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.

 

Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Aren't we about "scheduled" for temperature increases leading into the next ice age cycle?


Maybe, maybe not. But we need to somehow account for what we are currently observing.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Technically, if that's the case, it would be accounting for it. Understanding it would then be what we're tying to do.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Technically, if that's the case, it would be accounting for it. Understanding it would then be what we're tying to do.


Okie doke, propose a mechanism.

At this point, we have an explanation that fits a lot of the data. So, we need another that fits just as well. Solar doesn't cut it, neither does cosmic rays.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm not prepared to do that yet. So far we have several holes in the data of 'both sides'. But really, if ice ages are a continuing pattern, and it's about that time, it's peraps the worlds attention should be in trying to understand the ice age process itself. That would be a mechanism.



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'm not prepared to do that yet. So far we have several holes in the data of 'both sides'. But really, if ice ages are a continuing pattern, and it's about that time, it's peraps the worlds attention should be in trying to understand the ice age process itself. That would be a mechanism.


OK, well whilst we wait, we'll use the knowledge we have to apply the supported inference that human activity is affecting climate.

We'd be silly not too.

Anyway, I'll leave this thread for people to throw their reasons as to why they think the scientific consensus is wrong and their pet theory right. Guess you've provided another thread elsewhere for science.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The idea that the Earth is being heated up by CO2 omissions is a complete fraud.

CO2 is a life accelerant, its what the plants absorb as they turn it into oxygen, with the photosynthesis. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more oxygen, its basic nature.

This is all just a ploy to create more enviromental laws, more enviromental taxes, the UN is even introducing taxing our carbon footprint, each individual, which means we have to pay taxes to breathe, it says it very clearly in the documents. We all produce CO2 everytime we breath, and they are gonna tax us on it.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
You can actually check the cosmic ray data yourself:
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...
There is no trend, just the normal cycles.


So what does everyone think of this chart I layered together?



Does anyone have any problems with the sources / data?

www.globalwarmingart.com...:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
www.globalwarmingart.com...:Satellite_Temperatures_png
www.ohiopeakoilaction.org...
www.ohiopeakoilaction.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Sorry to labour the point, but so far no-one has offered any proof that man isn't causing global warming


Unless you can show that human activity is incapable of affecting the climate, or that other variables - solar for example - can explain all[/b[ observed changes (thus leaving no room for human involvement) then I think one has to conclude that it cannot be proven that man is not responsible.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Sorry to labour the point, but so far no-one has offered any proof that man isn't causing global warming


Unless you can show that human activity is incapable of affecting the climate, or that other variables - solar for example - can explain all[/b[ observed changes (thus leaving no room for human involvement) then I think one has to conclude that it cannot be proven that man is not responsible.


Ya, but I don't think it has been proven that man IS responsible either.



posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
So where's your data that man isn't causing it then?



posted on Jun, 14 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Here is some data on global climate: meteo.lcd.lu...

Here is an article claiming that the notion of low pre-industrial CO2 amounts in the atmosphere is false: meteo.lcd.lu...

This is by Professor Willie Soon of Harvard University and claims that some of Mann's data is very wrong in its predictions/claims: www.techcentralstation.com...

This shows predictions from climate models and actual measurements: www.warwickhughes.com...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join