Originally posted by xixxvmcm85
As I understand it, it’s already been fairly well established that solar sunspot cycles when compared to greenhouse gas emissions have a smaller effect on global surface temperature, and climate scientists have done fairly well in quantitating how much each effect contributed to 20th century warming:
Global surface temperature reading data bases are corrupt with the numbers having been changed to match the desired outcome and the original databases ‘lost’. It is all a load of malarky with no real science, only ideology. How can they quantify effect on global surface temperature when they cannot even calculate that correctly?
8 Let’s talk science now. Who has been keeping data on this thing we refer to as ‘global warming’? And are the data accurate?
There is no scientific basis for alarm about anthropogenic ‘global warming’. It has been calculated theoretically (e.g. Lindzen, 2007; Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008) and confirmed empirically by direct measurement of outgoing long-wave radiation from the Earth’s characteristic-emission level (e.g. Covey, 1995; Wielicki, Wong et al., 2002 [but see Wong, Wielicki et al., 2006]; Chen et al., 2002; Cess & Udelhofen, 2003; Hatzidimitriou et al. 2004; Clement & Soden, 2005) and by direct measurement of ocean temperatures in the mixed layer (e.g. Lyman et al., 2006 as amended; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007; Willis, 2008, 2009; Loehle, 2009); that the IPCC’s central estimate of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been exaggerated, perhaps by as much as an order of magnitude.
There is clear evidence that a small but powerful and financially well-rewarded cabal of scientists are driving the climate scare, and are becoming increasingly desperate as opinion polls show that fewer and fewer of the voters (in countries lucky enough to have voters) believe in the climate nonsense any more.
I now propose to give some examples of serious data tampering, to give some idea of the extreme lengths that those who have manufactured and peddled this baseless scare have gone to in order to try to convince an increasingly reluctant public that, as the Waxman/Markey climate Bill suggests, five-sixths of the US economy should be closed down in the specious name of Saving The Planet.
Let us begin with a temperature graph taken from the 2007 climate assessment report of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The graph falsely purports to show that the warming rate has been inexorably increasing throughout the past 150 years.
If a new ice age comes, we will cope. If it gets warmer, we will cope. Mankind always has. We adapt to our environment. We have lived, thrived, at temperatures both higher and lower than what we have now. The earth, in Roman times, was much warmer than it is now, yet we emerged from an ice age. The planet is dynamic. It has changed ever since it was first formed millions of years ago and will continue to change, without any help or (name removed by moderator)ut from mankind.
It is the proposed ‘solution’ to Global Warming that is leftist by way of the Carbon Tax.
This is merely a way to redistribute the wealth.
Our current PM, dear Julia, despite promising in her election campaign, “NO CARBON TAX”, now wants to introduce it. She just tried to allocate $12M to advertise the carbon tax although they haven’t worked out the details. So, basically, it is $12M of taxpayer’s money going to fund Labor’s propaganda campaign to try to convince us that a carbon tax would be a good thing.
It is not. A carbon tax would be the absolutely worst response. It will have no effect on the greenhouse gas layer because there is no greenhouse gas layer. The only thing it will do is make everything more expensive while channelling our hard-earned money from our pockets into the government’s. We may as well have our pay checks deposited in the National Treasury and have the government dole out what they think we need, while they live like royalty.
On top of all the natural disasters we’ve had lately, all it will do is drive industry to countries with do not have a carbon tax, thereby removing jobs for Australian citizens, and cause all Australians to descend into poverty and dependence on government handouts.
With the cyclones, floods, and now a
mouse plague, our crops have taken a beating. Tomatoes were $16 a kilo ($8.50 a pound or thereabouts) when I went shopping yesterday. There was a young man at the bin, looking wistfully at the tomatoes before deciding that he couldn’t afford them. So much produce is going to waste because we can’t afford to buy it.
Once the carbon tax puts all of this out of the reach of our pocketbooks, the farmers will go bankrupt. Many are up against the wall right now from the disasters. If they leave the land, who will grow our crops?
There is just so much wrong with putting a price on carbon. It is a scam like the Emperor’s New Clothes. They sell it by saying that only the truly wise can accept Global Warming and the benefit of a carbon tax and that those who oppose it are stupid, misguided deniers.
We need the child to stand up and say, “He isn’t wearing any clothes!”
