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.

 

How ridiculous is Global Warming?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Must admit that I hadn't realised the significance of CO2 was proven as a result of cold war research in the 1950s ......


These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through.


www.aip.org...

Worth re-reading the whole article in order to understand how and why most scientists firmly believe that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will affect global temperatures.




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Must admit that I hadn't realised the significance of CO2 was proven as a result of cold war research in the 1950s ......


Cheers for that, interesting read. It's also worth noting that the idea of CO2 causing climate changes goes back to the late 1800s. It's not a new idea in any way.

And then, as you always point out, adding all our other effects on the biosphere, we can't expect our behaviour to have no effect. People seem to have difficulty realising that it may seem insignificant on an individual level, but we are talking about a few billion humans with dirty toys and a habit of destroying the ecosystem.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
This line of argument doesn't stand up, and you know it. Before the LIA, we had the MWP, this resulted in minmal CO2 increases. If, as you do, propose the MWP was warmer than now, we would expect a similar CO2, or even larger, spike in a similar period (ca. 300 years with ca. 100ppm increase) after that. We just don't see it.



i suggest you find sources for past trace gas variations other than ice cores. if your hypothsesis relies on a single type of measurement you're inviting trouble, CO2 statistics are available from late 19th century onwards and from what i've gathered, people are relying on ice cores without any backup.


PS: very very thin evidence, especially considering the volatile nature of glaciers, their flow and the presence of liquid water. btw: has it ever occurred to you that planetary weather patterns need to be self-stabilising to a large degree? otherwise, water vapor alone would have triggered a self-reinforcing feedback loop: heat -> more vapor -> better retention -> even more heat.

PPS: Venus' surface temperature and atmospheric density are definitely not the result of a greenhouse effect and NASA (or anyone who bothers to take a look, for that matter) knows it, a day lasts ~240 Earth days and neither temperature variations nor surface winds have been reported.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

This line of argument doesn't stand up, and you know it. Before the LIA, we had the MWP, this resulted in minmal CO2 increases. If, as you do, propose the MWP was warmer than now, we would expect a similar CO2, or even larger, spike in a similar period (ca. 300 years with ca. 100ppm increase) after that. We just don't see it.


There is no "if" the MWP was warmer.... Research data shows that it was warmer, and the RWP was even more warm than the MWP and today...

You are trying to dismiss the research done by scientists from Spain, Austria, Germany and even the data from the Sargasso Seas, among others, all which show the northern hemisphere was warmer during those time periods than today. Even research done in the Americas have shown abrupt and dramatic Climate Changes during the MWP and the RWM, which whether or not you want to admit it gives a pretty clear indication that there was warming all over the northern hemisphere during those periods.

Showing that the same changes were not happening in the southern hemisphere during past Climatic Changes, such as the MWP and the RWM, does not bolster your claim, since we know that even during past climatic events the southern hemisphere has not experienced the same warming, or cooling, just as it is doing now, as the northern hemisphere has undergone... More so when we have scant data from the southern hemisphere of past climatic events due to the fact that the southern hemisphere has more open ocean spaces than landmasses.



Originally posted by melatonin
You argument needs to logically consistent.

What you are trying to argue here is that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not predominately human-sourced, which is pretty much a ridiculous statement. Where does the CO2 we produce go?


I am not disputing the fact that human activities are releasing CO2....but I am also saying, as all the data shows that, first, temperatures have always increased first, then CO2 levels increased; second, there are natural factors which have been occuring during the 19th-20th century which do affect the release of more trace gases in the atmosphere from natural sources; third and last, since temperatures were increasing well before CO2 levels increased, and since the main premise of those scientists who want to blame mankind for Climate Change have claimed that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause, it is obvious that mankind did not cause the current Climate Change, or Global Warming, and there is no way for mankind to "mitigate or stop Climate Change."





Originally posted by melatonin
During normal ice-age cycle a temperature change of a few degrees is associated with around 280-300ppm. We are well above that with an increase at larger rates than before to levels not seen in 650,000 years.


Wrong... you keep trying to decieve people with your erroneous data...

Variations in atmosphereic CO2 during glacial and interglacial events have been inferred from the geologic record to be between 80ppm to 100ppm.... not 20 ppm like you are trying to imply...

And let's not forget the fact that CO2 levels inferred from Ice core have discrepancies with other data samples.



Originally posted by melatonin

No, that is your misinterpretation of an article that assessed how the warming from the holocene may have acted as a wave through hundreds of meters of deep sea sediments, formerly permafrost, and formed pongo-like structures.


My misrepresentation?... as i remember you tried to correlate that warming with "human causes" not me.


Originally posted by melatonin
And increasing cosmic rays are prosposed to cause the production of more relective clouds, cooling the climate. Neutral hydrogen (monoatomic hydrogen) would likely destroy the ozone layer, ozone is another GG gas, this may well lead to cooling (but this is much more complex). The particulate matter would also lead to cooling.

Seems an ISD is suggested to lead to cooling. Note that all they mention is climate changes. ISD are being associated with 'snowball earth' scenarios, not warming.

www.universetoday.com...


We can't even duplicate the conditions in outer space, or interstellar clouds, in any lab... Our most advanced vacuum lab is 10,000 times denser than any interstellar cloud, hence it would be quite difficult to reproduce the effects of such clouds on our Solar system.

But we can infer the effects of such clouds by observation of what is happening to our solar system at the same time that Earth is undergoing Climate Change. It is too much of a coincidence that the same warming we are seeing on Earth are happening on other planets in the solar system, including Pluto which has been receding from the sun for what is it now 13 years if i am correct?

Actually Pluto has been receding from the Sun since 1989, after it's closest approach to the Sun.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Ok, i was just checking my email, I am subscribed to a variety of scientifc journals, and I found some information provided by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who is the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, and as you will see, his conclusions agree with what I have been trying to say in these forums for a while now. I can't give the information on the email, but here is an abstract which can be found at The University of Alaska Fairbanks website, where Dr. Akasofu posted his comments.


Abstract: There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about 1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect.


www.iarc.uaf.edu...

I also find the following information enlightening...


Meanwhile, the IPCC mobilized a large number of climatologists and meteorologists and published several impressive, voluminous publications, one after the other. In one of them, “Climate Change 2001,” for example, a figure that became known as “the hockey stick,” was used prominently in the “Summary for Policy Makers,” in which the temperature shows a dramatic increase during the most recent 100 years, after a slow decrease in temperature over the first 900 years. The nickname “hockey stick” was coined because the temperature-time curve had this sudden, upward kink near the end, like a hockey stick. (Since then, this particular figure has been discredited; the new IPCC Report (2007) does not include the figure.)

Excerpted from above link.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
i would recommend anyone who is actually interested, to read what Dr. Akasofu has to say.

Here is another interesting statement...


A supercomputer, as complex and powerful as it may be, is a far cry from the complexity of our real earth! It is simply a very poor virtual earth. Actually, the modelers themselves should know best the limitations of their results as they continue to improve their models, and perhaps modelers should, at times, be a little more cautious about their findings. In any case, modeling is nothing more than an academic exercise, at least at this stage. There is a considerable difference among results obtained by different researchers. To give just one example, the predicted year when Arctic Ocean sea ice would disappear entirely in the summer months spans a range from 2040 to at least 2300. This shows the uncertainty in modeling studies. Since sea ice plays the role of the lid in warming water in a pan, it plays a significant role in climate change and future prediction.

www.iarc.uaf.edu...



[edit on 16-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

There is no "if" the MWP was warmer.... Research data shows that it was warmer, and the RWP was even more warm than the MWP and today...


Proxy data suggests some places were warmer
But we can't say anything definitively - those pesky Romans forgot to put any temp measuring satellites into orbit, and as for the silly Vikings leaving their Davis weather stations at home


Ice cores (again, only a proxy and only for one place) suggest neither the MWP nor LIA were particularly significant in terms of Greenland temperature trends - and it was warmer in the early/mid Holocene.





Edit: Note that this graph does not show the upward trend in temps over the past 50 years


[edit on 16-3-2007 by Essan]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is no "if" the MWP was warmer.... Research data shows that it was warmer, and the RWP was even more warm than the MWP and today...


Round and round we go.

I'm not going back there, Muaddib. I presented a wad of data suggesting otherwise.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I am not disputing the fact that human activities are releasing CO2....but I am also saying, as all the data shows that, first, temperatures have always increased first, then CO2 levels increased; second, there are natural factors which have been occuring during the 19th-20th century which do affect the release of more trace gases in the atmosphere from natural sources; third and last, since temperatures were increasing well before CO2 levels increased, and since the main premise of those scientists who want to blame mankind for Climate Change have claimed that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause, it is obvious that mankind did not cause the current Climate Change, or Global Warming, and there is no way for mankind to "mitigate or stop Climate Change."


It doesn't always lag but mostly it does. But if you think that because Temp causes CO2, that therefore CO2 cannot cause temp, then you're making a logical fallacy and wrong.

icebubbles.ucsd.edu...




Wrong... you keep trying to decieve people with your erroneous data...

Variations in atmosphereic CO2 during glacial and interglacial events have been inferred from the geologic record to be between 80ppm to 100ppm.... not 20 ppm like you are trying to imply...

And let's not forget the fact that CO2 levels inferred from Ice core have discrepancies with other data samples.


I was talking about the ceiling of CO2 concentration. During a big upwards swing of a few degrees, the ice-cores show that CO2 does not get much over 300ppm (i.e. 280-300ppm).



My misrepresentation?... as i remember you tried to correlate that warming with "human causes" not me.


No, that's a misintepretation again. I didn't correlate the early holocene warming to human causes. Just the last 40 years or so, and into the future.


We can't even duplicate the conditions in outer space, or interstellar clouds, in any lab... Our most advanced vacuum lab is 10,000 times denser than any interstellar cloud, hence it would be quite difficult to reproduce the effects of such clouds on our Solar system.


In which case the answer would be "we don't really know what an ISD would do, but there are suggestions it could well cause cooling by various mechanisms".

The rest is just called making sh1t up (and just so you don't play the same obfuscation game - I don't mean that Pluto having pressure increases is included in this).

[edit on 16-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ok, i was just checking my email, I am subscribed to a variety of scientifc journals, and I found some information provided by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who is the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, and as you will see, his conclusions agree with what I have been trying to say in these forums for a while now. I can't give the information on the email, but here is an abstract which can be found at The University of Alaska Fairbanks website, where Dr. Akasofu posted his comments.


Yet, that is not an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Yet, that is not an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


It's from a PHD, and a site where there are scientists from Japan and the U.S. investigating Climate Change/Global Warming, which is more than we can say from some members who are just trying to dismiss every data, whether it is peer reviewed or not, and giving every imaginable excuse, even if it means making BS up that refutes their hope that they have the power to stop or mitigate Climate Change...



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Proxy data suggests some places were warmer
But we can't say anything definitively - those pesky Romans forgot to put any temp measuring satellites into orbit, and as for the silly Vikings leaving their Davis weather stations at home


I guess we can't say anything "definetely either" about the current warming, since the southern hemisphere is in fact increasing it's ice mass...so this proves there is no such thing as global warming right?...



Originally posted by Essan
Ice cores (again, only a proxy and only for one place) suggest neither the MWP nor LIA were particularly significant in terms of Greenland temperature trends - and it was warmer in the early/mid Holocene.


That proxy data is gathered from information we do have, as in core samples leave a trace of what happened in the past, meanwhile GCM, Global Climate Models, are based on the flawed assumption that we know and understand everything that happens in the atmosphere, which we don't... The models that are flawed are those that are trying to predict the future....



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin

Yet, that is not an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


It's from a PHD, and a site where there are scientists from Japan and the U.S. investigating Climate Change/Global Warming, which is more than we can say from some members who are just trying to dismiss every data, whether it is peer reviewed or not, and giving every imaginable excuse, even if it means making BS up that refutes their hope that they have the power to stop or mitigate Climate Change...


It was you who said you were subscribed to scientific journals.

That is a non-peer reviewed report from Akasofu, who is predominately a researcher of aurora.

Why is someone with a PhD writing another thesis?

Is he gonna be a Dr Dr like Dr Dr Billie Demski?

[edit on 16-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

It was you who said you were subscribed to scientific journals.


What the heck does that have anything to do with this?...


Originally posted by melatonin
That is a non-peer reviewed report from Akasofu, who is predominately a researcher of aurora.


Really?... let's see what sort of books Dr. Akasofu has written.


Books


Akasofu, S.-I., Polar and Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1968, (also a Russian edition).
Akasofu, S.-I., B. Fogle, and B. Haurwitz, Sydney Chapman, Eighty, published by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Publishing Service of the University of Colorado, 1968.
Akasofu, S.-I. and S. Chapman, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1972, (also a Russian and Chinese edition).
Akasofu, S.-I., The Aurora: A Discharge Phenomenon Surrounding the Earth, (in Japanese), Chuo-koran- sha, Tokyo, Japan.
Akasofu, S.-I., Physics of Magnetospheric Substorms, D. Reidel, Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1977.
Akasofu, S.-I., Aurora Borealis: The Amazing Northern Lights, Alaska Geographic Society, Alaska Northwest Pub. Co., 6, 2, 1979, (also a Japanese edition).
Akasofu, S.-I. (ed.), Dynamics of the Magnetosphere, D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1979.
Akasofu, S.-I. and J.R. Kan (eds.), Physics of Auroral Arc Formation, Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, D.C., 1981.
Akasofu, S.-I. and Y. Kamide (eds.), The Solar Wind and the Earth, Geophys. Astrophys. Monographs, Terra Scientific Pub. Co., Tokyo, Japan, and D. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1987.
Akasofu, S.-I., Secrets of the Aurora Borealis, Alaska Geographic Society, Banta Publications Group/Hart Press, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002.
Akasofu, S.-I. Exploring the Secrets of the Aurora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2002.

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

Well, he has written several books and they were not all about auroras...

I guess according to you melatonin fr. Akasofu wouldn't know anything about natural factors incluencing the climate on Earth huh?...

Here is a link to his biography.

www.iarc.uaf.edu...

How many scientific books have you written melatonin?...


Originally posted by melatonin
Why is someone with a PhD writing another thesis?

Is he gonna be a Dr Dr like Dr Dr Billie Demski?


Well, i guess every PHd who writes, and or conducts research "must be writting a thesis"...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What the heck does that have anything to do with this?...


the fact you mentioned a subscription to scientific journals seemed an attempt to add reliability to a non-peer reviewed article.

i.e.


Ok, i was just checking my email, I am subscribed to a variety of scientifc journals, and I found some information provided by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who is the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center



Really?... let's see what sort of books Dr. Akasofu has written.


mainly to do with the magnetosphere and solar wind, which are related to aurora. His area of expertise.


How many scientific books have you written melatonin?...


None yet. Have thought about it though.


Well, i guess every PHd who writes, and or conducts research "must be writting a thesis"...


First you associated the article with peer-reviewed scientific articles, then suggested it was a from a PhD, to me that sounds it is from a PhD thesis. If I say 'this work is from a PhD', it says to me the thesis produced during a PhD. If you mean from a PhD scientist, fair enough, but I could find you a PhD scientist who will write about how many dinosaurs fitted in Noah's ark, just another non-peer reviewed piece of work.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

the fact you mentioned a subscription to scientific journals seemed an attempt to add reliability to a non-peer reviewed article.


I don't have to "add any reliability" to that article...the fact that Dr. Akasofu has a PhD, that he is the director of a Japanese-American project whose goal has been, and continues to be the research of Climate Change, whether natural or anthropogenic factors are affecting the current warming the Earth has been experiencing, the fact that Dr. Akasofu has been studying the magnetosphere of the Earth, the effects of the solar wind, and on the overall Solar-Terrestrial physics since the 60s is what gives credence to what Dr. Akasofu has to say.....

BTW, you have not been "peer-reviewed" either, so perhaps it is time we started ignoring you.....

Yes, I got an email through a scientific subscription which gave me that link, here is the part of the email that I can quote.



You might be interested in my notes entitled "Is the Earth still recovering from the 'Little Ice Age'?--a possible cause of global warming" and "Why has 'global warming' become such a passionate subject?--Let's not lose our cool." They are accessible through the following link:
www.iarc.uaf.edu...

Regards, Syun Akasofu

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Founding Director
International Arctic Research Center
P.O. Box 757340
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340
USA


Dr. Akasofu sent that email to another scholar, and gave the permission to send it to others through the subscription which is how I got it.

If you want to, you can contact Dr. Akasofu to verify this at sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu....

I was explaining how I got this information...



Originally posted by melatonin
mainly to do with the magnetosphere and solar wind, which are related to aurora. His area of expertise.


Are you going to try to tell us now that the magnetosphere and the solar wind are not factors that affect Earth's climate?....

You have made already several mistakes melatonin, keep making more, you will only prove you don't know what you are talking about.



Originally posted by melatonin
None yet. Have thought about it though.


Right....



Originally posted by melatonin
First you associated the article with peer-reviewed scientific articles, then suggested it was a from a PhD, to me that sounds it is from a PhD thesis. If I say 'this work is from a PhD', it says to me the thesis produced during a PhD. If you mean from a PhD scientist, fair enough, but I could find you a PhD scientist who will write about how many dinosaurs fitted in Noah's ark, just another non-peer reviewed piece of work.


Stop trying to clarify that you put your foot in your mouth, i said and i quote

I am subscribed to a variety of scientifc journals, and I found some information provided by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu


I got an email which gave that information and link through a scientific subscription.... You want me to pass a poligraph too?...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, you have not been "peer-reviewed" either


Very true for outside my area, that's why I try to present peer-reviewed scientific studies. But I do know how it all works.


Yes, I got an email through a scientific subscription which gave me that link, here is the part of the email that I can quote.


But it's not a subscription to a scientific journal. Scientific journals are the likes of Nature, Science, or even the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.


Are you going to try to tell us now that the magnetosphere and the solar wind are not factors that affect Earth's climate?....


May well be. But that is not part of his argument in the report he wrote.


You have made already several mistakes melatonin, keep making more, you will only prove you don't know what you are talking about.


If I make an error, I hold my hands up.



Right....


Errm, yeah, right.



Stop trying to clarify that you put your foot in your mouth, i said and i quote

I am subscribed to a variety of scientifc journals, and I found some information provided by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu


Which is not peer-reviewed and not from a scientific journal. I know you don't understand where I'm coming from, suppose we move in different worlds with a different lingo, you see a PhD thesis does have a degree of scientific reliability, it does have to pass the scrutiny of peers, scientific journals are where peer-reviewed science is published.

For example, New Scientist is not a scientific journal and neither is whatever you are subscribed to.

Anything a scientist spouts does not by fiat have credibility, validity, or reliability, just the possession of a PhD is not enough to grant scientific credibility to work. We have peer-review to add a necessary, but not always sufficient, degree of quality control to science.


I got an email which gave that information and link through a scientific subscription.... You want me to pass a poligraph too?...


Nah, I could do one though.

Sometimes what we say is unclear, so we should clarify. Sometimes what we say is wrong, so we should admit it.

I say 'trillions of tonnes' I was wrong. I admit my mistake.

You say 'subscribed to scientific journal', you were wrong, you wriggle.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The trouble with this whole debate is that people will only accept research that supports their contentions - and will immediately dismiss anything that refutes it.

That's not what I call a scientific process.

And yes, people on all sides of the argument are equally guilty.

Isn't it about time everyone accepted that they are not gods and therefore may, possibly, actually, not be 100% right all of the time?


You know I'm right



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
.....................
Isn't it about time everyone accepted that they are not gods and therefore may, possibly, actually, not be 100% right all of the time?


You know I'm right


How eloquently put...except for the fact that you are trying to use that argument to bolster your own claim, which you happen to agree that mankind is the main cause for global warming....

The following goes for everyone.

"scientific concensus" has been proven wrong hundreds of times... There is a growing group of scientists, even from among those who were in the scaremonger's bandwagon, who are breaking away from the bandwagon and are coming forward saying mankind is not at fault for Cliamte Change/Global Warming...

melatonin among some others claim that because the deniers are not approved by the "policymakers" which is exactly what "peer-reviewed science has become when it comes to Global Warming and Climate Change" that this means they are wrong....

Well sorry to tell you that even if the science has been politicized been part of the "peer-reviewed" circle does not make them right...it just puts them in the circle where they get more funds and are not ignored as long as they add "humans are causing Global Warming/Climate Change" on their research....

melatonin, i am not going to argue with you where or how i get much of the information I get. There is no point in doing so, but when i said "you have made many mistakes" I didn't mean grammar mistakes, or not being able to put some sentences together... I meant you have shown not only disdain, but a lack of understanding of the science...

You even tried to claim that Dr. Akasofu who has been studying Solar-terrestrial physics for over 60 years and is now the director of a japanese-American group which is studying Climate Change in the Arctic, knows nothing about Climate Change, just becuase you are trying to disprove those scientists who disagree with you.

The fact is, this topic has become politicized, and it has gone to a point that even the EPA has "branded CO2 a pollutant" when it is not since all life needs CO2 and without CO2 there wouldn't be one living creature or plant in this planet.

For scientists it all has comes down to, you either agree with the claim that CO2 is a pollutant and mankind is causing Global Warming/Climate Change and you get nill funding most of the time and get branded an "oil stooge" and a "denier" trying to brin memories of the "holocaust deniers"; you either put in your research that mankind is at fault for global warming, even though there is much data which proves the contrary and you get a lot of funding from the 2 billion + industry which used to get less than 200 million before the "Global Warming scare"....

The general public has also been fed a sense that "mankind can conquer, and control everything, the Earth, the Solar System and even the universe... Hollywood and the media are to blame for this and for the scaremongering that "if we don't cut greenhouse gas emissions like tomorrow the world is going to end"...

Hollywood has made so many movies about "mankind saving the world" that I have lsot count of them...

I like to watch the sci-fi channel. Last week there was a movie, "Earthstorm," on the sci-fi channel about the Moon breaking up in two and pieces of it falling on the Earth...in the movie the main characters use a "nuclear bomb" to put the moon together...

This week they are showing 10.5, which is about a series of earthquakes which destroy most of the west coast, and which if unstopped will destroy all the U.S.... again in this movie the main characters use a "nuclear bomb" to stop the evil Earth from destroying mankind...

There is Armageddon...again they used a "nuclear bomb" to blow the asteroid in two and save the Earth and mankind...

There is the Core....where several "nuclear weapons" are used to restart the core...

Anyways... it appears that everything can be stopped with a "nuclear weapon"... I have even seen members post in these forums claiming that "detonating a nuclear weapon in the atmospehre will stop Climate Change"......
........

Anyways, because of Hollywwod and the media, and because bad news sell, the public has been let to believe all this nonsense that "mankind caused Global warming"...when the evidence shows the contrary...

Models based on the assumption that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase warming, will of course show a lot more warming... and those scientists who ahve used these models had to go back and change their data when their predictions have been off the mark, and they do this to keep the public believing that "mankind is the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change", so these scientists can get more funding...

I am not saying ok, let's spew chemicals, and greenhouse gases like there is no tomorrow and destroy the environment.

We have to be concious of the environment, and try to protect it, but not at the cost of millions of lives from poor countries, or bringing more poverty to developed nations, which is exactly what plans like "the Kyoto protocol" are trying to do while allowing certain nations like CHinad and India to increase their greenhouse gas emissions...


[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

How eloquently put...except for the fact that you are trying to use that argument to bolster your own claim, which you happen to agree that mankind is the main cause for global warming....


Actually, I've never said that
I believe (well am 100% certain) that humans can and do affect local and regional climates, and I'm open to the possibility that we may also do so on a global level.

It seems most logical to assume a combination of natural and human factors are involved in producing what we call 'global warming'. However, typical human arrogance means most people prefer to argue for their own pet factor being wholly responsible and for everyone else to be wrong ..... Thus the argument goes round and round in circles. Meanwhile the politicians tax us to the hilt and everyone writes a book and gets their 15 minutes of fame.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The arrogance actually comes from those who think mankind is the "Master of the Universe" hence can control and mitigate anything and everything" when the geological record has shown that Earth has had times when CO2 levels were 10 to 16 times higher than they are today yet Earth never became "Venus or Mars" and during both Warming and Cooling events the geological record has had CO2 levels very similar to today and at times much higher than today.

Too many people these days who have a "God complex" and think "there is nothing mankind canot do....

Yet mankind has been on Earth for a blip of the existance of this planet which has seen worse climatic change events than the ones we are currently undergoing...




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join