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.

 

Misconceptions About Global Warming

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
© Yarcofin 2006.

Misconceptions About Global Warming



Some scientists claim that global warming is an issue that will have cataclysmic effects on the Earth if we do not adopt a significantly more “ecologically friendly” way of living. It is important to note that global warming is simply a theory, and there is no scientific consensus that such a phenomenon is actually occurring. In fact, a poll of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society found that only 17 percent of members believed global warming of the twentieth century has been the result of “greenhouse gas” (gases that retain more of the sun’s rays and heat, such as carbon dioxide and water) emissions. Only 13 percent of scientists consulted in a survey by Greenpeace believe that catastrophic climate change will be the result of our current energy use patterns. On top of that, more than one hundred noted scientists, including a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter stating that costly actions to lower greenhouse gases are not justified (Burnett, 1997). What if it could be proven that the condition of the Earth is actually improving, rather than getting worse as the scientists who support the global warming theory hypothesise?

Many believe the idea of global warming is a fabrication, and does not pose a threat to the long-term condition of the Earth. It is simply a theory, and has no scientific consensus. To start off with, humans have a limited ecological impact that is not likely to create global warming. As a second point, there is not enough evidence to prove that global warming is taking place. In addition, governments around the world are spending billions of dollars on a problem that likely doesn’t even exist. The changes in the Earth’s temperature and greenhouse gas levels are part of a natural cycle. Finally, global warming actually has many beneficial effects. By halting global warming, if it is taking place, we are causing more detriment to the world than good.

First, many believe that humans have a limited ecological impact on the planet. Despite claims that global warming would result in the cataclysmic and irreversible destruction of the planet, there have been improvements in almost all environmental conditions in the last hundred years. According to the Institute for Economic Affairs, pollutants have fallen by sixty percent in the last thirty years in modern countries. Many scientists and prominent world figures believe that the cost of implementing policy to counteract global warming far outweighs the benefit of such programs. For example, the cost of putting the Kyoto Protocol into action is over $800 billion dollars (US) (Bradley, 2003).

Next, there is not enough evidence to prove that global warming is taking place. Many scientists who support the theory of global warming use computer programs, which attempt to predict climate models. The problem is that these models are very unreliable. Meteorologists have problems accurately predicting weather for next week, so how can they claim to predict how the climate will react in decades to come? Supporters of global warming suggest that the global warming phenomenon is responsible for the increases in extreme weather occurrences, but the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory states that there has actually been a decrease in both the amount of hurricanes, and also their intensity, since the 1940s (Burnett, 1997).

In addition, the changes in the Earth’s temperature, carbon dioxide levels, and other effects blamed on global warming may be part of a natural environmental cycle. For example, rising sea levels are often blamed on global warming. The fact, however, is that sea levels have risen over three hundred feet in the past eighteen thousand years. During the majority of this period, humans did not have any noticeable impact on the environment. A rising sea level is generally accepted to be a natural occurrence between ice ages. In reality, the current rate of rising sea levels is actually lower than the average rate for the past eighteen thousand years. In a similar way, temperature variation over the past fifteen thousand years is well within the natural range. During the 10th and 15th centuries, the Earth experienced greater warming than modern day. To be precise, there have actually been five lengthy periods in the past three thousand years where the temperature was far warmer than today. When it comes to carbon dioxide levels, the Earth’s oceans and land hold over fifty times more of this gas than the atmosphere. This is far more than the impact of burning coal, oil, and natural gas by humans (Robinson & Robinson, 1997).

Finally, all parts of global warming are not necessarily detrimental. In the past, warmer times have generally been beneficial to life on Earth. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere aids plant growth and permits vegetation to grow in more arid locations. Since most animals rely on plants for food, increased carbon dioxide levels would improve animal populations as well. As plant and animal populations grow, resulting from the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, people on Earth could be cured of world hunger and poverty (Robinson & Robinson, 1997). The Institute of Economic Affairs estimates carbon dioxide growth levels over the next hundred years may lead to an increase in crop yields of 10 to 30 percent (Bradley, 2003). Thus, an increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels may allow humans to live longer and healthier lives.

In conclusion, many believe humans do not have enough of an ecological impact on the planet to cause global warming. There is also no evidence to prove that global warming is taking place. In addition, changes in the Earth’s temperature and greenhouse gas levels may be part of a natural cycle. Finally, global warming may actually have beneficial effects. So even if global warming were taking place, acting against it would be detrimental and actually create more poverty and hardship in the world.


References
Bradley, R. (2003, September 28). Global warning concerns are false alarm. Institute of Economic Affairs.
Retrieved April 9, 2006, from www.iea.org.uk...

Burnett, H. (1997, May 23). Myths of global warming. National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved April 9,
2006, from ncpa.org...

Robinson, A., & Robinson, Z. (1997, December 4). Science has spoken: global warming is a myth. The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from www.junkscience.com...

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Yarcofin]




posted on May, 7 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
This essay was inspired by www.fightglobalwarming.com... , particularly this page and it's "facts".

I would love to hear people's input. I would love to be proven wrong and shown that global warming is 100% proven. But unfortunately so far I am unimpressed.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Yarcofin]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
It is important to note that global warming is simply a theory, and there is no scientific consensus that such a phenomenon is actually occurring.


You're wrong on both accounts.

1st. Global Warming is happening, all you have to do is talk to a gardener to figure that one out. With melts happening earlier and earlier causing sprouts to appear on average 2-3 weeks earlier then in the 70s it's quite clear to even the most casual observer that a warming trend is happening and is quite real.

2nd. Your way of describing a theory is incorrect. Theories are the foundation of science and to dismiss it as simply a theory is being dishonest or just a statement made out of pure ignorance and since I'm here to deny such ignorance, I feel it's my duty to educate you as to what a theory actually is.


Definiton of a Theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"


Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an irrefutable fact in science as science is based upon the foundation of falsifiability.



In fact, a poll of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society found..../snip


In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, it was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations and this climate change is likely to have been due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

This statement has been explicitly endorsed by:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

in either one or both of these documents:

nationalacademies.org...

www.royalsociety.org...

In addition, the following institutions specializing in Climate, Atmosphere, Ocean and/or Earth sciences have published the same conclusions:

www.giss.nasa.gov...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

books.nap.edu...

www.socc.ca...

yosemite.epa.gov...

www.royalsoc.ac.uk...

www.ametsoc.org...

eo.ucar.edu...

www.ametsoc.org...

www.cmos.ca...

If this is not consensus, then what in the world would consensus look like?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   
My first inclination upon reading this thread was to take your initial argument apart point by point, but it is so full of innaccuracies and misleading statements that such an approach would be pointless and a waste of my time. I am happy to see that Sardion2000 has simply fired a broadside that blew your entire posting apart with one swift strike. You should be thankful of his effort and take heed of his thoughtfullness in furthering your education on this important topic. I have given him a WATS vote for his effort.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
It is important to note that global warming is simply a theory, and there is no scientific consensus that such a phenomenon is actually occurring.

There is broad consensus throughout science that the earth is warming.




On top of that, more than one hundred noted scientists, including a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter stating that costly actions to lower greenhouse gases are not justified (Burnett, 1997).

A hundred people saying anything is meaningless.



To start off with, humans have a limited ecological impact that is not likely to create global warming.

Please demonstrate that.


As a second point, there is not enough evidence to prove that global warming is taking place.

It is practically undisputed that there is a warming trend, and that the trend cannot be explained by any of the natural drivers of climate.


The changes in the Earth’s temperature and greenhouse gas levels are part of a natural cycle.

Please show which climate forcers are driving this warming trend.


Finally, global warming actually has many beneficial effects.

The destruction of cities along the coasts, where something like 80-90 percent of hte human population lives, is probably a bad thing. The alteration of climate patterns throughout the world, possibly switching rich agricultural areas (such as the central portion of the US) to other regions of the world, is not a good thing, for americans anyway. It is because of an accident of climate that the US has the basis for its global strength, alter the climate, alter that basis.



According to the Institute for Economic Affairs, pollutants have fallen by sixty percent in the last thirty years in modern countries.

?

And you would attribute this to global warming? That doesn't make sense.


Many scientists and prominent world figures believe that the cost of implementing policy to counteract global warming far outweighs the benefit of such programs.

Thats hardly got anything to do with whether or not global warming is man-made.


Meteorologists have problems accurately predicting weather for next week, so how can they claim to predict how the climate will react in decades to come?

They're entirely different sorts of models. Engineers use computer models to create buildings. Do you suggest that we stop building bridges and skyscrapers, because the models are 'theoretical'??
What, precisely, is wrong with the models being used, btw? What factors are unrealistic or inaccurate?


Supporters of global warming suggest that the global warming phenomenon is responsible for the increases in extreme weather occurrences

Very few scientists would try to make a correlation between such a broad global trend and just one or two seasons worth of weather. No doubt, there are lots of people in general saying that GW makes for worse hurricanes, but, on that, there isn't enough data to make such a statement.

What does that have to do with GW being man-made?



For example, rising sea levels are often blamed on global warming. The fact, however, is that sea levels have risen over three hundred feet in the past eighteen thousand years.


And it was because of changes in ice volume, dependant upon global climate.



In reality, the current rate of rising sea levels is actually lower than the average rate for the past eighteen thousand years.

That shouldn't be a surprise, since that was coming out of a global ice age with tremendous volumes of ice melting.
What does that have to do with the current warming being caused by man?


In a similar way, temperature variation over the past fifteen thousand years is well within the natural range.

That's meaningless. No scientists have been stating that its warmer now that its ever been, or anything even remotely like that. Why do you keep choosing arguments that aren't being made to refute??


. When it comes to carbon dioxide levels, the Earth’s oceans and land hold over fifty times more of this gas than the atmosphere.

And? What does that have to do with increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?


According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere aids plant growth and permits vegetation to grow in more arid locations.

Except those arid locations that are deserts.



Since most animals rely on plants for food, increased carbon dioxide levels would improve animal populations as well.

The human economy, of course, will be ruined. So I guess if you want a world that is nice for animals and warm-adapted plants, then its all good.


As plant and animal populations grow, resulting from the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, people on Earth could be cured of world hunger and poverty (Robinson & Robinson, 1997).

That is the most ridiculous statement yet.

Global Warming concurrent with changes in sea levels will mean that the cities in which people live will become unhabitable, and the regions used for growing produce now will become more arid, possibly useless. Global Warming isnt' going to end world hunger.


Thus, an increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels may allow humans to live longer and healthier lives.

Excluding, of course, those who depend upon agriculture and livestock to get their food, or those who've had to become refugess (ala Katrina) because their cities are underwater from rising sea levels.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
~~

if one searches at space.com or other sites that keep tabs on our sun & planet exploration.

you'll find info that other planets are presently under some influence that is changing the weather in that environment.

MARS is having global warming & its' N pole ice is vaporizing away
JUPITER is undergoing a heat up also, & there's a 2nd storm which is developing another giant red-eye feature in the artmosphere

.........www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
................................/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
................................/scienceastronomy/060502_solar_storm.html

there seems to be evidence that is being interpeted that several planets
including Earth are undergoing global warming change.

it seems to me that if this warming change is synchronized
then fossil fuel gasses are not the sole cause of the warming here on Earth.

there might just be the hyper activity of Sol that is the larger factor and the connecting factor of the warming changes of at least 3 'neighbor' planets, at this same time.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by St Udio]

[edit on 8-5-2006 by St Udio]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
MARS is having global warming & its' N pole ice is vaporizing away
JUPITER is undergoing a heat up also, & there's a 2nd storm which is developing another giant red-eye feature in the artmosphere

www.space.com...
................................/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html


There is a thread discussing that.
Global Warming is our fault... on Jupiter?
I've already said what I've had to say regarding this issue on that thread so I won’t repeat it here.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

Originally posted by St Udio


There is a thread discussing that.
Global Warming is our fault... on Jupiter?



thanks,
i've made adjustment EDIT of the link in my above post.
(which repeats the link given in Marid Audran's thread)

i was unaware of that thread,
i was just replying with the info & notes & thoughts i scribbled down yesterday
while surfing the net.

appreciate the heads-up Umbrax



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The climate is warming. No one disputes that.

The controversy is how much of the warming is due to human influence and how much is natural fluctuation.

No one, not even the most misanthropic pessimist, claims humans are the sole contributing agent. So there is universal agreement other factors are involved. From this, everyone can understand that even if humans were somehow magically removed entirely from the planet warming would still be occurring. Perhaps at a slower rate, but still occurring. Regardless of any actions we take now mankind will still have to adapt to a warmer climate eventually. The best way to adapt is a policy and economics question, not a climatological/environmental question. Economists believe accepting the change and adapting is the preferred course. Rabid environmentalism has an undercurrent of misanthropy and socialism. The most zealous proponents of fighting global warming also want a radical transformation of Western society and democracy. They have co-opted the global warming controversy as a weapon to further their political agenda.

That is the point of the original post.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
No one, not even the most misanthropic pessimist, claims humans are the sole contributing agent. So there is universal agreement other factors are involved. From this, everyone can understand that even if humans were somehow magically removed entirely from the planet warming would still be occurring.

This is incorrect, and there is no consensus amoung the scientific community about this.

What is known is that the planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling, directed or driven by various planetary and astronomical forces. None of those 'non-man-made' forces explain the current anomalous warming trend.

So, its either caused by man, or caused by factors that we just don't understand yet. That is where the debate is. Its looking like its caused by man. Which, really, isn't too surprising. CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse, heat trapping gas since the days of Arrhenius. Modern industry and technology is putting CO2 gas into the atmosphere. At the same time, temperatures, world-wide, are rising.






The best way to adapt is a policy and economics question, not a climatological/environmental question.

Climatological and environmental sciences should provide the informative basis on which to make economic and politicla policy.


Economists believe accepting the change and adapting is the preferred course.

Economists don't even understand the basic science behind global warming. Their opinions on what to do are pretty much irrelevant at this point, they are too ignorant of the subject to make an informed opinion.


They have co-opted the global warming controversy as a weapon to further their political agenda. That is the point of the original post


Yes, it was counter-rhetoric.

Thats not what we need. What we need is truth. What we need is information, sensible questions, critical thinking. It doesn't matter that there are 'environmental crazies' out there that prefere spotted owls to people anymore than it matters that there are politicians who don't like those types of people.

What matters is the science. The science has shown us what the politicians have been deriding, and the economists haven't even been aware of, that the climate, planet-wide, is warming. We need to know what's causing it, what the effects will be in the short-term and long-term, what we need to plan for, how effective measures to counter-act it will be, which are the best measures to take, etc.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I would like to use the most relevant extinction report. Polar bear are specifically put on the list because of global warming and the melting of glaciers.


Climate and hunting

Polar bears are particularly affected by loss of Arctic ice, which the IUCN attributes to climatic change.

They need ice floes in order to hunt seals and other prey; without it, their food supply will decline. There is also evidence that the snow caves where they raise their young are melting earlier in the year

Polar bears are listed as Vulnerable to Extinction based on forecasts that their population will decline by 50% to 100% over the next 50 to 100 years.


news.bbc.co.uk...


The Bush Administration yesterday kicked off a process to determine whether polar bears should be added to the United States endangered species list because their habitat is melting. The action is "a significant acknowledgement of what global warming is doing to the Arctic ice," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity in Joshua Tree, California.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

[edit on 8-5-2006 by SpittinCobra]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think also that it needs to be said that these "drivers of Climate" you wished the poster would layout for you, Nygdan, are almost completely unknown to climatologists. It's unfair to ask some (admittedly blustery) poster at ATS to come up with the actual real deal, when Climatologists can't do it using supercomputers.

See if you can find out about the temperature trends during the last Ice Age, the warming and cooling trends that occurred then are pretty much completely unexplained.

We can't even be sure that what we call the "global temperature" is being measured correctly. I mean, we only have data going back a little over a hundred years or so. Todays placement of thermometers could be less than perfect, temperatures can be "locally" influenced by urban areas, for example. Also, satellite readings of air temperatures are not matching up well with what we're reading on the surface. And although practically everyone that knows anything about it agrees that we should go by the satellite data, for some reason the powers that be insist we base everything on our surface thermometers. That's probably caused by the "invisible hand" of the political agenda that one of the other posters mentioned.

The truth is, we know what we know by discovering the facts as they exist in the now (or the past.) Usually by looking at ice cores, or cores from the seafloor. There's no real cogent theory that would explain what we find when we look at these things, but there is now amassed a large collection of facts waiting for someone to come along and forge a theory.

Weather's dam complicated.

Harte



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Dave_54 hit it square on.

The ocean is responsible for 80% of the carbon dioxide on Earth. That's a statistic from Stats Canada. So really, humans can't possibly contribute to global warming in that large of a way.

So frankly it doesn't matter what happens to the polar bears. Yeah, they can be used as a cute cuddly mascot, just like you can do to argue against seal clubbing. But since humans likely aren't the reason the polar bears are losing ice floats, etc, then humans cutting back on anything won't really make a difference. Lots of species just naturally go extinct. Polar bears don't really have anything to do with the global warming argument. We're long overdue for an ice age anyway. I'm sure they'll be fine


Perhaps I should clarify... I do believe that the earth is warming, but I don't think that humans are the reason. At most, I believe humans might contribute a maximum of 10% to the problem. Since we are not the cause, we cannot fix the problem either. Unfortunately we can't just turn off all the machines of the world for 10 years to see that.

I am aware that I am the minority of this arguement, and it may seem as ridiculous to some people as the moon landing conspiracy, JFK theories, halocaust denial, etc.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Yarcofin]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
The ocean is responsible for 80% of the carbon dioxide on Earth. That's a statistic from Stats Canada. So really, humans can't possibly contribute to global warming in that large of a way.

Please demonstrate that the human inputs of carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, is not capable of warming the climate.


But since humans likely aren't the reason the polar bears are losing ice floats,

There is simply not enough evidence to possibly make such a statement. The evidence that we do have seems to suggest that it is in fact man made, its just not definititive.


Polar bears don't really have anything to do with the global warming argument. We're long overdue for an ice age anyway. I'm sure they'll be fine

That was a random set of sentences. Care to try to pull that together into some arguement against man-made warming???


I believe humans might contribute a maximum of 10% to the problem.

Again, please show which non-human driver of climate is causing this. None of the known drivers of climate have been shown to be doing this.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarcofin
Dave_54 hit it square on.

The ocean is responsible for 80% of the carbon dioxide on Earth. That's a statistic from Stats Canada. So really, humans can't possibly contribute to global warming in that large of a way.


The problem with this statement is that, far and away, the "greenhouse gas" that is most responsible for warming is water vapor, not CO2.

Harte



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
So how much water vapour do people create, compared to what simply happens naturally? Seems like a bit of a catch 22. The warmer the world gets, the more water evapourates (water vapour). And the more water vapour, the warmer the world gets. So the two things just keep propagating each other over and over.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The problem with this statement is that, far and away, the "greenhouse gas" that is most responsible for warming is water vapor, not CO2.

Global climate has not generally fluctated because of water vapour levels in the past. It has mostly been associated with releases of CO2, such as during eras of increased volcanism.



So the two things just keep propagating each other over and over.

Yes, there are many feedbacks on the global climate system, this is why people generate models to understand it. Infact, the statement you just made IS a climate model.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Hi Yarcofin, I'm with you on this, I am a lay person on this matter but there seems to me 2 issues that are never mentioned when I watch programs on GW.
The first one is why are Volcanic erruptions never mentioned, the earth is covered with them, they can pump cubic kilometers of gases etc. into the atmosphere every year, why is this fact not brought into the equation. We know that our planet has gone through many climatic and terraforming changes over billions of years has it not and continues to do so irrespective of the fleas riding on its back.
Secondly the other subject that is never mentioned is that changes in the suns activity must and does effect us you know like massive solar flares that can knock out our power supplies. We are just a tiny spec on an arm of a massive spirral galaxy, again this must effect any planet in the galaxy.
I'm all for being greener and make improvements where possible but I dont want to get screwed in higher costs and taxes because of some unproven scam.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The sum total of all volcanoes emit carbon dioxide at a rate about 1/150th that of "man made" emissions.



Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

volcano.und.edu...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
It's not just volcanoes we're talking about though. You're still ignoring my mention of the earth's oceans, which give off massive amounts of both CO2 and water vapour (whichever one you consider more of a contributing factor). I don't know the exact ratio of oceans vs man-made emissions, but I bet it is much closer than the contributions of volcanos.


If all the carbonate rocks in the earth's crust were to be converted back into carbon dioxide, the resulting carbon dioxide would weigh 40 times as much as the rest of the atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...



The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide.

[Global Warming] exists, but not due to greenhouse gases. Oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the beginning of an ice age, as occurs every 100,000 years. See temperature graph below.

nov55.com...


[edit on 10-5-2006 by Yarcofin]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join