OK so unfortunately the web is full of crazy people with their zombie arguments, where loudly worded statements seem to drown out careful investigation into a subject. Particularly if it doesn’t correspond with your worldview. A good example of this is Climate change. Evidence for climate change caused by man is overwhelming full stop. Watch these two videos. Then try playing global warming sceptic bingo. There are plenty of deniers (comments in this article are worthy of reading carefuly) out their but read their sources and the way they have made their calculations and it soon becomes apparent how biased they are. Better we try to get on with fixing our own problem don’t you think!
Lewis,
One year ago I was as convinced as you that global warming courtesy of mankind produced co2 was to blame. Indeed I would look up the height above sea level of peoples houses before visiting them and then announce on my arrival whether they would be underwater or have a sea view if they did not change their ways.
But I had learned that the solar cycle had just gone through two years without any significant number of sunspots, and I had had two years of snow when normally it never snows.
So I got on the internet to find out when the sun was going to get back to business as usual and got what was probably the most enormous shock of my life, namely that my previously unquestioned views about co2 and global warming had critics, and that over the next month my disbelief at what they were saying turned to concern and after 4 weeks of spending every evening reading as much as I could on the subject I became a sceptic of global warming.
Unlike most people, I am able to spend all evening every evening studying the subject, and I have to say that the sceptics (deniers if you will) have a point.
The original science of global warming was largely fraudulent, much of the subsequent science was and is vacuous. In contrast the science showing that temperatures are controlled by the sun shows far far better correlation to global temperature than anything co2 based graphs can manage.
I will repost and include some links to some graphs, you will be surprised and experience disbelief, but I believe that eventually you will come to accept that the science isn’t settled.
The much vaunted 97% or majority of scientists say that the science of global warming is settled turns out not to be an official figure but in fact represents the views of just 77 people. Whereas the official figure from the IPCC says that a narrow majority of scientists say that it is not settled. No prizes for guessing which one the newspapers and Greenpeace and the WWF have been promoting.
Genuine fraud has occurred with graphs being used upside down, a US government organisation has recently been caught surreptitiously adjusting historic temperature data every month for a year to better suit their models. There is a website with 129 examples of this sort of thing.
If the science is settled then why the need for all the fraud ?
Increasingly scientists involved in the IPCC and elsewhere are beginning to resign and reduce their estimates of climate sensitivity to co2. Climategate has recently shown that even the core “team” as they called themselves had their doubts and knew and stated in what they thought were private emails that they were manipulating the science.
Meanwhile the sun was predicted by a German scientist, Theodor Landscheidt in 1983 to undergo a quiet period which would produce a reduction in temperatures equivalent to somewhere between what took place during the Dalton and Maunder minimums when the river Thames froze in the 1600s.
This it would seem is on course, something completely unforeseen by the co2 promoting scientists as they thought the sun had approximately .1% influence on temperatures. If it continues on course and even NASA now agree, then the UK and indeed the whole of the Northern and part of the Southern hemispheres are in for a series of poor summers and very cold winters over the next 20 to 100 years.
Currently the sun is climbing to an historically low maximum in the current solar cycle and is expected to have a long drawn out decline leading into the next cycle which may be short or may even go missing, no one knows. In either event we will have cold weather for many years.
On top of that Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) have 30 year cycles, the Pacific has just entered it’ 30 year cold cycle, and the North Atlantic is about to dip into a colder part but not fully enter it’s cold cycle for some 7 or 8 years yet, when it does, combined with the continuing drop in sunspots the UK will undergo temperatures not seen in hundreds of years.
In the UK we now grow less of our own food than we did back in the 1600s, although we have modern farming techniques, we are uniquely vulnerable to a weather born hit on farming. We can only wait and see.
Sorry to have made such a long post. I hope you found the time to read it. Next time sort short and sweet (shocking) graphs. Graphs from the global warming alarmists themselves that show that their own predictions have turned out to be so wrong that co2 would need to have a cooling effect to correct their graphs. Global temperatures following the ups and downs of sea surface temperatures, which follow the ups and downs of sunspots, whereas co2 went along then up, but failed to match any prior or subsequent ups and downs.
Sorry, but global warming caused by man is a theory with serious problems.
i will find links to say, just 6 graphs or so. They are interesting to say the least.
Jonny,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to write a comment to me and setting out your case in a way that makes me somewhat regret the tone of my original post.
I don’t mind admitting that your comment since I read it has been playing in my mind quite alot. But there is nothing I like more than a good robust debate. I’m prepared for some give and take and I’m prepared to be wrong too, how about you? If you are up for it please post what you want, and I will post in reply. We can also do this through email.
OK having said that there is something specific I would like to say in reply to your comment as a first round.
I think we can maybe find some common ground. You talk about the UK producing less food than in the 1600′s. Maybe we could agree a few things about making things better for future generations.
I hope we could agree that modern culture does tend to disconnect people from the land, from nature and from the consequences of our actions. The throw away culture we inhabit leaves a heavy footprint on this world which adds up. Also with peak oil approaching (perhaps already passed who knows!) we need to do something, and thinking carefully about what those actions should be.
This is why as an Architect I fully commit to making the buildings I am involved with as ecological as possible. It’s not because I think we are altering our climate (although I do think that) it’s because I want the best building I can make, the one that’s most sustaniable is the most efficient in the long run and best for the clients and for society as a whole.
Ayway lets correspond about this, maybe we will learn something and get some enjoyment from a good debate. Hope you had a good xmas and wish you a happy new year.