Global Warming Caused By Humans (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 10:02 AM
It's official. Nearly all climatologists agree that human beings are the number one source of global warming, says the head of the National Academy of Sciences. The findings are in direct contrast with those of the Bush administration, which has said that too much is unknown about Carbon Dioxide and other gases to be sure
"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and it continues to rise," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist who left as chancellor of University of California-Irvine to become academy president this month. "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fuels."

Just three senators -- David Vitter, R-Louisiana, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska -- were at the hearing. All three shared concerns about coastlines disappearing.

Cicerone also bolstered a 2004 Pentagon report that two private consultants prepared on potential global impacts of an abrupt and severe change in the world's climate. When the report was issued, it was met with some skepticism and disbelief -- even by the Pentagon official who commissioned the study.

Among the dire consequences sketched out were surging seas breaking down levees in the Netherlands in 2007, making the Hague "unlivable," and Europe's climate becoming "more like Siberia's" by 2020. They saw possible "mega-droughts" in southern China and northern Europe.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Well, that's that. Not as if anyone really in the know doubted it, but it's hard to argue with everyone who gets paid to know this stuff. I personally hope that maybe, just maybe, the administration will finally take the hint and make concerted effort to do something about this. Maybe not Kyoto agreement, but we should be playing a much larger role in this than we currently are.

Related Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Newly Discovered Tasmanian Coral Reef May Prove Global Warming
Round 1. The Vagabond V thelibra: Global Warming

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:05 PM
This is simply another left-wing media attempt to scare the be-jesus out of people by using phrases such as "nearly all climatologists..." which is completely untrue. Do a Google search on GW in the past and you'l get plenty of info such as this


"History tells us this is Earth's third global warming in the past 2,000 years. There was the Roman Warming during the 1st century and the Medieval Warming during the 12th century—all before the modern warming began around 1850.

England was warm enough to grow wine grapes in Roman times and in the 12th century. The Brits can't yet grow wine grapes in the 21st century, but that may well happen even without human carbon-dioxide emissions. The ice cores brought up in Greenland and the Antarctic during the 1980s show 300 instances of global warming over the past half-million years. The isotopes of oxygen, carbon and beryllium in the ice tell us our 1,500-year climate cycles are produced by a tiny cycle in the sun's irradiance."

Where were all the spent fossil fuels coming from then?

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:32 PM
Using google is not enough. You can find ANYTHING contrary to even what we consider common sense! Just look at THIS website. You want to prove your case pro/con then this website is more suitable.

FYI WE do NOT cause Global Warming/Cooling it is a NATURAL Cycle of our planet. What we ARE DOING though is putting more and more C02/toxic particulates into the atmosphere affecting this cycle. The Health Risks of pollution is a much more pressing issue to me(Asthma sufferer here) so in my mind Infernal Combustion Engine is bad. Personally warmer weather would be welcome in Toronto during the winter
I just don't want the Smog to come with it as that is NOT a natural phenomenon in it's current state. Every day it seems we get a smog alert and each and every year it increases. The kicker is most of the smog is coming from the States so any action I take up here to get say Coal Plants shut down and more regs put on Car Emissions will only have a slight effect. Thanks America!

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 12:46 PM
It's one thing to say that internal combustion engines cause breathing/health problems and quite another to say that we (humans) are the primary cause of global warming-especially since it has happened in the past. There is no positive proof that we are "helping" GW to occur.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:06 PM
Actually there is, C02 is a proven Greenhouse gas, as is Methane both of which are released in very large amounts by our Industrial processes. You cannot deny that in a Greenhouse environment the more C02 added to the air mixture traps more heat, just ask anyone who working in a greenhouse. The Earth is a giant greenhouse yes it's big, complex and dynamic but we humans are simplifying the equation by cutting down the Rainforrests, which help to mop up allot of C02 which usually only comes from geological eruptions. Some things we do not know like how much C02 can our Oceans mop up? We do know that the Oceans are becoming more acidic due to increasing C02 being added to the mixture which is making it more difficult for life to thrive and in effect will probably exasberate the growing dead zones we a currently observing in the Pacific and Atlantic.

And now there is a NEW greenhouse gas on the scene 17,000 times stronger then C02

Saying there is no evidance that we are effecting the climate is just silly as there is plenty of evidance we are exasberating the cycle.

Here is a Scholar's link to allot of work being done in the field, unless you're postulating that its all pinko leftist propoganda hmm?

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:18 PM
Keep that in mind, the more buildings we erect and the more acres of forrest and grassland we pave over WILL have an effect. Every skyscraper and every Car will have an effect. Every Ship, Plane, Windmill or Solar Panel WILL HAVE AN EFFECT! We are a very distructive species as we always go in blindly before looking at the potential consequences. Anything and everything we do increases entropy in a natural system. We can slow it down by thinking more responsibly and there is some indictations that this might be happening, but considering how much we DON'T know is it too little too late? Are we going too Slow or too Fast? Or is it all for nothing? If Mr. Bush thought the off-chance of Saddam having WMD's was worth going in and causing the deaths of untold thousands, I think it's our responsibility to act to prevent somethink that may be totally preventable, Better Safe then Sorry, but since most of the deaths will occur in 3rd world nations at first why worry eh.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:42 PM
Some might be interested in the awesome debate on this very topic between TheVagabond and thelibra.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This is simply another left-wing media attempt to scare the be-jesus out of people by using phrases such as "nearly all climatologists..." which is completely untrue. Do a Google search on GW in the past and you'l get plenty of info such as this info such as this

Your partisan comments are irrelevant. The article you linked to is against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Who is a Conservative!
Your 'left-wing' conspiracy about global warming doesn't fly when the Govinator and Bush both agree that man made global warming is a problem.

Now, as for the link you used it brings you to the The Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI). The CGFI is a project of the Hudson Institute which is a activist think tank put together by the most evil of corporations.
Leading the group is Exxon Mobil who funnels millions of dollars into these think tanks to confuse the Global Warming issue.

In other words the link you used is disinformation.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:57 PM

It's official. Nearly all climatologists agree that human beings are the number one source of global warming, says the head of the National Academy of Sciences. The findings are in direct contrast with those of the Bush administration, which has said that too much is unknown about Carbon Dioxide and other gases to be sure

I think the mods should take note of the title and intro and point to them anytime someone asks for an example of a what bias looks like. The poster should consult a grammar and style manual as well.

The intro suggests that the actual story is bashing Bush rather than summarizing the findings of yet another study on GW. As previous posts have noted, there are countless studies out there that argue both sides of the issue.

Personally, I tend to believe that it is hard to argue that putting hundreds of thousands of tons (or whatever the actual amount is) of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no effect whatsoever.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:40 PM
You can't call fact bias. When "nearly all climate scientists today" (a direct quote from the head of the NAS) agree on one thing, and a powerful political entity says the another, that is key to the conspiratorial aspect of the story.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:57 PM
Good story

Freedom_for_Sum as said above if you do a Google you will find a range of perspectives on topics and issues and theories. Try goggling flat earth or Jihad, taking that approach you could find yourself agreeing with the authors of information like that, you could end up jumping of the edge of the earth whilst blowing yourself up ! only kidding just to emphasise the importance of both knowing and trusting your source of information before believing it.
Recent events even today only highlight the danger of a wrong view or belief, in a more humorous though equally stupid way there are still people as said above who are adamant that the Earth is Flat. They have no proof, They have seen the pictures like the rest of us of the Earth from space, but they refuse to see the truth or reality in front of their very eyes. Its astounding really. Now there are obviously and thankfully for society very very very few people who think this but they exist.
I therefore have not found it that surprising that due to the current governments link with oil, its leaders historical and current ties to the industry, that a campaign of misinformation on global warming has succeeded in the USA, though the length of it and its absorption and acceptance by a mainstream part of the population in the USA has surprised me. I think this is a good story but Global Warming has been proved (therefore no longer a theory but scientific fact by measurement data and results and can I put it THE DEBATE IS OVER)

Before these PROVEN AUTHENTICATED REPEATABLE MEASUREMENTS had all taken place nearly all the vast majority of specialists and scientists in this field have believed nearly conclusively that global warming is a fact for around 5-10 yrs and a minority before that. Now you see this is where the difference comes in, and I refer to my point in the beginning of my post, that you have to be sure about the sources of information you accept. So lets have a look then at the people who you quote, the I dare say experts. in your own words lets have a quick look at

sources like these

thanks soo much for that above couldn’t have put it better myself due to the topic you are quoting them on. Two Authors and one Umbrella organisation (charity us status) The Hudson institute.

First Author
Dennis T. Avery Director, Centre for Global Food Issues
Senior Fellow

Sounds impressive he has a science qualification too

Avery studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin

I didn’t know global warming had anything to do with Agricultural Economics? did you?

Hey maybe hes going to work out how to stop most people in the west and spreading, from eating a Big Mac a day....mmm hey he could be onto something there.... stop the slashing and clearing of the rainforest (the very thing that absorbs the C02 that is ONE of the causes of Global warming) in South America to make pastures for cattle who continuously fart out methane (indirect human link) before being minced up with lots of additives and Big Mac. Hey if he used his actual expertise and knowledge on the areas he’s competent with, he could actually help slow down the effects of Global Warming.
But wait no he’s not, he’s actually taken the now draconian, secularised and minority view about Global warming within the Scientific Community.
I wonder why? well besides his links to the government his republican party membership lets look at a glimpse of his historical environmental views and standpoints....mmm how about a book he wrote:

Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming (Hudson Institute, 1995).

(The Hudson Institute funded both the article you submitted as your evidence/reason for your viewpoint and im discussing and that book. It is a charity/institute though it is mainly funded by agrochemical and oil companies and the republican party, so I wont even bother to mention more on the sources publisher... nuff said...bias proved!)

Another article he wrote:

"What's Wrong with Global Warming?" was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader's Digest.

The books and article title Just about sums up his stand and politics then on environmental matters. He just sees resources and money, stated in his very degree title, and his writings to date.

And there’s been me listening to and believing the climatologists, oceanographers, chemists, and biologists...silly me.
He’s worked for the government too, now here’s a surprise he received an intelligence (not clever/mensa/einstien type but a CIA/Spook type) award, mmmm really his views impartial then from government policy on this?

So Are you seriously accepting this mans views? He doesn’t see, comprehend or understand the climatology behind it enough to make his remarks and comments opposing nearly every other scientist with the necessary skills, knowledge and independent funding who have proven otherwise.
I feel ive showed that he is certainly not an expert in the field, has a proven and historic Bias on this subject and is paid for by the very administration that has more links and personal benefits to be gained from the manufacture and sale of Oil based products than any government in history!

The other Hack who contributed to the article, well just that a hack, commentator, journalist...nothing wrong with that though why is someone who has not even a 10 th of the knowledge needed to be known about this complex subject, before you can appose the views and results and findings of most independent experts in this field is slightly humorous, if sad.

So the Publisher, and contributors to your evidence your amazing "sources like this" IMHO has been shown to be unreliable, unqualified, biased and to be honest if you still believe in what they say I would be surprised.

However that is your choice and I respect it.

I advise you then if you decide that indeed yes, you still don’t believe in Global Warming and its implication or link to mankind and his activities, that you provide some sources with recent data, from credible unbiased experts in this area to back up that claim and educate me and others too ASAP!

Obviously if such a thing is indeed the case there must be a massive global conspiracy of all the climatologists, oceanographers etc to both falsify data and measurements( but only by all the world experts outside of and not funded by the Government or Oil groups lol!).
In addition the hundreds of thousands of hours if not millions of pages and research and findings posted on this subject over the last twenty years has all been faked.... Im just wondering what the final climatologists world coupe might be...
taxing the air or rain?...mmm the NWO in white coats…. Well anyone crazy enough to believe such a truly Mad Scientist Conspiracy Theory is way out there with the fairies even by ATS conspiracy theory standards… Im just waiting for the post
‘Mad Scientists and Left Wing Liberal NWO Proven’

As this is ATSN it is important we know of such things ASAP... I eagerly await your information and sources so we can dig deeper into the truth of Global warming... a Scientist conspiracy not a Scientific Fact!! who would have guessed eh? well they say always watch the geeky quiet ones eh.

So as said I believe that I have shown there are many problems in your supposition on the reality of GW(please see the links below) and sources. I eagerly await as said new sources (which I will look at with the same rigor as this piece and its contributors and funders) on this so we can together on ATS work out the truth behind the conspiracy. However until you can convince me otherwise I will now provide some sources myself, that show the truth, who are experts and independent. I invite you too if you would like to check the validity and comment on them as I have with you.

Firstly and before I continue, the recent counter argument against the worlds scientist and experts, that ok yes maybe global warming is happening but the links to Mans involvement are questionable. That also the earth naturally has periodic climatic changes of mean global temperature and also an oscillating ice age cycle. In response because as said earlier the debate is over on this, it is plain for most people who look at the facts and reality. but just to state some facts on this and not policy position as above, these facts are so basic that I wont even bother sourcing them, I don’t know check any high school textbook in chemistry or the like. And I think ive mentioned this on ATS before,

Fact : When Hydrocarbons are combusted one of the pollutants liberated from that process includes Carbon Dioxide.

Fact: Increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere in the past have been shown to increase global mean temperatures, this is known to and affect the climate. Its called Global Warming

Fact: Humans drive the cars or combust hydrocarbons in other ways.

I challenge you to disprove or present any evidence to the contrary of the three statements above. Until you can I state 'The premise that human kind is not contributing to and creating global warming has been proven to be false, by the evidence currently available to the contrary'

Its politics and policy and stances not science, anyone who says differently.

Now of course then there’s the often cited theory that this is part of a natural cycle (the observed and authenticated proof of a rise in global temp), the cycle between the Ice ages etc, well yes this is the first vaguely correct science the anti GW minority has cited, used. Yep these cycles occur, however they take long periods of time and as their actual cause is supported with a few workable and possible theories it is impossible for humankind to state with any confidence, that we are just contributing in a small way to an overall pattern.(relating specifically to the ice age cycle here) the overall patterns mechanics and causes is still that just a theory not a fact.
Therefore logically until C02 and other Global Warming gases can be proven not to be the causes or contributors of these cycles again there is surely no debate?
Even in previous climatic cycles (not just ice age cycle) other Global Warming Gases were introduced into the atmosphere and indeed still are being such as in methane from volcanoes, by natural processes. Weve studied and seen the effects on the environment when this has happened in a massive/extreme way before.
In the past extinction level events have occurred due to climate change. Again I say why is there still debate on this, scientific fact and common sense with the primal survival drive should have pushed this issue way past the debating stage, both in the scientific community and politically. We know that we are causing/contributing to it, there is a not small possibility that the change in climate could be extreme. Where is or rather why the debate? I just don’t get it to be honest.
Oh sorry forgot then about oil policitcs and $.

So as said the whole basis of the argument against GW and the dangers it poses, is flawed and not a sensible or even workable theory, with current data. The complex, interdependent, fluid, oscillating, powerful and re-active nature of the earths climate is way too misunderstood to take chances with or ignore. Just think about it, the climate is soo interrelated to each of us and is the small fragile bubble we live in on the surface of the earth…I think a old Buddhist Koan sums it up perfectly.
A Zen master approaches his student who is in meditation in the monastery garden, a heavy thunderstorm is brewing. He gives his student a cup of tea and sits opposite him silently. As the tea touches the lips of the student and he tastes it a raindrop lands in the cup, at that exact moment the master says

How does the cloud taste?
(sometimes translated as)
Can you see the cloud in your cup of tea?

Its so simple but so true. Think about it just once, next time you have a drink. Tea now, evaporated sweat and pee tomorrow, washing machine or toliet next day, then stream, river, sea and then cloud again, Rain, river, water tap, cup of tea again....hey can you taste the cloud?

This is just one cycle among millions of different ones that are separate but connected. What im getting at here is that if we disrespect and pollute the climate we do it to ourselves too. We don’t fully understand, can affect but not control the climate. An interesting point here, way back in earths history even before the dinosaurs, primitive life on earth lived in a climate with miniscule amounts of oxygen. Infact Oxygen at that time in the earths history was poisonous and toxic to the simple life on earth at the time. (In addition also once there was very little nitrogen in the atmosphere (70%ish current) the gradual change to a more oxygen rich atmosphere (like our present 21%) due to natural processes and also by-products of newer early life did indeed create a extinction level event (100%) for those types of original primitive life at that time. (source and urge you to read James Lovelock's The GaiaTheory)
His Site

Its just like the well known political saying

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

Well truly it was and is the case that:
'one life’s poison is another mans breath'
quote me on that f you like....

The range and changes in the earths climate can be huge and extreme to put a mild point on it. The misunderstood causation as in small cause and large effect observed situation in the climate, and feedback within the infinitesimally complicated and interrelated, atmospheric system IMHO leave no margin for any complacency with Global Warming by Humanity, as both a species and part of nature.

Rant over.

So some facts (could post hundreds and recommend many many papers, studies and books, U2U me if you want some factual information)
Nasa Site Supporting Scientist Cosomo Artic and N.American Changes in Climate

How The American Adminstration Surpress and try and Control the Scientists

Recent Proven Data US Team discover link between emmisions and recent Global Sea Temperature rises (clouds lol)

The fingerprints proving climate change and its observable effects in the N.America region...mmm happening NOW!

Nice indepth but understandable University site... you know professors and stuff, who actually are experts in this area and not Oil tycoons or those on their books!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change good Power Point presentation showing the data and the list of likely if scary scenarios!

Indicators present in the atmosphere showing mans influence since the Industrial Revolution IPCC (as above)

The New Scientist Magazine Special on Global Warming
funny enough after what ive said here and in previous posts about the debate/conjecture why is it still there... well I quote

Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down!

I dont think anyone could ever question the peer review and reliability of the New Scientist on such things, or really for that matter with NASA

The Arctic is warming at an accelerating rate. Satellite data collected from 1981 to 2001 show that some regions are warming faster than 2.5 degrees Celsius per decade

Nasa Source

Short Simple but Powerfull Handout given out in Universities in the why the debate?

However I close with a very fitting and to be honest slightly worrying, due to the time gone with C02 emmisions rising since it happened.

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

~Exercpt from 'The Warning' written and spearheaded by UCS Chair Henry Kendall. Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992.

Sources Like These ok?



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:09 PM
apologies for misuse of quote in bottom of above post, no edit button available.


posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:56 AM
i like that the facts are getting worse and worse.enjoy your cars and burning fuel the end is coming. have a smoke and past one to your kids because there is no turning back.clean air and water will be once a fairy tale soon in a book somewhere.enjoy...........

top topics

log in