New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

reply to post by Unplugged


Can't say I know the man really....

Jeez - don't get us into the population explosion please! It's already heated enough around here...

J.

reply to post by masqua



Ahh...THOSE 'brilliant minds'?? Heh...I wasn't refering to Bush's boys

I was talking about these types of 'minds'.

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

And yes, I agree with you.

J.

reply to post by malcr


Yes, I was beginning to wonder myself if 'Deny Ignorance' was relevant here any more. Thanks for pointing that out to everyone. The question remains though - do the skeptics even want to understand the potentially irreperable damage they are doing?

J.

reply to post by jimbo999


Yes, save the environment. I am all for that. Global warming is not a science. Becareful what you claim!

There is one serious conspiracy related to global warming that is hard to dissprove.

Global Warming was never an issue until the Far East economies started to industrialized and become competition to the West. This is something you cannot ignore.

Why does America want the pressure to be put on China and India, not the West?

And, the EU idea of a global "green tax"...we cannot forget this global taxation agenda too.

(Plus, the Earth's climate is always changing and will continue too. Is Global Warming man made or natural cycle? I don't know.)


[edit on 11-12-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Global warming is not a science. Becareful what you claim!

It is. Really. Honestly, Truthfully.

Why is it not science?

It forms hypotheses that have been producing verifiable predictions. Many predictions have been verified.

It is the result of work began in the mid 19th century, and is based on the very simple physical properties of GHGs - they absorb long-wave radiation.

ABE: and in answer to the post above this, such ideas have been around since the 1850s with the likes of Arrhenius. He first made the prediction that increasing CO2 would result in a warmer world.

It's nothing new. It is just well-supported now.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

Like many others have linked and pointed out, the earth has changed climate back and forth by itself LONG before man came and decided we control and cause everything. Not saying that pollution is a good thing, but the earth probably has ways of cleansing itself, like our bodies do. There have been ice ages, periods when the earth was warm and wet, etc...

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Cynic

 

Again: the science does NOT indicate anything you have mentioned is responsible. Why dispute what the world's most brilliant minds have already accertained is occurring?

J.

Can you prove they are the world's "most" brilliant minds. Oh, I guess they are Mensa members too.

Co2 is still an issue, but not an issue with global warming. We're being fooled into allowing these big business governments (Bilderbergs) to tax the world, get massive ammounts of money, and keep competition in check.

Co2 reduction is still important to the general health of a local population. Smogs not fun to breathe.

Something smells fishy about this whole global warming agenda.

reply to post by melatonin


OK,......try it on a much more basic level. Achems razor.

Maybe the hole in the ozone layer is there to let the heat escape, therfore helping control temperatures when we get to heated up.

Now does it make sense?

And by us trying to reduce this hole, we are counteracting a natural defense the Earth uses to maintain a balance. It just don't get any easier than that.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by malcr

 

Yes, I was beginning to wonder myself if 'Deny Ignorance' was relevant here any more. Thanks for pointing that out to everyone. The question remains though - do the skeptics even want to understand the potentially irreperable damage they are doing?

J.

"potentially" is a broad word, and probably not the best to use if you so damn sure of your "belief".

Originally posted by infinite


Why does America want the pressure to be put on China and India, not the West?


[edit on 11-12-2007 by infinite]

Beautiful point. Here we go.......America has already began to put such measures into place on their own. Corporations have taken it upon themselve to go green here, but not abroad. Let me ask you a question, and remember I am a big corporation backer, why do we continue to set up shop outside the US? The cheap labor? HARDLY....the efficiencies of production equal in the US equal that of the cheap labor and inefficiencies in third world countires. We set up shop there, because we can actually manufacture things there.

its plain and simple. Put restrictions on production and production moves.

reply to post by jimbo999


Jimbo: I do not believe in Global Warming, I do believe in climate change. There is a huge difference. The man-made global warming myth is based on an agenda to extract trillions of dollars from the developed world, and transfer it to developing nations. A form of 21st centruy welfare if you like. This is the only fact that can be proven. The rest is bogus.

Climate change is happening, granted. Are we to blame? Not likley. It has happened over millions of years, and is happening again. Mr. Gore's science project is a smoke screen devised specifically to enrich Mr. Gore. Not save the planet.

It does not matter one bit if the western world pays for carbon credits or not. The carbon will still be released. And when is CO2 a green house gas? It isn't.

So cut me a break, the whole issue is bad science, and worse economics. Is the planet undergoing climate change? Yes, it is a natural occurrence. Are we to blame? Prove it.

reply to post by melatonin


predictions verified....but end result is STILL not verified. Global Warming has to update and change definitions, readings, results all the time. The IPPC itself allows this, as long as it steers the end reslut in the same direction. They should have lost all credibility when the Hockey Stick theory was debunked.

Its not science unless it is proved over and over, and the end result means something. If the end result just keeps brining up new questions, its still just a theory.

Okay, first off, this Russian scientist is the only person that is publishing any kind of information on linking the changing climate of Mars with that of Earth.

In addition, the red planet is RED with a thin atmosphere, and any fluctuation in the temperature of the sun would have a greater effect on the planet's temperature because the color of the soil, bereft of flora, would naturally retain and radiate more heat.

Also, each planet has an entirely different climate, with different ratios of chemistry and weather patterns (where there is weather).

I'm at a continual loss to understand why people are so quick to dismiss the wealth of scientific data that link the intensity of Earth's warming cycle to the very obvious pollution of human industry. Do you guys really need assuage your guilt to justify your SUVs that badly?

I'll agree that it's too late to do anything unless we come up with some kind of drastic solution fast, and I'll also be willing to review actual, published studies that the sun is the major cause of warming... but they don't exist.

There has been good scientific research on the question of how much the sun effects the Earth's climate:

"Solar variability changes the distribution of energy," said Shindell. "Over an 11-year solar cycle, the total amount of energy has not changed very much. But where the energy goes changes as wind speeds and directions change." During the sun's 11-year cycle, from a solar maximum to a solar minimum, the energy released by the sun changes by only about a tenth of a percent.

According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.

www.giss.nasa.gov...

Look, another actual study! I only included the last paragraph, as the rest is pretty scientific and would be difficult for anyone without a degree in climatology to decipher.

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

www.realclimate.org...

[edit on 11-12-2007 by angst18]

reply to post by traderonwallst


I think you've already pretty well stated yourself you know very little about science. I'd quit while your ahead if I were you

J.

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks. I defer to your invaluable insight, as always.

J.

reply to post by 27jd


The earth is currently heating up faster right now than it ever has in the last 800,000 years. Fact.

So this is not just some cyclical, natural enviromental event. Also, it should be noted that the major changes have only begun SINCE the advent of the Industrial Revolution....again - scientifically verifiable.

J.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Maybe the hole in the ozone layer is there to let the heat escape, therfore helping control temperatures when we get to heated up.

And by us trying to reduce this hole, we are counteracting a natural defense the Earth uses to maintain a balance. It just don't get any easier than that.

If only science were so easy, heh.

It appears that the ozone hole was not natural. We're not even counteracting it, we have just reduced our effect on it by reducing emissions of ozone depleting chemicals.

We upset the balance. By keeping our man-made chemicals out the stratopshere, we reduce our impact. Now that is easy.

reply to post by traderonwallst


Well - I wouldn't expect you to recognise a brilliant mind anyhow...

J.