Sunday, December 23, 2007

More evidence AGAINS man-maid global warming


  • Global warming 'is good and is not our fault'
    Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists.

  • Basic research shows that global warming is natural
    NASA also reports that the Arctic Ocean is not in any danger from the melting of vast amounts of ice anytime soon. The global warming crowd had made it a fact that circulation of the Arctic Ocean triggered some sort of climate change, and this change was caused by global warming. James Morison, who led a team of scientists in this study, said, "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

  • New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate
    Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth’s climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover – that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth’s climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space.

  • New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

  • According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

And this is hardly new evidence (some articles are more than 1 year old)...
why didn't I heard about them in the news?

Please, falsify my skepticism

Following Popper, I feel I should make my skepticism rational by making it "falsifiable": what conditions should be met for me to reconsider and join the cause of man-made global warming (mmgw)?

Well: it would require the global discussion on the media to change tone, and start acknowledging the existence of plausible alternative hypothesis to the mmgw.
Furthermore tv and newspapers should present the study of global warming as a distinct fact w.r.t. to the hypothesis (and it is only that, scientifically) that man-produced CO2 is the primary cause of global warming, because in fact these two ideas are independent, and need to be proved independently.

I feel that to convince me (and possibly the general public) that mmgw is the "right" horse on which to bet, the media (and the politicians behind it) should first present the other alternatives and explain why they cannot be true. This would provide a nice context to a rational discussion of the issue.

Why hiding all other hypothesis and studies?
If, according to the IPCC, there is a 80% consensus among the experts, that mmgw is actualy the right explanation of what is going on, what do the other 20% have to say about it?

Until the official voices get more "serious" disclosing all information they have, I will remain skeptical.
It must be possible, for the average citizen, to form an opinion by listening to different voices, otherwise, the more "they" tell me about the ONE TRUTH, the more suspicious I get.

Come on: even when my PC does not start, I need to come out with 2 or 3 guesses, before I can fix it... (even if the most common cause, is the "Win" operative system :> )...
How can something as complex and huge as planetary roasting, have a single uncontroversial explanation??

No comments:

Post a Comment