UK Blogger Finds Error in Climate Change Study

There are different kinds of corporations. Privately held native companies must be allowed to operate per their convictions. The progressive tendency has been to attack and undermine such companies, groups, and individuals when they are right leaning, and even more so when they hold to Christian principles, while allowing left leaning entities of all kinds to be as politically bent as they want.

 

Why should I respect your opinions, rather than world scientists? As a professional scientist (NOT climate or weather) I have taken an interest in these things for many decades. I'm quoting from memory so I can't give links.

Regarding destruction of the ozone layer, back in the 80s a school science experiment on inert gases, supposedly unreactive fluorocarbons found that fluorocarbond did react with ozone. As these compound were being used massively in aerosols, they wondered if there was a serious danger to the ozone layer.
I raised this with a Shell rep at an "interlab" meeting & he assured us that if there were any such danger, Shell would know about it first.
Satellite experiments were set up to measure the ozone layer over Australia & the results were dismissed as being too low to be reliable. 10 years later the ozone panic started & they were able to review their results - reliable & giving unheeded warnings. Fluorocarbons were seen to be the danger the school had predicted.

 

Lol, and UV rays from the sun create ozone (O2 to O3) in the upper stratosphere every day. When the sun 'goes down' the ozone layer immediately begins to dissipate (O3 back to O2), and reforms (O2 back to O3) the next day when the 'sun comes up'. The cycle has been repeating itself like that for a bery bery long time.

ozone depletion hoax a preparation for global warming hoax

 

The fact they cooked the books to show "global warming" and got caught is not an opinion. It's a documented fact.

 

Under the law, employees of privately held companies ( no matter whether they are liberal or conservative) give up most of their constitutional rights

 

You have an example? Just one example of this, please.

 

Out of thin air...

 

The concern for disruption of the ozone layer was real. action was taken to cease the use of fluorocarbons 25 years ago, to some extent restoring the natural balance you are describing. I don't think the cycle you are describing was unknown.

I doubt if NASA would agree with such statements.

Are some scientists "cooking the books" to dispute the generally accepted scientific reports of climate change & gain approval & funding from Trump? Global warning is now generally referred to as "climate change." Man's activity is significant leading to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There was a real concern about global cooling in the last quarter of the last century, based on historical recorded temperature cycling, & observations thank indicated that possibility. However there was also an awareness of the potential for global warming based on human activity particularly increased CO2, smoke & dust.

Most nations are concerned with the fact of climate change, though the willingness to take national action varies. Isolated factors are significant. Deaths & ill-health from pollution in cities due to coal fires were very serious. We couldn't eat apples from our west London garden. The introduction of smoke control laws & subsidizing non-polluting heating systems improved air quality massively & we could enjoy our apples.

 

Which doesn't matter at all. The proponents of so called "global warming" lied about the temperatures and got caught.

That's a fact. No way around it.

 

You shouldn’t. But that is not the question, and as a professional scientist and Christian you should know better. Here is a 2007 article detailing some of the steps in the ozone depletion hypothesis development. Obviously biased in justifying the initial alarm, it unwittingly reveals reasons why we should not listen to scientists, even renowned ones, just because they are scientists, even world-renowned ones.

1. Even other scientists don’t believe just because a scientist claims something.
2. They call the other scientists skeptics that wanted to wait for real evidence.
3. The political alarm was sounded way before there was firm evidence.
4. The unproven hypothesis was based on many unproven sub-hypotheses.
5. Much of the data was from single experiments, not repeated ones.

You may note others. In addition are the following:

1. NASA claimed they missed evidence because they purposely ignored data.
2. Many conclusions/assumptions are based on modeling, not on actual raw data.
3. Scientists, even large groups of scientists, can and do make mistakes.
4. Scientists are subject to all other human frailties: greed, ambition, pride, etc.
5. Most scientific hypotheses take quite a long time to be proved out.

Scientists do not necessarily look at the big picture, nor do they have a corner on rational thinking. And they are just as biased in their own worldview as the next person. It is even worse, and potentially more dangerous, when someone does not realize this.

 

BTW, if the link I provided is any indication, then your memory sounds rather faulty here. I suggest you should provide those links, if you want to be taken seriously, professional scientist or not.

 

You're a scientist. Do you agree that nuclear power is a 'green energy'? I think it's inevitable that nuclear power will ultimately be the answer to all these concerns about CO2 emissions, once the truth triumphs over the radical environmentalist's lies.

If you ever get the opportunity to watch the documentary 'Pandora's Promise', do so!

 

I agree that once a nuclear power station is running, the electrical energy is green. How much energy is used in building it, mining the fuel, disposing of the spent fuel - still highly radioactive?

Would the reactors be more efficient if they weren't designed to produce weapons grade biproducts? A major use is DU war heads in addition to stockpiled explosives.

Is the cooling water contaminated?

Do your sources, & mine, ask all the relevant questions?

 

Hobby Lobby.