Global warming
Sceptic, denier, or heretic?
You probably are aware that I am not yet 100% convinced that global warming is (a) taking place, and (b) caused by mankind and CO2 emissions, despite the so called consensus view of the IPPC. It’s all a one sided story promoted by well (government) financed scientists, non scientists, economists, sociologists, green campaigners, and politicians who seem to have found the new way of taxing us as hard as possible without the need to spend the revenue on replacing dwindling fossil fuel stocks with new forms of energy. I fear for those developing nations who look as though they will suffer even more as the west dictates the agenda.
Professor Bob Carter (Australian geologist) using nothing but pure science and statistics refutes the arguments in favour of man made global warming in these four videos.
It’s always worth considering the flip side of the coin!
Part one
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI]
Part two
[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8]
Part three
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY]
Part four
[YouTube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno]
That should be enough to raise South Shields based Rossinisbird!
John Redwood, in his blog, is complaining about the lights burning in the Houses of Parliament, but isn’t that the place where we expect the most hot air to be generated? I wonder if he’d be brave enough to suggest to David Cameron that the Conservative Party were wrong to jump on this overburdened enviro-bandwagon?
I’ve wasted half an hour of my life watching that nonsense. I want it back!
rossinisbird
July 16, 2008 at 9:54 pm
It’s all well and good messing about on YouTube but when will Mr Carter ever get round to publishing a bone fide peer-reviewed paper on his theories?
An alternative view of his data:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
That “so-called consensus view” is still running at about 95%. Still, being in such a small minority does tend to get you noticed more…
Michael
July 16, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Yes,
I thought it would amuse you all 🙂
curly
July 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I really think the wheels are coming off this whole man-made global warming nonsense. this coincides with the Green’s attempts to crimilanlise anyone who disagrees with them. This is not the response of someone open to debate.
A fine blog sir!
Stuart Fairney
July 17, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Get your research out for the lads Stuart!
Bryan
July 17, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Fair enough
ou might like this piece from Bob Carter
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
And Vince Gray in this piece is somewhat critical of IPCC procedures
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
Syun-Ichi Akasofu suggests recent past warming trens cannot be attributed to humans in this piece
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/15/on-the-fundamental-defect-in-the-ipcc’s-approach-to-global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/
And I’m afraid I have lost the reference but the head of the IPCC himself has conceeded warming is not likely in the next ten years.
So evidence shows no warming since 1998, the international alarmist-in-chief says no warming in the next decade, so I need to ask if nothing happens in two decades how come we are taxed so much on VED and petrol? Oh wait, I think I know…
Stuart Fairney
July 18, 2008 at 7:07 am
Stuart, I’ve looked at the links you’ve provided and none of them are peer reviewed scientific research.
Bryan
July 22, 2008 at 10:53 am
@Bryan
Google “peer review” and you will find out why most of us call it “poor review” – I can get my mates (especially workmates) to agree with me on most points of view.
The main problem in AGW is that there are a massive amount of climate related degrees handed out and they belong to people who need to be fed and watered just like the rest of us. Trouble is they are in a field that is constantly changing and the avalanche of “peer reviewed” papers are cherry picked by those with an agenda and the rest are simply ignored or marginalized.
”
Even the peer-review process — ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science — has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.
“The IPCC turns this on its head,” Prof. Reiter explains. “The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential.” In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.
“The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that — it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung.”
”
Here is a list of “peer reviewed” papers that run counter to the spiteful tax exercise that is AGW.
Click to access Madhav%20bibliography%20LONG%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf
Henry Galt
August 9, 2008 at 12:37 pm