These eminent scientists explain why they do not believe in global warming. Their explanations are much more cogent and logical that the those of the global warming crowd. I am not a climate scientist, so all I can do is read and figure out who to trust. I don't trust Al Gore or the UN. If others want to believe, I wish them well; just don't ask me and other hard working taxpayers to fund your fantasies.
WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona - Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008.
“My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows:
1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008.
2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the ‘mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems’ - i.e., the climate.
3) I believe it likely that "natural climate cycles" are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are "dense" on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors - what climatologists call "regime shift" - independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and ‘synchronized chaos,’ but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained.
“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests
(a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated;
(b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and
(c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added.
“I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)
Info courtesy of Marc Morano, Office of Senator James Inhofe, Senate EPW Committee
24 comments:
"Most" scientists? You might be right, but you provide no evidence.
Also, would you be for removing the tax exempt status of churches and other religious organizations?
Also none of this refute my categorical imperative for some form of government action.
I admitted that I could be wrong about either climate change, global warming or both, but that is neither here nor there.
N.B.
You have not yet earned the Princeton Chair, so you cannot as yet turn it down.
Oh, I'm sorry, I misread. You wrote "more" and not most. More is a completely meaningless term in this context. 'More' since you started searching google?
Who are you to judge cogency?
My argument is not cogent at all. It is sound. If you agree that there is some chance that either global warming or climate change is right (which you must since you write so much against it, or else you're writing completely uncontentious blog posts), the conclusion that we must do something follows necessarily, you blundering twat.
You get your non-politicized unbiased facts from Senators?
chicken little said: "you blundering twat"
now you're not arguing like a 10th grade social studies teacher, you're arguing like a 10th grader.
If all you do is criticize my attacks on your character (that are warranted) you'll have not gotten far in furthering your political positions, but only managed to show how little you know about philosophical finesse and the appropriate uses of even the most inappropriate arguments.
You're not an idiot. You're an extremist and an ideologue, and I bet you don't know one criticism against your own economic position (Austrian Economics).
You're a close-minded dogmatist that is deferential to the free-market no matter where it leads you.
Refute this criticism:
"Nobel laureate and neo-Keynesian economist Paul Krugman argued that Austrian business cycle theory implies that consumption would increase during downturns, and cannot explain the empirical observation that spending in all sectors of the economy fall during a recession. Austrian theorists argue a recession can result from a monetary contraction or a "credit crunch" that causes the investment boom not to shift but simply to disappear. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the US, concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."
Or this one:
"Economist Jeffrey Sachs asserts that when comparing developed free-market economies, those that have high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays."
This outcome is much more likely. If we don't think that certainty requires majority opinion, we should at least be able to agree that likeliness of future outcomes increases while expert opinion increases in its favour.
In this case, so long as the issue is at all contentious, unlike the moon falling, we should take some action to avoid calamity. It's really quite simple unless you mischaracterize, or use logical fallacies to refute it. It's irrefutable.
Your petulance is getting tiring. You've lost this argument. Accept it.
the meandering little chicken: "You're not an idiot."
you're all over the place. first i'm an idiot...now i'm not. the best part is...you can't possibly know if i am or if i'm not, yet you've taken both sides of the argument. bravo, my friend. if you're trying to look ridiculous, you've succeeded.
Idiot is a term used for people who cannot learn. Ignorant, or dogmatic are terms used for people who are unwilling. You're problably able to but unwilling, and therefore a dogmatist. I admit that idiot was a rash judgment.
Action without thought is like shooting without aim!
Your argument that something is happening ergo we must do something to stop it, is seriously flawed.
Your mere practice of multiple posts under multiple names merely indicates you believe that whoever is loudest is 'rightest'
I think most who post on this subject at least try to support their position with some modicum of scientific argument or evidence.
Petitio principii circulus in probando. The only thing you were correct in was your assessment that "my argument is not cogent at all", unfortunately it is not sound either.
Your argument is:
1. The globe is warming
2. The warming is caused by man
3. Man must stop the warming
You have not proven 1, nor have you proven the causal relationship in 2, yet you expect us to accept 3
Let me give you an example of sound logic:
1. Circular arguments are boring
2. Your argument is circular
3. Thus your argument is boring
And an example of a cogent argument:
Nothing you have said supports your argument, therefore the next thing that you say will not support your argument, ergo I am wasting my time arguing with you.
~Finntann~
I NEVER ARGUED THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS MAN-MADE. That's what you've all been refuting, but it wasn't my argument. The call to action is based on the likeliness of calamity outweighing the calamity of action. It's not blind, or aimless. I have specific policies I'd like to see implemented. To start, how about banning plastic shopping bags.
We should do something about the problem no matter who caused. To ay that we should only try and fix it because it is our fault is just unneccessarily moralizing a pragmatic problem that can be solved through very simple and economically indifferent means.
Don't refute arguments I didn't put forth. That's just... ridiculous. My argument is posted multiple times on this blog site, and you can look for it, and then you can try and refute it, but let me remind you that it is irrefutable, unless you claim that clmate change & global warming are both non-contentious issues, which all of our discussions have been in contrast to.
I changed my name because I thought it needed changing. relentless, Canadian Pragmatist, and Culturally Zoroastrian Nietzschean are all one person: me.
So what you are saying is:
1. The globe is warming
2. Warming will be a calamity
3. We must stop warming.
Aside from not having proven 1 or 2
If the supposed climate change is not caused by man's CO2 emissions, your argument for reducing them is even weaker.
If the globe is warming for reasons unknown to us, then our models, simulations, and understanding of climate is seriously flawed, and you suggest messing blindly with the variables? That's the equivalent of giving a monkey a screwdriver and the fusebox in the hope that the lights will come back on.
That wasn't my argument either! The causes don't have to be known in order to know how to decrease the risk of calamity.
I do think it is man-caused, but that we should take small steps in order to help reduce our impact on the environment is independent of the truth of that.
There are four possible future outcomes that are all possible.
Action:
1.If climate change is real, and we take action, we might sacrifice some economic well-being, but it would have been for the ultimate good of humanity.
2.If climate change is not real, and we take action then we will have given up ome economic well-being for no real reason.
In-action:
3.If climate change is real, and we don't do anything to stop it we are basically doomed after a certain point when there really is nothing we can do to curve the effects, and storms, hurricances, etc... a whole bunch of disasters thin the number of people on the planet.
4.If climate change is not real, and we don't take any action, then we will have avoided economic hardship with no other real negative consequences.
No matter how you spin it, so long as this is a contentious issue (and of course the future is uncertain) some sort of preventative action is required.
Avoiding number 3 is the only logical thing to do. Some economic hardship (less severe than I think you all think it would be) ends up not being as bad as environmental calamity.
That you would all rather have florida in the ocean than intervene in the benevolent free-market is beyond me.
Also, no one can predict the future with certainty (i.e. prove it) so stp asking me to in a way that suggests it to be the crux of my argument.
Why do you think there is only one possible outcome to global warming? There should be 3. First the outcome could be beneficial, second the outcome could be neutral, third the outcome could be negative. I think you are oversimplifying the consequences.
Relentless: Your premise is a sinking island. Sound scientific research has not yet concluded that we are headed to catastrophe.
While I respect passion about a particular topic, whether I agree with the position or not, I give little credence to sniping. Most of these comments wrap the global warming issue around either defending against or launching a character attack on another commenter. Be serious if you want to be taken seriously.
Realizing climate and weather are not the same, December's weather seems contrary to the concept of global warming. Weather is, generally, a local phenomenon, while climate is more global. So, why is the globe seeing harsher (colder) weather so far this year?
As for actions to take, I agree with banning plastic shopping bags. I've hated them from Day 1. If we're trying to reduce dependence on foreign oil, why plastic shopping bags? Counter-intuitive, if you ask me. More to the point, however, is carbon dioxide. If that's the key greenhouse gas, why are there no restrictions on its release into the atmosphere? We've banned CFCs (Freon and Halon, for example), but CO2 gets regularly discharged into the atmosphere. Why not recover it?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.