All of these can be explained purely by natural phenomena1.Climate change is a constant.The Vostok Ice Cores show ﬁve brief interglacial
periods from 415,000 years ago to the present.The Greenland Ice Cores reveal
a Minoan Warm Period 1450 –1300 BC,a Roman Warm Period 250 –0 BC,the
Mediaeval Warm Period 800 –1100AD,the Little Ice Age.
Increased drought generally is not conducive to growth and neither are unusually large amounts of rainfall, to say this will increase growth is dismissing the bigger picture. See link below.2.Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric
concentrations are bene ﬁcial to plant growth,particularly in arid conditions.
Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are al-
ready saturated,increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels
will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
This is understood and accounted, for, it is supposed it will give us some breathing space.3.The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval
Warm Period,an era of great achievement in European civilisation.The recent
warm period,1976 –2000,appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists
who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25 –50 years could be a cool
period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
What do you suggest we do not use correlation, predictive models are not meant to be accurate, they are meant to reflect past indicators, but no one claims they are 100% accurate, they are guestimates based on our best information to date.4.The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made)carbon dioxide emissions and
current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976
to 2000.Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon
dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth,and thus determines aver-
age global temperatures,have failed.
Er no scientists don't deal in hope, just evidence, if they didn't see enough of that they wouldn't be comfortable making predictions.5.The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are
agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control;that the
science is settled and the debate is over;and that scienti ﬁc sceptics are in the pay
of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
These claims are an expression of hope,not of reality.
I wouldn't take a politicians views as seriously as I would a scientists, Al Gore whilst he means well is guilty of somewhat sensationalising matters.6.Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic
emissions of CO 2 for high temperatures,droughts,melting polar ice caps,rising
sea levels and retreating glaciers,and a decline in the polar bear population.
They also blame anthropogenic CO 2 for blizzards,unseasonable snow,freez-
ing weather generally and for hurricanes,cyclones and other extreme weather
events.There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.
Not necessarily7.Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible
impact on the earth ’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth every-
where.There is no need to sequester CO 2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear
or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
The plots thicken
The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.
"Based on earlier single-treatment studies with elevated CO2, we initially hypothesized that, with the combination of all four treatments together, the response would be additional growth," said W. Rebecca Shaw, a researcher with the Nature Conservancy of California and lead author of the Science study.
But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation alone or in combination promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases.
"The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote.
The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO2 was about 4.9 tons per acre compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO2 levels were kept normal. However, when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, aboveground plant growth increased by nearly a third.
Why would elevated CO2 in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients.
"By applying all four treatments, we may be repositioning the ecosystem so that another environmental factor becomes limiting to growth," Field observed. "For example, by increasing plant growth as a result of adding water or nitrogen, the ecosystem may become more sensitive to limitation by another mineral nutrient such as phosphorous, potassium or something else we hadn't been measuring."
A new five-year experiment is underway at the Jasper Ridge site to analyze potential limiting nutrients in the soil along with microbial-plant interactions and the molecular biology of the vegetation.
This is sloppy the habitat of the malarial mosquito is a warm and humid one, increase these two and it will spread to areas which are warmer. Yes poverty is a factor but so is natural habitat, which probably explains why Malaria was present in Middle Age southern Europe.8.‘Tropical ’diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to tem-
perature but to poverty,lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control
Of course our country is in ruins financially, it's hell, why oh why did we achieve our Kyoto protocols?9.The decarbonisation of the world ’s economy would,if attempted,cause huge
economic dislocation.Any democratic government which seriously sought to
ful ﬁl decarbonisation commitments would lose of ﬁce.Shutting down coal-ﬁred
power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as
windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic depriva-
You might also read this:After reading: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf [Broken]
You may want to consider this:
Talking about sloppy, why not try this:Mosquito's
This is sloppy the habitat of the malarial mosquito is a warm and humid one, increase these two and it will spread to areas which are warmer. Yes poverty is a factor but so is natural habitat, which probably explains why Malaria was present in Middle Age southern Europe.
Furthermore......Claims that malaria resurgence is due to climate change ignore these realities and disregard history. For example, the many statements that recent climate change has caused malaria to ascend to new altitudes (10,31,32) are contradicted by records of its distribution in 1880 to 1945 ....
CO2 is not pollution and polluters can be fought in other ways.As said even if there is no global warming benefit the restriction of pollution and the efficient use of resources, more than makes up for anything, it's a no lose situation either way; businesses will even lower costs in the long run, and it simply isn't that devastating or hard monetarily? As we in England have capably shown - having steady growth economically since the policies were implemented - this is a fallacy. Hear ends the political broadcast on behalf of the Green party