Zach LarkinsKYOTO IV (cont'd)
It seems David Suzuki and Al Gore are running into some opposition over their view of global warming. The scientists they chose to ignore in their findings on the subject are coming back to haunt them.
Nir Shariv is an astrophysicist and one of Israel's top young scientists. He recently described the logic that led him, and almost everyone else, to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One. Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two. As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three. No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
He no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He is quoted as saying, "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media." in the Post. Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the discovery that there is no concrete evidence, only speculation, that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. This should come as no surprise to anyone. The global warming crowd has never said it had concrete evidence about man-made emissions causing the Earth to overheat. They have always used terms such as ‘almost certainly' to point the finger at mankind for the situation. ‘Almost certainly' is not the same as ‘definitely', yet the followers of Suzuki and Gore wish to interpret it that way. It is nonsense and the nay sayers are finally being heard.
Research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming, is found wanting of anything inspiring confidence. Indeed, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there seems a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. And this flies directly in the face of what Suzuki and Gore want you to believe.
According to the Post article, "Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible ‘other suspects,' he believes that solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming." So much evidence has been amassed, in fact, that it is unlikely that the solar climate link does not exist. The sun's role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate.
Dr. Shariv says, "Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, will not dramatically increase the global temperature. Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." Half a degree Centigrade. And for that we're supposed to get our knickers in a twist? I think our children and grandchildren are quite safe that they won't be left with a burnt out crisp of a planet.
Dr. Shariv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2, instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity. Dr. Shariv believes that CO2 does play a role in climate, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. His conclusion is "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
That's what us nay sayers have been saying for the longest time. And now Suzuki and Gore have to deal with it. It will be interesting to see their arguments against scientific fact vs the PC view.
Nir Shariv is an astrophysicist and one of Israel's top young scientists. He recently described the logic that led him, and almost everyone else, to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One. Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two. As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
He no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He is quoted as saying, "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media." in the Post. Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the discovery that there is no concrete evidence, only speculation, that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. This should come as no surprise to anyone. The global warming crowd has never said it had concrete evidence about man-made emissions causing the Earth to overheat. They have always used terms such as ‘almost certainly' to point the finger at mankind for the situation. ‘Almost certainly' is not the same as ‘definitely', yet the followers of Suzuki and Gore wish to interpret it that way. It is nonsense and the nay sayers are finally being heard.
According to the Post article, "Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible ‘other suspects,' he believes that solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming." So much evidence has been amassed, in fact, that it is unlikely that the solar climate link does not exist. The sun's role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate.
Dr. Shariv says, "Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, will not dramatically increase the global temperature. Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." Half a degree Centigrade. And for that we're supposed to get our knickers in a twist? I think our children and grandchildren are quite safe that they won't be left with a burnt out crisp of a planet.
Dr. Shariv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2, instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity. Dr. Shariv believes that CO2 does play a role in climate, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. His conclusion is "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
That's what us nay sayers have been saying for the longest time. And now Suzuki and Gore have to deal with it. It will be interesting to see their arguments against scientific fact vs the PC view.
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Apart from the argument for which there is some substance, do you think excess CO2 emissions are OK?
It seems we are living in a dirtier and dirtier world and something should be done about that.
katyzzz....good post....The effects? I'm uncertain.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Real Crash
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern