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.

 

Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I understand what you are saying darkbluesky but the thing is there has been a concerted and well documented effort by specifically EXXON, but also by many on the hard right to confuse the issue; and one must say that they have succeeded. Muaddib for example on here, and I am not picking on him, has put forth many different theories as to why the earth is warming but when you go and actually read the data he presents, it is he who is interpreting the data to suggest that far more scientists question global warming as a human influenced event. And if you confront him on this issue he gets belligerent. Why? You would have to ask him but I doubt you would get an honest answer. None of what he posts though actually addresses the issue but rather, muddies the water. Lately he proposes that the Koyto accords are an attempt at a global tax of some sort. Whatever. At the same time if you go and read media from other countries on the subject, say from www.watchingamerica.com, most are confused by our (meaning our nation) hesitation at addressing the issue, something most of the other nations have come to accept as a given.

If you look however lately many of those corporations who have so staunchly opposed global warming (including EXXON) have dropped their opposition and some have actually proposed increased regulations to deal with it. One of my threads addresses this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not for a moment think that all who oppose the notion that we might be causing this are fools. But there are a large number on here who have listened to way too much talk radio and watched way too much Fox news, and done far too little reading on the subject to make an informed comment on it. Perplexed's comments seem to fall into that category. And personally I would rather listen to a bull fart than to put up with such jingoist nonsense. I do think however that when I hear more intelligent people object to the notion of man made global warming that such as EXXON and Fox have done their jobs rather well because if you read the literature, you will find that despite the noise to the contrary, there really is very little in the way of doubters in the scientific community, both here and abroad. Such consensus is by the way extremely rare and should considered seriously.

The truth is that while China and India are certainly catching up with us in the consumption of oil, we are the ones who still devour, with a population of 300 million (out of a global population of what now 4 or 5 billion?) 25% of the world's resources. So yes we are part of the problem, a big part of it and we need to be a big part of the solution as well.

With rain forests being burnt at an alarming rate, with whole fisheries collapsing, with deep and persistant dead zones off our coasts, with skyrocketing populations and depleting resources and pollutants literally flowing in our veins... yes unless we do address our problems we will destroy this planet.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by grover]




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
.............
I'm glad to hear that when you present evidence it becomes fact but when anyone else presents it, it becomes heresay. Your evidence is no more concrete than anyone elses.


What evidence have you presented?... All they do in that link you gave is make claims without providing one iota of proof.

BTW, what I stated are known facts, not claims based on flawed computer models which some think can predict exactly what will happen when in many cases we can't predict the weather right for the next day....


Originally posted by kleverone
Also if we are in a cooling trend as you state, then why was 2006 the hottest year in U.S. history and the 6th hottest globally? A trend within a trend?


2006 was set as the warmest in U.S. history because December was unusually temperate. in December of 2006, 2006 was set as the third warmest year after 1998 and 1934.

BTW...what do you think that 2006 is the 6th warmest year globally means?... It means that there were warmer years before 2006...

If CO2, or even mankind's activity was the cause for the current Climate Change then we would see every year being warmest and warmest because that i know of CO2 is still ebing pumped into the atmosphere, but since there are "natural events" which control the climate on Earth you don't see that trend.

You are also forgetting the facts that for example the Sun has been the most active for the past 10 years that at any time in the past 8,000 years. There has been an increase in the Sun's output, because there has been an increase in sunspots the Sun has gotten brighter, and there has been an increase in CME (Coronal Mass Ejections) and solar storms.

Not only that, but the Earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% since 1845, at the time when the dramatic temperature rise began on Earth. The last time the Earth's magnetic field weakened like that was 780,000 years ago.

We have been having an increase in magmatic and seismic events in our oceans, which warms the oceans and release CO2.

There is not just one "natural occurrence" which is "unprecedented" and are occurring at the same time that we are seeing these changes in climate, but all i see are people trying to dismiss all these facts, and yes they are facts, they are not made up.

The "claim" that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current climate change, is based on nothing more than computer predictions which have been shown to be flawed.


[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

So, if you chop down a forest and as a consequent there is no evapotranspiration and thus no cloud formation and no rainfall, the consequential climate change is not your fault?


What is the big excuse that scientists who claim the Climate Change we are currently undergoing is caused by mankind?... Anthropogenic CO2.

So if people are going to use the "scientific concensus" to claim that human activities are the cause of Climate Change, then you haver to stick with what the "scientific concensus" claims, that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of Climate Change.

New research also seems to show that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, appart from increasing voltage in the atmosphere from the bombardment of nucleons and other charged particles.

Appart from that the Earth climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, there are natural factors which affect the climate more than mankind can ever do.

If we follow your line of reasoning the human race shouldn't exist, because in case you didn't know, each person exhales about 1 kg of CO2 each day, and we also produce methane daily.

The fact is that the Earth has a self regulating system, a mere 0.28% of CO2 being released by humans is not going to cause any "dramatic climate changes", our oceans have 98.5% of the CO2 that exists on Earth, any seismic/magmatic event that increases the temperature in the oceans will releasse more CO2, and other trace gases than human activity will ever do.



Originally posted by Essan
It's not all about carbon emission you know



The thing is that the scientists who say mankind is to blame for Climate Change only use CO2 as the main cause for this change.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
BTW, one more thing, as I have said in the past, I do believe we have to be concious of our environment.

Yes, human activities do have an effect on the environment, but the "Climate" is affected by natural mechanisms which are out of man's hands.

You want to curb pollution, that's awesome, we should do that, but blaming mankind for Climate Change is not helping any, it just gives the excuse to the policymakers to make people feel guilty about something they can't change, nomatter how hard we try, and it gives them the excuse to tax you more trying to fix something they can't fix...

Even the IPCC report says nomatter what we do, even if we cut all emissions right now, and stop all of mankind's activities, Climate Change will continue to happen.

Abrupt Climate Change has happened in Earth's history hundreds if not thousands of times.

They have happened before mankind crawled out of whatever hole we were in, and will continue to happen even after we are gone.

If you want to "curb pollution", then fight to "curb pollution"....don't try to use "Climata Change" as an excuse when we have no say whatsoever on these natural cycles of change.

The history of Earth has not been one of "balance", it has been one which is controlled by chaos.

There are only small periods of time when the Climate is optimum for the human race to thrive in, but as past civilizations have shown, Climate Change can destroy civilizations if they are not ready, and bickering and spending billions of dollars trying to bicker back and forth and trying to stop something we have no control over is not going to help any.

We should be planning to prepare for these changes, not try to change something we can't control.


[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I totally agree with you on that aspect. But I'm not blaming anything on anyone, I'm not blaming Global warming on humans. I'm blaming our contribution to Global warming, which I believe to be affecting the climate. You obviously don't agree. Neither of us can prove or disprove.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Perhaps the powers that be are privy to the future events which will eliminate responsibility for their actions.


AAC



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Perhaps the powers that be are privy to the future events which will eliminate responsibility for their actions.


AAC


Since when can the "powers that be" control the output of the Sun? or control the magnetic field of Earth, or magmatic/seismic activities?

Since when can they change the course of the solar system to get out of the cloudlet from the Local Fluff we are in which is 7,000 Kelvin and we entered 2,000-10,000 years ago, and because the Earth' magnetic field and the sun are weakened, our solar system is absorbing more charged particles from this local cloudlet?

We can blame big corporations for a lot of things, but not for "Climate Change".

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
I totally agree with you on that aspect. But I'm not blaming anything on anyone, I'm not blaming Global warming on humans. I'm blaming our contribution to Global warming, which I believe to be affecting the climate. You obviously don't agree. Neither of us can prove or disprove.


Hang it up Muaddib knows everything, has all the facts and is never wrong. Typical engineer.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Hang it up Muaddib knows everything, has all the facts and is never wrong. Typical engineer.


grover, i don't know everything, but at least i do my own research and understand at least enough to know that mankind does not cause "Climate Change"...

What do you know except to insult, and name call?...



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Perhaps the powers that be are privy to the future events which will eliminate responsibility for their actions.


AAC


Since when can the "powers that be" control the output of the Sun? or control the magnetic field of Earth, or magmatic/seismic activities?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]


My point was deeper than physicality. I'm talking about a consciouss shift in perception which is looming. This could effect our interpretation of global warming.

AAC



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
My point was deeper than physicality. I'm talking about a consciouss shift in perception which is looming. This could effect our interpretation of global warming.

AAC


Just like with everything else that exists, the human concious, and perception changes.

Our knowledge of everything we know right now could change tomorrow for all we know.

There is only one constant which permeates and controls everything, and that is change.

Big corporations, or anyone else in the world can't change that fact, or control it.

[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Engineer is name calling? You are an engineer. yeah you do your own research and do the interpreting of it as well.

At least i know and acknowledge that I cherry pick my info to suit my view of things....something you seem incapable of admitting. You instead hide behind the words info and facts thinking I guess that if you use them enough people won't question you. And if they do you can always browbeat them to death

Lets see at last count i have contributed 70 articles to this thread... not a huge amount but not nothing either.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


There is only one constant which permeates and controls everything, and that is LOVE.


[edit on 22-2-2007 by Muaddib]


True. But I would trade "change" for "Love."

AAC



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Grover, Thanks for the reply, and a summary of your position on the issue. Just want to comment on one point.


Originally posted by grover
Lately he proposes that the Koyto accords are an attempt at a global tax of some sort. Whatever.


Not sure what you mean by "whatever", but it's a fact that the Kyoto Protocol is a system of carbon emsission caps with penalties for exceeding assigned caps, or the ability to trade emission credits with counties that are under quota. Either way, all it will do is transfer wealth from rich developed countries to poor and/or underdeveloped countires. Big polluters will buy carbon credits from little polluters and carbon emissions will continue to increase every year. Just as they have every years since Kyoto was signed.

No developed countries will meet these goals without extensive infrastucture modifications which will cost many billions of dollars euros etc., which will get passed on to consumers one way or another.

All this to address (inadequately in my opinion) a fractional contribution to global climate change that is inconsequential when compared to natural processes.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I have never doubted that the Koyto accords were flawed but they were a beginning, something to improve and build upon. For us to simply pull out of something that we had actually worked on and then not offer to help work on any viable alternatives is just foolishness.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

True. But I would trade "change" for "Love."

AAC


You actually think that Love rules the Universe?

Love is one emotion of many in the human soul, and it does not control the Universe.

It is "romantic and poetic" to think so, but the truth is far from "romanticism".

Love does not, and will not stop a meteor from hitting Earth, or stop Climate Change.

Love doesn't even control many people in this world. Other emotions such as greed, and lust controls millions of people, and if any dramatic changes in the Climate occur, as I think is a real possibility, after a while more people will be controlled by those emotions and will do unspeakables just to survive.

Love has no control over the world, much less the Universe.

There are people that nurture Love, and almost under any circumstances will continue to nurture it and those they Love, but Love does not control the Universe.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

How about this Essan?

Just because there is a Climate Change in the making, doesn't mean we are the only cause.

Would you agree with that position?



Spot on


The problem is firstly taking all natural forcings out of the observations, and then determining what human forcings there are. Only then can we start predicting the future.

I'm a sceptic. I don't believe we yet understand all the natural forcings, and I also don't believe we're giving due consideration to all the possible anthropogenic forcings. The debate seems to be all about GHGs - and if they're the sole cause of climate change I'm a pink spotted donkey in a blue straw hat ...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Engineer is name calling? You are an engineer. yeah you do your own research and do the interpreting of it as well.
................


You know exactly what i mean...before I came to this thread you were already insulting people who disagree with you and those who have a different political leaning than you....



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Grover, Thanks for the reply, and a summary of your position on the issue. Just want to comment on one point.


There is more than one point that needs to be addressed on grover's comment.

As always when he can't discuss a topic, because as he always demonstrates his understanding of such topics are limited to copying some commentary from newspapers that agree with his views, he always has to hint that those who disagree with him must be "paid agents of the government" or "being paid by Exxon or some other agency to vindicate the oil corporations"....

If anyone is puting any doubts and trying to obscure the issue is people like grover...

He claims I am the only one who is reaching these conclusions when I have excerpted dozens of research papers even from before the debate on "Climate Change", or as it is often misused "Global Warming started.

Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibliographic Code:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

So as can be seen, back in 1978 scientists predicted Climate Change because of an interstellar cloud we would encounter in the near future


Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth, expert says
Scientist challenges greenhouse-gas theory
Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2006
OTTAWA - Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth.

So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer.

He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight.

It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

www.canada.com...


Scientists Group to Refute Global Warming Claims
Monday, 1 May 2006, 10:08 am
Press Release: Centre for Resource Management Studies
Media Release - Immediate
A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

www.scoop.co.nz...


Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...


Conclusions
A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions:

1.) Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is never static for a long period of time.

2.) Observed climatic changes occurred over widespread areas, probably on the global scale.

3.) Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global changes of 1-2oC.

4.) Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable with that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago. The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.

5.) Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

www.azgs.state.az.us...


The models which have been used to forecast global warming due to man made emissions of carbon dioxide have ignored the astronomic theory until very recently and still ignore the radiation theory. This is despite the fact that the statistical fits of the astronomic and radiation theories are extremely good and lead to accurate forecasts, whereas the models backcast historical climate very poorly, forecast no better and are not statistically verified.

The models assume that carbon dioxide leads and temperature follows. Data from ice and deep sea cores show the reverse. They suggest that the role of carbon dioxide is to amplify the effects of the astronomic variables and solar radiation. There has never been a historical period where CO2 rose independently of natural drivers, such as variations in solar radiance and astronomical cycles, which could provide an analogy for the modern period.

It is impossible to sort out from history the independent role of CO2 as too
many other things were going on at the same time, such as changes in the
water and methane content of the atmosphere, the quantity of energy
emitted from the sun and changes in the earth's orbit. It now seems clear
from the evidence of the past 100 years, and spectral calculations, that the model builders' estimates of CO2 sensitivity are about four times too high.

This means that any changes in temperature due to anthropogenic CO2 will be at most 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years, a figure well within the range of the Little Optimum warming of 900 to 1300 AD, a period of flourishing agricultural civilizations.

Link

Anyways, since grover cannot understand the different natural factors and since it seems clear he wants to believe that "mankind is at fault nomatter what" perhaps it is him who is being paid by "Communists desguised as green environmentalists founded by Communist regimes".....

I mean there is no other explanation right?...

[edit on 23-2-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
First off, let me state that I am no scientist. For that matter, not even a scientologist or "scientician".

However, I recently took a trip to the local museum and science center. There, I was informed of the fact that, a very long time ago, the place where I lived was once covered with lots of volcanoes and steaming rock.

Then, lots of years later, in an age called something-"ambrien", it was covered with swamps and marshes.

Yet even later, in a time called something-"assic", there were lots of forests and big something-"saurs".

Movving on, I found that my future hang-outs were then covered for a time with ice. Lots and lots of it. An "ithic" period, if I recall.

And now, here I stand, and everything is totally different than the way it was. No more volcanoes. No more swamps or glaciers even.

So, I have to wonder: What is the "correct" environment for where I live? And further, how will my driving a car make it wrong? Maybe I'll just be helping set things back to the way they should be, if anyone can tell me which way that is...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join