Japan's Climate Scientists: Global warming isn't man-made
tdco...@gmail.com
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew....@theregister.co.uk)
Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT
Free whitepaper - Harnessing the power of ITIL
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN
and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from
its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that
recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial
emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced
language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to
ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground
temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that
the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century
has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is
astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence
in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded
science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial
influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although
fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese
scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming
hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy
and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The
report appeared last month but has received curiously little
attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document
- the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some
of the key findings - but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate
change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as
political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth
Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology
(JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in
support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using
undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology.
After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural
causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are
likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived
as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in
Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses
historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures
represent an anomaly:
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has
risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a
hypothesis. "
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest
words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of
fact.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for
truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be
broken."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Passages Translated
What is the source of the rise in atmospheric temperature in the
second half of the 20th century?
Shunichi Akasofu
[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Introductory discussion.
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted
Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of
increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly
unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until
the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged
for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite
this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.
According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should
continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the
majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is
mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in
IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight
downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but
it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.
From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to
human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be
asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily
recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through
1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).
The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50
year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle
has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-
periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.
(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part,
to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle
fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50
years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced
in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-
periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940
to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).
Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched
natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly
since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have
continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely
(despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances
of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration)
are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative.
For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the
negative cycle will probably continue.
Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a
fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book
is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious,
IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in
correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.
They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before
anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This
truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping
of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion
that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.
It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise
are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating".
The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle
should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot
appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished
completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern
hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no
spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest
levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.
So, have there been other historical periods with an absence of
sunspots? As a matter of fact, from 1650 to 1700 approximately, there
were almost no sunspots. This time period has been named for the
renown English astronomer Maunder, and is called the Maunder Minimum.
There is a relationship between transported energy and the light
emissions from the photosphere and sunspots. It was thought that times
of few sunspots are times of lower energy. Satellites were launched in
1980 to research this, and results were contrary to expectations. It
became clear that these times were more energetic than periods of high
sunspots. Periods of low sunspots have vigorous solar activity. The
total change during sunspot cycles is usually .0.1%, from the Maunder
Minimum to today the increase is .05%. The Maunder Minimum fell in the
middle of the period of 1400-1800, the Little Ice Age, and it was
theorized that this was due to a cut in solar emissions. The theory is
that solar activity began to increase after that, and from 1800 global
warming increased and recovery from the Little Ice Age began.
But sunspot change and climate change are not clearly correlated.
Rather, the cycle was not the punctual 11 years, scientific research
indicates that climate change is related to that change. Furthermore,
according to the IPCC's computational investigation, this energy
increase does not significantly contribute to global warming. But
then, the IPCC insists that current global warming correlates to CO2,
solar influence is estimated as minimal, this calculation should be
redone. This 0.1-0.5% is an enormous sum of energy. The energy of
solar emissions is not just light from the photosphere. Solar winds
cause geomagnetic storms, yet comparisons of solar wind and light
energy to particle emissions are rarely carried out. Research into the
relationship between geomagnetic storms and climate change has been
undertaken for almost 100 years. However, because during this time,
this simple correlation has not been seen, no conclusion has been
reached. The super-hot temperatures of geomagnetic storms higher than
100 kilometers have increased, and the chances of the stratospheric
and tropospheric transference are low.
Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably,
the ionosphere and ozone layer are affected. Whether or not this
affects the troposphere is unknown. More research is necessary. On the
other hand, cosmic rays continuously fall, it seems that they
constantly seed comparatively low clouds. The solar system may shield
us somewhat from Geomagnetic storms caused by solar winds, so called
"magnetic clouds" may shield us from extrasolar cosmic rays, so solar
activity and climate are in a complex relationship.
In this way, climate change and solar activity's relationship is
inconclusive. It is necessary to increase research efforts into the
relationship between Earth's climate fluctuations and solar activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicting the Future with Numerical Simulation
Kanya Kusano, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology
(JAMSTEC)
Numerical simulation by forecast models are generally classified as
theoretical models and empirical models. The former follows universal
laws and carries out predictive calculations, the latter makes models
that are thought to be realistic from data of phenomenon. These two
methods cannot be strictly differentiated, generally experiential
methods gradually become theoretical methods, finally becoming the
generally accepted dogma.
Celestial mechanics originated in astrological prediction of solar and
lunar eclipses, calendars were experiential predictions; mechanistic
theory evolved when we reached an era of accurate computation.
Consequently, the predictability of celestial mechanics became
extremely high and practical estimates gave way to proof. Similarly,
modern Global Climate Models still largely dependent on empirical
models. Fundamental principles, therefore must resolve very complex
physical/chemical/biological processes and phenomenon. That is why
many artificial optimization operations (parameterization tuning) are
needed, or we will not be able to reproduce the phenomenon. Because of
this, besides mathematical accuracy, the people who construct models'
choice of processes and optimum operating guidelines will have large
scale effects on the calculated results.
1. Scientific Understanding and Uncertainty
When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we
are not able to capture the model. But we should pay attention to the
importance of the naturally occurring processes when our scientific
understanding is not yet clearly decided.
In the IPCC's 4th Evaluation Report, a few potentially major processes
were discussed; but [since] scientific understanding was too low to
decide, the evaluation of these was omitted. In order to
scientifically understand the uncertainty of accurate estimates
according to the potential importance of these processes, "the cause
of lack of scientific understanding and uncertainty" must be assessed.
Finally, uncertainty estimates should be included. For example, the
effect of variances in cosmic ray activity on clouds, caused by
sunspot activity, solar flares accompanied by energetic protons
striking the upper atmosphere and generating NOx and ozone effects
[*], etc., are not sufficiently understood and incorporated into the
models.
Also, there are great uncertainties in reproducing historical TSI
(Total Solar Irradiance), TSI fluctuation and spectral change related
climate sensitivity estimates are inadequate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The limits of modeling aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation as the greatest
uncertainty is becoming widely recognized, but fundamental, naturally
spontaneous (especially oceanic) aerosols are not yet well understood.
Dimethyl sulfide (DMS: CH3SCH3) of biological origin is thought to be
a primary source of sulphuric aerosol formation over oceans, but the
process of cloud cores forming from DMS is not sufficiently
understood. According to recent physical models, the percentage of
involvement of cosmic ray ionization processes is not well understood.
Furthermore, the types of aerosols and the ways they affect climate
systems are not well understood. The increasing number of aerosols, in
this case, augments precipitation, but if it increases too much, water
droplet diameter will decrease and cloud generation will be renewed,
and the albedo will be changed significantly. Thus, the fine-scale
physical processes of clouds causing feedback in geological climate
fluctuation now clearly points at this as a decisively material
effect.
However, the discussion of the properties and life span of aerosols in
clouds in the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report is inadequate.
3. Predictability and estimation rules
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the reliability of its
assessment that previous data does not differ from its model. But a
more effectively persuasive assessment of its predictive ability has
not come forth. This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar
eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice. Again, by
means of short metaphase models and domain models, future information
feedback can be isolated in hindcast experiments (reproducing the past
according to the model) and quantitatively compared to long term
climate predictions assessments.
4. Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting
solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate
models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error
experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The
significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated
by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation
Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are
likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as
an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and
to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability. (R)
[Translation by Charles Eicher.]
Lloyd
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translat...
>
> Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
> Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
>
He's a member of
* The Physical Society of Japan
* The Astrophysical Society of Japan
* The Japan Society of Plasma Science and Nuclear Fusion Research
* SEGEPSS (Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary and Space
Sciences)
* APS (American Physical Society)
* AAS (American Astronomical Society)
* AGU (American Geophysical Union)
* IAU (International Astronomical Union)
Maybe he should check what all of them say is the truth about AGW.
> (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in
> support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using
> undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology.
> After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural
> causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
>
> "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are
> likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived
> as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
Except the IPCC never said that. Perhaps he should take ESL.
>
> Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in
> Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses
> historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures
> represent an anomaly:
>
> "We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has
> risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a
> hypothesis. "
Uh, it's not a theory. It's a fact.
>
> Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical.
Like saying the Dow Jones this year is hypothetical.
Lloyd
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translat...
>
> Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
>
>
> Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT
>
> Free whitepaper - Harnessing the power of ITIL
>
> Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN
> and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from
> its Energy Commission.
>
> Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that
> recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial
> emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced
> language typical in such reports has been set aside.
>
> One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to
> ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground
> temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that
> the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century
> has ceased.
>
> The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is
> astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence
> in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded
> science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial
> influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although
> fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese
> scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming
> hypothesis.
How does a "scientist" get "commissioned here"?
>
> JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy
> and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The
> report appeared last month but has received curiously little
> attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document
Aha. So how do we know it's correct?
Catoni
"Uh, it's not a theory. It's a fact."
Reply:
Sure Lloyd. But I'll never trust science when it claims
something so complicated as climate. The fact is, they have not solved
the science of climate. Anyone who claims they have is either a liar
or an idiot.
Which one are you?
Lloyd wrote:
"Like saying the Dow Jones this year is
hypothetical."
Reply:
Our friend Lloyd: The Master of Bad Analogies.
Lloyd
> Lloyd wrote:
>
> "Uh, it's not a theory. It's a fact."
>
> Reply:
> Sure Lloyd. But I'll never trust science when it claims
> something so complicated as climate.
How about something as complicated as the formation of our universe?
The Big Bang is a fact.
How about something as complicated as how electrons behave? Quantum
behavior is a fact.
>The fact is, they have not solved
> the science of climate.
What do you mean by "solved"? We haven't "solved" all the details
about the Big Bang or quantum behavior either, but we know they are
factual.
>Anyone who claims they have is either a liar
> or an idiot.
> Which one are you?
>
Tell you what, you tell us YOUR scientific expertise that qualifies
you to make a statement like this.
Catoni
"How about something as complicated as the
formation of our universe?
The Big Bang is a fact.
How about something as complicated as how electrons behave? Quantum
behavior is a fact."
Reply: (Notice Lloyd trying to use bad analogies again.)
So when the Goracle says the "debate is over" "the
science is settled" we should all bow down and believe Him.
Hmmm what are the scientific credentials of Al Gore I wonder? Is
he a Climatologist?
Is Hansen a Climatologist?
Is Suzuki a Climatologist?
No ! No ! and No !
But since my college education was in Human Relations, Sociology
and Psychology, not Climatology, then I am supposed to keep my mouth
shut?
I don't have the credentials to speak in this forum about Climatology?
I do have a huge interest in amateur Astronomy, Meteoritics,
History, Geology, and Paleoclimatology.
But I will admit that I don't have a degree in them.
Do you? Do you have a degree in Climatology Lloyd?
I don't think so Lloyd. If these other characters, who are not
Climatologists have the right to speak out ln the lecture circuit,
then I can speak out here.
Tell me Lloyd... what is YOUR scientific expertise?
Are you a Climatologist by any chance? I doubt it very much.
Yes Lloyd, I will agree about the Big Bang, although we might not
know what created it, and Quantum Weirdness etc.
And so Climate too is a fact of course. But you guys claim that for
a fact, our man-made CO2 is heating up the Earth.
I disagree. You can't prove it. You can't prove that the heating
since coming out of the Little Ice Age is not normal. You don't have
all the answers, yet you want us to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars to "Control the Climate of the Earth"
I say that warming and cooling on Earth is normal. Nothing to get
upset about. I believe that Climate always changes and the only normal
thing about climate is change.
By the way Lloyd, last summer was the coolest and wettest summer
for much of Canada where I live.
Lloyd
> Lloyd, the Master of Bad Analogies wrote:
>
> "How about something as complicated as the
> formation of our universe?
> The Big Bang is a fact.
> How about something as complicated as how electrons behave? Quantum
> behavior is a fact."
>
> Reply: (Notice Lloyd trying to use bad analogies again.)
> So when the Goracle says the "debate is over" "the
> science is settled" we should all bow down and believe Him.
>
> Hmmm what are the scientific credentials of Al Gore I wonder? Is
> he a Climatologist?
>
> Is Hansen a Climatologist?
>
> Is Suzuki a Climatologist?
>
> No ! No ! and No !
>
> But since my college education was in Human Relations, Sociology
> and Psychology, not Climatology, then I am supposed to keep my mouth
> shut?
Gore and Suzuki (and I) quote scientists, scientific journals,
scientific organizations, etc. You, OTOH, give your uninformed
opinions as though they were scientific fact. So yes, it would be
greatly appreciated if you kept your mouth shut. Your opinions about
science have as much validity as Joe the Plumber's opinions about
monetary policy would.
>
> I don't have the credentials to speak in this forum about Climatology?
>
> I do have a huge interest in amateur Astronomy, Meteoritics,
> History, Geology, and Paleoclimatology.
I have a huge interest in F1 racing too. Doesn't mean I would try to
tell McLaren how to build a race car.
>
> But I will admit that I don't have a degree in them.
>
> Do you? Do you have a degree in Climatology Lloyd?
>
> I don't think so Lloyd. If these other characters, who are not
> Climatologists have the right to speak out ln the lecture circuit,
> then I can speak out here.
>
> Tell me Lloyd... what is YOUR scientific expertise?
>
> Are you a Climatologist by any chance? I doubt it very much.
>
> Yes Lloyd, I will agree about the Big Bang, although we might not
> know what created it, and Quantum Weirdness etc.
>
> And so Climate too is a fact of course. But you guys claim that for
> a fact, our man-made CO2 is heating up the Earth.
>
Yes, it's a fact.
> I disagree. You can't prove it.
Can you prove the Big Bang occurred? I don't mean is there proof; I
mean can YOU prove it?
>You can't prove that the heating
> since coming out of the Little Ice Age is not normal. You don't have
> all the answers, yet you want us to spend hundreds of billions of
> dollars to "Control the Climate of the Earth"
>
> I say that warming and cooling on Earth is normal. Nothing to get
> upset about. I believe that Climate always changes and the only normal
> thing about climate is change.
Then warming more and faster than before in human history is abnormal.
>
> By the way Lloyd, last summer was the coolest and wettest summer
> for much of Canada where I live.
If you claim human activities aren't producing CO2, then you reject
the principles of chemistry and accept alchemy. If you claim CO2
doesn't trap heat, then you reject the principles of spectrocopy and
the physics of bond vibrations. If you claim this cannot heat the
earth, you reject the principles of thermodynamics.
In other words, you're living in the 15th century or earlier.
marcodbeast
Denialist for "I can't refute a thing you said." lol
Dave
>The Big Bang is a fact.
The big bang is a theory that accords nicely with current mathematical
models.
Nothing more; nothing less.
Catoni
"You, OTOH, give your uninformed
opinions as though they were scientific fact. So yes, it would be
greatly appreciated if you kept your mouth shut."
Reply: You're an idiot, and a liar. You know damn well that I quote
studies and scientists. It's all in the archives here boy. You're the
uneducated moron that thinks the Little Ice Age was confined to
Europe, or maybe Europe and North America when there is evidence
around the world for it. Documented evidence that mounts higher every
year.
You belong with the bunch of "useful idiots" that wish the Medieval
Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age etc. never
existed. It makes it more difficult to scare the public when it can be
seen that climate changes all the time on Earth.
Your the bullshitter that swallows the propaganda spewed out of
the mouths of scientists with vested interests in keeping the lie
going, that an increase of about 70 PPM in CO2 in the last 100 years
can make any noticeable difference in the Earth's temperature. 70 ppm
is such a small number as to mean next to nothing. You sit there
wringing your hands and shaking in your sleep at night with visions of
disaster on a worldwide scale.
Florida sinking beneath the waves, Water up to the tenth floor of
buildings in Manhattan. People rowing boats down the streets of
London, and Manila.
Bullshit !!!
Lloyd wrote:
"I have a huge interest in F1 racing too.
Doesn't mean I would try to
tell McLaren how to build a race car."
Reply: Lloyd, the Master of Bad Analogies strikes again. LOL
Lloyd wrote:
"Can you prove the Big Bang occurred? I don't
mean is there proof; I
mean can YOU prove it?"
Reply: When your faced with a fact that is unpleasant try to
change the direction of the argument right Lloyd?
This is not a discussion of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
There are other groups for that.
There are so many scientists now that are skeptics of
the claims that a relatively few ppm of co2 can have such an effect on
climate as you Alarmists claim that the debate is certainly not over
as your high priest Al Gore claims.
Lloyd wrote:
"Then warming more and faster than before in
human history is abnormal."
Reply:
Bullshit !! A degree or degree and a half in 150
years is well within natural variation of previous known changes. Why
don't you Google Abrupt Climate Change to find out what fast climate
change is like.
You talk about "in human history"
LOL Human recorded history? Or just human history as in during
the time of Homo Sapien??
Have you any clue as to just how short a time that is if
you take into account the history of the Earth and the study of
Paleoclimatology going back for the whole history of the Earth ???
Excuse me while I take some time out here to stop
laughing............
Lloyd wrote:
"If you claim human activities aren't producing
CO2, then you reject
the principles of chemistry and accept alchemy. If you claim CO2
doesn't trap heat, then you reject the principles of spectrocopy and
the physics of bond vibrations. If you claim this cannot heat the
earth, you reject the principles of thermodynamics."
Reply:
1. I do agree we produce CO2.
2. I do agree that CO2 can trap some heat.
3. I do believe that water vapor is much more of a
greenhouse gas, and that CO2, which is already a trace gas, plays a
very very minor roll, and that the even more miniscule amount that we
have added, is such a small amount as to have next to no effect.
3. I do not agree that the miniscule amount that we
have added can heat the Earth to any appreciable noticeable extent.
4. I believe that other factors are at work in the
very slight warming we have noticed in the last 150 years. Including
the fact that we started to come out of the Little Icer Age about 1850
and should therefore expect heating.
5. I do not believe that the IPCC has all the
answers.
6. I do believe that you are brainwashed.
7. I do believe that propagandists like Gore, Hansen
and Suzuki, have a vested interest in keeping the lie going strong.
Each one of them has made mega-bucks from the lie of from speaking
engagements, and book deals, and movies.
I'm not a Climatologist or a scientist. But I am educated,
and I am a big reader, and a thinker who is able to think for himself.
You on the other hand Lloyd, is the one living in the 15th
centrury, with you witch hunts and accusation and name calling of
people who are skeptical of your Global Warming claims of it being all
our fault, and calling it a disaster when it isn't a disaster. It is
only change. And while warming a few degrees may have some negative
effects, it will also have positive effects to balance.
You're following a new pagan religion of the Global
warming cult. You have your evangelists, your holy books, (like The
Sacred Balance by High Priest Dr. David Suzuki. Not a Climatologist),
You have religious leaders like Al Gore, Maurice Strong,
James Hansen and David Suzuki.
You have your God and Goddess, Big Controlling
Government, and the Goddess Gaia, the Earth Mother worshipped by some
of your fellow Eco-religionists who are pagan members of your
"religion".
You have the heretics, us skeptics, that you would burn
at the stake if it was in your power to do so. You ask people to have
faith in the revealed wisdom of the AGW scientists and Gore, Hansen
and Suzuki and other high priests that spout the AGW creed.
Those who disagree are labeled "Deniers" raising
memories of the Holocaust Deniers, We are Heretics, to be shunned.
Yes Lloyd... it is you and your fellow Eco-religionists that are
the ones living in the 15th century.
Lloyd
No, the Big Bang is a fact. The theory explains it.
Learn the scientific method.
Lone Ranger
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/print.html
>
>Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made
>Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
>
>By Andrew Orlowski (andrew....@theregister.co.uk)
>
>Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT
>
First, the UK Register is pretty well known to devote itself to
climate change denial propaganda in a big way. Feel free
to peruse the site and see. The breathless tone of its post on this
report ("an astonishing rebuke to international pressure", etc.),
demonstrates this agenda.
Second, and more importantly, the group involved is not an official
Japanese governmental body. The Japan Society of Energy and
Resources (JSER) is in fact a trade group, started up by energy
companies in 1980. Three of its six featured executives hold positions
at major Japanese energy companies, neatly divided between nuclear,
gas, and electric corporations. The fact that such a group puts out a
"study" attacking the accepted notions of climate change is thus
hardly a surprise - no more than would be such a release from an
energy industry group in the U.S. or in Europe. And, of course, the
credibility of such a "study" must be weighed with a grain (at least)
of salt.
Third, there is a very good reason why this "news" has been widely
ignored (except in the usual right-wing denialist blogosphere). It's
much, much less than meets the eye.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--