Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Two More Scientists Say Manmade Global Warming is Hogwash

arroba Email

Global warming debate ‘irrational’: scientists

Stephanie Stein / Standard-Freeholder
Local News – Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00

The current debate about global warming is “completely irrational,” and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.

Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.

Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that “changes in the brightness of the sun” are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the “Little Ice Age” in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.

“I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” said Patterson. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”

Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.

Billions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.

“The only constant about climate is change,” said Patterson.

Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.

“All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa,” said Patterson. “We’re into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I’m worried we’re going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution.”

Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project – an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change – supported Patterson’s findings.

Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.

“The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe,” said Harris.

“They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they’ve been saying it for 20 years, and it’s ridiculous,” he said. “The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged.

“Go after something real and tangible like air pollution.”

After hearing a second scientist say climate change is part of a natural cycle, Elaine Kennedy – a local environmental activist – is interested in investigating the issue further.

She looks forward to examining scientific reports that will be published in a couple of months by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The problem may not be climate change, but the problem is still pollution,” said Kennedy.

She’s not alone in her assertion global warming is a pollution problem.

David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There’s a human element, as well as natural cycles.

Difficult to convince

“I’m a man that’s difficult to convince,” he said. “What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past.”

People who are contradicting the global warming reality, Phillip thinks, have their own motives for doing so.

“These skeptics are keeping the debate alive (for their own interests). They try to confuse people into inaction,” said Phillips.

Phillips believes global warming is solvable.

“We solved the ozone and acid rain problem. With effort, and a new way of doing things we could solve this one too,” said Phillips.

[...] Two More Scientists Say Manmade Global Warming is HogwashDaveScotGlobal warming debate ‘irrational’: scientists Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00 [...] 03.29 CO2 is good for you? « Ramblings right or wrong: INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Presumably hot off the press By David Archibald, May, 2007 "There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial. Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation. Our generation has bathed in the warm glow of a benign, giving Sun, but the next will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful." http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf idnet.com.au
Joseph... Stephen Hawking mentioned it. The Guardian reported that many leading scientists warned about it. And that was just on the first page of a Google search! I imagine there will be many more similar, silly alarmist comments coming as the global temperature increases for about the jillionth Summer in a row -- or 6666th, if you're a YEC? eebrom
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Not even the alarmists say that. All they say it that the change will be for the worse in that all coastal communities will be flooded and those who depend on melting glaciers will not have any. Joseph
Where is the reference that strongly correlates global warming with solar output or flare activity past 1998? The Global Warming Swindle seemed to stop the graphs about then. idnet.com.au
I would have to agree here. While I'm all for cleaning up the environment people shouldn't be lied to and guilted into doing so. Also when millions of children die every year from diseases I don't have to deal with you really have to get your priorities straight. Lofty goals like altering hugly complicated climatic systems aside there are goals that can be solved here and now with a little compassion and a lot of diverting funding from joke global warming programs to helpind developing countries feed and vaccinate their people. Just maybe if we give them some money they won't have to clear-cut whole forests to plant one season's worth of crop or use their only water source as a sewer. UrbanMysticDee

Leave a Reply