Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
_____________________________________________________
The U.S. built a multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada but Harry Reid, bowing to the eco-nuts prevented it from being used.
You have jumped from Chernobyl to Fufushima trying to make some point.
The U.S. eco-nuts said decades ago the we (the Americans) were all going to die from Nuclear radiation and no one since has died.
Didn't happen much as all the other claims made.
We have a nuclear power plant right here in Maryland. Works just fine and no three eyed fish in the bay.
Got a credible argument? I have not heard one yet from you.
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
_____________________________________________________
The U.S. built a multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada but Harry Reid, bowing to the eco-nuts prevented it from being used.
You have jumped from Chernobyl to Fufushima trying to make some point.
The U.S. eco-nuts said decades ago the we (the Americans) were all going to die from Nuclear radiation and no one since has died.
Didn't happen much as all the other claims made.We have a nuclear power plant right here in Maryland. Works just fine and no three eyed fish in the bay.
Got a credible argument? I have not heard one yet from you.
Fukushima is a legitimate argument. Are you aware of how many nuclear power plants are located near fault lines?
The people of Nevada never wanted that nuclear storage site. George Bush promised to kill it and then reneged on it. How will the waste be delivered? It will be delivered on trucks and on railways. The railroads in this country are not in good shape. Do you have a railroad in your town? How about an interstate highway? (That would be the road near you that has this sign
Of course, trucks and trains never have accidents.
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
_____________________________________________________
The U.S. built a multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada but Harry Reid, bowing to the eco-nuts prevented it from being used.
You have jumped from Chernobyl to Fufushima trying to make some point.
The U.S. eco-nuts said decades ago the we (the Americans) were all going to die from Nuclear radiation and no one since has died.
Didn't happen much as all the other claims made.We have a nuclear power plant right here in Maryland. Works just fine and no three eyed fish in the bay.
Got a credible argument? I have not heard one yet from you.
Fukushima is a legitimate argument. Are you aware of how many nuclear power plants are located near fault lines?
The people of Nevada never wanted that nuclear storage site. George Bush promised to kill it and then reneged on it. How will the waste be delivered? It will be delivered on trucks and on railways. The railroads in this country are not in good shape. Do you have a railroad in your town? How about an interstate highway? (That would be the road near you that has this sign
Of course, trucks and trains never have accidents.
________________________________
You eco-nut-jobs said that we were all going to die from nuclear radiation over 40 years ago.
Didn't happen.
Sources are easily found but do you believe them when what they say doesn’t fit your agenda?
From a world recognized climatologist:
Global Warming is not due to human CO2
Posted on December 9, 2013 Written by Dr. Ed Leave a Comment
by Dr. Tim Ball, CanadianFreePress, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhD’s in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England, and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.
Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. (3702)
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
_____________________________________________________
The U.S. built a multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada but Harry Reid, bowing to the eco-nuts prevented it from being used.
You have jumped from Chernobyl to Fufushima trying to make some point.
The U.S. eco-nuts said decades ago the we (the Americans) were all going to die from Nuclear radiation and no one since has died.
Didn't happen much as all the other claims made.We have a nuclear power plant right here in Maryland. Works just fine and no three eyed fish in the bay.
Got a credible argument? I have not heard one yet from you.
Fukushima is a legitimate argument. Are you aware of how many nuclear power plants are located near fault lines?
The people of Nevada never wanted that nuclear storage site. George Bush promised to kill it and then reneged on it. How will the waste be delivered? It will be delivered on trucks and on railways. The railroads in this country are not in good shape. Do you have a railroad in your town? How about an interstate highway? (That would be the road near you that has this sign
Of course, trucks and trains never have accidents.
________________________________
You eco-nut-jobs said that we were all going to die from nuclear radiation over 40 years ago.
Didn't happen.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make you right.
Next!
Sources are easily found but do you believe them when what they say doesn’t fit your agenda?
From a world recognized climatologist:
Global Warming is not due to human CO2
Posted on December 9, 2013 Written by Dr. Ed Leave a Comment
by Dr. Tim Ball, CanadianFreePress, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhD’s in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England, and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.
Here is why.What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. (3702)
One man who is in the minority. The vast majority of climatoligists disagree with him. Besides, most climatologists agree that climate change does occur in cycles but that high levels of CO2 [that's carbon dioxide to you low info types] are accelerating the change and will make it wose than a natural change.
Next!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
Beginning of climate-change-related activism (1990s-2011)[edit]
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank, states that Ball has disputed anthropogenic global warming since the mid 1990s, instead asserting that global warming is due to natural variations.[22] He has spoken twice at The Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.[23][24][25] However, critics have observed that, in fact, Ball was a professor of geography there, has been retired since 1996, and that, in fact, the University of Winnipeg does not have, nor has it ever had, a climatology department.[26][6]
Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[27] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[28] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[29] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[30]
In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[31] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[28] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[30] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[32][28]
Views on climate change[edit]
See also: climate change denialism
Ball has said he opposes the consensus scientific opinion on climate change and has stated that he believes global warming is occurring but he believes that human production of carbon dioxide is not the cause.[43][44][45]
He claimed to National Geographic that carbon dioxide causing warming was just a hypothesis, but had been treated as fact "because it fit a political agenda and the views of the environmentalists."[46] He reiterated the view that man-made global warming was fabricated by the environmental movement, particularly Environment Canada, in a presentation he gave in June 2006 to the Comox Valley Probus Club.[47]
He has also been a frequent guest on conspiracy-theorist radio show Coast to Coast AM. When he appeared on one show on July 21, 2011, he said that "To suggest that CO2's a pollutant when it's an extremely important gas in the atmosphere for all plant life and therefore for the oxygen that's produced, is just nonsense."[48] He is also one of the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.[49] Ball has also, along with Tom Harris, argued that the National Climatic Data Center misleads the public by announcing premature results from their temperature datasets based on incomplete data, and then quietly updating the data when they gain access to all of it, usually diminishing the warming trend in doing so.[50] He has also written about ocean acidification from a similarly skeptical point of view, arguing that "Even if CO2 increases to 560 ppm by 2050, as the IPCC predict, this would only result in a 0.2 unit reduction of pH. This is still within the error of the estimate of global average [which is 0.3 units]."[51] Ball has also said that since he became a vocal opponent of the consensus position on global warming, he has received five death threats.[52][53]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
Credential fudging and climate denial
Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist (Canada's first, don'tcha know?) who has held a professorship for upward of twenty-eight years. However, he carefully omits this in his curriculum vitae.[2] In fact, he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996. When the Calgary Herald published a letter[3] that questioned the credentials listed for Ball (in an article in which Ball attacked Tim Flannery[4]) Ball sued for libel, while admitting that he had not been a professor for twenty-eight years.[5] (Don't think too hard about that or it might make your head hurt.) Before the suit was dropped (against 3 defendants), Tim Lambert of Deltoid dared Ball to sue him, too.[6] Lambert also expressed doubt over the relevance of Ball's research:
“”However, hardly any of those 51 publications are in scientific journals but include things like gardening magazines. I looked in Web of Science and could only find four papers by Ball, all on historical climatology, none on climate and atmosphere. I don't see how Ball can possibly win his case, but I guess that's not the point.[7]
Eli Rabett has created the "Tim Ball Award for Resume Stretching" in his honor.[8]
Even within the deniosphere, Ball hasn't come up with anything new or impressive. All he does is constantly repeat points refuted a thousand times about solar cycles and how carbon dioxide is plant food. For example, take a look at his ingenious "refutation" of rising sea levels where he just puts some ice cubes in a glass and lets them melt.
[edit]Creationism
Ball also seems to be a creationist of some sort. In an op-ed in Canada Free Press, he wrote:
“”Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.[9]
On his website, he attacks Richard Dawkins and claims science, evolution, and environmentalism are religions. He also believes that the Bible's predictions have been just as verified as those made by science:
“”Perhaps the ultimate irony[10] is that the biblical views on nature, human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including modern environmentalism.[11]
When you take his global warming denialism together with creationism and his admiration for Immanuel Velikovsky,[12] there's clear evidence for crank magnetism.
[edit]Tim Ball's reading list
Ball recommends some great reading for all the warmists:
“”There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That’s called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that’s run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.[13]
[edit]More lawsuits
In 2011, Ball found himself at the receiving end of a couple of libel suits. In February, University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver filed a lawsuit against Ball for his op-eds that accused Weaver of incompetence and corruption. In March, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Ball and his think tank for publishing statements on their websites that claimed Mann was complicit in a "cover-up" of Climategate and that he had committed scientific fraud.[14]
Since the suits were launched Canada Free Press has retracted one of the interviews with Ball on the website.[15] Furthermore, they seem to have scrubbed a good deal of Ball's articles and Ball-related material.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Climate sensitivity[edit]
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[8] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO
2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.[45][46] Lindzen disputed this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[47]
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming.[3] This claim has been sharply criticised.[48]
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[49] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[50] These estimates were criticized by other researchers,[51] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[52] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[53] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a relatively unknown Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[52][54] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[55]
Views on climate change[edit]
He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.[64] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[65]
We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.
In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were[66]
Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]
Third-party characterizations of Lindzen[edit]
The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science. I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem.’ It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization."[67]
A 1996 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is."[3]
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[68]
Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[69][70][71] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[72]
Be it the nuclear energy hype, the “new ice age”, global warming (re-named climate change) or any of the other rants the eco-extremists put on the end result of the demands, demonstrations and screaming is nothing.
But do keep it up, it is fun to watch the freak show.
so you don't think twice before ordering seafood ? Be honest . me, out here on the Best Coast, I've sworn off the stuff.
As far as climate change goes, it makes no difference what you think, China and India and the rest of the developing world still have to go through their massive fossil fuel consumption and CO2 phase. So if it is human-caused, there will be plenty more human cause coming up, way more than the West pumped out over the 20th century. If it isn't human caused, not a damn thing we can do. So, either way, if the thunder don't getcha then the lightning will...
Personally, if I lived in the coastal lowlands, I would be building my shanty on pontoons, anchored to concrete with 100 foot of half inch chain. Whatever anyone thinks, probably a good time these days to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Good luck getting China to stop burning coal ton after ton. Ain't gonna happen.
Meanwhile, a clown we won't name thinks shutting down our own domestic coal
industry will save the planet.
Tell me another one.
[Edited on 10/23/2014 by alloak41]
Chernobyl is in Russian who do not use the same standards as the U.S.
How many Americans have been killed by the nuclear power plant?
None.I don't know about the design of Chernobyl but Fukushima was designed by GE and is the same design as many of the nuclear power plants in the US.
What happens to the waste from nuclear power plants Muleman? Do you want a nuclear power plant in your town? Your backyard?
_____________________________________________________
The U.S. built a multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada but Harry Reid, bowing to the eco-nuts prevented it from being used.
You have jumped from Chernobyl to Fufushima trying to make some point.
The U.S. eco-nuts said decades ago the we (the Americans) were all going to die from Nuclear radiation and no one since has died.
Didn't happen much as all the other claims made.We have a nuclear power plant right here in Maryland. Works just fine and no three eyed fish in the bay.
Got a credible argument? I have not heard one yet from you.
Fukushima is a legitimate argument. Are you aware of how many nuclear power plants are located near fault lines?
The people of Nevada never wanted that nuclear storage site. George Bush promised to kill it and then reneged on it. How will the waste be delivered? It will be delivered on trucks and on railways. The railroads in this country are not in good shape. Do you have a railroad in your town? How about an interstate highway? (That would be the road near you that has this sign
Of course, trucks and trains never have accidents.
If that new Madrid Fault line experiences a big earthquake, 15 million people will die in 1 day, and many more will be contaminated with radiation.
Also if more than 1 vent goes off in the Caldera in Yellowstone, we here in NY have 3 days to get the hell out of this country or we are done for. In 2 days the lava ash will reach Chicago, day 3 it hits NYC. That's not a whole lotta time to move your whole life, but that is the reality of it.
Sources are easily found but do you believe them when what they say doesn’t fit your agenda?
From a world recognized climatologist:
Global Warming is not due to human CO2
Posted on December 9, 2013 Written by Dr. Ed Leave a Comment
by Dr. Tim Ball, CanadianFreePress, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian PhD’s in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a PhD, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England, and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening.
Here is why.What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.
We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. (3702)
One man who is in the minority. The vast majority of climatoligists disagree with him. Besides, most climatologists agree that climate change does occur in cycles but that high levels of CO2 [that's carbon dioxide to you low info types] are accelerating the change and will make it wose than a natural change.
Next!
I think this John Oliver show clip sums up the percentage of Scientists who support Climate change versus those who deny it.
I think this John Oliver show clip sums up the percentage of Scientists who support Climate change versus those who deny it.
Bravo
Climate Change is Not Our Fault, So Let’s Just Deal With It, says California Professor
by Donna Rachel Edmunds 29 Oct 2014, 10:04 AM PDT
Climate change is happening – but not because of human activity, Daniel Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California Santa Barbara has said. Moreover, the focus on man-made global warming is detracting attention from real environmental disasters to nature’s detriment, he has argued.
Writing on the National Parks Traveler, a website dedicated to America’s national parks, Botkin challenges the conclusions reached by the Union of Concerned Scientists in their paper National Landmarks at Risk, How Rising Seas, Floods, and Wildfires Are Threatening the United States’ Most Cherished Historic Sites, not least because they’ve taken the standard reports from the IPCC and others, “treating them as accurate and true,” and then used those results to look at the possible outcome for various national parks.
“The point of the report, its opening theme and its major conclusion, is that these historic places are in trouble and it’s our fault, we have been the bad guys interfering with nature and therefore damaging places we value,” Botkin says, before methodically knocking down each assertion as demonstrably false.
Climate models linking human CO2 output to rising temperatures are unreliable, he writes. “Conclusion: our addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not appear to be increasing Earth’s temperature. Whatever is happening to Earth’s climate does not seem to be our fault.”
However, he does acknowledge that climate change is happening. Taking sea level as an example, he says: “the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age, starting about 14,000 years ago as the continental and mountain glaciers have melted and sea water has expanded with the overall warming. The average rate has been about a foot or two a century”.
The question he poses is: what to do about it? Rather than spending time arguing over the causes of climate change, Botkin advocates simply rolling up our sleeves and dealing with the outcome, harking back to Frederick Law Olmstead, who in the mid 1800s, created the Back Bay Fens on Boston’s shoreline as a way to manage both ocean floods, deal with waste water for the city, and create a recreational area for city dwellers.
“Confronted with the combined problems of ocean surges and flooding from river runoff inland, Olmsted did not waste his time complaining about whether or not people have caused the problem. He just set out and solved it.”
However, he saves his most damning criticism for the UCS’s treatment of wildfire frequency. The report claims two national park sites are at particular risk of damage from increasingly frequent wildfires, despite the fact that the evidence shows no increase.
“Furthermore”, he writes, “it is well-established that most major wildfires that occur these days are from the failure to allow much more frequent, and therefore light fires, to burn. The 20th century policy dominated by Smokey Bear — “only you can prevent forest fires” — and the belief, ill-founded, that all forest and grassland fires are bad and must be prevented — have had a damaging effect.”
‘Damaging’ is an understatement – in fact, the policy caused the extinction of Kirtland’s warbler, a bird which nests in young jack pines, which only regenerate after a fire.
The conclusion that Botkin reaches is that, ultimately, “global warming has become the sole focus of so much environmental discussion that it risks eclipsing much more pressing and demonstrable environmental problems. The major damage that we as a species are doing here and now to the environment is not getting the attention it deserves.”
Last night's concert didn't help the situation; that's for sure.
