An Inconvenient Truth or utter hogwash?
YOU decide...
Work in Progress: Last updated 12/22/07 7:36AM
So, just who are these "Deniers"?
A few good reads if you aren't afraid of real data interpretation...
Welcome? Within these pages, I have tried to condense some of the issues, both real and meaningless, of man-made (anthropogenic) Global Warming; henceforth referred to as AGW. Up front, it should be recognized that I am a skeptic. A serious skeptic. Oxford dictionary, defines skeptic as:
sceptic; noun, 1. a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions
Yes, I'm questioning and doubting. This is much different than the 'mainstream' AGW doomsayers and alarmists who, instead of welcoming any form of scientific debate and/or dialogue, simply claim there is no debate and any 'doubters' are in the same ilk as the Holocaust deniers, Flat-World Society members, and/or Moon landing hoax believers... sigh... Oxford also defines science as:
science; noun, 1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Unfortunately, the AGW alarmists are not following scientific 'protocol' or acceptable scientific methodology.
Here are my basic tenents for AGW. Feel free to follow the links provided for a further look into each.
- Scientific evidence There has never been any empirical evidence published that shows a direct link between atmospheric CO2 levels and surface or atmospheric temperatures. However, there are many peer-reviewed studies that point to the converse.
- The IPCC reports that the media are so in love with are simply not based on science at all. Any argument using IPCC 'conclusions' must be looked at through BS-detecting glasses. The IPCC is decidedly political and their conclusions are summaries written by government bureaucrats. In fact, the loudly touted scientific 'concensus' originated with the 2500 scientists who "unanimously" agreed in making the TAR-1. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Only 52 scientists had any say in the writing and publications of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
- The scientific consensus. Doesn't exist.
- AGW is based on computer models, not scientific evidence. Since when did experimentation and theoretical processes hit the poop-can in place of 'science by Microsoft"? Computer simulations can be powerful tools in science, but they certainly cannot be the only evidence to draw conclusions from.
- Al Gore's documentary is anything but! Again, Oxford defines documentary as:
documentary
• adjective, 1. consisting of documents and other material providing a factual account. 2. using film, photographs, and sound recordings of real events.
• noun, (pl. documentaries) a documentary film or television or radio programme.
Where's the 'factual account'? The 'real events'? There are no less than 32 scientific and historical errors in Gore's film for which he won an Oscar and the coveted Nobel Peace Prize! What a joke... It is to laugh... The only thing I got out of Gore's movie was a quicker hardening liver because I had to double my Canadian beer intake to wash down all the BS that surrounded me. His statements are wide-eyed suppositions of doom in the guise of science. I'm just amazed that he didn't claim to have invented Climate Change and we as a race have made it all go awry...
- There is a huge difference between AGW and climate change.
- The media only runs the doom and gloom scenarios and soundly ignores any reports of evidence to the contrary.
