the hockey stick graph, all while insisting that you have science on your side. Nor have you addressed the fact that Mann was caught in his emails bullying editors of scientific journals not to publish papers that opposed the AGW line. How can you deny the gigantic credibility deficit that exists in any AGW claims made using Mann’s falsified data?

It is important to look at the history of politically motivated “scientific consensus” in history. It was scientific consensus for hundreds of years that the proper treatment for febrile illness was bloodletting, because all educated people knew that the cause of fever was due to excessive blood in the veins. It was scientific consensus based on the writings of Galen (ancient Roman physician – who while very intelligent, managed to get some things wrong.) His texts were the final word on medicine and anatomy for hundreds of years. Medical students would conduct anatomical dissections listening to the proctor read from Galen while peering into the mysteries of the human body. The problem was, Galen wasn’t allowed to dissect humans during his time, so he dissected pigs and described his findings as if he was dissecting human bodies. (An inaccurate model…see where this is heading yet?) So here were all these european medical students being instructed on things such as “the 5 lobes of the liver” when every human cadaver had only 4 liver lobes. But no one was allowed to question the authority of the great and powerful Galen, regardless of what they could see with their own eyes. See…pigs have 5 lobes in their livers and humans only 4. Another example of the dangers inherent in your “scientific consensus” argument has to do with what was common scientific consensus on “Miasma Theory” of spontaneous generation of disease. It took Louis Pasteur’s experiements to disprove that “scientific consensus”. Human history is replete with false “scientific consensus” arguments. It was “scientific consensus” that the heart merely warmed the blood until William Harvey proved it pumped the blood throughout the body. It was “scientifi consensus” that epileptic seizures were a sign of demonic possession until someone figured out the real cause or abnormal electrical signals in the brain. Want to dismiss these examples because they existed before “modern” medicine? Then look at the history of lobatomy as it was used in the last century, or eugenics, or phrenology. It is the actual pursuit of truth through objective interpretation of data that defines real science, as opposed to politically driven, totalitarian based claptrap masquerading as science and propagandized to control an ignorant populace. More to follow…

@Tom:

Here is a link to NASA scientists opposing the AGW hoax:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

Tom, if you go to the website, the letter is published in its entirety, including the names of the 49 NASA scientists who signed it. These are not stupid people, Tom. They went to the moon, designed the Shuttle, worked on hundreds of NASA launches, including meterologists, engineers, physicists, geologists.

So are you going to tell me that these 49 scientists from NASA are all on the payroll of Big Oil?

@Tom:

So here is another website you can look at opposition to AGW hoaxing:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ Here is a short excerpt:

“In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.
Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.”

So, Tom, here are two scientists from two different universities on opposite sides of the country who do not accept the “scientific consensus” you insist exists, and one of them has predicted results that were accurate while the IPCC was completely wrong.

But wait! I have even more!

@Tom:

Here is a list of scientists who question the validity of the IPCC predictions based on strong doubts of the accuracy of the computer models being used: (From Wikipedia – not exactly a hotbed of rightwing ideology…)

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

– Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
-Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
-Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
-Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU.
-Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
-Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Tom – here is a list, again from Wikipedia, of scientists from around the world who have published papers debunking the insane idea that human CO2 production is the cause of global warming. If you go to the wikipedia page, there are hotlinks to the actual papers these scientists have published which you can read for yourself to see how insane it is to rely on faulty computer models which have predicted incorrectly every time the course of global temperatures based on CO2 levels, both past and present.
[Excerpted from Wikipedia]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

-Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
-Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
-Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
-Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
-David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
-Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
-William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
-William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
-William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
-David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
-Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
-Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
-Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
-Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
-Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
-Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
-Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
-Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
-Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center.
-Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.
[End of excerpt]

So are all these actual scientists with published peer reviewed papers (not political agitprop groups like you put in your earlier post) all just idiots and Big Oil shills? Read their papers and decide for yourself, Tom. What do you think is more reliable? Accurate, measurable data showing no causal correlation whatsoever between changing CO2 levels and global average temperatures, or computer models that have incorrectly predicted rising temperatures?

But what! I still have more!

@Tom:

Here is another paper you can read with actual scientific data on it: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Allow me to put the abstract in for you to read to get your scientific consensus juices flowing…

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

ABSTRACT A review of the research lit erature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Or is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine not good enough as a scientific source of information? Even with their published data?

But I have one final posting for you…the one with the THOUSANDS of scientists who disagree with AGW ideology….

@Tom:

This should be the final post for you from me on this, Tom, until you are able to present your supporting data for me to look at. Please notice that I did not just present a list of leftist political agitprop groups claiming that there is ‘scientific consensus’ on AGW (like you did), but the actual names of real live scientists – with the opportunity for you to link to their actual scientific papers so you can read for yourself, analyze their published data and assess the validity of their conclusions based on the data presented. You tried to shame me into accepting my legacy of denying AGW. I would challenge you to look at empirical data before simply buying the snake oil the IPCC, the UN and all the totalitarian scumbags wanting to impose stupid restrictions on the rest of humanity based on the lies of the AGW propgandists.

Anyway, here is a website where over 31 THOUSAND scientists have signed a petition stating their opposition to the AGW nonsense. Over 9,000 of these scientists have PhDs in climate science or associated fields.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

This group was headed (until his death in 2008) by Dr. Fred Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus of Rockefeller University. No slouch in scientific research methods to have gotten to those types of positions.

So, Tom, do you really think you are being truthful when you spout the leftist talking points that “Global Warming is settled science”? If you really care about truth over propaganda, Tom, shouldn’t you look at the data that is out there before taking the politically correct (but highly unscientific) position?

You don’t owe me anything, Tom, and our personal opinions of each other really don’t matter. But if you really care about the future of mankind, the children, the planet or whatever else it is you are concerned about in life, don’t you want to make you decisions and tailor your heartfelt beliefs based on truth instead of agitprop that is demonstrably false?

It takes courage to shout out that the Emperor is stark naked when everyone else is insisting he is wearing the finest clothing ever made…but I would rather be correct than cool.

Have a good weekend, Tom. No hard feelings. I apologize for the snideness of my own posts towards you. I just get so tired of people regurgitating leftist talking points that have no basis in reality but are believed (just as Goebbels said would happen) simply because the lies are repeated often enough.

@Pete:

So are all these actual scientists with published peer reviewed papers (not political agitprop groups like you put in your earlier post) all just idiots and Big Oil shills?

Since you brought it up, many of the names you list above have direct connections to ExxonMobil, who pour millions of dollars into promoting global warming skepticism. How exactly does your conspiracy mindset helpfully filter out that information?

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links/

‘900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’ announces the headline on the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s website.

The article references a blog linking to more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

However, a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.

@Tom:

Wow, Tom…really? You really are enmeshed with the leftist agitprop groups.
Here is my answer to your Greenpeace activist smear job that you linked to.

Smear job by "The Carbon Brief"

So, even though the claim that these scientists are “linked” to ExxonMobil has already been debunked as a pathetic leftwing smear, let’s ask a simple question. Even if I were to accept your false premise, why would someone writing scientific papers that published verifiable data for other scientists to review and analyze be any less valid than papers published by AGW zealots who fudge and/or falsify their data…and who depend on their government grant funding based on how hystrionic they become in making ever increasing claims of global catastrophe…that have been disproven time and time again?

But as is typical of the leftwing, when challenged on actual data and facts, you resort to disingenuous smear campaigns in a pathetic attempt to avoid discussing the actual facts.

And you wonder why people with common sense do not trust the left?

@Pete:

Wow, Tom…really? You really are enmeshed with the leftist agitprop groups.

As the Conspiracy Theorist in this discussion, I thought you might appreciate that. And as I suspected, you pick and choose your conspiracies as selectively as your scientists and your data. Of course the conspiracy theory is always the desperate avenue of last resort.

why would someone writing scientific papers that published verifiable data for other scientists to review and analyze be any less valid than papers published by AGW zealots

I never said i accepted one paper over another. Let’s review. I claimed there is consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real and, at least in part, caused by human activity. “Consensus” means “general agreement”. I never claimed every scientist and study are in complete agreement. Your cherry picking of individual scientists or reports means nothing to me because it hardly changes the fact that there is consensus on this topic. See above. So now that you’ve argued yourself in a cicle and you’re asking me if I’m willing to weigh all studies and scientists equally, I say: Sure – why wouldn’t I? The numbers are overwhelmingly in my favor. See, that’s the reason you have to claim it’s a shadowy conspiracy, a hoax. Get it? You can’t produce one reputable scientific organization that agrees with you and I’ve produced over a dozen. Unless you’re now going to disagree with your own assertion that peer reviewed scientific papers are due an equal measure of credulity, you’re finished. Thanks, though. It’s been a stimulating discussion.

Tom, you resort to saying I am cherry picking when you aren’t even perusing the actual data being offered. You seem to think that just because you present a bunch of groups that blindly say “AGW is real” that you have the superior argument. I presented you with over 31, 000 scientists who do not accept AGW ideology, and include links to their actual data refuting the bogus CO2 claims and you ignore the data by mischaracterizing it as ‘cherry picking’? And you still cannot refute the fact that Mann lied about his hockey stick data by trying to hide the Midieval warming period.
Again, data is not poltical. It is what it is. If you insist in the delusion that my presentation of actual data showing there is no causal relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures is just cherry picking then you are succeeding only in underscoring the vacuity of your position. You are arguing from a quasireligious position, not a scientific one.

Here is another article/weblink from today that the presentation of a climate scientist debunking the AGW hoax.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_snows_of_rainier.html

The data is out there. You have to simply see for yourself.

@Tom:

Peer reviewed papers that do not falsify the data are due credulity. AGW data is inherently false, based on either faulty computer models that have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, or deliberately falsified data (Mann et al again, which you still refuse to address while claiming the scientific high ground).

@Pete:

You seem to think that just because you present a bunch of groups that blindly say “AGW is real” that you have the superior argument.

As I suspected. You reverse your position again. Now the same person who claims to understand and acknowledge “scientific papers that published verifiable data for other scientists to review and analyze” unilaterally dismisses the stated position of multiple prestigious scientific organizations as “blindly’ saying “AGW is real”, as if they’ve done no research or studies to back their position. And you think you’re not cherry picking, after a statement like that? You”re going in circles. Here is your illogical thought process: 1) You can’t disprove there is a consensus objectively because so many scientific groups are on the record. 2) So you dismiss the science itself by claiming the scientific community is hopelessly corrupt and it’s all a hoax. 3) You then present the minority scientific opinion as evidence, ignoring the fact that they’re part of the same community you’ve already wholesale dismissed, thereby completely contradicting yourself.

Arguing against a conspiracy theory is somewhat pointless, which makes this all a bit silly. This is not a judgement of you as a person, but you are likely predisposed to this kind of thinking, and this informs your view on this topic more than any factual evidence i can muster. I assume you are at least aware that your beliefs are commonly recognized as a conspiracy theory, and what that means. I’m sincerely curious whether you’ve ever at least considered the possibility that the topic is secondary to how you’re predisposed to think.

http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty-workingpapers/Oliver%20Wood%20Conspiracy%20Theories%20Working%20Paper.pdf

The statistical robustness and consistency of the conspiracist predisposition
highlights a crucial and unrecognized factor in studies of public opinion: the impact of a
willingness to believe in the power of unseen forces in general, and unseen political forces
in particular, as an explanation for political events. Manichean and magical thinking are
not only quite common in the mass public, they also work, via conspiracy narratives, to
shape people’s view of the political world. This is also evident in the relationship between
conspiracism and policy opinion.

@Tom:
Tom, really you need to stop trying to paint me as a conspiracy theorist simply because you don’t eant to debate the scientific facts that I provided you from multiple sources. You cannot defend Mann’s lies. You ignore that gaping hole in AGW credibility by calling me a conspiracy tbeorist? I am not reversing my opinions at all. Argue against the data and the scientific papers I gave you showing that there is no causal relation between rising CO2 levels and global temperatures. Your position has been shown by your own posts as being nothing more than “all the cool people believe AGW is real so it must be true.” I gaveyou scientific papers that explain exactly why AGW is wrong. Read them and show me where they are wrong. All you are doing is ignoring data while shrieking “you are a dope for being skeptical of people who base their belefs on faulty computer models” … evwn though I give you data you can check yourself .

@Pete:

Tom, really you need to stop trying to paint me as a conspiracy theorist simply because you don’t eant to debate the scientific facts that I provided you from multiple sources.

I don’t need to paint you as such. Your own words betray you. You have no scientific argument, it’s entirely conspiratorial. A small sample of your conspiratorial ranting points (small because i honestly don’t care to read through your dreck again):

As more data comes out showing how the entire AGW hysteria was nothing but a hoax, even more data is coming out to prove that solar and wind power shams are nothing more than modern snake oil sales.

The so-called science of the AGW fanatics is highly questionable because they don’t get funding and they don’t get published if their results disagree with the false doomsday scenarios

AGW zealots who fudge and/or falsify their data…and who depend on their government grant funding based on how hystrionic they become in making ever increasing claims of global catastrophe…

Look in the mirror. Those are not rational scientific arguments, or arguments that there are rational scientific arguments. Those are paranoid conspiracy theories. Tin foil hat stuff. Since you have nothing else, I expect nothing else. I did hope you would at least answer my sincere inquires about your thought process, but your ability for honest self-reflection is apparently not what I’d hoped for.

You cannot defend Mann’s lies.

You still don’t understand the word ‘consensus” do you? It’s amazing how compartmentalized your thinging is, how big your blind spots are. If one failed study disproved a generally agreed upon scientific consensus, there would be no such thing as scientific consensus, and likely no such thing as science. Of course, even your one example that you keep beating the drum to death about is flimsy at best.

@ Pete and Tom:

You both have some relevant points, but you also both do disservice to the science involved. The principal value of: “There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.” rests in the acknowledgement that there are overlapping influences on the Earth’s weather. Volcanism is another such influence. The first portion of the quote is absolutely correct, and no scientist familiar with the issue would suggest otherwise. The second portion of the quote (particularly the “run-of-the-mill” part) implies that the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is of little significance and will remain so. Since atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the Industrial revolution and continues to do so, the implication that it will never cause an environmental disaster is unsupported.

Solar activity and proximity to the Sun account for some of the high temperature observed on the Planet Venus, but at least 200 degrees F are attributable to the “greenhouse effect” caused by that planet’s atmospheric CO2. That is a fact that is not in dispute. Lab experiments easily confirm the basic principle. We are not Venus – we don’t have nearly the CO2 and we’re further from the Sun. We know that, but what we DON’T know is how much CO2 OUR planet, our ecology, our environment can tolerate before we “tip.” Computer models depend on the weighting of factors supplied by researchers, and researchers are paid by groups having an economic interest in the results obtained. It is easy to understand why computer models differ in their predictions.

If the argument is made (that the exploitation of “wind energy” might have unknown deleterious consequences) is sufficient to suggest not exploiting that resource, then surely the same argument could be made against burning fossil fuels. But it really is not a question of avoiding undesirable consequences. The Earth is literally infested with Humanity. We must have energy, and all sources of energy cause problems when they are used. If we are to minimize the damage we cause, we will need to put down the political pitchforks and axes and work together to find real answers and make informed choices. With so much at stake, anything else is insane.

CO2 levels are rising. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute, despite many of the uneducated or ignorant claiming it is entirely due to man, is why it is rising. Also in dispute is the effect that CO2 has on warming, or the climate in general.

-As to CO2 levels rising due to man, or more specifically, the burning of fossil fuels, people are forgetting a very important process that takes place on earth. That is, photosynthesis. Currently, the deforestation of our planet, particularly in places such as South America and Africa, lends credence to those who believe that it is not the burning of fossil fuels, but the ever decreasing capacity of the planet’s plant bio-mass to convert CO2 back to O2. Of course, protesting against deforestation doesn’t have the appeal, nor does it generate the research funds quite like damning fossil fuels does.

-As to what affect this rising CO2 has on the planet, there are strong arguments on both sides of the scientific fence on it’s effect(whether it contributes to global warming/climate change or not). There are some arguments, along with data and experiments to back it up, that rising CO2 levels actually contribute to a cooling effect on the planet.

So, we need to ask ourselves whether it is worth it to continue the contribution to the destruction of the planet’s economies, based on a scientific that isn’t proven, and heavily flawed in it’s use of data and the assumptions that are used in making it’s predictions.

I, for one, do not believe that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is what is causing the rising CO2 levels, nor do I believe that the rising levels contribute in any measurable way to the warming of the planet. Am I a “denier”? Some people would think so.