Some groups naturally seize on this story to say that "man-made climate change" is to blame. When there are less rain and less storms, it's due to "man-made global warming" or "man-made CC". When there are lots of rains, more storms, it's also due to "man-made GW/CC". So the public must send more money to the UN -- IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, UNDP, etc. The public should also donate more money to Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and other big international environmentalist groups.
A friend posted today that "Dr. CP David (UP National Institute of Geological Sciences or NIGS) goes
against Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists and remains a
climate change skeptic on GMA News TV today."
I commented that he's a real David, son of my former boss, Prof. Randy David also of UP. CP has shown independence of mind and not swallowed by a corrupt UN, at least in climate and energy policies.
I commented that he's a real David, son of my former boss, Prof. Randy David also of UP. CP has shown independence of mind and not swallowed by a corrupt UN, at least in climate and energy policies.
CC is true, global warming was
true. CC is purely cyclical and natural, warming-cooling-warming-cooling, with
or without humans and their SUVs or bicycles. Nothing to be alarmed except
alarmism itself. It is wrong to say that there is only global warming and
there is no global cooling.
The head of UP Biology
Department, Dr. Perry Ong, delivered a "centennial lecture" in UP in 2008,
attacking AGW and "man-made GW/CC" by the UN IPCC. Another friend, Fidel
Nemenzo of UP Math Department, once told me that there are many UP natural scientists who are laughing at the IPCC
reports. Problem is that they don't get oodles of UN money, also WB, ADB,
USAID, etc. money to "save the planet."
When people say Haiyan is the "strongest storm in RECORDED HISTORY", when did they start counting with such history? 20 yrs ago? 50? 100? 1,000, 1 million yrs ago? Chances are they don't know. Just a sound bite, to keep climate alarmism remain alarmist.
And UN IPCC is NOT a scientific body. It is a government and political body. That is why it is "Inter-governmental Panel on CC" and not "Inter-scientists Panel on CC". The head of IPCC was never a scientist. Its head for many years now, Rajendra Pachauri, is a an Indian transport economist or engineer.
When people say Haiyan is the "strongest storm in RECORDED HISTORY", when did they start counting with such history? 20 yrs ago? 50? 100? 1,000, 1 million yrs ago? Chances are they don't know. Just a sound bite, to keep climate alarmism remain alarmist.
And UN IPCC is NOT a scientific body. It is a government and political body. That is why it is "Inter-governmental Panel on CC" and not "Inter-scientists Panel on CC". The head of IPCC was never a scientist. Its head for many years now, Rajendra Pachauri, is a an Indian transport economist or engineer.
Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth", April 24, 2012.
A recent critique of IPCC 2013 report,
Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’
by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon*, October 19, 2013
Anthropogenic GW (AGW) is religion. In religion, people
do not need hard graphs, charts, satellite photos. Ok, they need graphs too,
but only those that cater to the belief. If certain scientfic graphs stare them
in the face and these data say the allegation is wrong, well, people close
their eyes to contrary data and keep believing. That is why it is religion and
faith-based.
That's why Dr. CP David, Dr. Perry Ong, others from UP natural science
community have more sence and independence of mind than the UN paid hacks, plus
Greenpeace, WWF, other treehuggers. But another friend suggested that skepticism is "crackpotism". Hehehe, product of emotionalism and religionism courtesy of UN's decades-long deception.
Another friend who seems so fanatic about a warming planet posted this news article from The Guardian, Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks, February 14, 2013. And here's the graph from that article.
Assuming that the data in that article is true, that up to $34 M a year is given to skeptic think
tanks, etc., that's peanuts to climate alarmism money. US government funding alone
on climate research, adaptation, etc. was around $7.3 billion in 2009 alone. Source, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/
I replied that the article has a stupid-bobo title J Why? As I mentoned
above, skeptics do not CC. The term "CC denial" is as stupid as
"your grandma is a virgin" statement. For the second time I told him
that CC is true. It did happen, it is
happening, and it will continue to happen because it is a natural cycle. GW was
true, it did happen during the Roman period, then the Medieval Warm Period
(MWP), then in past century’s warming, and it will happen again. Global cooling
is also true, it did happen in the past like the little ice age (LIA) of the
Dalton and Maundeer Minimum, is happening now, and will happen again in the
future. So CC is true, it is not denied. Warming-cooling-warming-cooling.
Overall UN money, EU and Japan government money, etc. not included yet.
Pera-pera lang, hindi milyon milyon, bilyon-bilyon.
The term "denier" applies actually to the warming fanatics. They deny that CC is nature-made, they deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that global cooling can also happen.
The term "denier" applies actually to the warming fanatics. They deny that CC is nature-made, they deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that global cooling can also happen.
The alarmists and deniers are hurting. The Spencer graph, among others, shows that almost ALL of IPCC climate models -- the basis for the endless FCCC global junkets, carbon legislation and taxation, creation of endless cliamte bureaucracies in many governments, tens of billions of dollars of climate loans by the foreign aid WB, ADB, etc. -- are wrong. The planet is not warming, only the results of computer models do.
Their treachery, their fooling of the public is exposed, they are hurting. But he said he's not hurting. Fine. Bulag-bulagan lang, playing blind. If hard data does not conform with the religious belief, just close the eyes. Cheating is bad if you're the one being cheated. But if you're part of the cheaters, maybe it is ok and justified. Long live the UN IPCC, FCCC, etc and the tree huggers.
See also:
Climate Tricks 18: Severe Tropical and Winter Storms as Proof of AGW, December 29, 2012
Climate Tricks 19: Global Cooling and Resilient Society, May 31, 2013
Climate Tricks 20: Cooling Denial, June 22, 2013
Climate Tricks 21: Arctic Ice Will be Gone This Year?, July 14, 2013
These filipino scientists, did they actually do research in this area? where can one find this research? or at the very least something written.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear that there are indeed skeptics among the scientific community in the Philippines.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, when I was in town there last January, one of the textbooks my nephew had from Centro Escolar University was on the "consensus" view of climate change. It seems that it's part of the curriculum there. But in discussing the topic with him, I soon got the notion that he and his classmates really couldn't care less for the subject. So much for indoctrination, I guess.
There was an Inquirer report about the UP Centennial Lecture by Dr. Perry Ong in 2008, just google it. The paper or interview with Dr. CP David, I don't know where it's posted.
ReplyDelete