There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

Originally posted by edsinger
Would that be only ones who support man made global warming?

Evidence is evidence. But there is a consensus in the scientific literature.

That's why the best the 'sceptics' can offer is newpaper articles etc. containing disinformation, dishonesty, misleading claims. Everything but real science.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


That's why the best the 'sceptics' can offer is newpaper articles etc. containing disinformation, dishonesty, misleading claims. Everything but real science.

And this is where we disagree......A good portion of the GW advocates also have an agenda remember......its big money to boot...

Originally posted by melatonin
.............
That's why the best the 'sceptics' can offer is newpaper articles etc. containing disinformation, dishonesty, misleading claims. Everything but real science.

It had to be melatonin/Regenmacher who would make such a claim.

Appart from many of the past research and scientific work which proves the misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies which melatonin/regenmacher likes to spout, and despite the fact that more scientific evidence has been posted which debunks melatonin, Mann et al claims, he has to make this claim once in a while so he can try to convince those members who either are just starting to read these threads, or don't know much about the subject can readily believe this latest stunt by melatonin.

Anyways, lets actually turn to some of the other research in which other past Climate Changes, appart from the RMP, MWP, and the LIA has been studied, and which continue to disprove the claims made by melatonin/regenmacher, Mann et al. Let's also see what is melatonin/regenmacher's response to this, which i am certain will be the same as what he has done in the past with the research papers which disprove his claims....

Here are some of the other research work which points out the fact that changes in the Sun have been the cause of most of the past climate changes on Earth, which apparently melatonin/regenmacher does not think is true, since the Sun is going through an increase in activity since at least 60 years ago, but he still wants to believe Mann et al and claim it is mankind which is causing the current warming.

Globally synchronous climate change 2800 years ago: Proxy data from peat in South America

Frank M. Chambersa, , , Dmitri Mauquoyb, Sally A. Braina, Maarten Blaauwc and John R.G. Daniella
aCentre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, Department of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK
bDepartment of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK
cCentro de Investigación en Matemáticas, A.P. 402, Guanajuato, Gto., C.P. 36000, Mexico
Received 15 August 2006; revised 27 October 2006; accepted 2 November 2006. Editor: H. Elderfield. Available online 19 December 2006.


Abstract

Initial findings from high-latitude ice-cores implied a relatively unvarying Holocene climate, in contrast to the major climate swings in the preceding late-Pleistocene. However, several climate archives from low latitudes imply a less than equable Holocene climate, as do recent studies on peat bogs in mainland north-west Europe, which indicate an abrupt climate cooling 2800 years ago, with parallels claimed in a range of climate archives elsewhere. A hypothesis that this claimed climate shift was global, and caused by reduced solar activity, has recently been disputed. Until now, no directly comparable data were available from the southern hemisphere to help resolve the dispute. Building on investigations of the vegetation history of an extensive mire in the Valle de Andorra, Tierra del Fuego, we took a further peat core from the bog to generate a high-resolution climate history through the use of determination of peat humification and quantitative leaf-count plant macrofossil analysis. Here, we present the new proxy-climate data from the bog in South America. The data are directly comparable with those in Europe, as they were produced using identical laboratory methods. They show that there was a major climate perturbation at the same time as in northwest European bogs. Its timing, nature and apparent global synchronicity lend support to the notion of solar forcing of past climate change, amplified by oceanic circulation. This finding of a similar response simultaneously in both hemispheres may help validate and improve global climate models. That reduced solar activity might cause a global climatic change suggests that attention be paid also to consideration of any global climate response to increases in solar activity. This has implications for interpreting the relative contribution of climate drivers of recent ‘global warming’.

Science Direct

Climate forced atmospheric CO2 variability in the early Holocene: A stomatal frequency reconstruction

C.A. Jessena, , , M. Rundgrena, S. Björcka and R. Muschelerb
aGeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE223 62 Lund, Sweden
bNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Paleoclimatology, 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305–3000 USA
Received 22 August 2005; accepted 16 November 2006. Available online 30 January 2007.

Abstract

The dynamic climate in the Northern Hemisphere during the early Holocene could be expected to have impacted on the global carbon cycle. Ice core studies however, show little variability in atmospheric CO2. Resolving any possible centennial to decadal CO2 changes is limited by gas diffusion through the firn layer during bubble enclosure. Here we apply the inverse relationship between stomatal index (measured on sub-fossil leaves) and atmospheric CO2 to complement ice core records between 11,230 and 10,330 cal. yr BP. High-resolution sampling and radiocarbon dating of lake sediments from the Faroe Islands reconstruct a distinct CO2 decrease centred on ca. 11,050 cal. yr BP, a consistent and steady decline between ca. 10,900 and 10,600 cal. yr BP and an increased instability after ca. 10,550 cal. yr BP. The earliest decline lasting ca. 150 yr is probably associated with the Preboreal Oscillation, an abrupt climatic cooling affecting much of the Northern Hemisphere a few hundred years after the end of the Younger Dryas. In the absence of known global climatic instability, the decline to ca. 10,600 cal. yr BP is possibly due to expanding vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere. The increasing instability in CO2 after 10,600 cal. yr BP occurs during a period of increasing cooling of surface waters in the North Atlantic and some increased variability in proxy climate indicators in the region.

The reconstructed CO2 changes also show a distinct similarity to indicators of changing solar activity. This may suggest that at least the Northern Hemisphere was particularly sensitive to changes in solar activity during this time and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations fluctuated via rapid responses in climate.

Science Direct

And another of the many other theories, which also puts the Sun as the main driver of climate changes on Earth, which shows that the "theory" that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for the current warming is not the only "theory" which is believed in the scientific community.

Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate change

Robert Ehrlich, a,
aGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
Received 11 September 2006; revised 4 January 2007; accepted 9 January 2007. Available online 20 January 2007.


Abstract

A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that explains many details of the paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously invoked in the solar context. The theory, while not without its own unresolved issues, also lacks most of the problems associated with Milankovitch cycle theory.

Science Direct





[edit on 8-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Yes, muaddib, solar variations and orbital effects would have been the predominate (but not only) natural driver of climate in the past. I have never denied this, and so your claims are pure strawman rubbish.

Still means nothing for this current change. The earth didn't have humans pumping out GHGs at a massive rate (and significantly altering the biosphere in other ways) in the past.

I think you've just provided an example of exactly what I was referring to, especially as solar activity has been pretty stable for a number of decades.



So I'll file this...

since the Sun is going through an increase in activity since at least 60 years ago

...under misleading.

A more correct description would be to say - solar activity increased to a peak around 1940 and since then has been pretty stable.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by melatonin]

And I would state again that many scientists have not jumped on the consensus bandwagon that it is man made. I can show graphs that show the temps are 'cooler' now than in the 1500's....

AL Gore was sticking to his agenda.....


For those following this, here is a link to a great rebuttal of Mr. Gore.


A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

There is consensus of science over the main issue - human effects being significant. It's not about Gore, it shouldn't be about politics. It's about the science. If these scientists have doubts about the current state of the science, they should do what scientists do - research. Stop writing newpaper articles and do some real science and publish it like a real scientist.

Problem is, most of them don't. Most are just industry and political shills who misrepresent, mislead, and flat out deceive people. They have no integrity and can be pretty much ignored at a scientific level. They aim to obfuscate and create doubt. Sadly, it works on many less knowledgeable people and/or confirms the ideological bias of when motivated to do believe otherwise - just like you.

It worked for the tobacco industry, for chemical industries, for the CFC issue etc etc for a time, it slowed down acceptance of well-supported scientific positions and aided continued profit. We know what is going on, we know the way these shills work, we know they are wrong on the science. It's all part of the denialist industry.

For example, the high resolution multi-proxy studies of historical climate show you to be wrong. Current climate is likely warmer than any time for at least 1000 years. But you don't care, you just want someone to confirm exactly what you already believe, doesn't matter that I can show completely dishonesty in what these people write (like the false quote from before), it makes no difference to your position.



[Cue muaddib with single-region proxies covering a few hundred year period - remember to not use the Quelccaya ice-core this time though, that shows your cherrypicking toooo blatently]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by melatonin]

And as the Global warming folks would have you believe, all the scientists to do not buy into the hype are not 'real' scientists anyway.

Global Warming if occurring could just as easily be caused by natural means, but one can not make a new multi billion dollar business out of 'protecting' us from it.

Scientists at one time thought the planets rotated around the earth, other scientists showed that in error, and st first they were in the minority.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe


And here is another link that must be controlled by the 'neofascists' right?


A brief list of arguments that each refute the notion that the community should be scared by the idea of global warming.

So Tim Patterson gioes back to a period 450million years ago to plant a logical fallacy, heh.

We know very little about the earth and the variables affecting its climate then. Even if CO2 was high and temps were low, it still doesn't mean that CO2 cannot act as a GHG. Other variables are also important, it's not all about CO2 you know.

Anyway, as I said, we know very little about these periods, uncertainty is extreme, and it is quite possible that Patterson is wrong:

The late Ordovician (~440 Ma) represents the only interval during
which glacial conditions apparently coexisted with a CO2-rich
atmosphere. Critically, though, widespread ice sheets likely
lasted

Originally posted by melatonin
Yes, muaddib, solar variations and orbital effects would have been the predominate (but not only) natural driver of climate in the past. I have never denied this, and so your claims are pure strawman rubbish.

Still means nothing for this current change. The earth didn't have humans pumping out GHGs at a massive rate (and significantly altering the biosphere in other ways) in the past.

I think you've just provided an example of exactly what I was referring to, especially as solar activity has been pretty stable for a number of decades.

You are still providing old information which has been proven to be wrong by other research...

And solar activity has not ben stable for a numbers of decades....you have been given research which shows the contrary.

Stop playing your same old cards, you sounds like a broken record...

Research shows the Sun's activity has been increasing and keeps increasing, and even after you are shown shuch research you keep falling back trying to claim that is not true... sorry mate, you are wrong...

Again, trying to not sounds like the broken record malatonin/regenmacher is, I still have to post the following...

Published: 14:13 EST, September 26, 2006

Meteorites record past solar activity

Ilya Usoskin (Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland) and his colleagues have investigated the solar activity over the past centuries. Their study is to be published this week in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. They compare the amount of Titanium 44 in nineteen meteorites that have fallen to the Earth over the past 240 years. Their work confirms that the solar activity has increased strongly during the 20th century. They also find that the Sun has been particularly active in the past few decades.
...................
Until now, reconstructing past solar activity was thus very uncertain. This is shown by how various reconstructions that were previously published differ from one other. In the new study to be published this week in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters, the team shows that the Sun is currently particularly active compared to earlier centuries.

www.physorg.com...

Appart from the above, and other research shown in the past..., we know and have discussed several times that it is several "natural" factors which are the cause of the current climate change.

There is the fact that since we have been in a warming cycle for decades, GHGs have increased naturally and foremost of all water vapor, which melatonin/regenmacher, Mann et al keep trying to dismiss/ignore.

Yes the Sun's activity has been increasing, but also the thermohaline circulation has been affected by an increase in the melting of freshtwater into the oceans, and this melting is higher in the northern hemisphere, which in turn affects the climate on the northern hemisphere.

In time the changes in the thermohaline current will cool the northern hemisphere, but the current weakening of this ocean current could explain the extremes in weather we have seen in the northern hemisphere, while the changes in the currents in the southern hemisphere, which have been not as dramatic, could explain some of the extreme weather phenomenon downunder.

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
It worked for the tobacco industry, for chemical industries, for the CFC issue etc etc for a time, it slowed down acceptance of well-supported scientific positions and aided continued profit. We know what is going on, we know the way these shills work, we know they are wrong on the science. It's all part of the denialist industry.

Keep giving red herrings trying to claim people are being paid to say this... who is paying you?... We all know that several jobs depends on people believing "mankind is responsible for Climate Change"...

It worked pretty well to the "scientific concensus" when they all though the Earth was flat and kept presenting facts of this...

It also worked pretty well for the "scientific concensus" to claim "the Earth is the center of the solar system" and this fed their egos thinking that "mankind is most important factor on the solar system"...

Now they need to feed their egos by claiming it is mankind who is causing the current Climate Change...and the "scientific concensus" claims most scientists agree with this even though it has been shown that there is a debate among scientists about how much influence mankind is to the present Climate Change, if any...

But keep feeding your "ego" as well as some other people thinking "mankind is the center of the universe and we can control everything in this universe"...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Research shows the Sun's activity has been increasing and keeps increasing, and even after you are shown shuch research you keep falling back trying to claim that is not true... sorry mate, you are wrong...

No, it isn't still increasing.

It has been particularly active in the 20th century, but it hasn't been much higher than it reached in the 1940s. As I said, it has been pretty stable since then.

We don't need meteorites to know this, that study just confirms what we already know, which is not surprising as it is another Solanki group study - the same source as the data I presented earlier. They actually cross-validated this new method with existing models of solar activity.

Long-term solar activity reconstructions: direct
test by cosmogenic 44Ti in meteorites

I. G. Usoskin1, S. K. Solanki2, C. Taricco3,4, N. Bhandari5, and G. A. Kovaltsov6

1 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), POB 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
2 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
3 Dipartimento di Fisica Generale, Università di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy
4 Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), INAF, Torino, Italy
5 Basic Sciences Research Institute, 380009 Ahmedabad, India
6 Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute, Politekhnicheskaya 26, 194021 St. Petersburg, Russia
Received 12 June 2006 / Accepted 29 June 2006

ABSTRACT
Aims. Long-term solar activity in the past is usually estimated from cosmogenic isotopes, 10Be or 14C, deposited in terrestrial archives
such as ice cores and tree rings. A number of such reconstruction models have been proposed which differ from each other significantly.
This approach suffers, however, from uncertainties due to the sensitivity of the data to several terrestrial processes. Here we
propose a method to constrain these solar activity reconstructions using cosmogenic 44Ti activity in meteorites which is not affected
by terrestrial processes.

Methods. We test the veracity of recent solar activity reconstructions using the data on the activity of cosmogenic isotope 44Ti in
meteorites which fell during the past 235 years, and provide an independent and direct measure of the cosmic ray flux near the Earth
and allow decoupling of solar activity variations from terrestrial influences.

Results. We demonstrate that the 44Ti data can distinguish between various reconstructions of past solar activity based on cosmogenic
isotope data in terrestrial archives, allowing unrealistic models to be ruled out. We also show that a model based on the sunspot
number record is consistent with the data on 44Ti activity in meteorites, thus confirming the validity of the method. In particular the
44Ti data confirm significant secular variations of the solar magnetic flux during the last century.

and from the conclusion:

We have thus shown that most recent reconstructions
of solar activity, in particular those based on 10Be data
in polar ice (Usoskin et al. 2003, 2004b;McCracken et al. 2004)
and on 14C in tree rings (Solanki et al. 2004), are consistent
with the 44Ti data.

Oh noes, it confirms Solanki's data. The same Solanki who accepts that the solar-climate correlation broke down in the latter 20th century, the same Usoskin who is an author on papers like this...

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

S. K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schu¨ ssler1 & J. Beer4

1Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
2Sodankyla¨ Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu,
90014 Oulu, Finland 3Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut fu¨r Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
4Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Du¨bendorf, Switzerland

....

Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

As for the flat-earther stuff, yeah, it's really comparable, they had a proper scientific method and a real community of scientists then. I guess if we keep up this rather silly comparison, the catholic church was like the IPCC, the inquisition was like peer-review, and Galileo was like Muaddib, heh. Problem is, Galileo had evidence, you have misrepresentation.

I'm looking forward to reading the new solar paper in the Royal Society journal this week. Apparently, it is the best review of the solar literature for a while. I'm quite sure it gives the solar septic crank crew a good fisking.

I hear clouds are the new solar for 'sceptics', muaddib. You need to keep up.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by melatonin]

The global warming is not caused by the amount of CO2 in the air, it's the other way around : as temperature rises oceans release more CO2, then as temperature falls oceans absorb more CO2
Ice samples prove this. But because oceans take a long time to warm or to cool there is a 800 year delay between a temperature increase and the level of CO2 released, so if the oceans release CO2 now it may be because of some warm period in the past.
In the past there were some warm periods, look at the medieval warm period or look at the time when trees were growing in Greenland
Our current warming started around 1800 when there was not much industry. After 1940 there was even a cooling period of 20 years, even if industrial production was booming, people feared another ice age, those were the news at that time
Did you know that the biggest producers of CO2 are in this order :
1- Oceans which release CO2 when they warm up
2 - Plants when they die in the autumn
3 - Animals and bacteria
4 - Volcanoes
5 - Humans with all their cars and their factories

I am not writing this because I like cars and factories, I hate them , besides CO2 they produce a lot of poisonous stuff, I just want to say that CO 2 is not to blame for global warming, it is a product of it - released by the oceans, not the cause

video.google.com... ch&plindex=2
Documentary : " The Great Global Warming Swindle" it can be found on google video

Climate change is caused by the sun, the movie above explains this very well. In the past 200 years there was an increase in solar activity - measured by the number of sunspots, the more sunspots there are,the more active the sun is
But people like the sun to be stable and constant, they hold to this belief almost like a religion, because they know that if the sun is to blame then there is nothing that they can do about it, and that scares them

All this mass media stuff about global warming being caused by us humans it's done because they want us to use less oil, because we're running out of it. A lie with a good purpose but a lie

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 10-7-2007 by pai mei]

A lie with a purpose, eh?

What about the lie that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans? That swindle documentary is a good example of purposeful lies. What about presenting obsolete and incorrect solar data to show a correlation between solar and climate that no longer exists?

Essentially what you are stating is a logical fallacy. Just because temperature increases lead to a release of CO2, does not mean that CO2 cannot lead an increase in temperature. The phenomena is called a positive feedback, and unless you can change the law of physics, CO2 will remain a longwave absorber and contribute to the 'greenhouse' effect.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by melatonin]

I don't trust the greenhouse effect. It takes only one night for the air to cool, imagine if the night would continue for 24 or 48 hours, no greenhouse effect would save you from freezing.
Look, why is there no greenhouse effect in the dessert ? Nights are cold there.
Only clouds can trap some heat and create a little greenhouse effect, but if the night would be longer we would freeze even with all the sky covered with clouds
The sun is responsible for the global warming

The good thing about the live earth concerts, it showed that the general public do not care. They know instinctively that the sun is doing it(what ever it is), and they know and feel they cannot put any energy into it, like was put into live aid or something.

Its funny how people like gore never talk about the sun, and he tries to keep the science as dumbed down as he can.

Originally posted by pai mei
I don't trust the greenhouse effect.

Well you should. It is what allows you to survive on the earth. Without an atmosphere that 'traps' outgoing radiation, we would be rather chilly. The GE warms the earth around 20-30'C.

Clouds have both a cooling and warming effect.

@ Andy: As for instincts guidings beliefs, yeah, that's the way to decide this issue, heh. Evidence shows that the sun is not the major cause of current warming. So, in this case, instincts are wrong. That's why we need science to overcome incorrect faith-based assumptions.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by melatonin]

Now,we all know that mankind has to slow down the pollution caused by our activity,but there are some very important things that politicians and the press like to leave out of their global warming comments.the most important thing,EARTH IS A LIVING BREATHING PLANET!!
why should that matter? well,the ice caps melting is being blamed on man alone.what ppl don't know is that the last ice age ended between 16,000bc and 14,000bc.what does that mean? obviously it means that they have been melting since that time.now mankind's pollution of the planets air only started during the industrial revoultion,which only hit a global scale in the 1800's.so for a cpl of 100yrs man is guilty of polluting the air we breathe.who's to blame for the 1000's of years before that,when the ice caps were melting but man wasn't involved? the planet itself of course!!
from the very moment the ice caps started to recede the planet has been getting warmer.if man stoped all pollution the ice caps would still carry on melting.why? because that is what the planet does.it creates and destroys in an endless cycle.floods,forest fires,earthquakes etc happen every year.but nature takes care of itself.land is destroyed by the sea,wind and rain.but land is also created by lava from volcanoes....the ice caps are a barren wasteland,and they are now giving way to lakes,tress and plants.which are all better for sustaining life....
some other things ppl don't know.when a volcano erupts it puts the equivelent of 30yrs worth of pollution into the air.30yrs worth in just a cpl of days!! and just think of all the volcanoes that have erupted over the centuries.
when we have a particularly bad case of weather,il nino for example,these always coincide with a huge sola flair from the sun.for ppl who don't think that the sun can effect the planet like that,just think of what the moon can do to it.and thats just a tiny planet in comparison!
huge core samples taken from the earth have shown that when man(going off the evidence we have now.)was still fairly primitive,there were extremely high samples of carbon monoxide around.(amongst others.)the sample of this plollution is so high it dwarfs anything that man has produced to this day.once again,the earth can cause more harm than man.but that does not mean we should not restrain our behaviour to our home planet...

whats my point in writing all this? 2 reasons,to help educate ppl on the true state of our planet.all the information i've mentioned can be found on the net.but also because i believe that governments around the world are using the threat of global warming to get more money out of ppl,and to create a climate of fear to try and control ppl more.for example;car drivers in britain are being taxed to death.each year over 30 billion! is made in road/car tax.yet less than 10 billion! is actually spent on the roads.where does the rest go? small affordable aeroplane companies(ryanair/easyjet.) are being told they should cut back on the number of flights each year.yet aeroplane companies(BA/virgin.) who are used by the rich are being told no such thing.in fact their getting ready to expand their number of flights! is this not the government trying to keep the lower classes down? i mean,there are even adverts on tv now,telling us to use a lower setting on washing machines because its better for the enviroment! also,smoking has been banned in all public places,but you can bet your life that the rich and the upper classes will be smoking away in their gentlemen's clubs and other such places!

We are not in control of this planet,we never will be! Mother Earth will do what she has always done!

Originally posted by edsinger
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming



Seems that what I have been thinking all along about this Global warming crap is coming to light! Seems many scientists are not jumping on this obviously flawed bandwagon...

December 14, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends--be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents--is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling--very slightly--.037 degrees Celsius.



And this one tops the cake if you miss the old air conditioners that actually cool your car etc

Let's just take NASA, for example--the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America--if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon--five years before Congress had intended--and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine--Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later NASA announced--on the back pages of the newspapers--that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as Freon was gone forever.

Kyoto is crap and just a method of hammering the American Economy imho

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will--in the short run--cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion--annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline--as high as 60 cents per gallon. There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent--and gasoline prices 53 percent.


Are you willing to pay these costs based on flawed science? remember that Olives grew in Germany long before the Industrial revolution.







SOURCE

[edit on 16-12-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by John bull 1]

Sorry - but in my opinion - and going on the evidence of the last 7 years or so - any 'scientific enviromental' research emanating from the Bush government is highly susopect to begin with. The Bush administration has spend years trying to convince everyone that global warming is not occuring. Meanwhile - Rome burns...and California...

J.

Originally posted by jimbo999

Sorry - but in my opinion - and going on the evidence of the last 7 years or so - any 'scientific enviromental' research emanating from the Bush government is highly susopect to begin with. The Bush administration has spend years trying to convince everyone that global warming is not occuring. Meanwhile - Rome burns...and California...

J.

This has nothing to do with Bush, but Bush is right in one regards. Until the scientific evidence PROVES the alarmists concerns then there is not reason to take the draconian measures that are being called for.

That was just a cheap shot at him, and that's fine, I expect no less.

The Debate is still on, it just as well could be a solar issue as an SUV one.

Originally posted by melatonin
A lie with a purpose, eh?

What about the lie that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans? That swindle documentary is a good example of purposeful lies. What about presenting obsolete and incorrect solar data to show a correlation between solar and climate that no longer exists?

What about the lies, misinformation and "disinformation" you keep trying to spread around here?....

What about your claim that all CO2 being released is anthropogenic?...

BTW your claim of incorrect data about the Sun and that apparently you think there is no correlation between the sun and the climate is once again wrong.

Give it up already Al Gore Jr.

Originally posted by melatonin
Essentially what you are stating is a logical fallacy. Just because temperature increases lead to a release of CO2, does not mean that CO2 cannot lead an increase in temperature. The phenomena is called a positive feedback, and unless you can change the law of physics, CO2 will remain a longwave absorber and contribute to the 'greenhouse' effect.

....and just because temperatures are increasing it doesn't mean it is because of CO2....

The point is that CO2 does not absorb as much longwave radiation as you and some others are trying to claim.

Another little fact you like to dismiss is the fact that several times have Climate Changes occurred, yet CO2 did not increase much.

The current climatic change we are going through is neither "exceptional, nor is it as extreme" as some of the climate changes we have had in the not so distant past.