Carbon dating flaws dinosaurs datingporn com
“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.” “If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said. “We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.They are all based on computer models that do not work. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. “Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.Paul Mac Rae, June 24, 2008 Most geologists aren’t part of Al Gore’s “100 per cent consensus” of scientists that humans are the principal cause of global warming and that we have to take drastic steps to deal with it.
The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.” Climate Scientist Dr. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said. “We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
— is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.” Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind. The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted. “And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made.
Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes.
Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time. Is it because they are, as Gore and the “consensus” charge, in the pay of the oil industry?