A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

A couple of comments here:


Yes.

Here's some research (confirming other research, supported by other evidence) on the topic:
www.sciencemag.org...



Actually, the evidence that "other planets in the solar system are warming" is wrong. The Martian evidence actually isn't very conclusive, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere there is high...but there's almost no atmosphere.
www.zpenergy.com...

You may not remember it, but he has. On quite a few occassions. Here are a couple of choice quotes from this thread in particular where he claimed to have evidence there was no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.



and



Read the entire thread though, to get a better idea of what Mauddib was saying, and how the idea he presented as "scientific fact" is categorically false.

You are right, its farther but the greenhouse effect would make it much warmer and for all I know maybe it even has a small effect on mars at present. Mars is VERY cold but what warmth it does get comes from the Sun and that has increased enough lately to cause the "Dry Ice Caps" to start melting along with our ice caps on earth which is the whole point of my argument. I was being sarcastic in my statement, sorry about the misunderstanding.







I would agree with most of that, my only argument would be to what degree the CO2 is making it worse, I believe it might be 1-5% of the cause and I do not think that is enough to take the drastic measures that are being proposed on my country while giving China and India a free ride. As far as I am concerned North America is a net Carbon sink right now (We absorb more than we emit)

I can not find the actual link but I did read it, but here are some that explain it better than I can:

America's Amazing Carbon Sink



















when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the United States cannot accurately be labeled as all give and no take






Agreed about being a greenhouse gas, but these methods that are proposed are economically painful and I feel that at best they would only minimally affect global warming anyway - you know putting out a forest fire with a squirt gun.




OK, its a greenhouse gas alright, no agreement there (see Venus). What I ,mean is to what degree is MAN helping the effect along? Seriously look at mars, how in the hell can power plant and Suvs on earth be affecting the Martian Polar caps?

I am sorry but neither of the posts you mention actually say what you claim.

You can take them that way if you wish but I am sorry they do NOT say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

They say if CO2 was the casue of the current warming then temps would be higher. That is not the same thing. The whole thrust of the argument from Muadibs point of view is thay it is not THE problem but a VERY small contributor.
If you had read the summary report for policy makers ( I apologise if you have but it looks like you have not) The report makes the same statement for water vapour and a less strong one for Methane. (unfortunately the methane levels currently steadfastly refuse to marry up to the model given to them...)
While we are on the subject of models, the temp rise does not match the model given to it either ..
That differemce is why I give some credence to what muadib is saying while at the same time giving equal credence to melatonins argument.
I have no agenda other than to watch the discussion it is a good one but please do not put words in anyones mouth.

You have the right to take what muadib says anyway you want to. Try asking him rather than asuming that might work..

I do not think anyone is claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is, and of this there is not argument.

OK, how about this latest then, from this thread



Look, I was just clarifying why I said what I said. I've had many, many, many arguements with mauddib, and as far as I can tell, he's claimed time and time again that CO2 is not a pollutant, and not a greenhouse gas. His main basis for this arguement is to show studies where at other time, CO2 levels have been low, and global temperatures have been high, and other times CO2 levels have been high, and global temperatures low. But I don't want to have a debate over what Mauddib has or hasn't said. I'd like to stay on topic if possible.

So if you think that CO2 is only effecting 1-5% of our environment, why don't you think mitigating those ffects is a good idea? Even if you're right, and there are no immediate dangers, surely the long term effects are worth considering.

You speak of detrimental economic factors, but that seems like a strange arguement. That, to me, seems like saying we should never have moved from horse and buggy to cars, because it will hurt the horse and buggy aspect of our economy. Yes, our economy will fluctuate as different areas of technology shift, but as oil and coal and other fossil fuel businesses close, just as many progressive green businesses will open, providing wind, solar, or thermal power generation.

So I'm not so concerned about the economic effects of "going green" and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if you don't believe in man's contribution to global warming, surely we have to realize that fossil fuels aren't going to be around forever, and so why not begin the move to renewable low impact resources, rather than continuing down a road that we know will end?

Not to mention the political ramifications of no longer being beholden to oil corporations, and the countries which hold the oil reserves.

I would agree that research into 'green' is good, but mandating costs to force the implementation of laws to save the world from global warming are not the answer, yet. Until the science is proven that CO2 is the major or at least a significant portion of global warming, then a weighted approach would be more prudent.

Also what about the carbon sink question? You think it is hogwash of the oil companies also?

Sorry ed not aimed at you but Athenion ..

apologies

No, they are usually driving old VW camper vans that spew out a huge amount of exhaust fumes, and don't have converters or anything.
Then sit around with fires lit on warm summer evenings, puffing ganja and tobacco smoke into the air - not to mention all the CO2 from the constant "lets save the planet, man" talk.

Anyone catch this?




NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming

hmmm seems the word is NOT totally on board yet......

Excuse me?... Show me one statement which corroborates "your lie" that I have claimed CO2 is not a GHG....

I am sure you will find no such statement, because i have never said what you claim....

What I have said is that CO2 does not cause the warming which melatonin and you claim it causes...

BTW...we have not had "many, many, many arguments"... We have had a "few discussions" maybe three or four, and in all of them you make claims without providing any proof to back your claims, and if I am wrong show me that proof...




If CO2 is affecting the Earth's environment so bad, why is it that during higher levels of CO2 on Earth's atmosphere plant life flourished, and even animals have thrived?....

Currently the Earth has some of the lower levels of CO2 that have existed throughout the history of the Earth.



...first of all noone is saying that we shouldn't try to find new power sources, just that the exagerated claims made by some, and the drastic changes which apparently you and some others want is not viable, as every aspect of infraestructure on Earth depends heavily on oil, and the lives of billions of people depend on oil.... hence we can't just "drop oil derivatives, and byproducts and live happily ever after"...

We don't even have fleets of "hybrid trucks", much less any other viable source of power for transporting, or the production of food and goods.

Solar cars don't produce enough energy, hydrogen cars/water cars still give us a lot of problems and will release vast amounts of water vapor, which is a much worse GHG than CO2.

There have been some progress into alternative fuel sources, but we are still a long ways from changing the need for the world of oil.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

I wonder if GORE ever had a reaction to this rebuttal of his scientifically challenges book and movie.

Will he ever admit that he was wrong?

Will it further his agenda?


Wow - how ignorant the public is or at least that is what I thought.

Wait there may be hope yet...





The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested


And how about this for a conclusion?



Or this even,

So do you all still think its man made?

4 years later and the science leads one to be leary of that assumption.

And the theory looses even more steam, it was a VERY COOL summer this year.

Record cold everywhere, here, Europe,...still believe in global warming? Maybe we should be worried about an ice age first.....