Global Warming is a Myth - The Spectator
 

Interesting article from an Aussie geology professor in the current issue of the Spectator: Relax, it's a myth

Bet Al Gore hates him! :D

Some interesting points and he is very Australian direct:

"...Mothers coming up to me with two-year-old children in their arms saying: “Don’t you have any kind of morality? This child’s future is being destroyed.’’’ Plimer’s response to the last one is typically robust. ‘If you’re so concerned, why did you breed?’" :)

Steve

Hallelujah!

"‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."

I like the sound of this guy, I've been saying similar to him for years. Might check out his book.

Available on Amazon...

Amazon.co.uk: heaven and earth ian plimer

Go see JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher (yeah, yeah Martin ...). The 'Feature' part way down where they do some calculations that expose the myths of the calculations used to try and fool us ...

Dave

We're just coming out of an ice age... earth has done this for many years, and will continue to do so!

I’m sure them volcano's back in the days of dinosaurs would have caused more pollution then cars

I agree with Pilmers basic premise, but I don't think he has presented it very well (loads of errors in his book).

Makes him an easy target to discredit.

People are only going to start believing it isn't true long after we are dead, when it became apparent that the world did not, and will not end. (Well, obviously it will one day, but you know what I mean!)

And, if it is true, so what? The Earth has survived a lot worse, several times. Save the Earth is a misnomer, it should be 'Save Ourselves', we do not posess the power to hurt the Earth.

Geezer

if the comparatively small cow population of today contributes to global warming

what about the 100 million strong North America Bison herd of yesteryear

Good post, interesting article ...

thought we were over due for an iceage?

Its worth far too much cash for the politicians to ever agree with that. They do have to get their obscene expenses etc from somewhere after all!

Les :(

Now now Les. You're not suggesting there might be a political agenda behind the whole global warming scam are you? As if ... :Suspiciou

Dave

:D

Interesting article in the Telegraph talking about something I hadn't known.

"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy. "

Scientific evidence is ignored but computer model predictions are used to raise taxes. Hmmmmmm.

Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie - Telegraph

Oh, let's cut to more conspiracy stories to do with GW! See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...2007.21.09.pdf

! ... Gore touted the climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for
success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive
the change is through global governance and global agreements.” ..."

We should all be worried!

Dave

There is no rock solid evidence that the Earth can't cope with the CO2 we're producing. It's all about money you see...

I honestly think the media and governments are in cahoots. With climate change/global warming, the media have a never-ending source of news, and governments have the ability to rake in billions in 'green' taxes.

Anyone who listens to these arseholes is crazy in my opinion.

Didn't realise we had so many scientists here!

The science isn't massively complicated. All the evidence is out there. The computer models used to predict global warming are already discredited after around 5 years. The actual weather does not fit what was predicted in any way.

Well I'm sure you can manipulate the evidence to prove either way, which is why this debate is still going on, so I take statistical evidence with a pinch of salt.

It amuses me though to see that as soon as someone has an opinion that happens to coincide with their own point of view it is taken as fact, as seen above.

Not sure myself how much a geologist is qualified to discuss climate science. He clearly has a political view point more than a scientific one otherwise he would talk about science more and not feel the need to mention economics or politics. I am still unsure about Man made global warming but the majority of scientists seem to believe in it.
The reality is that GW or not we will still need to find a replacement for fossil fuels and the longer and smoother that transition the better it will be.

Well one way or the other i wish it would bring back some decent fecking summers in this country,and then the girls can get back into their summer clothing :norty:

Which is why we all need to learn how to interpret evidence for ourselves. I suggest Reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. He doesn't talk about climate change but he does talk about how to read media bull**** and academic papers to judge the value of the evidence.

In terms of climate change, intuitively it's more realistic that the primary factor in determining this planets climate is the sun and the strength of solar radiation. I'd accept that over man-made carbon output which is a statistically insignificant amount compared to the background in what is effectively a closed loop system.

Was it Jurrassic Park that says "Nature will find it's balance"?

He's qualified because the geological record is the only view we have of the climate in the past. Our own recorded weather information only goes back 100 or so years. Beyond that we only have sparse written evidence from older texts and then you're into ice cores, rock cores and fossils.

Interesting article, well found. I have my doubts about global warming, and tend to believe this ozzy guy. What I find tremendous is the way Austrialians still have the ability to say what they think / feel and not wrapped up in this over PC world we Brits live in.

I wish we still lived in a country where you could say what you feel / think, without being jumped upon, or upsetting some small groups of people.

SBK

It was reported that the global temperatures were being incorrectly measured initially anyway because the sun was warming the balloon carrying the equipment which was affecting the measurements!

I believe on the face of it that we are being conned.

Les

Theres load of stuff like that, Les. I read an article about the increasing temperature measurements recorded in some parts of the Nevada desert over the decades being skewed by the heat being generated by the ever increasing Las Vegas

Well its a pretty hot place alright!

Les :)