It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming


www.telegraph. co.uk

Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other "extra terrestrial" forces.

He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting.

We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes," he said. "It is a normal element cycled around in the earth and my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk[ /url]

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286797/pg1]Is there Proof that Man iS causing "Global Warming"?




[edit on 12/11/09 by plumranch]




posted on Nov, 12 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The main thing he is saying is that there is a disconnect between CO2 and GW:

However Prof Plimer said the world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and furthermore carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods.

"If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added.

The "Earth is still absorbing CO2" article is also good.

I found the comments after the articles very informative and entertaining!


www.telegraph. co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Don't tell everyone or the PTB and the world government in current form will not be able to sell carbon credits... Cap and trade.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by staple
 





Don't tell everyone or the PTB and the world government in current form will not be able to sell carbon credits... Cap and trade.


THAT my friend is what the argument about CO2 and GW is all about! There is so much fear instilled in the populace about what might happen! Sea level rise, species die off, extreme weather like hurricanes and tropical storms, arctic melt off, you name it, fear, fear, on and on! There is no possible way that all that could happen but the government controlled media is saying it constantly as if it is generally accepted fact which isn't.

Government LOVES global warming because it gives them a possible source of endless taxes! What more could they want! Full employment, retirement, etc. Government is constantly looking for ways to fund their excesses. They believe in their cause 100%, they just need the revenue.

There is no one out there to give the other side of the scientific evidence but ourselves!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
Government LOVES global warming because it gives them a possible source of endless taxes!


You should have reminded the Bush government of that. They might have decided not to bother gagging climate scientists and manipulating their official reports.

As for the rest, can't be bothered. Pilmer is a joke. Even the morons behind the 'swindle' documentary corrected the volcano BS.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming


[edit on 12/11/09 by plumranch]


Ahh yes, loud, obnoxious and shunted from one university to another in the hope he will get the hint and retire.


Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic and businessman. He is a critic of creationism and of the scientific consensus that global warming is driven by anthropogenic CO2 . He has published approximately 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science. He is a director of three mining companies.

Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free market think tank. In 2007, Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group. He is also a member of the Australian Skeptics.

In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book in which he claims that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, rather than factoring other issues such as solar variation.[11] This is disputed by scientists involved in climate change research.[12][13]

Before writing the book, Plimer stated that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges and that the melting of polar ice has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide.[14] Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in relative sea level not because of global warming but quite commonly due to other factors, such as "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip making.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I would take whatever he says and believe the exact opposite.


So when the Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer challenged me to a face-to-face debate in July, I didn't exactly leap at the chance. His book Heaven and Earth, which purports to destroy the science of climate change, contains page after page of schoolboy errors and pseudoscientific gobble-degook. As the professor of astrophysics Michael Ashley wrote: "It is not 'merely' atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics." But never, as far as I can determine, has Plimer responded to the devastating points made by his critics. He just keeps shifting his ground.


www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 

A couple of the comments:


"The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up..." Correct but not when the carbon dioxide rises from 0.02% to only 0.04% of the atmosphere as it has on Earth over the last couple hundred years. And this level is still only 1/3 what it has reached in the pre-human past.


And:


I'm a scientist, but not a specialist in climate. What I can never get answered is this: In my field we produce hypotheses all the time. For every hypothesis we must devise an experiment to 'prove' it. For climate scientists the hypothesis would be "I think the plant's temperature is correlated with CO2 concentration". Problem is, this hypothesis can't be tested directly because you can't do controlled experiments on a global scale. So they do small scale lab experiments and extrapolate that to global scale (and create global climate models etc). In my scientific mind this is simply a stretch too far. I don't classify myself as a believer or sceptic, just a frustrated scientist who wishes the limitations of our knowledge and experimental technique in this subject were better explained to the public.


Or:

It's great to see so many people know "climate change" is a scam. However, the problem is that intelligent, informed people are a minority and politicians know it. Politicians get away with so many ridiculous things because the majority of people are idiots and/or ignoramuses. They count on uncontrolled democracy where anyone can vote to get elected. If we had vested, intelligent democracies where the only people who can vote are taxpayers who fund government and who passed periodic intelligence and knowledge exams then politicians would behave much more honestly and rationally.


But, like they say, being stupid isn't illegal!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Looks more like he needs new glasses.




posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Many scientists have been saying for years that CO2 lags behind temperature. Now they are finding that they were wrong about the interaction between solar winds/radiation and the atmosphere, and solar radiation levels are at an all time high.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
..and solar radiation levels are at an all time high.


LOL, I almost spit coffee on that one. We currently in one of the longest solar minimums in recorded history. Better hope it stays that way too.

ATS- Severe Geomagnetic Storm Research Project


What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? RealClimate

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.



[edit on 13-11-2009 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
CO2 is a factor in global warming, however, there are other factors which contribute to climate change. Yes, there are natural sources of CO2 but that does not mean that they are good for the plant. Nature does not have humanities best interest in mind when spewing CO2 into the air. The natural CO2 plus our extra CO2 is not a good combination for the atmosphere.

It's not all about fear. I live in the middle of the US and I could care less about what happens to the houses on the coast (I'm not that apathetic, but that's besides the point). Plus the government is not trying to scare us because the average citizen is not smart enough to take care of a problem before it actually arises.

It's well known that there are many other factors involved with climate change. Knowing how CO2 affects the atmosphere can only benefit us as that is a chemical that we have some amount of control over.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenmacher
 


And yet an article from spacedaily.com talks about how radiation levels are higher than ever. We may be in a solar minimum, but I`ll take the word of an expert thanks.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
It's funny since ``all that ice melting`` in Antarctica is SLOWING global warming, not accelerating it as the scientists said it would...

Why? Because the ice melts into water, and water absorbs CO2.

So if the scientists are THAT WRONG on this main part of their theory... then why would we believe their other data which is only an extrapolation of their flawed basics?

Also...

Human emissions per year : 32GT
Factors others than humans emissions per year : 770GT

Ooo humans are emitting a big 4% of all CO2! Yeah, im sure we're the biggest CO2 emitters out there, we need to kill all humans! And of course tax everyone with cap and trade!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 





Plus the government is not trying to scare us


Why else would the people allow Cap and Trade the largest tax and spend bill ever to be passed?


because the average citizen is not smart enough to take care of a problem before it actually arises.

Congressional Democrats knew that the average citizen is smart enough to pay his taxes!



I live in the middle of the US and I could care less about what happens to the houses on the coast

Those people with houses on the coast can suck swampwater! LOL. BTW, the last time the Gulf coast was devastated was essentially the start of the housing crisis which affected everyone!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 





It's funny since ``all that ice melting`` in Antarctica is SLOWING global warming, not accelerating it as the scientists said it would...

It's only melting in certain western areas of Antarctica: Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? RealClimate

Hmmm... So why couldn't the "currently unknown process" that caused the first 1/6th of warming also have caused the second 5/6th of warming? And why couldn't that of caused the warming that we are seeing today? In any case that article is from 2004, and I hope climate studies have progressed since then.



So when the Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer challenged me to a face-to-face debate in July, I didn't exactly leap at the chance.

www.guardian.co.uk...


EDIT: Make sure to read the entire article, not just the quoted part. It appears that Plimer cannot answer questions or debate properly. Plimer must be wrong.

[edit on 14/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Like always with gw hoax, there is so much confusing bs info in this thread.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Regenmacher
 

And yet an article from spacedaily.com talks about how radiation levels are higher than ever. We may be in a solar minimum, but I`ll take the word of an expert thanks.


So where's the article!?
I want to see it, as I found none. List the url to it.

Solar radiation levels are synonymous with solar cycles, hence solar minimum means low radiation. The sun is in the lows of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. So again, I want to see this article that goes against all recent data.

Deep Solar Minimum NASA
Another Little Ice Age? Solar activity and climate change ArsTechnica



[edit on 14-11-2009 by Regenmacher]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
This is straight from the NASA site. Yes they put in the obligatory "we support global warming phrases" so they can keep their jobs. Ignore the politico speak and read the science.



NASA

...But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:

A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996....

A 55-year low in solar radio emissions: After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at radio wavelengths. Records of 10.7 cm flux extend back all the way to the early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955: plot. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions is an indication of weakness in the sun's global magnetic field.


There is also the possible Cloud - Cosmic Ray Theory



Cosmic rays and cloud formation
Cosmic rays and cloud formation CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate.




The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
E. Palle Bago and C. J. Butler

Paper appeared in Astronomy & Geophysics, August 2000. Vol 41, Issue 4, pp 18-22.



Abstract

We analyse the new ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) D2 cloud data to ascertain whether or not a connection between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover exists. Despite a previous finding that total cloud factor and cosmic ray fluxes were correlated, our results indicate that only the low-level cloud follows solar activity over the full period, 1983-1994. Using several proxies for solar activity and the radiative forcing calculated by Ockert-Bell (1992) for the ISCCP cloud types, we estimate the possible impact that such a solar-terrestrial connection may have on climate. We conclude that, possibly excluding the most recent decades, much of the warming of the past century can be quantitatively accounted for by the direct and indirect effects of solar activity.


The Science is NOT settled. Independent scientists have found fudging in the temperature data, there is a cooling trend and now the pro-Global warming crowd says they can not hand over the raw temperature data for independent verification. Even Wunderground has scrubbed their past weather data.



I SMELL a big RAT!

I do not need to be a scientist to see the pro-Global warming crowd gets the media support and the funding support. But I AM enough of a scientist to know TPTB WILL force scientists to "modify the data" to reach the conclusions they want. I figured that out the first time I was asked to change my results at age 21 and I have been fired four times for refusing to do so.


FOLLOW the MONEY




new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join