Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member

## More climate scare

We have seen Kristen's project, she has decided that:

 After reviewing numerous scientific studies and observing data, it is clear that the theory that “man made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are causing global warming” is not likely.
and moreover:

 This report is a comprehensive look at the global warming issue without financial or political bias. It uses the most updated information provided by scientists and researchers and interjects common sense, an important component missing from the global warming debate.
However, let's have a look at the blackest page in the history of science.

Like Kristen, it has also a scope of work.

 Those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming put forward a range of arguments most of which misrepresent the existing research. It is vital that the scientific evidence on climate change is accurately represented.
First a little vitriol also aimed at Kristen to poison the well, but at least finally finally, they promise proof or an accurately representation of the scientific evidence of climate change.

But please go over the six arguments and help me to find that evidence.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract
 Blog Entries: 1 Recognitions: Gold Member Andre, to cut to the chase, maybe we should be asking, why should governments want to believe in anthropogenic global warming. In my view it is a good blanket to cover other topics, a red flag to distract the bull whilst some one is nicking his fodder.

Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member
Ah Wolram, the why? That would be another fallacy. Science is not about the motives of somebody propagating something, but now you mention it, Richard Courtney has some ideas about it:

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

By the way another icon of global warming has just been torn down:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6561527.stm

 Precipitation and not temperature is the key to the white peak's future, the University of Innsbruck-led team says. "About five years ago Kilimanjaro was being used as an icon for global warming. We know now that this was far too simplistic a view," (...) "Glacier recession has been a feature on Kilimanjaro for more than 100 years, but this is the first time we really have a precise understanding of the physical processes that control the glacier-climate interaction on Africa's highest mountain," said Dr Moelg. 'No reservoir' This work emphasises the significance of the lack of precipitation (250mm per year on the summit) versus temperature (a mean of -7C). It indicates that glacier mass loss would be about four times higher if precipitation decreased by 20% than if air temperature on the mountain rose by 1C.
However this statement

 The team stresses that the drying of the East African climate around Kilimanjaro may itself be a regional impact of global climate change
contradicts the 100 years ongoing melting and ignores the studies about the relationship between the El Nino Southern Oscilation and East African drought.

But certainly you have to testify that you're a harmless global warmier believer despite the killing blow you just administered.

 Similar discussions for: More climate scare Thread Forum Replies General Discussion 3 General Discussion 23 General Discussion 0