Climategate U-turn

[Guest]

Climategate U-turn scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant warming."

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998.

[Guest]

Interesting and thought provoking article on why the Times decided NOT to cover ClimateGate. Why they are doing a disservice to their readers.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/15/nyt-still-mia-on-climategate-big-boost-for-gop/

[Guest]

Man made global warming is a fraud, a scam that make a lot of people rich. the truth is slowly but surly coming to light.

Follow the money...

[Guest]

Professor Jones admission, that contrary his own reports, these has been no (zero, nada, zip) evidence of global warming since 1995 should have quieted those that state anthropogenic global warming is real. Those who proclaim it to be real and caused by increases in CO2 ignore not only that fact, but the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppm in 1995 to 387 ppm in 2009 – an increase of 7.5% with no increase in temperature.

A reasonable question might be if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases cause global warming, why aren’t we getting warmer? There are many reasons, but the two most important are: (1) There are many, many factors more powerful than greenhouse gases that affect temperature on earth or any other so called anthropogenic forces and, (2) the impact of greenhouse gases on the amount of heat radiated back into space is limited. The impact of CO2 lessens as concentrations increase. An easy analogy to the impact of CO2 is to look at a window facing the sun. You wish to diminish the amount of light and heat coming into the room. To do this, you put a very thin coat of paint on the window. Since it is very thin, light and heat transmission is cut by only 80%. You decide that this not enough, so you put a second thin coat of paint on the window. Light and heat transmission are now reduced by 96%. In other words, the ability of CO2 to affect global temperatures has been exceeded and increased levels of CO2 are not only harmless, but will increase crop yields.

A bonus for all of mankind, except the environmental zealots. I do not advocate continuous spewing contaminates into the atmosphere. Sulfur is a contaminate, CO2 is not. We cannot and should not try to hold sulfur emissions to zero, that again are zealotry. We need common sense – CO2 is not a pollutant, the continuing existence of the delta smelt is not worth the jobs of 50,000 people and the loss of one of the great sources of food in the USA – the San Joaquin valley, we should develop domestic sources of energy; drilling for oil and natural gas, building nuclear power plants, convert existing plants from oil to clean coal, building new clean coal power plants. It’s time for us to let go of oil and become energy independent and far less needy of foreign lending to support us.

[Guest]

Professor Jones admission, that contrary his own reports, these has been no (zero, nada, zip) evidence of global warming since 1995 should have quieted those that state anthropogenic global warming is real. Those who proclaim it to be real and caused by increases in CO2 ignore not only that fact, but the fact that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 360 ppm in 1995 to 387 ppm in 2009 – an increase of 7.5% with no increase in temperature.

A reasonable question might be if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases cause global warming, why aren’t we getting warmer? There are many reasons, but the two most important are: (1) There are many, many factors more powerful than greenhouse gases that affect temperature on earth or any other so called anthropogenic forces and, (2) the impact of greenhouse gases on the amount of heat radiated back into space is limited. The impact of CO2 lessens as concentrations increase. An easy analogy to the impact of CO2 is to look at a window facing the sun. You wish to diminish the amount of light and heat coming into the room. To do this, you put a very thin coat of paint on the window. Since it is very thin, light and heat transmission is cut by only 80%. You decide that this not enough, so you put a second thin coat of paint on the window. Light and heat transmission are now reduced by 96%. In other words, the ability of CO2 to affect global temperatures has been exceeded and increased levels of CO2 are not only harmless, but will increase crop yields.

A bonus for all of mankind, except the environmental zealots. I do not advocate continuous spewing contaminates into the atmosphere. Sulfur is a contaminate, CO2 is not. We cannot and should not try to hold sulfur emissions to zero, that again are zealotry. We need common sense – CO2 is not a pollutant, the continuing existence of the delta smelt is not worth the jobs of 50,000 people and the loss of one of the great sources of food in the USA – the San Joaquin valley, we should develop domestic sources of energy; drilling for oil and natural gas, building nuclear power plants, convert existing plants from oil to clean coal, building new clean coal power plants. It’s time for us to let go of oil and become energy independent and far less needy of foreign lending to support us.

:thumbup: Amen