| Sourced From |
I was very relieved to read that Mr Hughes considers scientific research the only valid indicator of truth in the matter of global warming.
However, I would suggest that the evidence such research is based on is of greater importance and that all evidence is considered before conclusions are reached.
The truth will never be found if important evidence is omitted simply because it does not back up the desired result.
So far, I have found that there are many scientists whose conclusions are in direct opposition to those being promoted by the UN’s climate-change panel.
For example, the global warming “science” premise is that CO2 is increasing, therefore temperature is also increasing and the climate models duplicate this.
What does the evidence actually show? The global temperature record starts in 1856 showing a warming trend until 1880 then cooling until 1910; warming again until 1942, then cooling until 1975 (scientists were concerned we were heading for an ice age); warming again until 1998 and currently cooling again.
All of this while CO2 was steadily increasing in the atmosphere.
Where is the correlation? Surely if the UN theory is right, temperatures should show an increasing rise along with CO2; it simply is not there. Furthermore with CO2 currently increasing at roughly two parts per million per year, temperatures certainly should not be dropping now as they are.
We should be seeing an alarming increase but it is simply not there. This brief period of history completely destroys the whole man-made global warming scenario being caused by human CO2 output. It also destroys the current computer-climate models as none of them predicted the current situation.
It may also interest Mr Hughes to know that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition which denies that human- produced CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will cause dangerous warming of the planet.
There is evidence to support benefits from increased CO2 in the atmosphere to both plant and animal life. The more CO2, the more plants can grow, resulting in higher productivity. The other night I attended the meeting where Bryan Leyland spoke and was rewarded with some amazing scientific data regarding previous warm periods and also the limitations on CO2’s ability to cause warming.
If Mr Hughes truly is concerned with scientific truth then he should have been there, as he could have acquired some very relevant written material (free of charge) which quite likely would have led to a change of mind. The data I refer to though was presented as part of his talk; he mentioned three previous warm periods all with temperatures equal to or greater than now.
These were the Minoan, the Roman and the Medieval warm periods, all of which were natural in origin.
These were clearly visible in scientific studies and were accompanied by booming civilizations brought about by the increased ability of the planet to provide provisions. All life booms in earth’s warm periods and is stifled in cold periods.
