Interestingly enough, I just got an email from someone I listen to regularly on sattelite radio. This should interest you some…
“Deniers”. Yeah, right. The code word that puts skeptics into the ranks of the flat-earthers and Nazi apologists.
Like it’s irrational (if not criminal) to hold to the belief that the planet is sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler, and there’s not much we can do about it. That view would only be based on…what, a few hundred thousand years of data? But hey, why confuse the issue with facts, when it’s so much more fun to feel morally superior to the “deniers”?
Besides, I embrace diversity. I think there’s room in the universe for different temperatures. Climatocentric bigotry is just so…20th century! Go ahead, deny that.
Thanks for that link, bbarrick. A denier, so obviously another buck-toothed criminal.
Bob Carter, an Australian climatologist, has a very interesting presentation available on YouTube. It quite thoroughly debunks the climate change alarmism.
The naturally occurring openings in the arctic ice even have a name: polynyas
One of the points I have repeatedly tried to make is that science is NEVER settled. New stuff is being discovered all the time.
And today there was a new post of some new and original scientific work
There is no actual link to the information … you need to be logged on to the Web site:
So here is the post in its entirety.
For folks interested in the global warming/ climate change issue, this may prove to be fertile subject for study and research. Go after the actual research reports. Collect the data. Study it. Stare at it. Accept criticism of the work and the data as a place to continue studying rather than as a turnoff.
There is a fallacy that if someone finds one thing wrong or suspect or even questionable with a scientist’s work, then all of that person’s work is totally discredited. Instead, what we have is a gift … an opportunity to explore other aspects of that person’s work.
It’s kind of a double standard … because when science gets politicized, some work cannot be viewed critically and other work can be. Double standards do not apply in science. We do not hold “one side” to a “higher standard” than we hold the other side.
Anyway, enjoy the post from www.climatechangedebate.org
The theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming espoused by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and notably advanced by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is explained as follows.
Mankind, in their ever-increasing use and extraction of natural resources puts an identifiable and notable increase of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This has happened so quickly in the 20th century that the natural methods of counterbalancing this rise have failed to keep up. This
thickening' of the greenhouse blanket will make the earth warmer, which will in turn mean that water will evaporate, and another more powerful greenhouse gas,water vapour’ will warm the atmosphere to such an extent that ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise and life as we know it will be changed irrevocably.
These fears are based on computer models that tend to show a warming when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
In 2007, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi completed some work that substantially adds to our knowledge of the nature of greenhouse gasses and which must now be included in any future models.
Dr. Miskolczi and his associate Professor Miklos Zagoni, took the existing knowledge base and used data from radiosondes to establish 2 new equations. These equations, when applied, provides us with “Miskolczi’s constant”. This constant is a measure of the thickness of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Miskloczi and Zagoni have arrived at the value of this constant both from data in 2004 and from theory in 2007. The research done to date shows the constant does not change and therefore we now know about the nature of a previously unknown boundary in atmospherical physics.
The implications are that extra CO2 will not increase the greenhouse effect any further. The atmosphere is continually in a state of saturation of greenhouse gasses and this state is maintained by freely available water. If the atmosphere requires more greenhouse gas it will vapourise available water. If the atmosphere becomes oversaturated with any greenhouse gas it will rain out water to compensate.
The constant has been proved to exist for the last hundred years.
Any criticism of their work must include verifiable results that “Miskolczi’s constant” is not a constant.
In addition to the constant, Miskloczi and Zagoni have also proved that the temperature in the atmosphere will always be raised by a greenhouse factor of 1/3 of the available radiation. That means the data and the theory of Miskolczi show the sun is the driver of the earths surface temperature not Greenhouse gasses.
Miskolczi`s work supports that by IPCC scientists Kiehl and Ramanathan where they estimated the effect of the greenhouse on the earths temperature was 1/3 of the available heat radiation in 2006.
This work seriously questions the results of the existing computer modelling of climate change and any serious review of it will find the IPCC must abandon the whole idea that greenhouse gasses cause global warming and Climate change.
Franklin R.F. Hunt
Ants probably make a much larger impact than humans do.
Not another one of those ‘numbers dictate truth’ arguments.
I clicked…I read…and I found a fascinating tidbit of information.
“Both statements are true. However, what the article fails to mention is that while parts of the East Antarctic interior are gaining ice, it’s also losing ice around the edges and overall, is in approximate mass balance.”
So while they are trying to debunk that the ice is growing, they completely debunked the claim that the ice is shrinking.
There you go. Money doesn’t influence what people say? You bet it does. You find me the soldier who wants to gut the GI bill, the public school teacher who promotes private schooling, the doctor who says there is no public health risk ( unless he is working for a tobbacco company of course ) and so on. It’s so bad that just about the only people I fully trust anymore are panhandlers. I already know they are going to use the dollar I give them for booze, and the fact that they just blatantly stick their hand out, their basic honesty and basic decency is refreshing.