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.

 

"Global Warming", is false.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
global warming is when it get cooler because of the ice caps melting it has been there for thousands of years after the ice caps melt it might get hotter.

global warming was there for thousands of years.




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Global warming is real. In fact galaxial warming is real. Its all relative to the sun and its cycles as well as our orbit to it. In fact the Earth has been 10 degrees warmer in the past and there were no SUVs then. The vikings farmed greenland then before the last little ice age. My advice is to be glad we are living in the age of a warming trend and not vice versa. As for the political weapon, well thats just a passing fad. If it causes the human race to regress. then we deserve the ramifications for such. Instead of trying to pin this on man, I'd spend my research dollar to find out the best way to adapt our current population. However, I'm not trying to get a candidate elected, I'm looking at it practically. Politics is for fools, in my opinion and far and away separate from earth science.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

What the term ``global'' does not accurately describe is the temperatures purported to show a warming trend. The global temperatures are the ones measured by satellite. They show a slight cooling trend over the past 19 years. The temperatures pointed to by the advocates of the Kyoto Treaty are decidedly local: surface temperatures in a small area of Siberia or at selected stations biased toward those near population centers, which are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. They are also limited to a selected time period, leaving out the record that precedes the Industrial Revolution and includes the Medieval Climate Optimum.

Nor does the term ``global'' encompass all the measurements of greenhouse gases, such as the ones that contradict chosen scenarios. Globally averaged atmospheric methane concentrations between 1983 and 1995 show a slowing in the rate of increase, for unknown reasons. While the average rate of increase for 1995 was 5 ppbv/yr, one IPCC scenario assumes that it was 9.8 ppbv/yr between 1990-1995, nearly twice the measured level, and that it will be 12.2 ppbv/yr from 1995-2000. Similarly, the rate of growth for nitrous oxide is assumed to be 0.8 ppbv/yr and measured to be 0.5 ppbv/yr between 1990-1995. Assumed rates of increase in CO2 also significantly exceed measured values (see data from the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, presented in Heartland Institute Policy Study #84, 9/10/97).

www.oism.org...



"One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate-change machine... is about to get swept away as junk science," writes Terence Corcoran "Financial Post 7/13/04, see www.sepp.org). On July 1, Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the 1,000- year temperature chart published a corrigendum in Nature, acknowledging that "the listing of the `proxy' data set...contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."

The Canadian researchers who pointed out the errors, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, stated that the claim that nothing had changed was "categorically false."

In a letter that Nature declined to publish, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote: "The "corrected) Mann et al. graph shows that the northern hemisphere temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th century, and that the 20th century warming cycle has so far only equalled a secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th century."

www.oism.org...



There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases
in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or
can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures
or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon
dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if
the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has
been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic
effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions. ‘‘Global warming,’’ an invalidated
hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably
warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends
shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It
does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of
plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life,
which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2
level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil,
and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,
where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living
in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result
of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more
plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

www.heartland.org...


The 'Global warming' theory is just another scare mongering tool in the vast arsenal of the powers that be. The one's of you who want to take part in this scam should sell all your 'loot/stuff' and donate it to wildlife conservation before moving to a forest/ slum area and taking part in the alternative to your current lifestyle. If that does not appeal please do the research so that you may be able to defend your current lifestyle in technical terms or try discover the energy sources that will allow ALL of humanity the living standards now enjoyed by the few who most loudly protest environmental destruction. Human progress does not have to come at the expense of the environment but if there really is no alternatives ( there are many ) i would much rather 'slash and burn' than live on the edge of starvation where freedom is as much a luxury as food.

I have more than three bits of random information and i can defend my views and my lifestyle. Anything else ( if your able to respond to this message from your PC at home ) is hypocrisy anyways.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
how can pumping billions of tons of carbon, which had previously been stored in the earth's crust, into the atmosphere NOT affect the weather?

if you can answer that question, you will convince me that global warming is false



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how can pumping billions of tons of carbon, which had previously been stored in the earth's crust, into the atmosphere NOT affect the weather?

if you can answer that question, you will convince me that global warming is false


Well first off volcanic eruptions do exactly that and we have not tried to ban those just yet. You should find some material on the 'great' Carbon cycle and see just how strange a place this world was LONG before our current industry was around to influence anything.

You should not change your mind about something as complex and important as this just on my say so or a few bits of information disputing your current belief! Please do your own research and try discover the truth in your own way so that you will be willing and able to trust yourself enough to life accordingly and thus spread the word.
All i want is for people not to trust the conclusions the news media brings them as those are very infrequently connected to the actual science it claims to be based on.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
If you are so dim as to believe that global warming is a false, try googling the 2003/04 Pentagon Paper on Climate Change and read that. If you are stupid enough to believe that it is a liberal lie, if you have half a functioning brain this paper should change your mind. The people who wrote this are serious sober people, besides that the Penatgon is not known as a liberal hotbed.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
If you are so dim as to believe that global warming is a false, try googling the 2003/04 Pentagon Paper on Climate Change and read that.


Anyone who believes what is 'produced' in the Pentagon is probably best advised not to go around calling others 'dim'.


If you are stupid enough to believe that it is a liberal lie, if you have half a functioning brain this paper should change your mind.


What liberals? America is a one party state last i checked however expensive the act is .



The people who wrote this are serious sober people, besides that the Penatgon is not known as a liberal hotbed.


Serious sober people who has so far managed to get about 50 thousand Americans injured in a 'peace' they clearly do not want to win. I think i even provided some source material and if you want to raise a objection worthy of being called such you should probably respond to those...

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
You totally misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying if a very serious, very sober and very conservative think tank within the Pentagon has taken Global Warming serious enough to write a rather long and detailed analysis of its impact on national security then there must be something there. I do not support this administration one bit but our government is more than appointees pushing an agenda...google 2003/2004 Pentagon Report on Global Warming and read it, that is unless it goes against your dogma.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
You totally misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying if a very serious, very sober and very conservative think tank within the Pentagon has taken Global Warming serious enough to write a rather long and detailed analysis of its impact on national security then there must be something there.


These people are reactionaries , not conservatives. I have read whole books ( which i believed to reflect reality at the time ) which i will not be able to invalidate on a point by point basis had i the time to bother. Fact is the length of a paper and number of 'facts' it's based on does not obviously lead to it reflecting reality in any way. I have looked at both sides and there just seems to be no real evidence of this 'global warming' thing that everyone wants to talk about and i am willing to counter your 'facts' with my 'facts' and see who's mind gets changed in the process.


I do not support this administration one bit but our government is more than appointees pushing an agenda...


You only need to control the few at the top for a few years in which time you can reform the whole thing from the top town. This process has been ongoing in America for nearly a hundred years now so it's telling that things are as bad as they seem to be.


google 2003/2004 Pentagon Report on Global Warming and read it, that is unless it goes against your dogma.


I'll be honest and tell you that i am not likely to read it any time soon considering all the interesting things i have that i have not had time to look at it. If you want to post extracts from that paper, that you find particularly interesting and factual, i would be more than willing to refute or retract my statements.

I think you will be able to see from my posting habits that i am not dogmatic and that i am willing to look at new information if the author of it feels strongly enough about it to defend it.

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Well al gore might be jumpin the gun a little but I think it's better to start looking at problem now and show the maturity of an advanced species.

You can read whatever reports you want but Global Warming and Greenhouse gases are not fiction. On a hot day even if there are clouds in the sky the planet is getting warmed by solar radiation (shorter wavelengths). The reason these so called greenhouse gases are becoming a problem is because the heat is re-radiated back into space...but it is re-radiated in longer wavelengths which is why it gets trapped or bounced back to Earth (by the gases).

Scientist know there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere now than ever before because they have ice samples from the Antarctic from 650,000 years ago and they can get air samples from air bubbles trapped in the ice.

The problem is they don't cant say for sure how far we are off the natural cycle in "real world terms." In other words, they can't give us an accurate time or severity scale. I would suspect that it could become a fairly big issue in the next several hundred years. I mean it's basic science... if you take away ice from the surface that means more light/heat will be absorbed instead of reflected. And of course CO2 compounds the problem.

www.livescience.com...

[edit on 26-9-2006 by Scramjet76]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
So what would Al Gore and others gain by lying? Corporations stand to lose money by cleaning up the poison they spew, people will be inconvinced. Maybe not have that big HUMMER they always dream of, but what would the people who don't want other people to pollute the earth gain by making this all up?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Anyone who still refuses to accept that global warming is happening really needs to start taking some responsibility.

The argument that the world has gone through warmining periods in the past thousands of years is MUTE.
Why?

Because if its a general cycle of the planet, to have warm patches, then cool off again.. what is going to happen when you add years and years of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.. ONTOP of the normal warming cycle?

Go look at the northpole, and the southpole... have a look at sat photos of how degraded they have become in the last decade.

Go ask the citizens of New Orleans if they think there current situation is just 'badluck' and not a scientifically proven event where the HEATED WATER CAUSED a storm to drastically increase in strength.

ASk Khazakstan if there wter source dried up leaving boats stranded on sandbanks is just science fiction..

Ask Europeans about the unbeleiveable heatwave that killed 10's of hundereds really happened or not.

If you can explain all these things away, and convince me how decades of pollution, and other toxic chemicals being pumped into the atomsphere HAVENT effected our lifestyles.. then i will submit to you.

Because honestly... 9 out of 10 people can simply walk around outside, and feel the difference in temp, moisture, pressure and so forth just by standing in the sun.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
(Sigh)

Not another thread about the 'myth' of global warming...
There really is a great deal of good science about this now, and very few scientists now claim that global warming isn't happening. Let's get one thing straight first though - it really should be described as global climate change (GCC).
Boat mentioned the fact that the ice sheet in Antarctica is growing. No it's not - it's vanishing, with some of the great ice seas breaking up, like the Larsen B. However, it is growing in some areas, because of increased amounts of snow. Why is it snowing more there? Actually because it's warmer there and because the climate is changing. I need to find a link for this.
As for GCC as a whole, I'd like to stress that the (re)insurance industry is increasingly worried about this, as they're going to have to pay the bills once the effects start becoming visible.
I was talking to Professor Bill McGuire from the Benfield Hazard Research Centre about this a few weeks ago and he told me, in fairly depressing terms, that the old predictions of GCC are now becoming observations - in other words it's happening now and we don't have a lot of time to try and turn it around.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Scramjet76
Well al gore might be jumpin the gun a little but I think it's better to start looking at problem now and show the maturity of an advanced species.

A mature species where are not considering how easily the average person has been fooled into believing in massive atmospheric change based mostly on human activity.


You can read whatever reports you want but Global Warming and Greenhouse gases are not fiction.


They do not have to be fiction to be largely irrelevant with stupid conclusions based on largely falsified data 'trends'.


On a hot day even if there are clouds in the sky the planet is getting warmed by solar radiation (shorter wavelengths). The reason these so called greenhouse gases are becoming a problem is because the heat is re-radiated back into space...but it is re-radiated in longer wavelengths which is why it gets trapped or bounced back to Earth (by the gases).


The world has been showing a cooling trend since 1999 up to now so what exactly is happening in your opinion? How can global warming happen for ten years and then go back to global cooling? It all depends on your data sets and if your actually taking a global mean temperature instead of a specific point that suits your bias.


Scientist know there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere now than ever before because they have ice samples from the Antarctic from 650,000 years ago and they can get air samples from air bubbles trapped in the ice.


Ice cores are not a credible measure as the dating is completely flawed. All that establishes is that the Earth has cycles all of it's own with or without human participation.


The problem is they don't cant say for sure how far we are off the natural cycle in "real world terms." In other words, they can't give us an accurate time or severity scale.


Mainly because whoever says that refuses to look at the history of climatic change during the last few hundred years for if they did it would become obvious and readily apparent that cooling and warming trends have nothing to do with with human activity.


I would suspect that it could become a fairly big issue in the next several hundred years.


I wont even hazard a guess as to what will happen in the next decade considering what sort of lies they have already gotten away with.


I mean it's basic science... if you take away ice from the surface that means more light/heat will be absorbed instead of reflected. And of course CO2 compounds the problem.

www.livescience.com...


Is C02 emissions really such a 'problem"? Consider the following.


There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases
in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or
can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures
or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon
dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if
the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has
been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic
effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions. ‘‘Global warming,’’ an invalidated
hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably
warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends
shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It
does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of
plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life,
which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2
level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil,
and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,
where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living
in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result
of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more
plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

www.heartland.org...


I would obviously far rather have a economy based on vacuum energy or LENR but lets not retard human progress ( and consign billions of people to starvation or poverty) because a few scientist using extremely suspect data has convinced some politicians that human development ( and the resulting freedom) is a bad thing that must be prevented. If you really feel that strongly about protecting the environment move to a third world country and notice just how much environmental damage a poor starving person does on a daily basis for lack of options in the short term.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Here is a link explaining how Vikings as far back as the late 900's sailed to Greenland and built farms BEFORE the Earth cooledand forced the majority to leave or starve to death.
Pictures included along with the first Christian Church ever built in North America!!
Too bad people belive what politicians tell them!
www.archaeology.org...
www.greenland-guide.dk...
www.greenland-guide.dk...

After looking at these pictures I might just move their to escape the police State / WW3-4!!

P.S. the largest greenhouse gas on the planet is water vapour!!
Better drain the oceans & stop urinating! Just to be safe off course.


[edit on 1-10-2006 by BattleofBatoche]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Anyone who still refuses to accept that global warming is happening really needs to start taking some responsibility.


I think anyone who believes in the lie that is global warming should at least be responsible enough to investigate the matter himself before he demands that other gives up their living standards ( since these types will normally not part with theirs) so he can keep his up.


The argument that the world has gone through warmining periods in the past thousands of years is MUTE.
Why?


How can it be mute when we know there have been far farmer and far colder periods in times when history tells us there were no human civilization to affect it?


Because if its a general cycle of the planet, to have warm patches, then cool off again.. what is going to happen when you add years and years of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.. ONTOP of the normal warming cycle?


NOTHING; what we add is so little that even if we did our best we might not raise the global temperature by many more than a couple degrees in another hundred years.


Go look at the northpole, and the southpole... have a look at sat photos of how degraded they have become in the last decade.


If you look at the entire South and North pole you will soon realise that while it melts in some places ( which is what they show you) it's massively growing in other places where there has not recently been any ice..... Why do they not give us ALL the information so that we may judge for ourselves?


Go ask the citizens of New Orleans if they think there current situation is just 'badluck' and not a scientifically proven event where the HEATED WATER CAUSED a storm to drastically increase in strength.


There is a huge difference between active weather engineering and cow farts/factory emissions but since people refuse to accept that it's possible to manipulate the weather they turn to something as devoid of reason as global warming.


ASk Khazakstan if there wter source dried up leaving boats stranded on sandbanks is just science fiction..


If water keeps evaporating or being used it will eventually run out even if there used to be virtual oceans. Aral sea anyone?


Ask Europeans about the unbeleiveable heatwave that killed 10's of hundereds really happened or not.


Heat waves happen but even if it was so very rare why suddenly make up a global warming theory to try explain it? The Earth has been showing a cooling trend since 1999.... The heatwave in France killed more than 10 000 as i recall but it turns out that had more to do with the societal structure than with 'global warming'.


If you can explain all these things away, and convince me how decades of pollution, and other toxic chemicals being pumped into the atomsphere HAVENT effected our lifestyles.. then i will submit to you.


I am not stupid and i never suggested that we should not stop pumping toxins into the atmosphere that eventually rains down to mess up our lungs or worse. I would LOVE to see a end to coal, nuclear and every other conventional power source that pollutes with little restriction but i am not about to make up lies to try change the world. These pollutants have killed and will kill millions of people, something 'global warming' ( if it happens any decade soon for whatever reason) is not going to manage any time soon.


Because honestly... 9 out of 10 people can simply walk around outside, and feel the difference in temp, moisture, pressure and so forth just by standing in the sun.


Then ask the American and Russian governments to stop messing around with the weather or at the very least to start regulating what sort of toxins they allow industry to slowly kill us with.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
If you look at the entire South and North pole you will soon realise that while it melts in some places ( which is what they show you) it's massively growing in other places where there has not recently been any ice..... Why do they not give us ALL the information so that we may judge for ourselves?

Eerrm.... where exactly is it 'growing massively' on each pole? The glaciers are moving faster in Greenland because they're melting, we might see an ice-free North Pole this century and the climate has changed enough to allow greenery to start growing in rocky bits of the South Pole. I think that you might be referring to the fact that it's been snowing on parts of the South Pole. That's a bit worrying - it was often too cold at times for it to snow there.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The world has been showing a cooling trend since 1999 up to now so what exactly is happening in your opinion? How can global warming happen for ten years and then go back to global cooling? It all depends on your data sets and if your actually taking a global mean temperature instead of a specific point that suits your bias.


Interesting What data are you using?

Whilst thee are arguments over whether 2005 was as warmas 1998 or not, the fact is that the super El Nino of '98 produced a big rise in global temps, after which the world did not drop back to pre-1998 levels. If 2005 was as warm as 1998 despite there being a La Nina then we have clear indications of a continuing increase.

I am not aware of any serious scientists who dispute global warming. The dispute is over the extent of warming, the extent of human contribution (to which it should be noted that a large part may not be due to carbon emissions at all, but to other factors such as land use changes, although those of us arguing this point remain so far in the minority. See for example Roger Pielke) ) and future predictions. There is also dispute over how unusual current warming is compared with the geologically recent past (most recent data suggests most parts of the world were warmer than today, and sea ice less extensive, during the early/mid Holocene).

Of course it should also be noted that despite the misundertandings of some, global warming does not mean everywhere gets warmer. Some places will remain unchanged and others may even get cooler. And everywhere will still experience colder weather at times - just not so frequyently (as we in Britain are discovering
)

Oh, and when it comes to ice sheets remember that warmer temperatures usually mean more snowfall - so increasing ice sheets and glaciers may themselves be a sign of warming.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Interesting What data are you using?


www.oism.org...

www.oism.org...

For some good summaries...


Whilst thee are arguments over whether 2005 was as warmas 1998 or not, the fact is that the super El Nino of '98 produced a big rise in global temps,



The annual cycles in figure 1 are the result of seasonal variations in plant use of carbon dioxide. Solid horizontal lines show the levels that prevailed in 1900 and 1940 (2). The magnitude of this atmospheric increase during the 1980s was about 3 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) per year (3). Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).

So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties with which these numbers are estimated that the source of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide has not been determined with certainty (4). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 18th-Century levels (5).

The current increase in carbon dioxide follows a 300-year warming trend: Surface and atmospheric temperatures have been recovering from an unusually cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The observed increases are of a magnitude that can, for example, be explained by oceans giving off gases naturally as temperatures rise. Indeed, recent carbon dioxide rises have shown a tendency to follow rather than lead global temperature increases (6).

www.oism.org...


So how important and devastating is our contribution really?


after which the world did not drop back to pre-1998 levels. If 2005 was as warm as 1998 despite there being a La Nina then we have clear indications of a continuing increase.


I'm not even going to bother arguing considering all the factors when the scientist who suck global warming out of their thumbs have zero evidence to prove that what we contribute are significant in any way that suggest we should destroy industrial civilization world wide in response.


I am not aware of any serious scientists who dispute global warming.


There are plenty and i suppose some of their names may be found somewhere in this 17 000+ names.

www.oism.org...


The dispute is over the extent of warming, the extent of human contribution (to which it should be noted that a large part may not be due to carbon emissions at all, but to other factors such as land use changes, although those of us arguing this point remain so far in the minority.


And while they employ such haphazard and generally unscientific compiled data and general methods they can only convince a lay public trough a media campaign that that government supports as they would just LOVE if all stopped driving around and generally interacting and agitating against their criminal activities. The global warming theory is just another scare tactic this time aimed at people who feel at least a little guilty over the way they go about their lives. There is Iraq and terrorism for conservative 'patriots', global warming for the leftist and the Muslim terror threat for the religious all to distract them from the more serious matters.


See for example Roger Pielke) ) and future predictions. There is also dispute over how unusual current warming is compared with the geologically recent past (most recent data suggests most parts of the world were warmer than today, and sea ice less extensive, during the early/mid Holocene).


Assuming common dating methods and general geological standards that so often never had a good factual basis to start with..... We know for a fact that the Earth has been far far warmer in the past and that we had ice ages with far higher concentrations of CO2 so trying to predict the future based on our simplistic understanding of this planet can only be defended from a political perspective as they are the only types who can employ such unscientific conclusions.


Of course it should also be noted that despite the misundertandings of some, global warming does not mean everywhere gets warmer. Some places will remain unchanged and others may even get cooler. And everywhere will still experience colder weather at times - just not so frequyently (as we in Britain are discovering
)


I think it's obvious that by global warming one should at the very least agree that 'warmer' should mean that global average temperature from evenly spaced/distributed locations all over the world increased or decreased that year. Picking different locations each year to make the graph work is not the type of 'science' scientist should indulge in even if their paid very well.


Oh, and when it comes to ice sheets remember that warmer temperatures usually mean more snowfall - so increasing ice sheets and glaciers may themselves be a sign of warming.


It's this type of unfalsifiable theories that gives away the dogmatic ideas behind the theories. "If it snows it's global warming and if it does'nt snow it's global warming."

I like my standard of living and i am not about to let a few people, who twist data in every which way to make it fit their theories, who works for god knows who tell me that i am not entitled to live well and that i should give it all up because the planet might not be liking it. I can PROVE that we have non polluting energy technologies available on this planet that could raise living standards for one and all by factors of ten within mere decades had our governments wanted to allow us such independence. Trying to make us feel guilty for living relatively good lives is what their all about and these are just one more attempt to rob us of what we have achieved thus far.

I do not mind engaging in a technical discussion ( it's not like i have a degree in it but that's never prevented me before ) if your interested but you might have to wait a few days between responses. That being said you can bring on the data and i will counter it with what other scientist , who do have degrees in the field, said in response to their claims.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
(Sigh)

Not another thread about the 'myth' of global warming...


Sorry! If uninformed people keep bring it up i guess i am forced to try set them strait.



There really is a great deal of good science about this now, and very few scientists now claim that global warming isn't happening.


Really! Well feel free to point me to where i can find their names as i have a list with fifteen odd thousand names of scientist who thinks it's bunk.


Let's get one thing straight first though - it really should be described as global climate change (GCC).


Semantics.


Boat mentioned the fact that the ice sheet in Antarctica is growing. No it's not - it's vanishing, with some of the great ice seas breaking up, like the Larsen B. However, it is growing in some areas, because of increased amounts of snow. Why is it snowing more there? Actually because it's warmer there and because the climate is changing. I need to find a link for this.


So basically it's growing and it's shrinking and generally doing things we don't so well understand? Why are so many political leaders willing to take responsibility for something so poorly understood while they refuse to address very well understood social and economic issues? What is their motive for wanting us to believe this so badly when there isn't even a scientific consensus ( which does not mean so much anyways ) on this issue.


As for GCC as a whole, I'd like to stress that the (re)insurance industry is increasingly worried about this, as they're going to have to pay the bills once the effects start becoming visible.


As if they wont just use it as reason to chase up your costs! That's so obvious yet you use it as some kind of proof that something is in fact happening! It's blatant fear mongering and their getting ever richer/more powerful because of our gullibility.


I was talking to Professor Bill McGuire from the Benfield Hazard Research Centre about this a few weeks ago and he told me, in fairly depressing terms, that the old predictions of GCC are now becoming observations -


Tell him that he should do some actual research of his own and stop wasting our time with second hand nonsense. I am frankly quite sick of these self appointed gate keepers who will spread these lies simply to protect their jobs and status. Tell him to come here and face one of people he has chosen to deceive.


in other words it's happening now and we don't have a lot of time to try and turn it around.


That's just nonsense and i wish there was kinder terms in which to describe it. You bring me the evidence for this global disaster and if you can manage that i will show you why you are assigning blame to the right party but for all the wrong reasons. Lets start then.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join