Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - PART 1/5

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change
At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed.
Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century's modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community.
features climatologist Dr. Tim Ball and paleoclimatologist Prof. Tim Patterson (Carleton U), among other specialists (including IPCC reviewers)
Original: www.friendsofscience.org/index...

[@keithmlarsen]

Thanks Ian Clark- for having the courage to state your scientific convictions regardless of popularity-

[@TorkelUF]

Liquid absorbs more gas when cooler, and less gas when heated (yes, this is the opposite relationship for liquids disolving solids). I am not sure what damage you are referring to that would change this basic concept of physics.

[@markmatt4161]

Good information.

[@jackson32]

On top of this Co2 is responsible for only about 4% of the overall effect greenhouse effect, water vapor being responsible for 95%. Only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources.

[@subbvert]

to verify how ineffective carbon is we use atomic absorbtion spectometry and find if the entire atmosphere was carbon it would absorb no more than 8% of heat radiating from earth thus 20 years of AGW theory has produced no signature

[@JCRossnCo]

this make so much more sense. which I dont find in al gore's fiction book

[@TorkelUF]

Perhaps you should look up "The Great Gloabal Warming Swindle" and look into some other view points. I have watched Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation (aka "An Inconvenient Truth") and I see why it is persuasive to those who do not have a firm undestanding of science; it is its simplicity that is so seductive to simple people.

[@luxeden]

Pray that we still have people polluting and and not an asteroid or a comet , there we would have a global disaster and mass extinction but not from gaz emissions or hauman activities ..

[@felixthefoxMEXICO]

this vid is ancient...

[@keithmlarsen]

then it should be easy for you to prove, right?
So let's take your logic a bit further... Who is funding the IPCC? Would that be the UN? Is the UN an unbiased group? Do they want world government and regulation? Do they select their scientists of choice for the IPCC? Why is it that agreeing with them is pre-requisite for the job? Ok, now who has more money, the UN or Exxon? Even if what you say is true, who gives a sh@$^?

[@keithmlarsen]

You might want to re-phrase that last part so it actually makes literary sense, I have a feeling most of your associates won't catch that though- Any luck on the Exxon proof yet? I could have saved you a lot of time by just pointing out the fact that you were lying in the first place, but that is much less fun than letting you figure it out yourself. You should practice abstract thinking before discrediting scientists in this, or any other, film- ciao