ďThere is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Second question, can you recognize who made this 1959 statement which initiates concern about Global Warming?
ďI am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. [...] And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [...] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [...] Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.Ē
Intrigued? This second statement is what essentially gave impetus to the eco alarmistís global warming scare which has came a long way since 1959. These two statements donít square with each other! Is it as simple as stating that one of these is a believer while the other is a climate denier? After all, isnít the science on global warming already settled as we have been told? If it is settled science, then the signee of the first must be a dirty rotten denier!
Me? Iíve got enough to worry about, besides, I donít have the credentials (nor likely do you) to contribute
anything original to the scuffle. So as it stands, a layman is left with a binary decision and the unspoken implication is that we are to choose sides. I see global warming as a trap for suckers! The whole concept has been framed to elicit argumentation and division within society. So, letís start to dismantle the boondoggle.
Before I do, let me say that most of the obscure answers to the questions that perflex mankind can be discovered
by reading and the dogged cross examination of all ideas and concepts that would make the greatest of all skeptics, Carneades, proud.
Any passionate crusader of either side of the global warming scuffle should be able to do the following. They must be knowledgeable and be able to intelligently discuss Milankovitch Cycles or else shut their
mouths! They must be able to state at least 5 of the best critics that are skeptical to their viewpoint. If I were a reporter, Iíd simply ask for any crusaderís credentials as to why they are qualified to speak on the matter. If the ideologue canít succinctly re-state five of the best critics or isnít aware of Marine isotope stages
or Milankovitch Cycles, then they should be called out! Almost all crusaders are woefully ignorant!
Let the de-bunking begin
Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, in a 1959 speech to the American Petroleum Institute and the
Columbia Graduate School of Business gave the previous warning. In fact, even as far back as 1957 in an address to the American Chemical Society, he gave similar remarks.
The same Edward Teller, 30 years later, also signed the 1988 Oregon Petition which absolutely DESTROYS the consensus idea that is peddled about global warming. The way I see it, Teller effectually started the scare and essentially de-bunked it! Clearly, he followed the scientific method which lead him to change his mind upon the matter. Here is a link to the Global Warming Petition Project for anyone seeking enlightenment upon the matter.
What about the previous statement about destroying the consensus idea that lefties have sought to brainwash us
with? The Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists (with more than 9,000 scientists having a relative PhD). What does this mean? Answer: It is IMPOSSIBLE to have global warming consensus with 31K scientific dissenters!
Brian Worley Ex-Minister.org February 11, 2019 All Rights Reserved