1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CLIMATE CHANGE: It's official: the world is cooling, not warming

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Guest, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    by Peter Westmore - 30 Aug 2008

    To cut CO2 emissions to combat a non-existent threat will end up hurting the world's poor, writes Peter Westmore.

    Recent scientific evidence shows that the world's climate is cooling, not warming, as a result of reduced radiation from the sun, the engine which drives the earth's climate.

    The slight warming of the earth's atmosphere from about 1970 to 2000 came at a time of increased solar radiation and higher levels of sunspot activity.

    As solar observatories have been collecting sunspot data for several centuries, a correlation has been observed between sunspot activity and the temperature of the earth's surface.

    Solar activity very closely matches not only recent global temperature changes but also historical changes for the past 1100 years. For instance, the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) was an extremely cold period in which there was very little sunspot activity.

    Earlier, the Medieval Warm Period (950-1300) was a time when the Vikings colonised Greenland, now much of it covered in a thick ice-sheet.

    The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) recently said, "There are historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet."

    Influence of the sun

    In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Centre, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen wrote, "The sun... appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.... Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 per cent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change."

    While sunspot activity between 1970 and 2000 was higher than in earlier decades of the 20th century, there are signs that it is now in decline.

    Scientists have also found an inverse correlation between the length of solar cycles, which average about 11 years, and sunspot activity and solar radiation.

    Solar cycles can last between about 7 years and 14 years. Short cycles are usually characterised by intense sunspot activity and higher solar radiation, while long cycles have far less sunspot activity.

    Solar cycles also come in groups. A further correlation has been observed between the length of a solar cycle and the average temperature over the following solar cycle.

    The current sunspot cycle, Cycle 23, is already longer than average, having commenced in May 1996. It also had considerably fewer sunspots than previous cycles.

    Currently, there is little sunspot activity, and some observers consider the current solar cycle could continue for another year, a very long solar cycle.

    Not surprisingly, average global surface temperatures remained approximately constant from 1999 to 2006, but have fallen significantly over the past 18 months.

    Even land-based monitoring centres, such as the UK Met Office whose reports have been used extensively by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern Report, admit that this is so.

    However, people such as Al Gore (the ex-politician turned climate-change campaigner), Ross Garnaut (the Federal Government's climate change adviser), Climate Minister Penny Wong and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd do not seem to have caught up with these developments.

    They are still on the "global warming" bandwagon, insisting that the science is settled, and there is to be no more debate on the issue.

    Unfortunately for them, 31,000 American scientists have signed an internet petition rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and the theory of human-induced global warming (www.petitionproject.org). The scientists, of whom over 9,000 have PhDs, state:

    "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

    The signatories include over 2,600 who are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists.

    In light of the urgent need to improve the standard of living of the poor, through provision of inexpensive fuel and power to millions of low-income families throughout the world, the current emphasis on cutting CO2 production will have the effect of keeping many of the world's poor in continuing poverty.

    Is this really the world we want to create?

    - Peter Westmore
  2. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    Did John Howard write this?
  3. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
    I have to respect that so many individuals have signed this. The research information, despite every attempt to make out that all is well, consistently shows worrying rises in temperature, CO2 levels, hurricane numbers, sea level increases and glacier shortening. The claim of this group is that this is unrelated to the increased use of fossil fuels.

    I had to laugh as the last paragraph summary of the research information:
    Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and nat ural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

    Thank goodness for that! I can see an agenda, but I guess it is a long way from being settled.
  4. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    +37 /0
    There is research to show that trees will grow faster with increased CO2 levels, but it is of little more than academic interest at this point. 

    I reckon a lot of the reasons behind climate change skeptics is that it was an issue initially taken up by the political left, so those on the right kind of automatically oppose it.  A lot of them seem to automatically assume they know more about it than those who have spent years studying in order to understand the scientific principles at play - an indication of an emotional response. 
  5. Narcissus

    Narcissus Member

    +0 /0
    Oh dear God. This whole "it's the sun!" theory was presented in the UK in a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", or something similar.

    Do yourself a favour and watch the reply to this documentary at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=&hl=en . The sound is terrible, but it's worth it.

    If you don't have the 45 minutes to watch it, at least jump to 33 minutes and watch it through to 38 minutes. It should give you an idea about the data used for this theory.
  6. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +516 /14
    How many of these scientists receive their grant funding directly, or indirectly, from the Buish regime? 
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    One thing is for certain is that it wasn't written by the Federal Minister for the environment as he is regarded by his party as being stupid and is not to allowed speak or write anytyhing in the press.
  8. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    I did not know that Penny Wong was a male or that she was stupid???
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    +0 /0
    You have her role mixed up. 

    Penny Wong is minister for climate change and water.  Peter Garrett is the minister for the environment.  Wong answers any questions about the environment as well because they don't trust garrett to answer anything in public.

    Senator the Hon Penny Wong
    Minister for Climate Change and Water
    Senator for South Australia

    About Peter Peter Garrett, AM, MP
    Labor Member for Kingsford Smith
    Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts

    Garrett was offered the role as head of the Greens before he joined the labor party as Bob brown is desperate to retire.  He knocked it back preferring to join the labor party.

    If Garrett wants to salvage any credability for himself he should resign from the labor party now telling everyone that they don't care about the environment and go and head up the greens where he can say what he wants and become a real force in polictics.

    From what i have heard I think that Penny Wong would like to be a man.
  10. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member

    +215 /5
    I did know all that but was simply winding you up, hoping for an even more long-winded response. Garrett is evvironment but does not have the gig for climate change. I have actually heard very little from Garrett since his 'we will change it all when we get in remark' and much more from Wong.

    You are right in what you have heard about Penny!!!

Share This Page