December 16, 2004

Lavamen from Greenland destroy Kyoto

Tim Lambert uncovers the worst argument against global warming, ever. Tim has taken on the task of trying to ensure that the science used in the discussion about global warming is at least semi-legitimate, but it seems to be like pushing on a rope.

So far, Tim has critiqued a paper that did not distinguish between degrees and radians, another that claims that ther e is no such thing as average temperature, and another that just plain makes stuff up. So for him to say that something is the worst argument, ever, you know it's got to be good.

Apparently, global warming is caused by molten lava under the earth's crust:

The temperature of space is about 2.7 degrees Kelvin, or expressed in the Celsius scale, approximately -269 degrees Celsius.

Therefore the net heat loss from the earth to space is enormous, from which space could be thought as an almost infinite heat sink. And fluctuations of this heat source will overwhelm anything that humanity thinks it could contribute.

And why are we not being cooked to a frazzle on the earth’s surface by this enormous mass of matter at a temperature greater than 1000 Degrees Celsius underneath us?

Why indeed? Will Dan Rather and the rest of the liberal media confront this sort of insightful inquiry head on or will they continue to ignore it? I think we know the answer to that.

Or maybe it's caused by the effect noted in Joshua 10: 12-14 ("[12] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. [13] And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. [14] And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.)" If the earth stood still in the Old Testament, then maybe, contrary to Joshua 10:14, it continues to stand still even to this day whenever a change in climate is observed.

But I am not going to dwell on this because it occurred to me that if the earth did change its axis of spin, or careened, slightly, or significantly in the past, then that would have had the interesting effect of moving regions which were once in the tropics, perhaps into more temperate zones, and those in the temperate, perhaps into the arctic zones. We can change the climate of a place simply by moving it about in space?

This would result in the illusion that a particular region suffered a severe climate change, which in one sense is true, but this was only because that region was moved to a different latitude by a change in the earth’s attitude around its axis of spin. The earth’s overall thermal balance would not have changed, but only appeared to have changed from a misinterpretation of the evidence.

This then suggests that during the Medieval warming period Greenland was closer to the equator, and afterwards was moved further north to colder latitudes as the result of some cosmic interaction. That also means that Europe moved to colder climates. Is there any evidence for that? Seems so, if the Korean Choson Annals are anything to go by, as well as the necessity to change the Gregorian calendar, at the time.

History does not record what changes were made to the Gregorian calendar at the time when Greenland ceased being a tropical country.

Posted by dave at December 16, 2004 06:33 AM | TrackBack

Global warming! Brought to you by the same folk who came up with the 'theory' that the earth is round.

Posted by: abc at December 16, 2004 10:22 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?