Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?
Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
Goes quite counter to all the recent media reports, as well as assertions by Nobel Laureate Al Gore, that low ice conditions in the Arctic are all the fault of that despicable -- albeit essential to life and naturally occurring! -- gas carbon dioxide.
Of course, it's quite unlikely many climate alarmists will even hear about this study, for today's green media wouldn't want to do anything that destroys their illusion that there's a scientific consensus regarding this matter.
Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."
Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."
According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point %u2014 around 1880 %u2014 was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 %u2014before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.
According to the Greens, during the post-war boom g
3. Finally, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall. The much%u2013feared rise in sea levels does not seem to depend on short%u2013term temperature changes, as the rate of sea%u2013level increases has been steady since the last ice age, 10,000 years ago. In fact, many economists argue that the opposite is more likely%u2014that warming produces a net benefit, that it increases incomes and standards of living. Why do we assume that the present climate is the optimum? Surely, the chance of this must be vanishingly small, and the economic history of past climate warmings bear this out.
But the main message of The Great Global Warming Swindle is much broader. Why should we devote our scarce resources to what is essentially a non%u2013problem, and ignore the real problems the world faces: hunger, disease, denial of human rights%u2014not to mention the threats of terrorism and nuclear wars? And are we really prepared to deal with natural disasters; pandemics that can wipe out most of the human race, or even the impact of an asteroid, such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs? Yet politicians and the elites throughout much of the world prefer to squander our limited resources to fashionable issues, rather than concentrate on real problems. Just consider the scary predictions emanating from supposedly responsible world figures: the chief scientist of Great Britain tells us that unless we insulate our houses and use more efficient light bulbs, the Antarctic will be the onl
1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded%u2014not resulted from%u2014increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor%u2014and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940%u201375), nor for the observed patterns of warming%u2014what we call the %u201Cfingerprints.%u201D For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that%u2019s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which
RE:The Myth Of Global Warming
by greatbush on Feb 21, 2008 07:11 PM Permalink
2. If the cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun, the likely origin of most climate variability. None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
%u2022 Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap%u2013and%u2013trade schemes %u2022 Uneconomic %u201Calternative%u201D energy, such as ethanol and the impractical %u201Chydrogen economy%u201D %u2022 Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors %u2022 Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
Ironically, even if CO2 were responsible for the observed warming trend, all these schemes would be ineffective%u2014unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent!
Our earth is warming up because of 5% of CO2 produced by all humans.And how dare we to blame everything on India and China. Are India and Chinease are sissys to accept this and do the changes.
RE:1, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00 ...............................
by greatbush on Feb 21, 2008 07:08 PM Permalink
well Russia Greek Italy France UK......... ............ Are all having negative population and they still contribute more pollution than India and China
If the developed world are really concerned they should help countries like India to reduce pollution. There is a provision of carbon credit. Similarly they should financially help or give some sort of subsidy to Indian electric car makers like Reva so that it can bring down the prices to close to 1 lakh and attract a huge mass towards cleaner mode of transportation. These developed countries should accept all the conditions India has put forward and clear the nuclear deal so that Indian doesn't have to burn coal to produce electricity. Australia, which would be worst affected because of climate change is refusing to supply uranium to India, indirectly forcing India to pollute more!
If I were to take sample air and measure pollution in India it would be pretty much toxic in every possible yardstick be it diesel fums , dust or particulate matter.
In fact the only reason India and China can claim to have a higher moral ground is because they actually don't have proper statistics of the amount of pollution they are causing.
I gain repeat the need for USA to sign the Kyoto protocol and fall in line as they have the largest carbon foot print in the world. All other things are only for diverting the attention
