darinsmasthead2

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Apostasy

J-Dub is having a hard time getting his head around the fact that I don’t agree with him on one of his central tenets. At this point his argument seems to be, “EVERYBODY agrees that global warming is real, look at all these scientists, they all say it’s real, if you don’t agree you must be insane.” Furthermore, he not only swallows the global warming kool aid, he thinks that we must DO something to further prevent the destruction of the planet, regularly advocating Kyoto.

He doesn’t and cannot refute any evidence that I point to in order to contradict his views, so he dismisses me and anyone I reference as loons, or corrupt figures.

I don’t believe that man made global warming is real. Over the course of the next few posts I will show why I don’t believe.

I will start with the “consensus” that J-Dub keeps referencing as proof that everyone agrees that the planet is warming and it’s the result of man’s interference. He doesn’t like it when I reference scientists that he disagrees with so for this first part I will use the IPCC’s own words on page 411 of their report on global climate change, and the basis for the existence of Kyoto Protocol—
Although these global mean results suggest that there is
some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature
record, they cannot be considered as compelling evidence
of clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic
forcing and changes in the Earth’s surface temperature.


So in their own words, they do not have compelling evidence of a clear cause and effect of human created global warming.

J-Dub likes to say that thousands of scientists agree and more than a hundred countries have signed on to Kyoto, etc…further “proof” that his consensus is fact.

Over four thousand scientists, seventy of whom are Nobel
Prize winners, have signed the so-called Heidelberg Appeal. It
warns the industrialized world that no compelling evidence
exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions.
A recent survey of state climatologists reveals that a majority
of respondents have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat
to climate stability. Of all the academic specialists, climatologists
(only about 60 of whom hold Ph.d.’s in the entire United
States) and atmospheric physicists are those most qualified to
examine evidence of climate change. It is those professions
that are most heavily populated by the so-called “skeptics.”
A recent joint statement signed by twenty-six hundred scientists
under the auspices of the environmental group Ozone
Action is less than compelling. A survey of those signatories
by Citizens for a Sound Economy concludes that fewer than
10 percent of them had any expertise at all in any scientific
discipline related to climate science.



So if you are placing your trust in the “concerned scientists” that all agree, there is considerable evidence that not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans. See the Heidelberg Appeal site for a list of Nobel Prize winners that have signed the Heidelberg Appeal.

Open your eyes to the possibility that the Kyoto dogma is wrong.

3 Comments:

Anonymous JW said...

This group you refer to signed a document in 1992 and then went on to sign a document in 1997 suggesting countries should sign on to Kyoto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal

12:28 PM  
Blogger djobe said...

Sort of J-Dub, some scientists signed the Heidelberg Appeal and it is particularly vague with respect to Kyoto, so a separate petition went out that specifically solicited basic and applied scientists who specifically oppose the Kyoto protocols, and I can post about that next…

4:39 PM  
Blogger Dave Morris said...

Aren't you sort of saying that putting water in a cup doesn't necessarily mean it's more full as a result?

Look, simple physics dictate that if we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than naturally occurs, we are changing the dynamic of the atmosphere. Now, consider the sheer tonnage of carbon products we inject into the environment. How could anyone argue there's no (or insignificant) effect? The Earth's atmosphere is an incredibly narrow, thin protection from the sun and the deadly environ of empty space.

Bottom line, in my most humble opinion (and thanks for indulging): if you live in a house, and you've got the choice of either introducing a significant amount of poison into the air, or a smaller (or no) amount of poison... and your family's welfare is at stake... which would you choose? If there is a margin of error, I would prefer to land on the safe side.

And that's PRIOR to unbiased assimilation of sound scientific data.

10:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home