Climate Research Director to skeptics: Prove man isn’t causing global warming
This is how desperate they have become. The interim director of the CRU at East Anglia University (interim because the director was asked to step aside while he’s being investigated for manipulating data) told CNN John Roberts yesterday that while the Climategate e-mails have proved troublesome, they do not prove that man is not causing global warming.
I wouldn’t expect him to say anything else. But then he dropped this whopper. He thinks skeptics should go about proving a negative. Prove man isn’t causing global warming. It starts with John Roberts detailing the global warming list of disasters.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr7jxqqgUdw
And while scientists go about proving the negative, the march toward global reparations continues.
Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear.
And the march continues toward global control of all activity .
The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.
The announcement came as the Obama administration looked to boost its arguments at an international climate conference that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. The conference opened Monday in Copenhagen.
The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.
Meanwhile chew on this post you GW zealots, if you dare. I know, faith shaking. But better to have your faith shaken, then your wallets.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA&feature=player_embedded
Please read it all.
6 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Okay, I'll bite.
Prove that global warming is not significantly based on man's activities? Sure. Here are the readily available facts: 1) we are in an interglacial period (and overdue for its end); 2) in the last interglacial period, CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are now, and sea levels were 15 – 18 FEET above present levels (about 120K years ago) and about 70 feet below current levels during the last ice age 20K years ago (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/); 3) both 20K and 120K years ago, man was not a factor at all in the climate change, i.e. no industries, no powerplants, no SUVs.
Currently, the IPCC is predicting disaster from a few centimeters of sea level rise.
Secondly, if CO2 is going to be considered a pollutant in any concentrations above whatever the the politician scientists consider "normal", then it is reasonable to consider oxygen a pollutant as well, as in higher concentrations than what is considered normal, it is toxic. Should we now cut down trees or poison oceanic blue green algae to control, or better, maintain the levels of oxygen currently found in the atmosphere?
The scientific method demands that the scientists prove their theories (now downgraded to hypotheses) with data, not that other scientists work to disprove your hypothesis with no facts, or "facts" that you are hiding.
The current crop of scientists that are looking at recent history are only looking at a miniscule fraction of the Earth's history, and when they compare today's climate with the climate a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, it is a specious comparison, given the paleoclimatic conditions that are currently in the literature. How do they compare today's temps with the temps 200 years ago, when recording methods were sketchy at best?
The presumption that today's climate is the "correct" one is not even science, and is a laughable concept, worthy only of derisive laughter. Or a Nobel Peace Prize, apparently.
This is a difficult and complex subject that seems to have become divided along political ideology instead of common sense – on both sides of the issue. First, as someone that loves animals and nature, I'm horrified at how we've decimated this planet since I was a child. It defies logic to think that building on flood plains, cutting down forests and jungles carte blanche, and spewing billions of tons of chemicals and noxious elements into the atmostphere would have zero, negative effect.
On the other hand, as Dims pointed out so well, there are cyclical planetary cycles of warming and cooling. Just off the coast of England are MANY villages that have been reclaimed by the sea. There is a wealth of fossils of animals and trees in the Artic and Antartic showing they were not always ice regions. Even in glaciers in the Swiss Alps, preserved remains of ancient people have been found.
So, let's be sensible. Reduce carbon emissions in an economically viable way – don't impose immediate, global laws that will decimate the economies of companies and countries. Move to alternative energies, but with care lest they prove worse than what we already use. We're far from an ideal planet, far from a perfect mankind. The UN and EU (who are very much in support of "Climate Change" laws) are full of corrupt, arrogant, money-grabbing, nepotistic leaders. Even though changes are obviously needed, putting any control in either of their hands would be very dangerous and would bound to have a far-reaching, negative impact.
There are tons and tons of regulations on the books already demanding what you suggest. We've been doing it for years. There is NO need for more rules, taxes or agencies to play god. I completely disagree that we have "decimated this planet". Want to see decimated? Watch what a category 3 or 4 hurricane can do to a barrier reef or a forest of trees. Then, to see how the planet can heal itself, go back 20 years later and check out how the reef/forest is doing. It may look totally different, but it grows back.
I agree with you gillie. I abhor pollution, right down to my publicly scolding people that drop trash on the sidewalks (and don't get me started on cigarette butts!), but the whole concept of a climatic apocalypse is false and patently unscientific. It is obviously a redistribution of wealth ploy by the statists that want to control our lives and restrict our freedoms with paternalistic pablums (I have to trademark that! 😉 )
Now that the cat is out of the bag, and the scheme is revealed for the fraud that it is, politicians and those crackpot scientists should just shut their pie holes. The new director of the fraudulent CRU is just as big a fraud as the guy who stepped down, and is scrambling to provide cover for his institution, and more importantly to him, his funding.
Steve, yes, the planet is capable of "healing" itself – God has mercy on us. But, in the meantime, entire species of animals that depend on forest and jungle fauna and flora have (or are) being wiped out. That's a fact. Not to mention the raping of the oceans by mega-fishing companies.
I don't know enough about what laws are or are not "on the books" or are or are not being enforced to comment. I do know enough about the EU and UN NOT to want them EU, or any other international groups controlling these laws. And yes, I also agree that these issues get hijacked by vested interests. Like everything else in the world, it is a mess.