Deepak Lal economist, writer, lecturer, and professor
It is a very sad state of affairs when the United States, the Nation once known as the world bastion for truth, justice, and honor must go overseas in order to find any truth about Global Warming. American Scientists who have been successfully scientifically debunking global warming caused by CO2 emissions are met with ridicule from a bought out press and media which refuse to disseminate the scientific realities they have presented and proved scientifically.
Global Warming caused by man and CO2 is a complete myth.
It is scientifically, and physically impossible for CO2 to do what the warmers says that it does. In order for their claims to be true, literally E=MC2 is a false equation. We all know E=MC2, mass when converted into energy releases a huge amount of energy, but between them they are always conserved, the equation is true. The warmers would have us believe that CO2 can somehow escape this law of nature and hold more energy than its mass, chemical composition, and physical state can allow for.
Business Standard on August 25th published an Article from Deepak Lal, who correctly and accurately describes America’s insane position on Global Warming. The truth is being told in this article. It’s time for those who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming admit they have been taken in by lies, mistruths, and their own fundamental lack of scientific experience. This is the truth. All it needs is the light of day to prove the AGM myth. Consider this a bright sunny day.
-Because of the nature of the article, it appears here in its entirety.
~ Dianna Cotter
_______________________________________________________________________________
The Western obsession with curbing carbon emissions is wicked and also economically foolish, says Deepak Lal
Three cheers for Jairam Ramesh! India at last has an environment minister who is willing and able to denounce the hypocrisy and immorality of the West in twisting the arms of India and China to curb their carbon emissions. He is right to make it clear that India has no intention of signing the new ‘climate change’ treaty in Copenhagen in December, which would put curbs on the carbon emissions of the Third World. If they do not comply they are being threatened by the draft bill going through the US Congress to levy carbon tariffs on their exports.
As this column has argued many times, this is a blatant attempt to prevent these countries from industrializing and achieving the standards of living of the West. For, until technological advances can allow alternative ‘green’ energy sources to compete with the fossil fuels, whose use is gradually eliminating poverty in the Third World as in the West’s own ascent from poverty, a call to put any curbs on carbon emissions is in fact to condemn their billions to continuing poverty. Whilst numerous Western economists and do-gooders shed crocodile tears about the Third World’s poor, they are willing at the same time to prevent them from taking the only feasible current route out from this abject state. Nothing is more hypocritical and immoral than rich Westerners driving their gas-guzzling SUVs emoting about the threat to Spaceship Earth from the millions of Indians who want to drive Nanos. Whilst the salving of their consciences by buying carbon offsets (as Al Gore claims to do every time he jets around the world) is akin to the Papal indulgences sold by the Catholic Church, which allowed its richer adherents to assuage their guilt and ‘fornicate on clean sheets’. For Gore to have the lights on his mansion blazing throughout the night, and seek to restrict the emissions from Indian power stations, when most Indians don’t even have an electric light bulb, is deeply wicked.
A study of the costs to the Indian poor of curbing carbon emissions has estimated that, over a 30-year time horizon, with a 10 per cent annual emission restriction the number of poor increases by 21 per cent, even in the short run, and by nearly 50 per cent for a 30 per cent annual emission reduction (Murthy, Panda, Parikh: ‘CO2 emission reduction strategies and economic development of India’, Margin, 2007). Those development economists and sundry celebrities, who on the one hand, want to see the end of world poverty and on the other, to curb Third World carbon emissions, should be ashamed of themselves for advocating the latter path which will make the former goal impossible to achieve.
This is particularly heinous as the claim by the IPCC that, it is scientifically proven, CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, is increasingly being questioned by climatologists. Particularly, as since 1997, both the terrestrial and more accurate satellite temperature readings (which are not contaminated by the ‘heat island’ urbanization effect) show global cooling, even though there has been a large increase in CO2 emissions. This is also the period in which the sunspot activity in the Sun has ceased. My earlier column on climate change (June 2007) had outlined the rival theory for climate change developed by the Danish physicist and climatologist, Henrik Svensmark — cosmo-climatology. In a remarkable March 2009 internal study on climate science suppressed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but put into the public domain by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (see www.cei.org) the whole scientific basis of the current CO2 theory of climate change is put into question. It emphasizes that “global temperatures have declined — extending the current downward trend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 2007-8. At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated”(p. iii). This means that “the IPCC projections for large increases [in global temperature] are looking increasingly doubtful” (p.3). On the IPCC’s rejection of the alternative explanation of solar variability as the cause of climate change, it states: “There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations”. “A new paper by Scafetta and Wilson (Geophysical Research Letters, 3 March 2009) suggests the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their research suggests that solar variability [rather than green house gasses] could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperature.” (p.iv)
It then provides a table (p.58) from K Gregory (Climate Change Science 2009) which summarizes the evidence for CO2 and the Sun/Cosmic Ray Warming hypotheses for climate change. This table, reproduced here, shows that, on a number of predictions involving observable evidence on the two hypotheses, the sun/cosmic ray explanation for climate change wins hands down. Moreover, as on this hypothesis it is the sunspot activity which controls the climate, as the sun seems to have gone to sleep over the last 12 years there is a growing likelihood “that sunspots may vanish by 2015. Given the strong association between sunspots and global temperatures, this suggests the possibility that we may be entering a period of global cooling” (p.60). Perhaps another ice age.
This new and growing scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions have little to do with climate change makes the current Western political obsession to curb carbon emissions at a vast economic cost extremely foolish. For India it would mean not only reversing the current trends in poverty alleviation, but a vast increase in the numbers of the poor who would otherwise be pulled out of poverty. India should have nothing to do with Copenhagen. If this means there is no climate change treaty, it might also save the West from its current path to committing economic hara-kiri.
Comments
I wonder if polar bears can read?
Global warming is real, no matter how many corporate shills you quote to the contrary.
give it a rest
Olivia, then why have Global Temps been going down for years? They have been you know. So have Surface Seat Temps between 0 and 400 feet, an measurment taken by 3300 separate temperature gauges all over the world.
Olivia, when are you going to wake up and realize that MAN CAUSED Global Warming does not exist? When are you going to wake up and realize that the earth is Cooling off in it's climate and has been for years?
When are you going to read and look at the data instead of listening to the people who are lying to you? Are you really that dependent on other people to form your opinions for you? You really are lost then.
Shelly, no, Polar Bears do not read, but there population increase and very healthy growing icepack have kept them very busy in the last few years.
Diana, for what it's worth, I agree with you. Anytime I see a study, signed petition, or anything else from experienced scientists debunking man-made global warming, I see something else accompanying it from a very political group saying, "Shut up. This issue is closed to any further scientific study. You will now be ignored." If we know ANYTHING about science, it's that study is never complete. I wonder why any adult would say something so stupid, but then I find that people like Olivia and Shelly are eating it up. At this point, I realize there's not much you can do for these people - it's a religion, and Al Gore is definitely their prophet.
I appreciated reading your article - thanks!
Global warming or not, try and go to China and some parts of India, see how polluted it is; the cities are covered in smog and you can't drink the water without proper filtration. Isn't that incentive enough to do something? some cities in China are so polluted, steel products rust in within a few days. Economy is one thing, but when you have close to 'half a million people dying each year' from pollution-related illnesses, shouldn't it matter?
I for one believe CO2 is a factor in global warming and have read many articles that utterly debunk all that was written above. Putting that aside, an even more important question is why should we maintain old inefficient technology from the 1905s just for the sake of it? Lets stop being lazy and move into the 21st century
Dianna,
your comment that "the warmers would have us believe that CO2 can somehow escape this law of nature ..." is deceptive nonsense. The greenhouse effect occurs through the absorption of infrared radiation leading to an increase in thermal energy within a system. This occurs through vibrational transitions in the molecules not through a change in state. I guess you skipped your physics classes in high school ?
The United Nations is a very conservative institution. The combined voice of the 200 odd nations of this world, established to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. Now, all systems of government could be better, but looking at what went before (WWI & WWII), I'm glad we have the UN. Similarly the UNFCCC (framework convention on climate change) is a UN convention to address concerns about Climate Change, concerns which date back to at least 1985. The observed changes in climate are happening faster than the climate science predicts. The observed changes in political action is even slower. Never mind all the human misery caused by over exploitation of natural resources, we owe it to the non-human life forms on this earth - to leave the planet in better shape.
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Nonsense. Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
See my site above for the real information and a debunking of many denialist arguments.
Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurrah. About time someone thought of the poor, who are the cannon fodder in this arguement. Every climate change solution has dollars on it and I am tired of paying. Higher gas prices, higher elecricity prices and now I have been robbed of my 50 cent light globe which has been replaced by 7 dollar monsters. Have not had a light in the bedroom for a month, all outdoor lighting, over narrow pathways and steps has gone and I am so afraid of a fall I don't go outside at night. Yes, they have won and we will be using candles for bedroom lights so safe with children but affordable. I have studied history so I know Europe before 1350 was warmer than today, I do know the hottest decade was the 1930's and the lowest point of industrial activity since the industral revolution and I know the summers are cooler than in my childhood. We did have accurate themometers back then. The Indians are right, the rich are not going to share their comforts.
I speak as an AGW skeptic, which is different from denier, when I say that nonsense like this does nothing to advance a scientific discussion of climate. Einstein's equation has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the greenhouse gas effect, which is real or the surface of the earth would be much colder.
Nobody is suggesting that atmospheric CO2 holds a great deal of heat. It's role is to interfere with radiation at certain wavelengths. The physics of this do not involve its mass, chemical composition, or physical state.
I'm guessing, but I think the point Dianna was trying to make about CO2 versus water/water vapor is that CO2 does not hold latent heat at global temperatures.
Water/water vapor is unique in that it can exist in 3 states within our atmosphere. I think this is a point that a lot of people miss and its role is not well understood or accounted for in the IPCC models. For instance, the night time temperatures are not solely moderated by the greenhouse effect of water vapor, most of the temperature moderation at night occurs because water vapor releases huge amounts of energy as it drops through the dew point. Another thing I don't think is well accounted for is how water/water vapor act like a giant air conditioner moving heat from the surface of the earth and radiating it back into outer space. During the day huge amounts of energy are absorbed through the latent heat of evaporation, a lot of this energy is then transferred to the upper atmosphere where the latent heat is released, mu
Ran out of room and got cut off
During the day huge amounts of energy is absorbed through the latent heat of evaporation, a lot of this energy is then transferred to the upper atmosphere where the latent heat is released, much of which is radiated back into outer space.
The people that subscribe to their save the earth religion would be horrified to know their Al Gorian plans will result in the DEATHS of tens of million poor people in the 3rd world areas - the same way their halting of oil exploration has caused tens of millions of deaths.
It's ok when your choice is between a jet flight or driving 900 miles to the Grand Canyon, but when it's wether or not a raw pile of rice or wheat makes it across an ocean to your wooden mortar and pestle, it ain't so cool.
The other gigantic travesty is the same movements denial of nuclear energy which could in effect light up, modernize, provide clean potable water, and basic laundry services to the several billion poor on the earth - denied again with alarmist fear mongering and western perfected whining media cmapaigns - after those crying foul are living with the full benefits of nuclear energy 100% of the time they run their mouths.
Really sad the western activists kill the poor 3rd world with insanitie
The people that subscribe to their save the earth religion would be horrified to know their Al Gorian plans will result in the DEATHS of tens of million poor people in the 3rd world areas - the same way their halting of oil exploration has caused tens of millions of deaths.
It's ok when your choice is between a jet flight or driving 900 miles to the Grand Canyon, but when it's wether or not a raw pile of rice or wheat makes it across an ocean to your wooden mortar and pestle, it ain't so cool.
The other gigantic travesty is the same movements denial of nuclear energy which could in effect light up, modernize, provide clean potable water, and basic laundry services to the several billion poor on the earth - denied again with alarmist fear mongering and western perfected whining media cmapaigns - after those crying foul are living with the full benefits of nuclear energy 100% of the time they run their mouths.
Really sad the western activists kill the poor 3rd world with insanitie
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_dimming.html
My Global Cooling page clearly shows there has been NO GLOBAL COOLING. Please look at this before you keep spreading this tired piece of misinformation.
Ive been reading recent news articles about the upcoming climate convention in copenhagen, it appears they aren't gathering to discuss the climate, rather .. how much money can we take from rich countries and give to poor countries. That is the crux of their debate. ( i'm sure the UN will get a healthy transaction fee for their troubles )
The driving political force behind the global warming theory has always been the wealth re-distributionists. Copenhagen proves it
Maybe the truth is still not apparent to us. Arguments from both sides, alarmists and deniers, can appear as compelling. In that case wouldn't you choose an action that covered as many bases as possible? That is, you seek to reduce pollution.
Even if warming is not caused by Man, it still appears to be happening. If we can't stop it, then we need to adapt to it, and fast.
Personally I am disgusted by the argument because it is stalling any corrective or positive action. Politics is not going to get us out of this one, so far it is holding our heads underwater.
And we are squandering our future generations future. Great huh?
Lets shift focus to dealing with a changing climate. And as part of that stop polluting the world, because whether that's causing warming or not, it is still wrong to mess up our nest: even animals don't do that.
The United Nations is a very conservative institution. The combined voice of the 200 odd nations of this world, established to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems. Now, all systems of government could be better, but looking at what went before (WWI & WWII), I'm glad we have the UN. Similarly the UNFCCC (framework convention on climate change) is a UN convention to address concerns about Climate Change, concerns which date back to at least 1985. The observed changes in climate are happening faster than the climate science predicts. The observed changes in political action is even slower. Never mind all the human misery caused by over exploitation of natural resources, we owe it to the non-human life forms on this earth - to leave the planet in better shape.
Dianna said: "Olivia, then why have Global Temps been going down for years?"
Dianna, get your head out of your a**e and look at the facts. As Scott pointed out, temperatures have not been cooling:
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_dimming.html
Pointed out data points that push your argument forward while ignoring the big picture is called "Cherry picking". You are giving a false representation of the reality. Even though this alone disproves your nonsense, there is a lot more to understanding the big picture than looking at the data points. You have to take into other considerations such as El Nino.
So many ignorant journalists speaking loudly and misrepresenting the science which they don't understand!
Bill and Scott
1) The land temps in the Graph Scott quotes is taken in weather stations in URBAN areas, which are hotter than the surrounding areas, cities are NATURALLY hotter than farmland or forest. Cement and asphalt hold heat. This makes temps taken in Urban areas literally irrelevant. What is relevant is IR temps taken from satellite, which all say, the earth is cooling. See: www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist 2) The second Graph Scott quotes CLEARLY shows a downward trend in the Average Mean temps. So for those you you (Scott and Bill) who cannot read graphs, that means the temperature is falling. It PROVES my point.
Just an FYI, global temps have been MUCH higher than they are today, to the point where wine grapes were once grown on ICELAND. There was no industrialization then boys, and well golly looks like the earth and her people survived just fine given we are here today...
@ Scott A. Mandia :
I looked at your site and saw no explanation .
Show me the physics ; not verbal hand-waving , actual quantitative equations . Why is the earth about 1%21 the temperature of the sun ? What's the hottest it might get ? What's the total change in earth's temperature over the last century as a percentage ? Is that really enough to actively suppress the welfare of the entire living population of the planet thru the use of government force ?
I find the understanding of the physics on both sides of the debate verging on the pathetic . But the alarmists aren't even trying . In fact they try their worst to stop any independent analysis . Yet they accept and promulgate the most egregious horror fantasies such as Gore's 20ft sea level rise or that Venus's extreme temperature is the product of some runaway greenhouse effect .
Alarmists: We have these unproven Computer models which never give the same result and cannot reverse predict Historical data. (using historical numbers run them through the models and get an accurate weather prediction compared to real historical data has not yet ever happened)
Realists: Use actual data to state what is happening now compared to what happened in history. They use historical data and trends to come to the reasonable conclusion that global Climate follows patterns dictated by such things as Solar Activity, how close the Earth is to the sun, and NATURAL variables that provide the Earth with the Radiation necessary to life on the planet. These massively influential variables dwarf to irrelevance Human interference.
CO2 can't do what the Alarmists say it does. It is a gas, it can't absorb and hold even 1% of the energy the Alarmists say it does. They have based their whole argument on a fallacy, why? So that they can set themselves up to benefit from TAXING it.
FAIL
Graham said: "The United Nations is a very conservative institution. The combined voice of the 200 odd nations of this world, established to maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and humanitarian problems."
Laughable. Of the 200 'odd' nations represented in the UN, the vast majority are 3rd world clepto-crats representing corrupt, incompetent, autocratic or outright dictatorial regimes looking for a free ride from the few remaining free and prosperous notions on earth. How can anyone take serious an organization that votes Syria to its "Human Rights Commission," who turns an 'Oil for Food' program into a swamp of official corruption?
The UN is the ultimate corrupt bureaucracy and this junk science scam of man-made global warming it pushes is the ultimate dream of corrupt bureaucrats everywhere --- unlimited power to tax productivity, reward friends, punish enemies and pocket riches.
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1998-2008.png
Temps determined from GISS, UAH, HadCRU, and RSS between the years 1998-2008. (This is what denialists use to show "global cooling" since 1998.) GISS shows warming because it is the ONLY one that uses the Arctic which is showing the greatest warming. I prefer the GISS because of its coverage.
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1999-2009.png
Temps determined from GISS, UAH, HadCRU, and RSS between the years 1999-2009. ALL show a warming trend! So by moving my start and end points by one year I can show a completely different trend using essentially the same data.
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1880-2009.png
Temps determined from GISS, UAH, HadCRU, and RSS between the years 1880-2009. (UAH and RSS begin at 1980.)
The REAL trends are found in this image. No cherry-picking there.
BTW, GISS, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS use GLOBAL SATELLITES to measure temps so the urban heat island effect is essentially not a factor (about 2% of the surface). But even this 2% is corrected for in the algorithms.
Regarding the heat island effect, when Anthony Watts started the surfacestations.org site to try to show how US stations were artificially creating a global warming trend, NOAA analyzed the data from rural areas vs. heat island areas and the UPWARD TREND in temps was the SAME. It is quite simple science. Think "a rising tide lifts all boats" and you can understand.
NOAA went one step further and analyzed the 70 of the 1221 stations that Watts said were valid. Guess what? These 70 shows the SAME trend as the 1221.
Here is a YOUTube video that exposes Watts. He is a joke, really.
www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/2/dcxVwEfq4bM
Here is the NOAA document:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
Bob,
My site is designed to show what the experts are stating in a format that is relatively easy to understand for the non-scientists that read it. The equatuons that you are looking for are found in journal articles many of which were reviewed by the IPCC 2007 WGI and newer articles discussed in the Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Congress.
Spend some time reading those docs and you will get your answers. I am sorry if this appears to be a copout but I certainly cannot "redo" the IPCC nor Copenhagen. I recommend visiting my suggested reading page and visit the blogs and read the books there.
Although the climate change appears to be small (about 0.7C so far) the effects are already changing many aspects of the planet, especially ecosystems. The Earth appears to be having much trouble adapting to the rapidity of the change. The costs of doing nothing appear to greatly outweigh the costs of taking action. This however is not my expertise.
Scott, I really think land use has been underestimated as a cause of the observed warming. Common sense tells me that the thousands of acres of land that is now asphalt, concrete, building roofs, black fields, runways, parking lots, etc, absorb a way more heat than fields of vegetation.
One of the theories as to why the 1930's was so hot is because the drought turned the fields black.
Another thing I've noticed is that algae blooms due to fertilizer run off on the lakes is at an all time high. When the algae blooms the water temperatures sky rocket due to the increased absorption of sun light.
Further to my argument on land use being underestimated as a contributing factor of recent warming. Approximately 1000W/Msq of sunlight reach the earth at 90 degree sun angle, so the slightest change of the earth in color shade can vary the heat of absorption by a large amount. The radiative forcing of CO2 is said to be only about 1.7W/Msq at present CO2 levels, so it's easy to see that the slightest change in absorption can easily equal or exceed the forcing.
Don,
You raise a very good point and land use is certainly built into the models and the algorithms improve as each new study is released. The amount of concrete, asphalt, etc. on the Earth is still a VERY TINY percentage of the surface so it is probably not a large factor. Plankton blooms are certainly a different story as they can cover some fairly large surface areas.
One thing you must keep in mind is that warming occurs when more heat enters the atmosphere/ocean than is escaping over a yearly basis. Asphalt, concrete, etc. do absorb more heat duirng the day but they also deliver their heat back to the atmosphere at night. The heat capacity of these things isn't very high. Water, of course, has a high heat capacity so it retains the heat. (This is why ocean heat content is often a better indicator of global wamring than air temps and also why oceans lag about a decade or so in their warming rates.)
(cont.)
As I mentioned before, even when one looks at the surface reporting stations in urban areas, the underlying global warming trend still appears. That suggests that the RATE of global warming has not been impacted much, if at all, by that type of land use.
Scott, I live just outside a major city and what I've noticed is that my vehicle temp sensor always reads higher in the city, sometimes by as much as 2 deg C. Also it's fun to drive down the road and watch the landscape and predict the temperature increase/decrease, I've gotten pretty good at it.
Since our global temperature sensors cover since a minute area of the earth's service, it makes me wonder what the statistical margin of area is. Just as in election polls there has to be a built in margin of error.
Another thing that's perplexing is that some areas of the world have not shown any warming. Eastern Canada for example has shown no warming at all. You would expect some changes if radiative forcing of CO2 was a factor, especially at night when the temp is declining due to radiation loss.
CO2 does not absorb energy. It reflects infra red waves. These waves used to escape Earth. The heat coming from the Sun etc, being reflected back by Earth, into space. Instead, the heat is being reflected back again by the CO2 enriched atmosphere. Consider a glass house: in winter, the green house is not warmer because the glass traps energy. It is warmer because the green house glass/plastic reflects energy back into the plants. They then absorb the energy and get warmer.
Speak to the scientists directly. Walk over to a university. Befriend anyone working in any geology department. Buy them a beer and hear them out.
AM, you need to take some basic physics courses. Your heat theory is way out of whack.
Heat is lost in one of three ways, convection, conduction, radiation.
Heat is lost in a greenhouse in 2 of the 3 ways. It loses heat by conduction and radiation. The only way it retains heat is by reducing convection, in other words it doesn't allow the warm air to escape.
CO2 absorbs a small bandwidth of IR radiation, thereby generating heat within the molecule, your reflection theory is all wet.
You're going to have to buy someone a whole case of beer to get yourself straightened out when it comes to physics.
Further to AM's greenhouse theory. Heat within the greenhouse is cause by the sun's radiation which passes through the glass and warms the soil and other objects it strikes. The soil warms the air by conduction and is circulated throughout the greenhouse by convection.
Having said that, there is no comparison between a greenhouse and the "greenhouse effect", they are simply not comparable. Don't know who came up with the greenhouse effect, but it was a very poor analogy.
For those who still cling to the notion of AGW, see www.surfacestations.org, an ongoing large-scale survey of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). If you have a basic understanding of numbers, after studying the material presented at the site, you will be set free.
It seems like the momentum of scientific study is increasingly towards natural forcings in nature rather than 'anthropomorphic'
It used to be heretical to suggest the sun plays any role- it's now acknowledged even by AGW proponents to be significant- up to 30%?
The effect of land use/heat islands is most scientifically illustrated by the fact that simple satellite data have never gone along with the 'adjusted' land based data from sporadic urban weather stations.
The recent story about warmest ocean temps?- They openly stated that they REMOVED the satellite data they said was giving a false low temp!!!
Also no Co2 fixated models predicted any of this global cooling we are observing, Co2 is a greenhouse gas- just not a major driver of climate.
AGW believers hate this one like creationists hate fossils!
Ordovician ice age, 4000 ppm Co2!!
Give back to your environment by sharing journey with others.
http://travelshareindia.blogspot.com/
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!