MIT Professor whistleblower: CO2 impact on Climate so small it is irrelevant

Author Topic: MIT Professor whistleblower: CO2 impact on Climate so small it is irrelevant  (Read 2919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline reed026

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

    The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
    every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
    for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
    persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
    in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

    More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
    throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
    fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
    least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
    accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
    ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
    warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

    - SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees  C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.

More at the link above.

Sorry if someone already posted this, didn't see it. Was forwarded to me via facebook.

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,651
Is it just me or does the title of this thread clearly not reflect the content? I suppose it is just me, I assumed via the "Red Alert" that what was meant by "relevance of CO2 Emissions" was that they are relevant.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Is it just me or does the title of this thread clearly not reflect the content?

i changed it, does it work now?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,651
i changed it, does it work now?

How about, "Scientist says CO2 impact on Climate so small it's irrelevant." or something to that effect. Trying to keep that word "irrelevant" but I can't fit it in there like I want...

Or, "Scientist: temperature record shows CO2 insignificant, Global Warming nonexistant"

Offline reed026

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
I don't want to sound like an ass but I'll put it like this.
Sometimes when I do research/report I drink the "silver bullets"

I don't care how you reformat the title AS LONG AS THIS INFO GETS OUT!

Al Gore's Nobel Prize should be removed for being a liar.

How about "MIT Scientist Speaks out on the irrelevance between CO2 Emissions and Global Warming / Climate Change."

PS I think it's cool that I got a sticky as a newb :)

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,651
PS I think it's cool that I got a sticky as a newb :)

It's a very good article, great for the emotionally propagandized Sheeple who simply don't know any better due to apathy and genuine disinterest.

If the title confuses you, wait, read the article! Always sound advice.

The comments are... rather 'Fluoridy', but credit to the one commenter who points out that water vapor is what leads to warming.

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,841
Al Gore has also had to admit that his film, 'An Inconvenient Truth', used exaggerated CGI effects. He also had to admit that he completely faked data a few months ago. If you want to know why they're doing this, it's because there is a huge amount of money and power to be gained from this. They can use central banks to collect carbon taxation profits, while at the same time restricting people's lifestyles - and thus, weakening the sovereignty of nation states. This has been a long-term goal of the Council of Foreign relations, who want to bring in a world government/planetary regime to supersede all national sovereignty.

It's also interesting how they portray man-made global warming as a grassroots organisation, despite the fact that it is Rothschild-funded and is supported by almost every Fortune 500 company, including the oil company, ExxonMobil.

Offline reed026

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
If you guys would like, I can give some info on an easier way to explain this from my State's Climatology department.

They put out something around the start of July 2009 that included the weather patterns from 1800 to present and showed that actual climate change isn't dependant on anything. I have conversed with a fellow global warming disbeliever since then about this and picked up a lot of info about it. You guys have probally never heard of him but he went head to head with the Weather Channel back in 2007 about global warming, when Heidi Cullen stated "those who disagreed with the view that global warming was caused by man-made events should not be given the Seal of Approval by the American Meteorological Society".

Anyway, Mr. Spann is a great guy and I trust, fully, what he says in my heart. So I've been a disbeliever in this global warming nonsense from the get-go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Spann