Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K
|
Global warming during the 1990s was caused by sunspot activity, which raised the amount of solar energy received. The more recent spike was caused by El Nino and the temperature has declined again since then.
Also, we need to be skeptical of land based readings because they are not evenly spread and are skewed by increased developments in areas that were formerly countryside. Satellite readings are far more accurate and they are truly global. They show little change in global temperature, which is why the greenies prefer to ignore it.
It is also the case that the readings quoted by the greenies have been manipulated (sorry, 'adjusted') for various 'technical reasons' to help manufacture the case for a global warming scare.
This must count as the biggest folly ever, and it is at our considerable expense. Shame on the politicians who just blindly follow this mantra without properly having the claims the climate warriors make properly checked out.
---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------
Why do I think the risk from global warming is being exaggerated? For four principal reasons.
1. All environmental predictions of doom always are;
2. the models have been consistently wrong for more than 30 years;
3. the best evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is relatively low;
4. the climate science establishment has a vested interest in alarm.
Yes, Ramrod, but don't forget the most obvious fact of all.
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere varies between 0.03% and 0.05%. It currently stands at 0.04%.
Which rather indicates that if even if global warming is happening, it's not the result of the amount of carbon we are putting out there. The excess is being absorbed by the vegetation and the oceans.
It's about time the powers that be started asking some sensible questions of these so called climate experts.