A number of sources are reporting the human induced global warming argument is false. Even the British media (not Aunty BBC, though) are begrudgingly reporting it. The Daily Mail reports:
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20MBvMkwI
Anyone remotely interested in the so-called Global Warming crisis knows who Dr James Hansen is. He is the wizz bang kid who tried to convince us since the 1970s that global temperatures are a thing to be worried about. He has had three goes at trying to push his ideas as being credible. He even convinced failed US Presidential candidate Al Gore that his data was factual to which Al responded with the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which has been force-fed to gullible little school children ever since. Problem is each time Hansen produced his evidence someone of high acclaim has produced the counter evidence to repudiate it.
The following link is to the chart that shows right up to May 2012 what the temperatures are really doing. NB: be careful to notice the curved median line running through the middle, for while it may be true to have the occasion where one or two years are higher it is also noteworthy to see the years when it is cooler. Also note how events such as Mt Pinatubo and El Nino have a dramatic effect on temperatures which such temperatures are effected not by man’s puny input but natural events.
The trend is obvious to the truth seeker but of course the Hansen slanted eye will never believe it even if an ice age were to suddenly form.
We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so. But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.
Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [ Link to article]
Roger Aronoff writes for Accuracy in Media and has posted an article regarding the hoax that is perpetuated by the global warming alarmist fanatics. Below is an extract and this link Global Warming is a hoax takes you to that article in full.
In a recent article in American Thinker by Randall Hoven, a retired Boeing Technical Fellow who, following a three-year stint in the U.S. Navy, worked at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory from 1979 to 1982, has laid out the most recent scientific findings on global warming. He uses data from NASA/GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) data going back to 1880, and the Hadley Center from Great Britain which goes back with the data to 1875.
In short, both temperature data sets (NASA and Hadley Center) show:
1. Minimal global warming over the last 130 to 160 years: about half a degree Celsius per century.
2. No statistically significant global warming in the last 14 to 17 years.
3. Global cooling in the last 9 to 13 years.
As you may well be aware from reading my comments in certain posts, I am a man-made global warming (AGW) skeptic and I am passionate about it. I cannot stand the lies and hypocricy that emanate from those that propose such idiotic lunacy.
Well, it appears from the midst of the IPCC fanatics there is a German scientist who has finally come to the same conclusion. He writes:
“I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”
Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
Read Anthony Watts blog Watts Up With That? and find out just why this man has come to his senses.
In Time magazine (18th December 2011) Belinda Luscombe asks the naturalist filmmaker Sir David Attenborough a series of 10 questions relating to the future of television and his pessimism regarding the future of the natural world. The question and the resultant answer that piqued my interest was “Why are you campaigning against creationism being taught in British schools?” His reply is typical from a man who is happily deluded into believing that evolution is the answer to the origins of life. He said, “I feel that children should be taught science and science doesn’t accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, as far as Genesis is concerned. If you wish to teach that as part of a religious story, that’s fine but don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”
Fascinating that a man with such a wonderful grasp of the English language and a fine inquiring mind that seeks out through television documentaries and books the intricacies of nature right down to the most intimate detail would by implication attribute life as having originating from dead matter, for evolution has no ultimate genesis but to go back to, at the very least, matter that contains no life.
This man with such a powerful influencing machine at his disposal i.e. world-wide television and publishing houses choses to believe what was supposedly scientifically accurate, until the 19th century Pasteur discredited it, that life arose from “spontaneous generation”. I would say to Mr Attenborough, that this belief is not science and in your heart you downright know it. On the other hand, the book of the Bible you chose to discredit follows the laws of science such as the Law of Bio-genesis i.e. life begets life, just as Pasteur unequivocally proved. Genesis 1:11, 24 the “fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind…the living creature according to its kind…creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind.” Now that is true science, Mr Attenborough; not the ideology you adhere to that ultimately preaches that life, somehow, arises from dead matter. To quote you (as if you would even dare have the gumption or temerity to come in contact with these thoughts of mine) “don’t teach it as though it’s science, because it’s not.”
I believe Sir David Attenborough like many other people who cling to evolution as being the key to life fit the description that Peter Hitchens gives: “[Darwinism] is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival—that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”
The apostle Paul said to make sure that one “Prove all things” (I Thessalonians 5:21). Just because something is widely accepted as being true and is therefore the supposed starting point i.e., an axiom, doesn’t prove anything. If it is true then you are under obligation to “prove” it.
The apostle Peter told the 1st Century church to do as much regarding their faith. He said they were obligated to give a “reason” for their “hope” (I Peter 3:15). For instance the axiom “God is love” needs to be proven with valid reasoning if it is to be convincing. After all faith in such, according to Paul, can only come about by hearing God’s word (Romans 1:17; 10:17) which implies a reasoning mind.
The axiom that is widely accepted as being true is that of organic evolution. That is life somehow started from a single cell and grew to the complexity of life we see before us today. If that be true then the adherent must prove it to be so.
Here is an excellent article that might help to explain why I say such and help you as well (that is, of course, if you have the willingness of mind to indulge:)