I'm with the OP on this! There is something very wrong wit the global warming argument. Since the beginning of the Earths existence (4.5 Billion
years ago, where it is agreed the Earth was a molten ball of rock - now that's a bit warm!!!!!
), the earth has warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled
If you follow the stock markets, you'll know there is this trend to rise, fall a bit, rise, then fall, but overall, there might be a long-term trend
of rising (or falling).
Extend that to the planet - 100,000 years ago we were in this thing they call an Ice Age. Curiously, climatologists today don't seem to consider this
as a "problem" or anything, however, this little bit of warming that is occurring is sending them into what I can only describe as a panic.
Now considering the planet at its inception was a molten ball of rock, I'd take the general state of the planet to be cooling, even though right now
it might be warming up.
I'd also like to highlight another point often quoted by scientists: the ice caps. They say the ice caps are melting, the sea is rising (hey - they
) as a result, and this is bad for the earth. I have a problem with this! If we were in an ice age just 100,000 years ago, where
the Earth was ice to the equator in summer, then why is the melting of this ice a problem?
Here is a fact: pure water melts at zero degrees celcius. So what if the ice caps are melting? They had to eventually (unless the earth goes into a
period of cooling towards another ice age)!
I'm also confused as to why the ice caps are used as a benchmark. It seems that so long as the ice caps don't melt, all is fine, but if they melt,
Where the hell did the scientists learn this stuff??
To say the IPCC are impartial is wholly inaccurate. The IPCC was formed by governments of the world. They're going to pick scientists who say what
they want to hear.
Here is what I think is really happening, but they're not saying:
The oil is running out. Let's step back a moment however. We can't burn fossil fuels without producing CO2. Can't be done, as fossils contain
carbon, and one of the results of combustion is CO2. As combustion becomes more efficient, you actually get MORE CO2!!!!!!!!
Now, why do you think they keep targeting CO2? BECAUSE WE CAN'T BURN FUEL WITHOUT CREATING IT. It is why they target our cars primarily - they can
measure the CO2 output from those, and produce pseudo-science around it.
Another thing that people forget is that the ENTIRE GLOBAL atmosphere composition of CO2 is 0.03% (concentrations vary but that is an average figure).
CO2 is by no means the only "green house" gas. There are others that are far worse, and not just in terms of "heating effect" but in other ways,
too (such as the destruction of the Ozone layer).
One thing being splattered all over the news this evening was that they predict that average temperatures will rise by between 1.4 and 6 degrees by
1) Between 1.4 and 6 degrees is a hell of a variance! Why don't they say between 0 degrees and 30 degrees just to be on the safe side?
the planet is warming up (I don't need a scientist to tell me that) - all I need to do is guess a figure. 1.4 to 6 degrees should be OK! This isn't
the lottery - I have previous data to tell me the trend, so extrapolation of figures is easy.
2) Who said that an average increase was a bad thing??? We already know the Earth is warming up, but even if average temperature is rising (and
remember, averages don't mean very much at all statistically), in the UK, it could mean we see temps in summer of +40, but in winter, temps of -20.
Assume for a moment the months May - August see temps of +40/-20 whilst September - April see temps of +20/-40, the average day/night temps = +26/-33.
An overall average temp is -3.5 degrees!!
As you can see - you've got extremes of temps, but the average is still a minus figure!! It means nothing.
What scientists fail to appreciate and do not mention, is the day/night variance in temperature. In the desert, the difference between day/night temps
are greater than in a more temperate climate such as the UK, where day/night temps don't vary so widely.
To suggest that an average increase of +1.4° (or even their predicted +6°) will have a catastrophic effect on the world is massively over-rated, and
in fact, the IPCC and others should be prosecuted for misleading the world, and causing panic and hysteria over something that isn't actually a
They keep saying that if CO2 levels keep rising (note the fact they have stopped mentioning any of the other "green house" gases that are actually
worse for the environment), global warming will be really bad (errr - but the planet has always been warming up since the last ice age!). By targeting
CO2 (our cars etc) what they are really doing is getting us to use less FUEL. What is fuel made from? OIL! Where does it come from? THE MIDDLE EAST!!!
What is the problem? IT HAS NEARLY RAN OUT!!!
Unless we go and invade Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.. - then we're more and more dependent on oil from the Middle East.
I note also this evening that the news stated that as part of the fight against global warming, a new system has been prototyped that turns waste
food into fuel
. Notice they mention the word "fuel" in there? Curious don't you think, considering the problem is too much CO2 and global
warming????? I didn't think we were talking about fuel shortages, but nope - it is definitely related to global warming.
You'd have to be pretty dumb IMHO (not aimed at anyone here) to not spot the backdoor relationship between global warming, reducing CO2 emissions,
and the curious mention fuel always gets when discussing this topic.
It is probably why they're so keen to build nuclear power stations. I note that during these discussions, words like SELF-SUFFICIENT, and ENERGY
SECURITY crop up. They also repeat the problems with the gas supplies from Russia to Europe.
In summary, the problem is nothing to do with global warming at all - it is actually a very big problem with oil supplies, as oil = fuel = our modern
way of life. No oil = we're right back in the stone age. No electricity means that most of our lives grind to a halt. Most of things we do require
electricity. I wouldn't be using a computer, typing here on ATS if it wasn't for electricity, which relies on a coal-burning power station to
generate it. In addition, a lot of manufacturing processes use oil, such as in the production of plastics etc.. - without oil, our present way of life
is in really big trouble.
Thanks for reading this massive post!
I think we need to look after our planet, but this argument about global warming is a proxy to the real
issue - oil.
reply to post by melatonin
I totally agree!! If you take the average figure of CO2 composition of the ENTIRE earths atmosphere, it is only 0.03%. If you take a doomsday scenario
and say that human produced CO2 will double it by 2010 to 0.06%, that is still nothing!!! Why? Because CO2 is not the cause for the earth warming up.
If an increase in CO2 levels from 0.03% to 0.045% will result in the Earth warming up 6 degrees by 2050 (only 38 years from now), they just broke the
laws of thermodynamics, and re-wrote the laws of the thermal efficiency of CO2 as an insulator!! I suggest these scientists do not know what they are
I remember when last April was reported as the SECOND warmest in 60 years. ONLY the second warmest???
Gees. The FIRST warmest occurred
in the 1940s!! This global warming thing doesn't add up!!! Bottom line: THE SCIENCE IS FLAWED!
You can't get around the point that when the Earth was born it was molten rock. 100,000 years ago we left the ice age. This warming we're seeing
now (specifically, this mass melting of ice we're witnessing)is perfectly natural.
[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]