Refreshing climate science piece on BBC
- Thread starter 30A Skunkape
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Your link briefly works before asking me to buy something.
my apologies, it didn't do that the first time i visited the site, but it did when i tried it again. here is the same info, different source
BBC News - Copenhagen deal causes EU carbon price fall
The apparently puzzling thing about the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd is that rather than investing a little more time and money in doing serious unbiased research into the issue, they are ready to bet the economic farm on unproven measures which could have little or no effect on climate change and simultaneously gut national economies.
CO2 has been significantly lower and higher in the past than it is now. Global temperatures are, in fact, not rising as fast as predicted and no one has a model that can be run in reverse which accurately models the climate of the past few thousand years. The models don't predict the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, the medieval warming period, farming in Greenland, etc...and in the case of climate history, there are far fewer unknowns than in the future so the models should be remarkably accurate.
Do we really know that warmer is worse? I suspect that it is, in fact a lot better than colder or an ice age (which is what the climate experts like James Hansen told us would happen back in the 80s.) Oddly enough, the fact that the net amount of glacial ice in the world is about the same, its just in different places is never mentioned. Or that the melting of the arctic will have little to no effect on ocean levels. The Arctic is ice floating on the ocean. Like ice melting in a glass of water, the level doesn't change.
The real truth of the matter is that the models are poor, the data is tainted and politics and finance have replaced science in the discussion. A lot of 'scientists' have sold their souls for the gold associated with AGW.
The rush to 'scientific consensus' and carbon credit trading is basically about wealth transfer.
Case in point. This article on the Business dealings of UN's Climate Change 'expert'. He is becoming a very wealthy man as a result of policies (theoretically) meant to mitigate AGW.
CO2 has been significantly lower and higher in the past than it is now. Global temperatures are, in fact, not rising as fast as predicted and no one has a model that can be run in reverse which accurately models the climate of the past few thousand years. The models don't predict the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, the medieval warming period, farming in Greenland, etc...and in the case of climate history, there are far fewer unknowns than in the future so the models should be remarkably accurate.
Do we really know that warmer is worse? I suspect that it is, in fact a lot better than colder or an ice age (which is what the climate experts like James Hansen told us would happen back in the 80s.) Oddly enough, the fact that the net amount of glacial ice in the world is about the same, its just in different places is never mentioned. Or that the melting of the arctic will have little to no effect on ocean levels. The Arctic is ice floating on the ocean. Like ice melting in a glass of water, the level doesn't change.
The real truth of the matter is that the models are poor, the data is tainted and politics and finance have replaced science in the discussion. A lot of 'scientists' have sold their souls for the gold associated with AGW.
The rush to 'scientific consensus' and carbon credit trading is basically about wealth transfer.
Case in point. This article on the Business dealings of UN's Climate Change 'expert'. He is becoming a very wealthy man as a result of policies (theoretically) meant to mitigate AGW.
