Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, \”There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth\’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.\” Patterson asked the committee, \”On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century\’s modest warming?\”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and \”hundreds of other studies\” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth\’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, \”There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.\”
Something is happening, but it also happened many times before the industrial revolution. Also, as noted in my post (which of course I didn\’t write but copied), there have been times in the past when c02 was much higher yet the climate was much cooler.
This topic is really geting, and bunk is right on. There is no true scietific evidence that the temporary warming periods we\’ve seen these past years is just that! — TEMPORARY WARMING! Weather is, and always seems to have been, cyclical!
Scientists, like mathematicians, can make their \”research\” conclude what they desire! Period. Their primary purpose is not research, but to raise money to fund their \”research\”, where the greatest expense is the reasearcher\’s own salary, then that of his assistants. Certainly, they must be successful in \”proving\” their hypotheses, otherwise, they can\’t raise more money to do more research! An never ending cycle. Ask any researcher where most of their time is spend, and most will answer #1 — raising money, #2, actual research.
Thank you, bunk, for assistint in setting the record straight!
Whether or not the Earth is warming, emmisions from cars and factories are still bad for the environment. Do you disagree? Its also bad for the health of human beings and animals. So therefore, pollution should be cut down whether or not it increases the temperature of the Earth or not. What do you say to that?
[Sorry – The first paragraph of my response I failed to copy into the text box. Here\’s my whole response.]
You are confusing cause and effect, and begging the question. Warming temperature cycles have occurred many times in the past long before there were internal combustion engines, but you perpetuate the myth that engine exhaust and warming are related simply because the two are regularly mentioned together when in fact there is considerable debate among scientists as top whether this is true or not. In fact, climatologists tend to disagree with Al Gore and his disciples.
However, for the sake of argument, I will concede that engine exhaust might be related to the current warming cycle, in that the solution to auto emissions pollution â€â€Ŕ the catalytic converter â€â€Ŕ may be contributing to the problem (assuming that there is a problem) due to the fact that the primary product of catalytic converters is water vapor, which is the number one culprit in the long list of suspected “green house gases.”
In fact, when C02 is in higher concentrations in the environment of plants, the plants grow larger and therefore emit more oxygen, helping to maintain the balance between 02 and C02. Higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere would allow food to be grown in what are currently desert climates. This is not to say that we should be pumping C02 into the air willy nilly, but that the argument that C02 is bad for the environment is dubious.
No one should make a mess that he cannot afford to clean up. Neither should anyone be forced to clean up a mess that he didn’t make. Least of all should anyone be forced to pay to clean up a mess that doesn’t exist.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, \”There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth\’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.\” Patterson asked the committee, \”On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century\’s modest warming?\”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and \”hundreds of other studies\” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth\’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, \”There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.\”
I\’m sure if you looked hard enough, you could find diametrically opposed views of anything to reiterate here. Can\’t deny SOMETHING is happening.
Something is happening, but it also happened many times before the industrial revolution. Also, as noted in my post (which of course I didn\’t write but copied), there have been times in the past when c02 was much higher yet the climate was much cooler.
Maybe it has to do with, og I dunno, the sun?
This topic is really geting, and bunk is right on. There is no true scietific evidence that the temporary warming periods we\’ve seen these past years is just that! — TEMPORARY WARMING! Weather is, and always seems to have been, cyclical!
Scientists, like mathematicians, can make their \”research\” conclude what they desire! Period. Their primary purpose is not research, but to raise money to fund their \”research\”, where the greatest expense is the reasearcher\’s own salary, then that of his assistants. Certainly, they must be successful in \”proving\” their hypotheses, otherwise, they can\’t raise more money to do more research! An never ending cycle. Ask any researcher where most of their time is spend, and most will answer #1 — raising money, #2, actual research.
Thank you, bunk, for assistint in setting the record straight!
Whether or not the Earth is warming, emmisions from cars and factories are still bad for the environment. Do you disagree? Its also bad for the health of human beings and animals. So therefore, pollution should be cut down whether or not it increases the temperature of the Earth or not. What do you say to that?
[Sorry – The first paragraph of my response I failed to copy into the text box. Here\’s my whole response.]
You are confusing cause and effect, and begging the question. Warming temperature cycles have occurred many times in the past long before there were internal combustion engines, but you perpetuate the myth that engine exhaust and warming are related simply because the two are regularly mentioned together when in fact there is considerable debate among scientists as top whether this is true or not. In fact, climatologists tend to disagree with Al Gore and his disciples.
However, for the sake of argument, I will concede that engine exhaust might be related to the current warming cycle, in that the solution to auto emissions pollution â€â€Ŕ the catalytic converter â€â€Ŕ may be contributing to the problem (assuming that there is a problem) due to the fact that the primary product of catalytic converters is water vapor, which is the number one culprit in the long list of suspected “green house gases.”
In fact, when C02 is in higher concentrations in the environment of plants, the plants grow larger and therefore emit more oxygen, helping to maintain the balance between 02 and C02. Higher levels of C02 in the atmosphere would allow food to be grown in what are currently desert climates. This is not to say that we should be pumping C02 into the air willy nilly, but that the argument that C02 is bad for the environment is dubious.
No one should make a mess that he cannot afford to clean up. Neither should anyone be forced to clean up a mess that he didn’t make. Least of all should anyone be forced to pay to clean up a mess that doesn’t exist.