New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Why the 70s for this rise to start??? Why not 150 years ago??? Why the 70s?

Could it have something to do with population growth?

In the year 1900 the Earth was home to about 1.6 billion people. The total had grown by 600 million in the 100 years since 1800, the year that the first billion was reached; but the change in the 19th century gave no hint of things to come. By the middle of the present century another billion had been added, in the remarkably short span of only 50 years.

Moreover, and significantly, 80 percent of the growth had taken place in the world's poorer, or "developing," nations. In 1995, but 45 years later, world population had risen by an additional three billion, with most of the increase, as before, in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The dramatic fashion in which new numbers have been added to the world's population since 1950 is shown in this figure. While it took the several million years of human history to reach the first billion, and 130 years to reach the second, today each new billion is added in but 11 years.

www.atmos.umd.edu...

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

But this clearly breaks down in the 1970s.

Hmm...... The Industrial Revolution started 150 years ago (the alleged cause for global warming). We've actually be cleaning up industry for decades. It is cleaner now than ever. Why the 70s for this rise to start??? Why not 150 years ago??? Why the 70s? In terms of the Earth, 30 years is pico seconds in human terms. There is another cause, and it is not humans or CO2.

Might be something to do with us reducing our sulphate emissions during that decade.

They have been, and still are, masking the warming from GHGs.

The best way to see this is that during the earlier part of the 20th, solar activity was dominating, human effects were minor. During the latter part, solar activity was minor, and human effects dominating.

Unless you can show that 150 years of physics are wrong, CO2 and other GHGs will result in warming.

reply to post by melatonin


Again...terms like "can", "suggest" and "could"

Not to definitive if you ask me.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Again...terms like "can", "suggest" and "could"

Not to definitive if you ask me.

It's the language of a scientist. We are not talking about mathematical proofs. We accept that all our insights have some degree of uncertainty of a sort of Baysian form.

I have difficulty getting concepts of scientific uncertainty over to science undergrads, so I don't expect any great acknowledgment here.

We are not omniscient, we leave that sort of thinking to idiots who write news articles like the one that laid the basis of the OP

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Again...terms like "can", "suggest" and "could"

Not to definitive if you ask me.

It's the language of a scientist. We are not talking about mathematical proofs. We accept that all our insights have some degree of uncertainty of a sort of Baysian form.

I have difficulty getting concepts of scientific uncertainty over to science undergrads, so I don't expect any great acknowledgment here.

We are not omniscient, we leave that sort of thinking to idiots who write news articles like the one that laid the basis of the OP

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]

Please don't start me. I despair at times at how dumb people are with statistics. "Shock horror xyz causes abc" quotes the Daily Mail, to which I ask "how many people were sampled" : answer 4. At this point I try to find a very large stick to hit the gullable believers with and have yet another dig at the Daily Liar sorry Mail.. Come to think of it isn't that level of single figure sample size the same one that is used to determine solar system global warming

That goddam alien-trooper avatar freaks me out everytime!

Firstly, it's misleading; It's mainly Carbon Monoxide, & It IS causing Climate change, something non-governmental scientists were concerned with WAY before AL Gore... - So, it's not like he's behind it; he's behind a front for a reason to blame 'us humans' for ruining the world... - Notice how free energy or solar & wind (combined with rechargeable batteries) was not mentioned? It was all a big show, but be aware that even if it is proven that cutting down all the trees & polluting with vehicles & factories, causing mllions of deaths a year is not causing climate change, we still should stop being slav_javascript:bold()es to the Oil industry, & stop paying unnessesarily 60 000 $ in total in Gas, & stop killing our children, & I believe our world, making whatever increase in the Sun's temperature dangerously worse, causing Frogs to go extinct, whom have taken Millions of years to evolve, so it defies logic to state this Climate change is TOTALLY natural, & just a cycle.

(the term Global Warming is misleading, for there will be shifts in the climate), and people should use the lube of the awakening juice of the galactic center to shift away from dumbass news reports that are obviously wrong. - The atmosphere is thin, & a fart in my house is a pollutant. - If you run your car in the garage, it sure is a pollutant. I mean COME ON!!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CARBON MONOXIDEi & the THOUSANDS OF OTHER CHEMICALS!

- And why. .. on Earth... does it take 19 pages for someone (like me) to put it simply like it is? Because the world is a strange place, with Reptillians running around confusing & distracting everyone from the real issues of the day; and that is - Every second that goes by, there are billions of sorry, sadly manipulated people driving around, paying ridiculous amounts of money to maintain the ability to do so, burning fuel, (an outrageously pathetic act, & of all the good uses for oil, to burn it for energy is like burning a picasso for heat) stinking up the air, damaging our health, & polluting our ability to see the stars at night, the very objects (Suns) we should be using for energy, but we (many of us) (Here's winkin at you, David Icke fans) know why the Elite are so evil & continuing to keep us in the dark while we slowly choke on the industrial smoke like a childhood experiment gone bad that was performed in a bedroom, involving a fire, . I see the cars go by, & people look at me on my bike as if I'm crazy (its Winter) & I look back with the same look, for they must be nuts to think there is not enough pollution in the world, & to keep paying for gas like that, supporting an industry that is degrading our very qouality of life.... This stuff aint tree-hugging anymore, for I'm affraid there aren't enough of those left.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by criticalunity]

The paper in question uses BAD DATA to come to its conclusion. It does not use satellite data, nor does it use data from the last 10 years (it stops looking at 1996).
Deltoid - Tim Lamberts Blog: Singer and Michaels Declare Global Warming Dead


Singer is a paid hack.

He has been paid by Tobacco to do research to refute the effects of envionmental smoke, and by Oil to do climate change research.

SourceWatch entry on S. Fred Singer

Taking an individual, representative stance on planetary issues could include that cattle are not roaming our highways and byways, oceans and atmosphere. If we liked the temperatures that were reported before environmental issues occured, then doing something to approximate or equal the scalar influences extant at those times would be the scientific way of discovering influence.
If we feel we were dumped on this planet with no influence other than being a target for taxers and profiteers and materialists, then we don't have a sense of completeness, or satisfaction in living on earth.
Isn't there a basic principle stating that you 'must not contaminate the experiment"?
If dumping pollutants of all kinds into the environment is justified because it precipitates reactive concerns about who's taking money from our pockets, is there a planetary-environment to take joy in?
Looks like we're living in a non-scientific, economic empire, where science is problematically devoted to contamination, and our sense of well-being is directly proportional to how much money we think we deserve.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I've got a funny feeling "global warming" was invented to serve someone's agenda. Sure the world is going through changes, but I seriously doubt we will ever be told the truth why by our politicians.

Only "funny feeling"?

I am a geography major and we were talking about this in class. My professor said that there is substantial scientific evidence that proves that the increse in Co2 is a natural process that occurs in relation to the earth-sun geometry and the cycles of our planet. Apparently, every 10,000 years there is a warm period on earth where the earth's orbit is circular and closest to the sun and every 100,000 years the earth's orbit around the sun is more oval shaped which makes the planet a lot colder and a glacial or "ice age" occurs. He supported the theory by talking about C02 measurements taken from the ice in Antartica, the reaction that takes place in ocean microorganisms, and from samples taken from a certain type of tree. I should have written it all down to be honest but I am sure I can always ask my professor about it if need be. He said that right before the earth goes into an ice age, the planet experiences a huge increase in temperatures. The warming period started about 10,000 years ago and according to my professor, the ice age should be here any second now. It's scary. He told us we should watch "The day After Tomorrow" because he said that some of what's in there is spot on with scientific theory. I found this to be true when the movie touched on the base of ocean currents and what freshwater (melting glaciers) can do in terms of our climate.

Back to the topic, Cows produce more greenhouse gases then that of cars so should we tax the cows as well? If you look at history you will see Earth temperatures moving higher and lower so this means it is natural. The temperature jumping a .5 degrees so what? that was in the 1970's.

You need to cite your (no doubt peer reviewed) source saying that cows create more greenhouse gases than cars. Everyone agrees that earth's temperature fluctuates, but the difference is that the fluctuation is currently occuring at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than it normally does.

This journal article only says that the models don't agree with the observations in every case. It makes no theoretical pronouncements about why that is the case.

In regard to the planets also undergoing "global warming" even the National Geographic article citing the Russion scientist who says that solar heating is causing the caps on Mars to melt had serious reservations about his science.

reply to post by NuclearPaul



One thing its for sure, we must stop poluting the planet, if our pollution is cousing a global warming or global cooling I really don´t care BUT we must stop polluting the planet...

reply to post by leira7


I took a bunch of geology and meteorology courses in college as electives ( if ound them interesting..that why). My professors also showed proof about how the earth heats and cools itself naturally. Forget about i though. On these boards, the only good science is one approved by the IPCC. Don't give in though, don't fall into group that blindly follows what the IPCC outs out. They have historically ignored data, manipulated data and omitted data.

Just keep the faith and keep up the good fight.

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000

You need to cite your (no doubt peer reviewed) source saying that cows create more greenhouse gases than cars. Everyone agrees that earth's temperature fluctuates, but the difference is that the fluctuation is currently occuring at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than it normally does.

Do me a favor........quantify what normal is? What is "normal"? Who determines what the normal rate is??????? Everyone keeps saying above normal....... How do we know that normal is not many degrees warmer than it currently is? Our data only goes back so far, no where near as far back as the earth does. I am tired of hearing this "normal" phrase. Anyone....ANYONE....please define normal, tell me how you arrived at it scientifically and show me the proof to back up these observations. The earth is geared for its own survival, not ours. Everyone out there screams and yells that we are killing the planet.... Tell ya what. The planet is not going to die. Its defenses are a whole lot greater that our offense. I have said it before......what if the current fluctuations is the earth's way of defending itself from what we are doing? What if we are creating a bigger problem by trying to fight a naturally occuring defense mechanism of the earth???

PLEASE...define NORMAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by derfred33


That I can agree with. Just stop relating everythng to global warming.

I went to my daughters school play last night. It was about how we are killing the earth. Global warming is going to destroy the planet. I am sick of it. The final scene was an empty stage with the teacher saying there is no one left to finish the play, every has been wiped out by global warming.

When is this nonsense going to stop!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way.

its snowing AGAIN today in NY city.

We are also expecting a mjor snow event over the weekend.

Global warming....huh???? Send some nice weather here, we could use it!

reply to post by traderonwallst


Thanks traderonwallst, I was beginning to think that no one else acknowledge what I had said. The science doesn't lie. I am just amazed at how many people are wrong with what is going on. And how higher officials aren't recognizing the theories being put out and instead relying on their propaganda to make people believe it is our fault, because then, we feel like we have the power to change it but in actuality the power is in no humans hands and we cannot control what nature has been doing for billions of years. Read people, read.

If you type in "sea chimneys" to a search engine, you
will find what is meant by sea chimneys are no longer
there - gone from the root of the Gulf Stream. British scientists
have asserted this will not 'Labradorise' (my word)
British climes until ten years from
now - and the sea chimneys will not
disappear for a good few years yet, but you will
notice by looking at internet news on sea chimneys
that Australians
are already complaining about the dreadful
immediate impact of this, the sea chimneys have already gone.

Now, am I going to care what someone's
geography teacher says about that? We've GOT
to evaluate subjects ourselves, in fact that is part of
the social sea change that we're all experiencing, The
Manipulation Of The Quasi-Expert.
Pharmaceutical companies are going to the bother of
bribing individual G.P.s into
prescribing their gut-irritating
unmedicines - you have to be in the loop to know what's
going on............a friend of mine
was, past tense, involved in Britain's National Health Service and saw this happening, the G.P.s were being taken on expensive
bribery oriented junkets and such-like.
So do all you guys trust British scientists, or trust Australian
screams when the circumambient temperature
hits 50 degrees C?
This is the age of the government-controlled expert - a reporter
in Britain working for one of its better class newspapers told
a small group of friends confidentially that every single day
for six months, the editor ordered them to not
report any of the ufo stories that were indeed happening.
People are being singled out in universities, students and lecturers,
to have the ufo situation explained to them carefully, then they
go out into their social milieu and behave suppressively of
tendencies to believe such things.

I f you travel from Scotland to the heart of the inception of
the industrial revolution, the grass becomes a less attractive
shade of green the closer you get to it.
Early 1900s photographers working in developing rooms
had to be careful of where they did it, because emissions
from factories spoiled the developing process, so pervasively
in the air was this repulsive chemical, despite the photographers'
processing being perpetrated behind closed doors.

Do not buy any Champagne or Belgian Trappist Monk beer
post-1988 - the Belgian monks announced to the world that
consequent upon the first spraying of any pesticide miles
from their brewing caves, the brewing process
had been immediately tarnished, and that their beer
would never be the same. They could see looking at the surface
of the liquid the brewing process was simply not happening
the way it had for hundreds of years.
Look at reports of wine writers of the early
1990s, and you will see many references to "post-1988" Champagne
being inferior.
They're claiming the standard of Champagne's been got back these days, but I don't agree.

Love & Peace to Everybody,
Martin Heth, of www.phonedupnshutup.com & surf.to/dangerousdave

I sincerely hope that people who believe this article would send it to friends and relatives....

I do and am sending this to everyone I know.

reply to post by traderonwallst


All four authors have connections to Exxon, there's your agenda.