It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
i was going to metion the cooling of greenland but forgot lol. you are correct in that. i hadn't heard anything about the sun's output however.that is an interesting thought.

one of the main problems with some scientists is that they try to prove their theroy so hard that they end up with tunnel vision ignoring other things. remember " o my god we are destrying the ozone layer" battle cry. then it started to close and we heard from some " o my god the ozone hole is closeing we must be doing something wrong".
we must keep in mind that we have only been keeping records on things for a relitively short period where the earth is concerned. if we had reliable day by day weather reports from the stone age, perhaps we would be able to offer a better view of what is happening. as it is the "eco nazis" like to jump up and shout about any wrong done to the world whether it is real or only percieved. in fact some would seem to prefer killing of the human race to make the world a better place.




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo "eco nazis"



What a great description of the movement. Cheers!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Something to remember when quoting government research -- in the Federal civil service scientists get promoted (higher pay) by getting their research projects published. They can do whiz-bang research and make startling discoveries, but if they cannot get their findings published it counts little to nothing towards the next promotion.

All the editorial boards of every scientific journal, EVERY ONE, has biases and beliefs and agendas and prejudices. Any submitted paper that runs counter to the journal's editorial position has a low probability of acceptance. Boardmembers also have personal opinions, likes, and dislikes of the researchers themselves and this plays a part in the process ("That jerk cut in front of me in the cafeteria line at the last conference. I am voting to reject his paper.").

So get their work published, researchers must choose the subject and wording of their papers carefully, and press the flesh and make nice to editorial board members at conferences. Buying the right person a drink at the introductory mixer can influence the rest of your scientific career. I personally know of three major research projects that got dropped because the preliminary data was not supporting the desired outcome as expressed by higher level bureaucrats. Others got dropped because it was taking too much time and would consume several man-years to complete. Many more smaller and simpler projects could be done in the same time frame, and more papers published = better chance of promotion.

Private sector and non-profit NGO researchers face even more pressures to conform to PC scientific thought. They can be outright fired if their research does not support the corporate position of their employers. This applies to environmental groups as well as corporate interests, perhaps even more so. Academia is not exempt either, as donors and supporters of universities apply pressure, as well as legislators that control the budgets of state-funded universities. It's dog-eat-dog in the world of scientific research, and much schmoozing, politicking, and treading carefully to get your work published and make a living. It's ugly, but that is real world.

The politicization of science and monetary influence on research started way before Bush took office. It is actually less under Bush than it was under the clinton administration. It's just getting more media attention now.



As for Crichton's book 'State of Fear' -- it seems to me he cherry-picked the data to support his claims even as he accuses the environmental industry of cherry-picking (OK, the environmental industry has long track record of doing that, still it seems hypocritical). Over all, it is a well written story that moves right along -- a real page-turner.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
OK now for an update...



Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.


I wonder what the EnviroNazi's will say to this?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
It's hard to believe this thread has been inactive since 2005 with the subject matter being such a hot item. I started a similar thread today before I noticed this one. I apologize for that.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
For those of you who got your 'global warming' education via Al Gore -

www.cei.org...

READ!

He wasn't exactly honest about 'global warming'. (no surprise there).

This has the real facts. Not the Gore agenda.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
For those of you who got your 'global warming' education via Al Gore -

www.cei.org...

READ!

He wasn't exactly honest about 'global warming'. (no surprise there).

This has the real facts. Not the Gore agenda.





Yea, the CEI has no agenda whatsoever, and is totally fact based.

Try reading a little bit about the CEI's shady past before you post garbage like this and then start claiming it as unbiased fact.

Try This Wikipedia Article

I'm sure a non-profit funded by the Amaco, Exxonmobile, Texaco, and Ford Motor Company will have no bias whatsoever in their findings, and it's just coincidence that their conclusions, that global warming is not excacerbated by human CO2 contributions happen to benefit all these companies. Just like how all those tobacco lobbyists who claim there is no tie between cigarette smoking and cancer, and just happen to be funded by tobacco companies. I'm sure that doesn't affect their outcome at all.




editted for spelling

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Athenion]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion


Yea, the CEI has no agenda whatsoever, and is totally fact based.


"They call it pollution, we call it life"

I think whoever came up with that should spend an hour in a room with a 15% CO2 atmosphere.

heheh.

I wonder if they will bother to tell this little soundbite to the descendents of the 1700 people who died in Cameroon from CO2 poisoning when it was released from a lake.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

"They call it pollution, we call it life"

I think whoever came up with that should spend an hour in a room with a 15% CO2 atmosphere.

heheh.

I wonder if they will bother to tell this little soundbite to the descendents of the 1700 people who died in Cameroon from CO2 poisoning when it was released from a lake.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by melatonin]


And you can drown from too much water too melatonin...what is your point?...

Perhaps the scientists and people like yourself who claim CO2 is a pollutant should spent money on starting a space program to find a planet where there is no CO2.... maybe after you spend a couple days there and find no food whatsoever you might have a different view on CO2.....

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life has existed with higher CO2 levels....

The amount of CO2 that has been added, manmade and natural together, for the past 150 years amounts to 0.01%...

So in order to have CO2 levels at 15 % in the atmosphere, right now it is 0.038%, you need about.... Let's see.... It took 150 years to add, naturally and manmade, 0.01% CO2 in the atmosphere...so Let's do this in increaments of 10, so people like Melatonin can "grasp" what he is trying to claim..

150 years = 0.01% CO2
1,500 years = 0.1% CO2
15,000 years = 1% CO2
150,000 years = 10% CO2

We will need 150,000 years of releasing CO2 levels, both manmade and naturally like it has been happening for the past 150 years to have 10% CO2 in the atmosphere, to get it to 15% add 75,000 years to 150,000.....

So in 225,000 years CO2 levels "might" be 15% in Earth's atmosphere "if" CO2 levels continue to be released by nature and mankind like has happened for the past 150 years.

Big "if" btw.... a lot happens in 225,000 years....


[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And you can drown from too much water too melatonin...what is your point?...


That it was a stupid soundbite by a group of oil-funded hacks?


The amount of CO2 that has been added, manmade and natural together, for the past 150 years amounts to 0.01%...


Amounts to 0.01% of what?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

That it was a stupid soundbite by a group of oil-funded hacks?


You have false statements and claimed that scientists such as Dr. Akasofu have no knowledge of the climate, which I proved you were wrong...

You have claimed that normally CO2 levels during deglaciations only change by about 20 ppm, and I shown that the normal changes are around 100ppm.

You have been proved wrong so many times is not funny anymore, and you have constantly referenced Real Climate, the website where Mann is one of the directors and where he has tried, alongside his colleages, to give credence to his graph even though even the IPCC does not use it anymore because it has been discredited....

So exactly what does that make you?....

Are you being paid off by Communists/left radicals to make such false statements?.....




Originally posted by melatonin
Amounts to 0.01% of what?


it is the amount of CO2 which has increased during the past 150 years melatonin....

The levels of CO2 150 years ago or so was around 0.028%, now they are 0.038%....that's only an increase of 0.01%...



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You have false statements and claimed that scientists such as Dr. Akasofu have no knowledge of the climate, which I proved you were wrong...


errm, no.

I did not say that. I said he is an expert on Aurora. Which he is.


You have claimed that normally CO2 levels during deglaciations only change by about 20 ppm, and I shown that the normal changes are around 100ppm.


errm, no.

I said that 280-300 is the normal CO2 peak for 650,000 years.


it is the amount of CO2 which has increased during the past 150 years melatonin....

The levels of CO2 150 years ago or so was around 0.028%, now they are 0.038%....that's only an increase of 0.01%...


Yeah, an increase of 100ppm, which is equivalent to an increase of only 30% in CO2 levels, but a massive 0.01% of total atmosphere...

[edit on 4-4-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

errm, no.

I did not say that. I said he is an expert on Aurora. Which he is.


You tried to discredit him even though his PHd is in Geophysics and if we only look at the past 9 years of his career, during that time alone he was the Director of the International Arctic Research Center, where they have been studying Climate Change in the Arctic....



Originally posted by melatonin
errm, no.

I said that 280-300 is the normal CO2 peak for 650,000 years.


No...this is the part that you stated and which is wrong...


During normal ice-age cycle a temperature change of a few degrees is associated with around 280-300ppm.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is not true in the least..


Science, Vol 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 , 12 March 1999

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.


Corroboration of the above can be found in the following two links.
www.sciencemag.org...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, an increase of 100ppm, which is equivalent to an increase of only 30% in CO2 levels, but a massive 0.01% of total atmosphere...


Massive?... The Earth has had 4,000 and even over 7,000 ppm, which make it to 0.4 to 0.7% levels of CO2 of the total atmospheric gases, and there was no "Runaway Global Warming", Earth did not become Mars, and during times when Earth had 4,000-4,400ppm of CO2 the temperature of Earth was similar to the present and there was life on Earth...



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Massive?... The Earth has had 4,000 and even over 7,000 ppm, which make it to 0.4 to 0.7% levels of CO2 of the total atmospheric gases, and there was no "Runaway Global Warming", Earth did not become Mars, and during times when Earth had 4,000-4,400ppm of CO2 the temperature of Earth was similar to the present and there was life on Earth...


Actually, when we had 4,000ppm CO2 there were no polar ice caps and the Earth was considerably warmer than today
And no-one who knows what they're talking about is suggesting run away greenhouse or anything.

However, under current orbital parameters and continent and orogenic (mountain range) configuration, a comparatively small increase in CO2 could cause a noticeable increase in temp. And if maintained long enough might even prevent or at least delay the next ice age.

If you ignore the more extremist, catastrophic, predictions made by the less well informed, and stick to the facts, there is a middle ground which says there'll be some gradual changes in climates in some parts of the world but in most cases we can readily adjust and in some cases they'll be beneficial, especially in the long term. As you know, IMO issues such as rainforest destruction will prove more dangerous in the short term due to their important role in regional climates, and particularly with regrads precipitation. We may also want to consider the effects we're having on cloud cover - which can both warm and cool. Although any effects from either will, inevitably, be blamed on SUV drivers .....



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Actually, when we had 4,000ppm CO2 there were no polar ice caps and the Earth was considerably warmer than today
And no-one who knows what they're talking about is suggesting run away greenhouse or anything.


Actually it was as warm as it is today. The only reason why the climate in Siberia, North America, Europe and the eastern part of Gondwana was warm and sunny is because the Earth was much different back then, all those areas were close to the ecuator. There were ice caps, but meanwhile in the north there were no landmasses, in the south South America and much of Africa were covered by the south pole ice caps.


The Late Ordovican was an Ice House World. The South Polar Ice Cap covered much of Africa and South America. The climate in North America, Europe, Siberia and the eastern part of Gondwana was warm and sunny

www.scotese.com...



Originally posted by Essan
However, under current orbital parameters and continent and orogenic (mountain range) configuration, a comparatively small increase in CO2 could cause a noticeable increase in temp. And if maintained long enough might even prevent or at least delay the next ice age.


If the geological record has shown in the past that increases in CO2 levels have not lead to a warmer world, there is nothing that lead us to believe the small raise in CO2 levels we have been experiencing is the cause of the warming.

In fact CO2 levels have increased in the Earth's past during Ice Ages, such as what happened in the late Ordovician.



Originally posted by Essan
If you ignore the more extremist, catastrophic, predictions made by the less well informed, and stick to the facts, there is a middle ground which says there'll be some gradual changes in climates in some parts of the world but in most cases we can readily adjust and in some cases they'll be beneficial, especially in the long term.


There will be some catastrophic changes, and there will be people who will die and will be displaced because of these natural changes, just like what has happened in the past, but at the end the human race and animals will survive and adapt. Unless the Sun or some other factor really changes dramatically.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Actually it was as warm as it is today. The only reason why the climate in Siberia, North America, Europe and the eastern part of Gondwana was warm and sunny is because the Earth was much different back then, all those areas were close to the ecuator. There were ice caps, but meanwhile in the north there were no landmasses, in the south South America and much of Africa were covered by the south pole ice caps.


I thought your were referring to the Mid Cretaceous - when CO2 levels of c4,000ppm have been postulated in order to explain the high global temperatures of the time. The Java Plateau Flood Basalt eruptions being a favourite source for the additional CO2.

And then there's the PETM

www.es.ucsc.edu...

No doubt you'll argue that the high CO2 levels at that time were a consequence of the higher temps, not a cause.

But if so, how come current CO2 levels are today 30% higher than during recent periods - such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum (Hypsithermal) c8,000 years ago - in when global temps were warmer? Surely then CO2 levels should have been higher than today?

Most atmospheric CO2 ends up in the oceans. If the temp is higher, the oceans hold less CO2, so atmospheric levels are higher. If it's colder - say due to a Northern Hemisphere glaciation - then oceans become cooler and hold more CO2, meaning less is left in the atmopshere.

But what happens if the temp does not change but a lot more CO" s suddenly released into the atmosphere? Say, as result of a clathrate gun going off (methane hydrate release)? The extra CO2 increases the greenhouse effect and causes global warming. Until such time as natural systems return things back to normal.

Fortunately human activity is unlikely to release quite so much CO2, so the effects will be less extreme.


In fact CO2 levels have increased in the Earth's past during Ice Ages, such as what happened in the late Ordovician.


But how do we know that had it not been for the increase CO2 (where did it come from? Volcanoes maybe?) that the ice age of the time wouldn't have been even more severe? Maybe the CO2 caused the ice age to come to an end? (Remember for the Ordovician we're talking accuracy of dates to 'within a few million years' - and the current period of glaciations have only been going on for less than 3 million years)

Besides, if CO2 follows temperature, how can CO2 increase during an ice age?


[edit on 4-4-2007 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You tried to discredit him even though his PHd is in Geophysics and if we only look at the past 9 years of his career, during that time alone he was the Director of the International Arctic Research Center, where they have been studying Climate Change in the Arctic....


Errm, no.

I said he was an expert in aurora. Which he is. A quick glance of his publications is sufficient to know his area of expertise.

I hope you wouldn't expect a anaesthetist to operate on any future brain tumour you may have, because, hey, they are all medical doctors after all, they even work in the same building as neurosurgeons...


No...this is the part that you stated and which is wrong...


During normal ice-age cycle a temperature change of a few degrees is associated with around 280-300ppm.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is not true in the least..


If you want to interpret the words the wrong way, maybe. I clarified this statement last time you brought it up. Occassionally my words are sloppy, possibly because you bore me easily.

The peak CO2 level during ice-age cycles has been around 280-300ppm for the last 650,000 years.


Massive?... The Earth has had 4,000 and even over 7,000 ppm, which make it to 0.4 to 0.7% levels of CO2 of the total atmospheric gases, and there was no "Runaway Global Warming", Earth did not become Mars, and during times when Earth had 4,000-4,400ppm of CO2 the temperature of Earth was similar to the present and there was life on Earth...


I was taking the piss. The 30% and 0.01% are actually related to the same change, both are related to a 100ppm increase. That's why I asked you 0.01% of what?

It's a 30% increase in CO2 levels. It's 0.01% increase as a proportion of total atmospheric concentration. It is a large increase for CO2 for its normal variation over the last 650,000 years.

You still don't get it with the paleozoic period of climate. The earth was a completely different proposition 400million years ago. Tetropods had barely made it onto land, flowering plants and grasses never existed, land plants didn't until the silurian. Antartica never even moved to the pole until 360million years ago, and africa/india didn't break away from the continent until 160/125 mya respectively. There was just enough oxygen to start to form ozone. Multiple extinction events were occuring. The sun was less active. The uncertainties associated with the proxies of these periods are very large indeed.

etc etc.

You are comparing apples and turnips.

The Geocarb model, which you like to wave about as if you have some contrarian light-sabre, is the result of Robert Berner. Now, I know you like people who have worked in particular fields and the ability to appeal to their authority, even if they are outside the area of their true experitise. Berner has been studying the carbon cycle and paleoclimate for 20 years. It is his area of expertise.


Ray doesn't mention my modeling work also misrepresented by William Broad. I have been looking over the past 20 years at factors affecting the carbon cycle during the Phanerozoic. This is summarized in my book The Phanerozoic Carbon Cycle (Oxford University Press, 2004) There are very many factors affecting CO2 that are not obvious on a human or even Pleistocene time scale. This includes the feedback of global warming on CO2 uptake by increased silicate rock weathering and CO2-induced increased plant productivity as it also affects CO2 uptake by weathering. The rise of vascular land plants during the Paleozoic undoubtedly had a large effect on CO2 uptake via both increased weathering and the accumulation of carbonaceous debris in rocks. Continental drift affects both continental temperatures and river runoff and crude estimates of such factors has been made via GCM modeling The whole long term carbon cycle and its effect on CO2 should not be ignored and replaced by simplistic assumptions for quick calculations of paleo-CO2. Nevertheless, ten million year averages for the many (over 400) independent proxies fall within my estimated error margins, obtained via sensitivity analysis, which are VERY WIDE. A copy of this data is being sent to Ray personally. I couldn't reproduce it here. Also,the two major extended periods of glaciation (Permo-Carboniferous) and the past 30 million years agree both with modeling and proxy averages. This is crude by modern modelling standards but it is strongly suggestive of a correlation of CO2 with climate. If you don't like any of this, at least look at my book.

Robert Berner

www.realclimate.org...-21079

Berner can show relationships between CO2 and temperature going back into the carboniferous period of geological time (300mya). So, when you propose one period where this relationship seems not so strong, we don't discard, we try to study it and get reliable data. At this point, we don't have enough data to really conclude anything substantial, especially with poor proxy data and a resolution of 10mya.


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



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Well all this talk is well presented for both sides of the question, I have but a simple one..


around 1300 AD they were growing olives in Germany, how could this be? There were no Coal Plants then.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
You have voted Athenion for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

wELL DONE MATE VOICE OF MODERATION AND WISDOM AMOUNGST THE SPIN AND LIES.... anyhow

To be honest cant be bothered to discuss with the same people who always quote the same research which is dubiously based and have a personal agenda of some type.

Maybe there is some truth that anti human global warming types are evolving and getting some wisdom, maybe they have reading Einstein and are basing there stances on his not so famous quote to do with his obsession around the cosmological constant

"If the facts don’t fit the theory change the facts"

well that might be fine in theories, and in research of unknown un quantifiable (sic at present) processes and such like. Doesn’t really matter if his refusal this time to look at the facts, research and evidence base from many many reputable and repeatable experiments. It mattered to the earth and all the living things within it not a thing at the time.

However this is a very very very dangerous approach to take with the issue of global warming and mankind’s impact on the environment in general. If we destroy the massively complicated hugely interrelated systems that govern out meteorology and ecosystem effects will be produced.

I just cant understand many posters who try and use the "look at what these (usually Exxon funded) guys have to say. Look the evidence shows this, look this has happened before" etc. Well the earths temperatures have changed before. Of course they have its part of that system. What I want to know from the (humans have no effect because it does not suite my lifestyle, or stock based pension fund) is the following. When in the past you quote the variability of the earths temperature due to different factors within the system. Now at any time with these warming/cooling periods has this just happened by chance, did the climate decide that she would act in a different way from normal? No of course not. Im sure you will all agree that in fact some part of the system that is the environment to include the climate changed its input/output. This change in input/output from or too, the climate at the time, resulted in a change of factors that control and causally effect that system. Now we all know, and have been told repeatedly that various factors can cause such an apparent change in the climate, by the change in the increase and decrease of that factor in relation to all of the other factors present in the system of the climate. This has been shown to be things from evolution e.g. in the very very distant past there was hardly any O2 in the atmosphere and it was nearly totally carbon and nitrogen mixed. All of the living things alive today (except of course specialised and very limited number of things such as bacteria at submersed volcanic vents, some cave dwelling organisms, yeast, other bacteria and the like) would find this environment inhospitable. As inhospitable probably as Venus. Truly at this time the earth was inhospitable and barren to modern life (and I mean here even the mammals first shrew like ancestors) would have had no chance. No over a very long period from that point as evolution took over and living organisms started evolving different respiration (at a cell level) responses to the environment and slowly very slowly lots and lots and lots of generations of these living things changed our atmosphere from one that had hardly any Oxygen in it to one that is composed now of around a 20 ish percent oxygen level.

Also a meteorite strike, high volcanic activity, varying levels of Iron in the sea (sic plankton growth etc) all effect our weather massively. The sun and its output of all kinds, especially magnetic all of these things rightly as humans have no effect camp say.

Two points here. The earths eco systems change massively yes, yes there is natural process and forced process by living things. These living bacteria as I said simple small one cell organisms have changed the level of oxygen from barely any to its current level (of course supported by later similar respiring organisms, though they only had a chance to evolve and contribute to this factor due to the step up of the simple single celled organisms for millions of years before them).

So what your telling me is that yes, different factors in the past have been shown to effect the climate massively. I have just mentioned another example not very often surprisingly mentioned where a small but sustained and constant change in one factor lead to a whole new mix of gases in our climate, leading again to a different climate, due to the nature, properties and interactions of those gases both within the system of the climate, and also the chemical and biological effects of these factors on other parts of the environment. These then react due to the changed factor and affect it again, called feedback.

SYSTEMS FEEDBACK CAUSUAL EFFECT, not difficult to understand but massive in its complexity when viewed form a working model perspective like the environment. There are millions of factors all interrelated and effecting other factors over periods from as short as a nano second to hundreds of thousands of years.

So since when did humans stop being a factor. If those small cells can be and yet we are not? How come that some postulate, it’s a natural process, look the sun did it here, or the volcanoes there… of course they did. This system is simply a more complex extrapolation of a very fundamental law of Physics. The law of thermodynamics. I know no one who seems to be postulating totally natural factors driving the observed and measurable changes in our climate, would agree if I said that I heated 1 litre of water over a Bunsen burner on the lowest possible setting, that even though I had recorded a slow change in the temperature upwards, that I would not take into account the effect of a very small heat source under it, as such a litre of water had been shown to heat up slowly by absorbing heat from the environment, The temp of the air, the glass jar it was in, the sunlight hitting the volume of water through the lab windows. Hey look im surprised that it has risen by a noticeable difference from those earlier records with no small Bunsen burner on, but hey lets ignore this observable, measurable factor. Lets look for another thing causing it, like Einstein said

“lets change the facts to fit the theory”



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
No im sure this would happen by none of the posters here?

Why then is it not applicable to the climate. Where do you guys think this extra factor of greenhouse gas production into the environment is going, is it not now acting like the laws that govern all other C02 observed? The same for all the contributing factors from mankind’s pollution? No of course suddenly since the propaganda machine that also ran the tobacco scientific research now also seem to be turning the whole of scientific knowledge and observations on their heads. There is another factor in town people its where you have to disregard all energy and changes in state or chemical effects if they are produced by humans but except them from volcanoes, bacteria and trees. Of course the fact that trees absorb Co2 and release o2 (not totally true but close) and have been proven to be a contributing factor in both the temperature and weather patterns of the world, does not matter. All the cars all the factories all the releases of any polluting materials by man seem to have just due to that very factor i.e. they are human produced now operate outside the known laws of chemistry, biology and physics. What is the human C02 doing? Flying out into space?

Show me where else you can add something to a system and not have an effect? Its impossible. We can change it but not destroy it. Is all of humans pollutions going through some mysterious Exxon funded star gate? Being teleported to Mars and Saturn to account for their temp changes… of course not wake up people. Its contributing and in a bigger way than anyone on here seems to realise to a very dynamic, very quickly changing massively complex system. This system has the ability to rip the biggest skyscrapers from there foundations and kill all living life in a generation or two, hey but we control it said the Ronald Macdonald clown as he prods the lion in the corner just once to often to actually notice the effects, too late now, he thought the lions increased heart beat was due to a virus not anger, he thought the change in behaviour of that animal was because something was happening on Mars, maybe lions got like this naturally, he ended up being eaten alive, but not noticing the attack till it was too late. The vet had warned him, the lion experts had warned him…. But he needed that lion for his show, for the food on his table, he even used the lion as it was a big strong good looking one to get dates with… hey what’s the risk very small I could be hit by a truck tomorrow….I will balance the risk against the gain… he kept prodding. When is that last prod? That’s the question I hope we never find out if humanity wakes up.

What I abore though is that the people stating this isn’t anything to do with humans are not just taking a risk for themselves, they are taking that position on behalf of over six billion separate human beings and all other life on this planet, hey prod as many lions as you want out of ignorance, but you prod one that effects me or my life or my family or the innocents…. Well you are on very very questionable moral ground there. This is why I reply with so much passion. You all want to die with a mouth full of GM corn and sands sweeping all around you thirsty fine… but don’t make me live your hell or my grandchildren… f***ck your 500 pension plan, big 4x4 to feel a man in, growth of economy and jobs, your stepping on my toes and I wont take it from people who don’t know what they are talking about, or worse those who do, posters on here noted x2 and sell out. I often lay awake at night and wonder how those “scientists” who were given testimonies in the 70’s and 80’s for the tobacco companies did it, how do they sleep at night…is it really that simple to trade of income for other peoples lives…. As all stocks and shares in arms companies show apparently yes.

Maybe we are truly like some believe then placed here 6000 years ago and God is just testing the faith of good oil burning god fearing folks to see whether they can accept this new fact of life, humans only seem to be able to affect the material world when it is of benefit to them. If it means we are doing wrong or will suffer from it, hey it does not matter nay more, all of the known facts don’t fit in that case. This truly must be the garden of Eden.

I’ve seen this type of science take great leaps forward in the last 50 years. Now we know that the dinosaurs were only put there to test our faith, I know that global warming isn’t really happening its testing my faith and if I offer total unwavering belief to my deity all will be ok.

Well im sure any sane person would agree this isn’t going to help us when crops are failing and human starvation becomes the norm.
When the desert totally takes over china and Africa.
When more and more millions will die from drought.
Infact I take back what I just said. There is much evidence for the effects of humans on the climate. Even if we cant measure it yet properly to an nth degree what the actual effect on this change is by humans, there is much much evidence. In addition there is none for God. There is none for how humanity will survive in the worst fears of some of the leading experts on the climate. So just to be sure and to save an entire planet from catastrophe I will not accept this strange new science (strange that as I was laughed at in UNI doing my environmental sciences degree for my obsession and belief in all other strange phenomena) and keep on showing the truth and facts.

Where does it go? What is the process by which any involvement from humans in the production, manufacture and release of pollutants especially C02, that changes the state properties and behaviour of these compounds? Please answer nay Sayers you would be onto a Nobel at the least with that one.

One last thing for people to recognise, the WWW is wonderful but also allows armchair experts who are very dangerous. In addition people must be aware that about only 30% of academic work has been put on the net. Around 60% of journalistic and reporting work. Most of the information on this is not yet published online, only the new stuff.

There is so much evidence, results and work been done on this issue for over 30 years now that is not reaching the public domain yet. Believe the majority of those who are in the know and are independent in this, not some stunt of PR like the current oil industry and politicians. Remember we are in a war in Iraq



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join