Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #1 

As another Global Climate Conference winds down, the question for those who have expended the time to study this movement is this:  "how long is this misadventure going to continue before the general public recognize that it has nothing to do with science per sae and everything to do with an ideology?"


Ever since Maurice Strong (the Canadian) worked his way up the U.N. bureaucratic ladder and started this movement (then called the Global Warming Movement) and founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the motivation for this movement by his own admission has been clear … Strong was of the view that the industrialized societies had to be dismantled and climate fear-mongering was his instrument of choice.  The object of this climate fear-mongering was to empower the United Nations, diminish the nation state, and produce a new world order.


Although this ideology is wrapped in the cloak of science, there is very little about this field of endeavour which would fit within the scope of the scientific method.  Their fundamental methodology is to create computer models designed to predict the future climate.  Since anthropogenic global warming is their assumption … these computer models have that assumption built into their logarithms.  Naturally when these computer programs are run … they predict catastrophic global warming.  Unfortunately for the movement but fortunately for mankind, the empirical evidence never coincides with the computerized predictions.  In short, they predicted catastrophic global warming … but this never actually occurred.  (hence the “global warming” moniker was changed to “climate change.”)


Normally in science if your theory is not supported by the empirical evidence, the theory is determined to be invalid and the scientist goes back to the drawing board.  However, that has not been the case with anthropogenic global warming.  In this case, since the empirical data did not substantiate the theory that man-made CO2 was the primary driver of climate change, the data was simply “adjusted” and that scientific hoax is well documented in the “climategate” emails.


The assumption that human activity and the emission of CO2 is the primary driver of climate simply has no empirical evidence to support it.  The idea that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of climate change is simply flawed since the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature have no correlation.  Historically, CO2 levels have been low … and climate has been warm.  Historically, CO2 levels have been high … and climate has been cool.  Secondly, this idea that the miniscule amount of CO2 injected into the atmosphere by mankind in relation to the total quantum of the atmosphere means that the man-made CO2 is a miniscule sum in the climate equation.  Consequently, the very idea that man-made CO2 causes global warming is unproven and that is the very foundation for the entire global warming/climate change movement.  


Possibly the best way to test the validity of a scientific theory is to ask a simple question … can the science predict the future.  If your scientific theory can accurately predict future events then the math and the theory are considered sound.  So how do the Global Warming Movements predictions pan out?   On July 8th. 2008 the United Nations predicted “….it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010… but that has never occurred.  In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.  “We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”  


Strangely enough the Earth has survived Elizabeth May’s apocalyptic prediction.  And of course, they have predicted the end of the Arctic Ice Cap  which has not occurred… and predicted that we will be reaching the “tipping point” on so many occasions they are now too numerous to count.  They have predicted the oceans will rise … but the data shows they have fallen.  Most importantly, they predicted a rise in the global temperature of 2 degrees C … but over the last 18 years the climate has stayed basically constant.  If the key characteristic of a science is its ability to predict the future … then global warming/climate change cannot be classified as a science.  


So why does this global warming movement not die a natural death?  The answer seems to be because there is too much money involved and too many jobs at stake.  It is all about an ideology which believes in an global transfer of wealth from the western industrialized countries to the so called Third World countries and there are thousands of worker bees to try to achieve that objective.  


In an article styled “25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’ the author says: “ The world’s 48 poorest countries will need to find around $US1 trillion($A1.39 trillion) dollars between 2020 and 2030 to achieve their plans to tackle climate change – and those plans should be a priority for international funding, researchers say.

Estimates based on plans submitted by the least-developed countries (LDCs) toward a new UN deal to curb global warming show they will cost around $US93.7 billion  a year from 2020, when an agreement expected to be ironed out in Paris over the next two weeks is due to take effect.

That includes $US53.8 billion annually to reduce emissions and $US39.9 billion to deal with more extreme weather and rising seas, according to a report from the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

So actually this whole movement has nothing to do with weather, global warming, or climate change.  It has to do with implementing global socialism to produce their cherished new world order.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #2 

One of the atrocities of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement is that their policies are basically ecological imperialism.  

Their war on the Oil and Gas sector is a war on cheap and efficient energy.  One of the things that the Third World countries need to rise above the level of poverty is cheap electricity and cheap energy to drive their economies.  Al Gore and his crowd are against this kind of self determination by the Third World Countries.  Their policy is to keep advanced energy infrastructures for the developed countries while depriving the developing countries of this same asset.  

Of course, this cynical ecological imperialism is covered up by their international welfare program of taking from the rich countries to give to the poor countries and ensure their continued poverty and dependency.


However, as Voltaire wisely said “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” and there are many who are willing to buy into the AGW religion.

 
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #3 
Read an interesting article about an online survey called "My World".where people ranked their priorities. Education, health , jobs, and good governance were the top 4 out of 16. Climate Change was last. 8.5 million voted mostly in poorer countries. In another poll only 13% of Canadians ranked Climate Change as one of their top 3 priorities.
0
EnoughAllready

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 388
Reply with quote  #4 
The fear mongering being pushed on people is an agenda of the left!! Look at all the doom and gloom Al Gore predicted 20 years ago. He made millions off this conspiracy!

There was climate change before the Human race ever walked the earth. What caused this climate change if humans weren't alive yet???

0
Joyce

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #5 
My observations from the past is 'When someone emphasises a big problem, look in the oposite direction to see what they are trying to hide. '
I am left wondering if Gore & Suzuki have money invested in companies involved in the aerospace industry. Only my opinion.
0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 128
Reply with quote  #6 
Just a bunch of super rich guys screwing over everyone else.

Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s Participant Media that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, “An Inconvenient Truth”.

And they change the "Truth" when needed...

“The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years” – Al Gore, December 10th, 2007

“The Dust Bowl is coming back, quickly, unless we act.” – Al Gore, February 22nd, 2014

0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #7 
Maurice Strong. Never thought I'd read that name on this site. He has done more for the communist ideology than any single government has been able to. In brief, he grew up in poverty and from there comes the "End all poverty" movement. He is the one who fostered the idea of globalization under one world government and his opportune time came in 1992, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Rio de Janeiro, at the Earth Summit. Here he introduced Agenda 21, a forty chapter document, that the leaders of the Earth Summit agreed to implement to populations as "Sustainable Development."

Strong stated his goal when he said "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" And the majority of general population laps it up without question. And politicians are dutifully collapsing what they can. (Check out Notley's "climate change" agenda)

Obviously an intelligent man, he grasped on to the environmental concept and knew the general public would follow (Who wouldn't want to save a cuddly polar bear?). But in order to do that he needed to create a "crisis". And that crisis is the life-giving CO2.

Think about it. All mammals exhale it. To fight it, what will happen next? Do politicians really care?

Strong was also the brainchild behind the IPCC panel. Hired help that won't bite the hand that feeds them, they played with their computers to manifest the required crisis to "SAVE THE PLANET" while he and his cohorts rolled in the money from the gullible.

The "crisis" now named, brought activists and the general public into an uproar. And in their naivete, they are willing to pay out the dollars to SAVE THE PLANET. Pray tell,when did money given to governments or NGOs ever save anything? Governments' on board with Strong's ideology are willing to redistrubute the wealth.

Let's look at facts. CO2 composes less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere. The greenhouse gas that comprises the biggest percentage is - are you ready - H20 vapours at 95%.

It's interesting that it is the left-wing governments that embrace the "sustainable development" blueprints. Close to home, a good portion of our own council. Provincially, the NDP. Federally, the Liberals (Papa Pierre even hired Strong in the mid-seventies to head the newly formed Petro Can}. And we're going to be paying big time for electing them in.

The whole climate change myth is reminiscent of much earlier civilizations that revered Mother Earth and all her aspects.

Man hasn't changed much.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #8 

@galt:  enjoyed your post as it provides an excellent synopsis.  

The one thing that should be of concern is the damage this global warming/climate change crowd do to bona fide environmental projects.  I think most of us are in favour of clean air, a clean environment, recycling to deal with waste in an intelligent fashion etc.  However, these global warming advocates do a lot of damage to the environmental movement with their fear and catastrophic world view..

One of the classic examples is that of Rachel Carson who authored the book Silent Spring.  Silent Spring proposed that the pesticide DDT was killing all the birds … and hence there would be a Silent Spring as all the birds were exterminated.  The extreme enviro movement latched on to her book and transformed it into an apocalyptic crisis and was able to get DDT banned world wide.  

Of course, DDT was not the evil menace it was portrayed to be … and was not responsible for the death of birds or the thinning of their egg shells as alleged in Silent Spring.   DDT had none of those effects and was absolutely effective in dealing with the bacteria which cause malaria.  With the use of DDT the rate of malaria deaths had dropped from a million people per year in third world countries to about fifty thousand.  With the banning of DDT, the malaria rate went back up to about one million deaths per year in third world countries.  That ban lasted for about 30 years so do the math … 30 million deaths.  

Fortunately, DDT caused none of the deleterious effects attributed to it by Rachel Carson or the enviro extremists.  As the World Health Organization reported:

“Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today (2006) announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.

“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”

The formula is simple …. create a state of fear by alleging an apocalyptic disaster.  Get governments to throw millions into your program to stop this apocalypse.  When the apocalypse doesn’t materialize … move on to the next end of the world disaster.   A few years ago … the great fear was acid rain which was going to wipe out mankind … but the acid rains never materialized.  This was followed by the o-zone crisis … and when the o-zone recovered all on its own … we were on to global cooling … followed by global warming … only to be followed by “climate change.”  


Lesson:  There’s money in them there end of the world predictions … just ask Al Gore.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #9 
If we stopped breathing and cows stopped farting we could lessen the carbon footprint on this planet. But then the trees would die.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 234
Reply with quote  #10 
Former President Of Greenpeace Scientifically Rips Climate Change To Shreds. This says it all. Well worth the time to read it.

http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #11 
Climate Change will cost billion and billions of dollars. Don't worry though terrorism will probably get us way before Climate Change.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #12 

It is amazing how this post-modern world’s leaders have turned their backs on rational scientific thought.  It is equally amazing how the general public, which proclaims to be the product of a public education system, will buy into this global cooling/global warming/climate change hoax.

Based on a bunch of computer models which couldn't predict climate accurately, we've decided that global warming is real.  Satellite data establishes that there is no global warming .. and no temperature change in the past 18 years but that doesn't stop the global warming propaganda.  There is, of course, no evidence that CO2 is a material driver of climate change as it certainly has not been in the past, but the propagandists with the help of the media have demonized a chemical which makes plants grow and is essential to human life.  But ..ooooooh ... the ICPPC at the United Nations ... which was set up to promote the theory of man made climate change ... says their is man made climate change.  (surprise surprise)  But ... oooooh ... everybody says 97% of the world's leading climatologists say global warming is real.  No one takes the time to look at the actual data and see this so called "survey" is a farce.  But ... ooooh ... every scientist who is getting a government grant to study global warming and travel to conventions all over the world ... is saying that climate change or global warming is real. Yep ... even though their "science" can't predict anything accurately (the hallmark of science) and even though they can't show causation between CO2 and global warming (causation being the essence of science)  the general public is gullible enough to defer to this hoax.  

In Paris they are celebrating an accord which is basically a massive transfer of wealth through an international socialist scheme from the developed countries to the Third World countries.  It has all the flaws which any socialist scheme entails including suffocating the productive sectors of society while making the less productive segments entirely dependent on perpetual money grants.  

How is this hoax being sold?  Well, they are boasting that this agreement will limit global warming to less than 2 degrees centigrade.  Given that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years; given that there is no real scientific data to suggest that global warming is going to occur in the future … they should be able to meet their non-existent target.  After all, if a problem doesn’t exist … its not hard to solve.  It seems equally easy to sell this nonsense to a gullible public .... after all .... when there is no global warming in 10 years time we can all sit back and celebrate the geniuses who entered into this Paris agreement.

Of course, Canada, with our new left wing government is right on the band wagon.  Yep … these clowns are going to “save the planet” from a non-existent problem through a wealth transfer.  Sounds good to me.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #13 

After completing my previous post on the irrationality surrounding the climate change religion, I was intrigued to read Dave Merritt’s article in the Gazette where he resurrects the tired old “precautionary principle”  and the accompanying completely irrational argument to justify climate change.  


The precautionary principle is basically this:  we can’t prove global warming is a man-made problem … and we can’t prove that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions … but it is possible that our belief in man-made catastrophic global warming by CO2 is real.  Therefore we should take the precaution of destroying our economy and diverting billions and trillions of dollars to solving this problem which we haven’t been able to prove exists.  We have to take this precaution otherwise if we don’t the Earth could possibly burn up … and then where will we be?


Logic dictates that if you can’t prove that a problem exists then you don’t go off into fantasy land pretending that it may exist.  


If someone argued that aliens from another galaxy could possibly invade and destroy the earth … and the only way to prevent this catastrophe is to take all the money from welfare, children’s allowance, public libraries, and environmental projects and spend that on an anti-aliens defence fund … would that be rational?   When it was argued that … “there is no proof of an alien invasion from another galaxy occurring … using Merritt’s rationale the intergalactic defence fund proponent would say … “yes .. but we had better take the precaution of spending the money on this inter-galactic defence fund.  After all … if we are wrong … it’s just money mis-spent … but if in fact there is an intergalactic alien space army invasion on the way … we will have saved civilization."


When I put forward the intergalactic alien space invasion analogy … the average person says “that’s irrational nonsense.”  But when Dave Meritt puts forward the same logic to justify the Global Warming Alarmist program … no one points to the obvious namely … that his global warming precautionary principle is also equally irrational and deserves equal ridicule.
0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #14 
"It is amazing how this post-modern world’s leaders have turned their backs on rational scientific thought."

It's akin to the "Emperor(s) wear(s) no clothes." where the general public leaves rational thinking to those that can sell the best propaganda at the public's expense. (Look at the NDP's climate fear mongering ads that we're paying for.) They no longer seeks facts for themselves. Even the public school system theskeptic mentions, has become a propaganda machine, so that the up and coming generations are easily manipulated to believe the unbelievable.

As for COP21 - it was another massive taxpayer-funded boondoggle, where "leaders" enjoyed all the perks of Paris for two weeks, burned through hundreds of millions in public funding, and created millions of tons in greenhouse gases (think of the private jets and government 747s they used to fly?) that achieved absolutely nothing.

Why nothing?

On the one hand we'll get inundated with the first ever climate accord agreement to commit every country to fight climate change.

On the other hand, what will get zero mention is that the pact has zero binding language or any kind of mechanism to force countries to live up to the promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions or provide money for developing nations to cope with the effects of global warming.

In other words, world leaders just spent hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds on an epic boondoggle in Paris to write a 31-page pamphlet summarizing everyone's best intentions about the future and . . .

that's it.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #15 
It is interesting that the so called “progressive left” have had no concerns about the changes which affected the nuclear family, were all happy with the ever escalating role of the un-elected bureaucracy, gladly embrace the education changes which have reduced our quality of education .  With the "progressive left" these changes are all part of the path of history and anyone who objects to them is "on the wrong side of history."  …. But tell them the global temperature MAY increase by a degree over the next 100 years and they go nuclear.  Given that temperatures have been changing for thousands of years, it's amazing how reactionary the global warming crowd actually is when it comes to temperature change.  BTW … who said the current global temperature is the “normal” global temperature?  I think those that want us to spend billions to prevent climate change are "just on the wrong side of history."
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #16 
It is a complete relief to know that the “City of Light” (Paris) has been the home of another international agreement which will dramatically change the world i.e. the Paris Climate Change Agreement.  In 1928 Paris was the meeting place for the Briand Kellogg agreement which outlawed war.   After all, since 1928 there have been no wars and now with the demonization of a perfectly useful chemical compound that makes plants grow, CO2, we will never again see that horrid situation in which the climate changes.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #17 
Further to the Paris Climate Conference........try and visulize the following:
Regiatered Participants  -  23,161 with observer status:
UN Secretariat Units and bodies  -  638
Specialized agencies & related organizatioons  -  453
Intergovernmental Organizations  1,226
Non-governmental Organizations  -  7,094

The Canadian Participants numbered 383

Now try and visulize the dollars involved re expense accounts??????????????

 
0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 128
Reply with quote  #18 
Sure could use some global warming this morning.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #19 


An interesting perspective.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 234
Reply with quote  #20 
HH, I am a denier But is interesting that he makes no reference to data other than to say it's easily found. However he loses credibility when he analogizes that in being a "climate change denier I am somehow aligned with holocaust deniers". Sorry but that comment is bereft of all logic.
0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 128
Reply with quote  #21 
this is from years ago.

Great Global Warming Swindle
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #22 

In a half page article “Explaining Alberta’s solar opportunity” on page 26 of The Gazette, written by the executive director of a group called Solar Energy Society of Alberta, we get to learn the wonders and glories of solar power as part of the renewable energy equation.

It is interesting that the author relies heavily on the German “Energiewende” program which was to transform Germany from its reliance on traditional conventional power plants and nuclear plants to “renewable” energies such as solar and wind mills.  

Of course, the problem with reliance on solar and wind is that due to weather conditions they do not provide a constant dependable supply of energy.  Hence, the traditional conventional power plants have to be kept on standby to deal with the periods when renewables can’t supply energy. Since the traditional plants were designed and their energy priced on the basis that these plants would run 24 hours per day the practice of running them only part time in compliance with government decrees results in making them economic white elephants.  

The solution to this unreliable and inefficient new German energy grid is the usual government solution … massive subsidies paid for by taxpayers and consumers.   Under this new program, consumers have experienced massive increases in their monthly energy bills and  the average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years.  Large German companies are now forced to move to other countries (e.g. U.S.A.) as these new German energy prices are quickly making them non-competitive.  An International Energy Agency reports:  “The European Union is expected to lose one-third of its global market share of energy intensive exports over the next two decades due to high energy prices.”

Will Boivert, in an article styled “Green Energy Bust in Germany” summarizes the German energy policy by saying: “the mounting evidence from the German experiment spotlights its limitations: high costs, low and unreliable productivity, intractable problems with grid integration, a reliance on subsidies that impose bizarre and counterproductive distortions on energy markets, and an unbreakable dependency on the fossil fuels it is supposed to displace.”

As one commentator said “Anyone who reads “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy” [http://www.finadvice.at/files/germany_lessonslearned _final_ 071014. pdf] will conclude that there is far more to providing energy that is efficient, effective and economical than the renewable fairytales [that] storytellers want consumers to believe. Putting a solar panel on your roof is more involved than just installation. The German experiment proves that butterflies, rainbows, and pixie dust won’t power the world after all—coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are all important parts of the power portfolio."

Of course since we are “Albertans”, therefore none of these counterproductive realities will ever impact Alberta.  Our economy will no longer based on oil and gas according to our new Premier; Our government bureaucracy is the  model of efficiency and efficacy;  and our new Liberal and NDP governments will lead us on to new vistas in the land of Climate Change.  Every global warming/climate change apostle in the world will be proud of us. .... except maybe it will turn out like it did in Germany.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #23 
Patrick Moore was repeating what the Climate Change advocates are calling Climate Change deniers when referring to the Holocaust. That is why he stated that name calling has to stop.
0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #24 
Another aspect that is rarely discussed is the impact 'climate change' proposals and implementations will have on the middle to lower classes. The new term applied to these individuals is "energy poverty" or "fuel poverty". The rise of energy costs will put many into a position of having to choose between food and keeping the heat on in winter.

The Green Agenda's experiment with energy costs has left an enormous death toll in England and Wales. Roughly 3000 people, many who are pensioners, die each winter because they can't afford the Green Agenda's energy costs. That deadly number unfortunately increases each year. Energy costs since 2005 have risen by 80%.

Even Dr. Bjorn Lomborg an environmentalist, economist and founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre think tank, as well as an avid believer in human-made global warming says that COP21 will basically do nothing to change "global warming". But, he says it will cost the western countries more than it would to bring the world's population out of poverty. And it will cost lives, especially the poor, as partaking in this religion accounts for a significant percentage of their income.

One could go on citing the seven million in Germany living under the "energy poor" label. Or the millions throughout the EU burning twigs indoors to keep warm.

But let's look a bit closer to home. Ontario's government has succumbed to the popular watermelon politics initiating renewable resources at an extreme cost to consumers. Prices are now 73% higher. Ontario's Auditor-General found that for renewables, solar is three and an half times higher than our southern neighbour and two times higher for wind. A total unnecessity.

When Alberta's NDP government touts people will receive refunds, be careful how that is embraced. Ontario went down the same road and at the end of this year is cancelling that particular program. Wonderful for those on fixed incomes, especially in Canada's northern climate.

So the energy-poor will continue to be attacked and what little they have tucked away under their mattresses for a rainy day will be taken away from them by the good ol' watermelon believers.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #25 

Since we are being constantly and continuously being told that CO2 is the cause of global warming/climate change, the question arises:  what is the empirical evidence of this alleged causation?  

The answer may surprise many.  Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.  That is, AFTER the global warming occurs there is an increase in the release of CO2 from the oceans because it is warmer.

Now the accepted theory of causation is this:  an event has to occur before another event for that first event to be said to CAUSE the second event.  However, in the case of climate change/global warming … the CO2 increase occurs after the global warming.  So unless you believe that Rommel’s defeat at the battle of El Alamein (1942)  caused the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in the year 1815 … it is difficult to understand how one can believe that CO2 causes global warming.

Sooooo ... aren't we lucky that the Prov. and Fed. government are putting on a "carbon tax"  and spending literally billions of dollars to restrict the emission of CO2  .... so that we don't have global warming!!
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.