Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The link below is a lecture that disagrees with anthropogenic global warming, as do I. This lecture is by Dr. Art Robinson at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. I am a scientist and a signer of the Oregon Petition.



No Evidence That Global Warming Is Manmade

[edit on 4/2/2007 by TheAvenger]




posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It exsist, and the reason why the "global world" has brought the issue to hand at such an alarming rate and to the magnitude is because it is going to be used as a ploy in their agenda that is close at hand.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
…I am a scientist…


What is your academic discipline?


Originally posted by TheAvenger
… and a signer of the Oregon Petition…

…disagrees with anthropogenic global warming…


State your case, then.

But since you are a signatory of the Petition, the statement you agreed to was the following:




”There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Link.



How about “catastrophes” in the not so foreseeable future?

I’d also be interested in your take on this:




Case Study: The Oregon Petition

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet…

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research…


Doesn’t sound very scientific to me.





[edit on 2-4-2007 by loam]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by TheAvenger
…I am a scientist…


What is your academic discipline?


Chemistry. Thirty-five years experience. Unlike most here, I have actually tested for pollutants and atmospheric gases.



Originally posted by TheAvenger
… and a signer of the Oregon Petition…


Correct. Would sign it again.



[i
…disagrees with anthropogenic global warming…
State your case, then.


State yours. The burden of proof is with the believers. Why should I attempt to disprove something that does not exist? Prove to me IRREFUTABLY that man has caused "global warming" A CO2 chart will not impress me; I have seen them all. They are nonsense. The assumptions drawn from them are a crock. Bovine scatology.




But since you are a signatory of the Petition, the statement you agreed to was the following:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”…


Absolutely agree with it.

Further:

I am not interested in what some "believer" wrote to discredit the Oregon Petition. Anyway, this is about the lecture I posted, which you obviously did not watch, not the Oregon Petition itself. You will like the lecture, it has lots of the graphs and charts that you seem so fond of.



Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. .


I'd be happy to match my scientific knowledge and wits anytime. Global warming is not my religion like it is Al Gore's and....others.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
This is my latest question –

Given the size of the data set and the complexity of the processes within, can ‘man’ be expected to give an accurate and well understood account of global climatic fluctuations and his influence upon said system?

As can be seen in any number of discussions across the various media available today, people on both sides of the fence are able to hold up numerous 'facts' in order to 'prove' their argument. It is this sheer number of variables involved that inclines me to think that we can never come to a solid conclusion soon, if ever. Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic Global Warming is an actual reality to the extent that some people believe, we face an almost impossible task in providing definitive, canonical, proof either way.

In the meantime, there are other, more dramatically obvious and measurable environmental problems that should and can be dealt with. Two that immediately spring to mind are overfishing and tropical rainforest destruction. Unfortunately, the way the Global Warming debate is being presented and discussed in many quarters at the moment seems to both deflect and distance people from more pressing, objective, issues.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
TheAvenger

Yup, I got your number.



Originally posted by TheAvenger
Global warming is not my religion like it is Al Gore's and....others.


Funny, I often think the same about those who are so keen on refuting the evidence with nothing more than a summary unscientific proclamation to the contrary.

The notion that when one is inclined to find the anthropogenic evidence compelling, it somehow converts to a religion, is just plain ridiculous. It’s a nice political tactic, but hardly a scientific rebuttal.

Is that all you got?


Originally posted by TheAvenger
The burden of proof is with the believers.


Burdens shift when the weight of the evidence is against what is advanced.

At this point, your position is a lonely one…

Show me the science that effectively corrects this MASSIVE ignorance shared by the vast majority of the scientific community.

I’m serious.

I’d prefer you be right.


[edit on 2-4-2007 by loam]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Who ever thinks that humans do not have any affect on the environment in which we live in… their dead wrong. We have taken for granted of the great world we have been given and we used it up like there was no tomorrow. But now we have realized that there is a tomorrow, and no one wants to admit that what we have been doing is killing us.

It was our forefathers that dug us into this grave and now they don’t want to admit or help us get out. We are the future of this world and if we don’t take responsibility for whats been done and try to slow it down, because god knows we cant stop it.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Burdens shift when the weight of the evidence is against what is advanced.

This might be a daft question, and I realise that what we are talking about goes above and beyond any such notions, but would such evidence stand up in a court of law, do you think? Even if we were to categorise it as 'very strongly circumstantial', if you like, is that enough to convict, given what we know and, probably more importantly, what we do not yet know about the system we are talking about.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I don't know. I don't know, now, if I can be truly convinced either way, to be honest. This debate does seem to be taking up a lot of time and energy though, which I do think could be better focused.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

Originally posted by loam
Burdens shift when the weight of the evidence is against what is advanced.

This might be a daft question, and I realise that what we are talking about goes above and beyond any such notions, but would such evidence stand up in a court of law, do you think?



... on that note:


Source
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.

[...]

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   




Show me the science that effectively corrects this MASSIVE ignorance shared by the vast majority of the scientific community.

I’m serious.

I’d prefer you be right.


[edit on 2-4-2007 by loam]


Science is not ultimately decided by a majority view or even a consensus, it is decided by the facts that turn out to be the correct ones. It is my opinion that the more than 1/3 of us scientists (yes, not a "consensus", as many state) who believe that global warming exists, but almost entirely as a natural planetary process, are correct.

Please explain to me how CO2 has a greater effect as a greenhouse gas than water vapor, the predominant greenhouse gas in the ecosystem.

Again, it is those who preach the doom and gloom of manmade global warming that must prove their case. If they cannot, which I don't think they
can, then the entire phenomenon needs to be re-examined by the disciples and mindless minions of high priest and most holy Al (no science degree) Gore who has put forth such irresponsible and bad science.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

This might be a daft question, and I realise that what we are talking about goes above and beyond any such notions, but would such evidence stand up in a court of law, do you think? Even if we were to categorise it as 'very strongly circumstantial', if you like, is that enough to convict, given what we know and, probably more importantly, what we do not yet know about the system we are talking about.


There are no daft questions.

Not a chance in a million that an unbiased court where all of the evidence is presented would uphold man as the cause of G.W. The U.S. Supreme Court decision is about CO2 regulation by the E.P.A., with a 5-4 vote. (What, no CONSENSUS?) The decision is not a rubber stamp agreeing with A.G.W.

Perhaps those asking for and agreeing with the ruling should simply cease exhaling.







[edit on 4/2/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
This is my latest question –

Given the size of the data set and the complexity of the processes within, can ‘man’ be expected to give an accurate and well understood account of global climatic fluctuations and his influence upon said system?




Many of my previous writings and publications have expressed serious doubts that we know enough about Earth's systems to even think of trying to adjust it.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
TheAvenger

Yup, I got your number.



Is that all you got?




I posted a lecture presented by another scientist here, whether you choose to watch and listen is your choice. It certainly is evidence, not just a rant from me as you contend. If I annoy you, I suggest you add me to your "foe" list, use the ignore button, or simply go somewhere else if you can't handle the scientific proof the A.G.W. is B.S. I certainly have a great deal more evidence to present.




[edit on 4/2/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I posted a lecture presented by another scientist here, whether you chose to watch and listen is your choice.


I did.

If anyone is interested, a written version can be found here: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide


Originally posted by TheAvenger
It certainly is evidence,




Not for me, it isn't.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
If I annoy you, I suggest you add me to your "foe" list, use the ignore button...


You don't annoy me.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
or simply go somewhere else if you can't handle the scientific proof


On this matter, I have seen nothing proven.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
A.G.W. is B.S. I certainly have a great deal more.


Bring it on... I still want you to be right.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
It's getting bit late for an old man. I will post a few tidbits then more tomorrow.



Schwinger




physorg



Deming

[edit on 4/2/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Loam's use of misleading underhanded logical fallacies is impressive.



Originally posted by loam
Funny, I often think the same about those who are so keen on refuting the evidence with nothing more than a summary unscientific proclamation to the contrary.

Appeal to Ridicule


Originally posted by loam
At this point, your position is a lonely one…

Show me the science that effectively corrects this MASSIVE ignorance shared by the vast majority of the scientific community.

Bandwagon Fallacy


Originally posted by loam
Not for me, it isn't.

Argument from Personal Incredulity


Originally posted by loam
On this matter, I have seen nothing proven.

Argument from Ignorance


The problem is, that you have to prove that Global Warming IS happening, and that it IS happening because of humans. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, because nothing exists to prove! What TheAvenger is trying to say is that he doesn't think there's enough evidence supporting the theory that humans are causing global warming.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Schwinger


schwinger.harvard.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">W. Aeschbach-Hertig’s Rebuttal of “On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?” by L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar


Originally posted by TheAvenger
physorg


You’re kidding, right?


Rebuttal of Vladimir Shaidurov’s Theory


Originally posted by TheAvenger
Deming


Mostly an opinion piece. Moreover, politics plays heavily on BOTH sides.

Here’s a more balanced view…



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I might be mistaken,but wasnt the debate over global warming not if its man-made,but if it real? Didnt an international panel of scientists/climatologists finally conclude that it's real,not man-made? We need to quit dumping more co2 into the atmosphere than it can naturally get rid of.

[edit on 4/3/07 by spanishcaravan]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Loam's use of misleading underhanded logical fallacies is impressive.




I'll let my posts stand on their own. The reader can decide.


Originally posted by Johnmike
The problem is, that you have to prove that Global Warming IS happening,...


Well, let's be clear. Even MOST of TheAvenger's sources don't dispute that.


Originally posted by Johnmike
and that it IS happening because of humans.


That is the nature of the debate and the subject of this thread.


Originally posted by Johnmike
You can't prove that something doesn't exist, because nothing exists to prove! What TheAvenger is trying to say is that he doesn't think there's enough evidence supporting the theory that humans are causing global warming.


No. The title of this thread is that there is "NO" evidence...not that there isn't "enough" evidence.

Clearly, that is wrong.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
I might be mistaken,but wasnt the debate over global warming not if its man-made,but if it real? Didnt an international panel of scientists/climatologists finally conclude that it's real,not man-made? We need to quit dumping more co2 into the atmosphere than it can naturally get rid of.

[edit on 4/3/07 by spanishcaravan]


Edit was not working correctly for me,post continued below:

Just for arguments sake,say it's not real,and there's no threat. Why should we still continue with our ways? Why not do something good for a change. Depending on where you live,look up. It's blue,but look toward the horizon.....nothing but brownish filth. Specially considering my location,we have the 2nd worst air in the nation,after la. Nothing like coming over the mtns,and entering the san joaquin valley only to see a thick haze as far as you can see. Then realizing that is what you breathe in on a daily basis.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of global warming,its about time we start to change some things.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join