Just for the newbies to this "Climate Change Alarmism" here is the main groups argument on said topic. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm merely relaying the info here. And, notice the date on the topic of the article.
February 27, 2012 at 10:32am
In their recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” a group of sixteen world-renowned scientists decry the unscientific alarmism over “global warming,” citing numerous inconvenient facts that dispute global warming claims. Here is a video interview with signatory William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:
https://youtu.be/2cR3KjXRlKk
Their message to policymakers?
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:
I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
The group of scientists note the following facts that refute climate alarmist claims:
1. The lack of global warming for well over 10 years now: (again, the article was written in 2012)
This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections–suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
2. CO2 is not a pollutant: (read that again newbies, CO2 is NOT a POLLUTANT)
CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The smear campaigns by the warming establishment are outrageous:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the Journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
4. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before–for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
The scientists then address the key issue of why there is so much intolerance and corruption among global-warming proponents, and the answer they give is sadly, “Follow the money.” (once again here newbies, the same old answer, follow the money....t....)
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Link here to full article: http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-leading-scientists-debunk-climate-alarmism
My add on...t... And all the while that the climate change alarmists bang their drums about some unknown and unexplained worldwide threat they feel compelled to address, they totally ignore that there are three separate components here that their small minds can't quite grasp.
1) - Humans emit CO2 - that's Carbon Dioxide, or the fizz in your soda pop, a lot of fire extinguishers have it, trees and plants breath it, we emit it. So, humans and plant life are inextricably linked and can't do without each others emissions. This climate change argument is like saying that if we stop ALL trees from breathing and emitting oxygen and nitrogen, the human race will be able to breathe easier. See how your argument is approaching the absurd now newbies..??
2) - The internal combustion engine, gas, diesel or natural gas - all emit CO1, or carbon MONoxide. They DO NOT emit Carbon Dioxide in any way shape or form. And what is carbon MONoxide..?? Another form of carbon emission THAT BREAKS DOWN OVER TIME. When the carbon MONoxide from vehicle emissions hits the dirt or sand on the side of the road it breaks down into - guess here -..... carbon and oxide. This is the reason there is a grey powder on the side of the road along the barditches in bigger cities. Its CARBON and OXIDE showing up in its natural form. And what are humans..?? We are carbon based creatures. It is not harmful to us in the least. Sure, if you breath carbon MONoxide in large enough quantities over a short period of time it will KILL YOU..!! This is how some people commit suicide. Duct tape a garden hose to the exhaust of their car, put the end in the cabin and start the car and set inside. Presto, quick death.
3) - None of the climate change alarmists realize that coal fired power plants emit - Carbon MONoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, and..... carbon dust. They do NOT and WILL NOT EVER emit Carbon Dioxide. So, please newbies, can the squawk about all this CO2... Without it trees and plant life CANNOT exist, which in turn would GUARANTEE the human race COULD NOT exist...
Get it right for once..
Just for the newbies to this "Climate Change ... (
show quote)