Questioning Global Warming
Whenever there is widespread consensus on something, I get VERY suspicious, especially when that consensus seems to be driven by the government and media.
If you are familiar with Occam's razor, you know the principle: all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.
Given that, what would Occam say about the cause of global temperatures over the last century?
a. activity of the sun
b. natural global cycles
c. activites of humankind
I think the answer is overwhelmingly "a". What more obvious source of our climate is there than that big ball of fire that is the reason life exists at all?
If you follow this logic, you might want to watch this short (24 minute) Canadian video from a few years back.
It interviews hundreds of scientists who insist, among other things, that there IS no consensus about global warming.
In fact, there are other key claims:
1. the IPCC, authors of the hockey stick graph, is a political, not scientific body
2. CO2 is a life giving gas; it's increase is actually GOOD for plants
3. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The major one is water vapor, yet you hear no one talking about a "hydrogen debt".
4. the IPCC report actually does not conclude that humanity is THE reason for climate change. It admits that natural causes probably are at work.
5. The hockey stick graph is a result of sloppy, bad science.
Please don't be hookwinked. Investigate for yourself
There are already DOZENS of sites talking about your personal carbon debt. Based on the evidence, this talk is silly and politically motivated.
If you are familiar with Occam's razor, you know the principle: all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.
Given that, what would Occam say about the cause of global temperatures over the last century?
a. activity of the sun
b. natural global cycles
c. activites of humankind
I think the answer is overwhelmingly "a". What more obvious source of our climate is there than that big ball of fire that is the reason life exists at all?
If you follow this logic, you might want to watch this short (24 minute) Canadian video from a few years back.
It interviews hundreds of scientists who insist, among other things, that there IS no consensus about global warming.
In fact, there are other key claims:
1. the IPCC, authors of the hockey stick graph, is a political, not scientific body
2. CO2 is a life giving gas; it's increase is actually GOOD for plants
3. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. The major one is water vapor, yet you hear no one talking about a "hydrogen debt".
4. the IPCC report actually does not conclude that humanity is THE reason for climate change. It admits that natural causes probably are at work.
5. The hockey stick graph is a result of sloppy, bad science.
Please don't be hookwinked. Investigate for yourself
There are already DOZENS of sites talking about your personal carbon debt. Based on the evidence, this talk is silly and politically motivated.
Comments