Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject"...“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away.
But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”
...“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.
In any case, science is not a democracy.
Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”...
Read all.
22 comments:
This has already been debunked lol. Forbes even published this, then pulled it as soon as whatever process of fact finding or burden of proof Forbes uses pulled it.
The Forbes process? That would be that something can't go against any existing dogma they typically push. And they push man made global warming non stop.
Why not letting the reader decide on the veracity of the article? I tend to believe that the article contained proper language...?
This crap was originally published in 2007. The astrophysicist is a well known and documented denier. Just Google the evil shill.
By now in the face of overwhelming proof in that hundreds of millions are currently affected as well attaining the gold standard in science anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable and beyond documented in 37,000 referenced peer reviewed papers and published articles in recognized science periodical.
The true face of evil is that which denies truth. The more the severity, existential in this case, the greater the wrong- odious.
Man made global warming is a myth. Why push man made global warming as an "agenda" rather than science? Because if it's man made "they" can regulate man for their profit. It it's no man made ... the answer is not regulate man .. which is not in "their" interest. Thus .. government will ALWAYS preach man made this-or-that for obvious reasons.
Bottom line science wise .. the sun provides nearly all of Earth's energy. As such .. as goes the sun ... so goes the earth. As the sun cycles .. the Earth's weather cycles. Why is this energy based principle not readily understood?
As if you just saying that reaffirming it in your mind makes it so. There certainly is not any real peer reviewed science backing up such a nonsense notion.
The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades.
The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages.
But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.
If your personal responsibility for your own due diligence leads you to delusion and falsehoods, so be it.
We're all in this together, physics and reality don't care what you or I believe.
I simply don't fall for lies and deceit. I research, use critical thinking and peruse referenced peer reviewed science.
I would give a wide berth to shills like Moreno and Happer, amateur or agenda driven blogs, denier websites (wuwt) or bogus organizations (Heartland Institute).
Check out Tony Heller's take.
You made a lot of assertions there with no proofs to back them up ? So if the sun can be responsible for an entire ice age to melt.. a few degrees of heat is out of the question ? I'm not arguing that we can influence the environment the ozone layer is proof of that.. However I am skeptical of "carbon taxes".. it just seems there could be a concerted effort to cultivate a problem that could only be cured by money ? Odd how that was the solution so easily arrived at and not something more along the lines of population control since the problem is supposedly caused by all the humans on this Earth.. I think we should ALL be more skeptical and wary of what we are told before we end up in a dystopian society like in our favorite SciFi movies. Funny how we are also told we must "act now !".. sounds like what a creepy sales a marketing gimmick would say don't you think ?
And why did Forbes pull it if freedom of speech is supposedly to be upheld in free societies?
The past should not be ignored, let alone re-written, but this seems to be the case. Tony Heller should be checked out. He does a pretty good job of making the recent MSM alarmism look foolish, if not deceptive. Offers documentation that suggests, if not proves, that we are being lied to. WPost says "hottest ever", Heller shows newspaper articles from 1896,1911 and 1936 that say it has been hotter before. Stuff like that. Data re: medical warm period systematically altered by NASA?? Why would the UN, tax happy politicians and/or researchers who depend on government Grant's lie to us.Paleeeze!!!
Why not research "my assertion". (Of course not "my assertions", simply rehashing accepted peer reviewed science.)
Response to Tony Heller
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw
You won't win this one. Man input to co2 is minute ,less than 4/10of 4percent of the total gases. Lol no way co2from man does shit
It is the sun. Why else would the government be spraying the skies with chemicals to block solar rays and seed clouds for rain...in turn poisoning us in unfathomable ways.
So your saying,
I believe the 30s were cool. The period after ww2 did not get cooler and the temperature magicqlly grew by 1.0 of the 1.5 in the last 5 years because noaa said so., What does science have to do with global warming anyways.
New book by Rex Fleming (mathematician, former atmospheric scientist at NOAA) disputing / disproving the role of CO2 in global warming looks like it has been pulled by Springer: available for sale last week, all book page links are dead today.
It's a private business. They can publish or not publish whatever they want.
I so wish it was so, that global warming is fake. I dreamt it was not so, I could continue this life with time ahead. I suppose we have a bit of time, months or years at least.
And even when you all know it was and is reality, what difference would it have made in each ones personal lifeline really?
Enlightenment is overrated anyway. Ignorance is bliss, and I mean that in a good way seeing how the point, you will find later perhaps, was and is moot.
He is right
Freedom of speech also applies to what an individual or company chooses NOT to say. If the purpose of an entity is to provide verifiable, factual information then the information has to meet certain standards. To spread false information as fact is not freedom of speech, it is lying. And there is enough of that in the world these days.
@Daymon where has it been debunked? Link pls.
Post a Comment