A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
As a true believer that humans are playing a roll in global warming I have obviously encountered quite a bit of alternative beliefs n my short time on this site. I must say some of what I have been shown by other members here has made me rethink the issue of global warming and the scale of the roll that human beings are playing in it. Still i am convinced that we do play a roll, and a fundamental one at that.

These beliefs are consistently challenged yet the one thing the challenges lack is specific supporting evidence for these criticisms. That is my reasoning for this thread. I would like those who do not believe, the so called "deniers" to show me the evidence that supports their claims.

I do this in the spirit of knowledge and good will. This is not an attempt to "bait" those who do not believe into posting so that they can be flamed. I truly would like to see the evidence that so many have claimed to have yet for one reason or another have not brought to the table.

Consider it an opportunity to enlighten those who are less than fully illuminated by the light of knowledge.




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


I've posted these links before in other threads, but to save time looking for them here they are;
Inconvenient Truths

What concensus?

What Warming?

Fallacies about GW

What Peer Review?

I'm far more concerned about ACTUAL pollution of our air, rivers, land and sea than I am about alleged AGW.

I've been a member of greenpeace for many years and support REAL environmental issues.

I will not now, or ever buy into al bores political ambitions.

Enjoy your reading



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Animal:
For your consideration...

I have been halfway following the debate on GW and not a believer in "human"-caused changes. Thank you very much, in advance for not flaming me.

Allow me to present the following graph of ice-core studies from Vostok,Antarctica:
en.wikipedia.org...:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

As I have stated, I have not read each and every thread on ATS re: GW;
however, in what I have read, the "evidence" presented in favor of human caused GW are graphs and charts similar to this one. The graphs that I refer to have usually shown the most recent studies of ice-cores from various places, however, I have been dismayed at the limited time spans shown in most of these.(I won't revisit the threads to to pull out select graphs to substantiate this claim.)

The graph presented shows times dating to +/- 450,000 years ago. Please note the spikes in temp-CO2-dust. The rises in temperatures have occurred relatively quickly, in comparison to the cooling phases; also note the corresponding values of CO2 and dust.
This is pretty much all the "proof" I need to rule out human caused global warming. The earth is experiencing an interglacial period and entering a cooling phase- the most recent temperature spike having occurred some +/-25,000 years ago.
The cycle continues, regretably, "we" have no control over Mother Nature.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Thanks for posting.


I will review what you have provided and make comments at a later date. I would much rather remain silent until many have contributed before I make any comments for or against the information provided.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


The link you provided is broken or incorrect. Just so you know. I will be happy to look at it when it has been changed.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Budski, all of your references are to one website. I checked out the website, SPPI, and found that there are only 1 or 2 people who are actual climatology scientists who are the science advisors.
Also, in the article about climate change in Tennessee, it says there have been no climate changes in Tennessee. I beg to differ. All the oldtimers around here and actually anyone who's lived here more than 10 years, will tell you there most definitely is climate change. We used to get alot more snow 10 years ago. Nor does the report mention that we've been in a severe drought for at least 3 years now. The drought has been in the news alot, it's so bad. But definitely there is climate change.

Nor does the report say where it got its information. All of this makes me suspicious of the site.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Out of respect for de animal, I'm keeping schtum, heh. But I will say this:

There is one simple way to disprove one major aspect of anthropogenic climate change, and that's to show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. When someone does that, I'll take notice. I won't hold my breath...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Budski and all: Does anyone know where the funding comes from in the group that was cited on the links? (SPPI). This is always an important question to ask. I looked on the website and couldn't find the info, but then it was a quick check.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
first off, proving a negative is impossible, but there is conflicting data as well as common sense, which helps a lot, let me start with data:


www.thedailygreen.com...

the question is which to believe?

www.newscientist.com...

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

then let me ask you if you think that

*) there have been warmer periods on earth in the past and at least their peaks were much warmer than today's climate

*) there've been colder times, which are, in fact the norm, considering the immense duration of ice ages

*) climate changed in the past and the world did not end, or did it?

in other words, why would this time be any different, no matter the cause?

if all this jazz is nothing new, it begs the question why be upset in a way which apparently justifies anything, including the air tax? which brings me to the core issue: no debate, just coralling people into a scam, which won't do squat for climate, while actually harming the environment, as other aspects (think heavy metals and other toxins, see www.abovetopsecret.com... for an eye opener, which, incidentially was automatically blamed on GW at first) are falling by the wayside, while lining the pockets of people like Al Gore.... the political class only has our best interest at heart, right? that alone should ring a bell, shouldn't it?

www.dailytech.com...

i am quite curious, how effective these 'climate protection' CO2 tax regimes are, because growing fuel while merrily deforesting the Amazon basin (issues, which are, according to the official line, absolutely unconnected anyway
) seems neither logical nor very wise, does it?

PS: if it's a cold spell, it's 'climate change' if it's hot, same. have you ever contemplated what it would take to refute GW? a complete standstill, repeating weather patterns, day after day, year after year. the odds for that are astronomical, so 'GW' or 'CC' can probably considered a safe bet, but science needs to be falsifiable, ie. there needs to be a clearly laid-out way to disprove it. such conditions muct be agreed on, before performing an experiment and i'm certain that all these people now building their lives around shouting Wolf will fight with tenacity to keep their precious scarecrow along with its lush funds.

if i were you i'd memorize certain predictions, be they sea level rise or the disappearance of glaciers, if that does not happen within the cited timeframes.... remember that, so far only alarmist calls of sinking islands have made the news, which, is of course a problem of erosion, not sea level just think of the Hawaii chain, older volcanoes are more eroded and therefore smaller.


edit: i found two more interesting tidbits, casting severe doubt upon the integrity of mainstream sources

www.dailytech.com...

if someone else than NASA had discontinuities in their temperature graphs, they'd ave to retract everything, NASA, of course, 'amends'...


the best for last, as the say:

from: www.abovetopsecret.com...

icecap.us... (.pdf)

in 1990, the number of sensor stations around the world was severly reduced (see .pdf), at the same time, GW was just taking off, and you' expect an increase in funding and a similar increase in the overall number stations, yet the opposite happend. the remaining ones were apparently located closer to urban centers (heat island effect), resulting on a jump in perceived global temperature.

so, it might just be a myth, and why not? with proper planning and enough time, anything goes. it certainly looks extremely suspicous, to say the least and if i were evil, i'd ask how long it takes to indoctrinate a new generation of scientists and get them into position. i would of course add my guesstimate of roughly a decade, maybe slightly more. in that case, they'd be in their peak right now.

ok, now the PS& edits are longer than the original post, d'Uh


[edit on 5.2.2008 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
How about this?
www.junkscience.com...

This is just the last switch in theories before the current one.
It wasn't until the mid 90's that the current "global warming" theory was finally switched to "Global Climate Change" after a couple of nasty winters shot down the attempt to institue a global tax to cool the planet.
Now, if it is cold or hot in your particular area, it's "bad humans" that are the cause, and only a tax on everyone on the planet (paid to the U.N. BTW) will save us.
Remember "oil for food" in Iraq and child abuse by high officials in Darfur and Somalia? Enough rant on the U.N.

A small bit of research will show this recurring switch between scorched earth and ice ages all the way back to the 1890's in publications about every 25 to 30 years, backed each time by respected scientists with irrefutable evidence.

Search back to writings as far back as the middle ages and you will find references to climate change---but it was because God was mad for some reason or other.

IMHO, the only reason this current cycle of warming/cooling theory is getting so much traction is because someone found a way to make trillions of dollars with it, buying and selling "carbon credits".

As for your requested "proof".
How can anyone prove or disprove a theory that uses both sides of the argument as the basis for the theory?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
There is one simple way to disprove one major aspect of anthropogenic climate change, and that's to show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. When someone does that, I'll take notice. I won't hold my breath...


And water vapor is a greenhouse gas right? So as long as there is water vapor and CO2 there can't be anything but global warming? Which of the two is a bigger player? Water vapor or CO2? Water vapor of course. And as the ocean temperatures change so does the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. CO2 is insignificant. If you want to put all your faith in CO2 then go right ahead.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
just to keep this topic I would like to remind people that I am looking for posts with EVIDENCE to support their claims. As much respect as I have for the members of ATS opinions are not helpful. I started this thread in order to accumulate factual evidence that supports the premise that humans are not responsible for global warming. I guess controlling people's participation is not a right I have but it is my request.

Once this thread has collected a significant number of posts with such information, then I think it would be a good time to begin the discussion of the facts.

This is what I was hoping to accomplish, but please do not take this as me trying to give orders, again it is a humble request.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Animal your request is honestly a complicated one.

If AGW isn't real you are asking someone to prove a negative. How do you prove something isn't real? One only has to say you didn't look hard enough. Kind of like WMDs in Iraq. Did they not exist or did we just not look in the right places? I have posted on this site before an image that overlays temperatures and CO2 levels. It showed very clearly a decline in temperatures in advance of declining CO2 levels. For the AGW idea to be true this would have been impossible. It would have required CO2 levels to drop first.

What about the most recent satellite data showing global temperatures below normal for January of 2008? Where would the warmer air have gone if all the CO2 were trapping it? Global temperatures are volatile and the way the global temperature anomalies changed from month to month and even year to year suggest something else is driving temperature change.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Animal your request is honestly a complicated one.

I have posted on this site before an image that overlays temperatures and CO2 levels. It showed very clearly a decline in temperatures in advance of declining CO2 levels. For the AGW idea to be true this would have been impossible. It would have required CO2 levels to drop first.


Ok so it may be difficult but as you seem to be saying you have done it, so I do not see what the problem is.

Edit to add: Also is not the process of defining a hypothesis and doing research to prove it as true or false the aim of scientific research? If I am correct on this, why then would it be so hard to produce data that shows that humans are NOT responsible for global warming to any degree?



[edit on 5-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You could call the CO2/Temperature overlay proof. CO2 and temps rise close together. Its difficult to tell which is leading the race. It is obvious on the decline that temperatures decline in advance. But lets assume for a moment that CO2 levels were rising in advance of temperature increases. We'd have to determine a point which natural increases stopped and were taken over by man made CO2 contributions. It would be impossible to prove.

Even if you were to eliminate all humans from the face of the planet there would be no way to know if it were natural changes taking place to change global temperatures or whether it was the lack of man on the planet. There are far too many variables and the climate is far too dynamic for us to answer the question. The best we can do is analyze the data, spin it, and claim we are right. The proof (one way or another) will never exist.

Imagine being killed by an avalanche and then having someone attempt to identify the snow flake responsible for killing you. :-)



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Edit to add: Also is not the process of defining a hypothesis and doing research to prove it as true or false the aim of scientific research? If I am correct on this, why then would it be so hard to produce data that shows that humans are NOT responsible for global warming to any degree?


Still keeping schtum


But just another quick comment. Science generally aims to falsify hypothesis. Proving stuff is really for maths, we support hypothesis by attempting to show them wrong. If we can't do this, then it's not really science. It's the old black swan thing.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Science generally aims to falsify hypothesis. Proving stuff is really for maths, we support hypothesis by attempting to show them wrong. If we can't do this, then it's not really science.


Thats more true with climate science. That goes back to the comment I made which is very true about this field. You take stats, spin it, and claim you are right. The reality is nothing more is ever done.

My opinion is that AGW is the weakest of the climate change theories. If I had to point a finger at something more realistic I'd look to land cover changes. The effects are very widespread, able to be documented, and verifiable. The problem with this is that most nations don't really want to correct that problem because to do so would be unpleasant.

But thats another rant for another day.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I don't actually want to get in the way of this thread, indy.

This is your chance to shine. That's what animal wants. He doesn't want me getting involved with what's being said on topic, as far as I'm concerned anyway.

Just provide the evidence that AGW is wrong. That's all he is asking for. He was asking questions about science in general, so I answered them. I'll do no more than that.

Me -> :X

Trust me, I'm chomping on the bit. But I think it will be interesting.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I have just one question. Are our SUV's causing mars to heat up? And what about the moons of jupiter and saturn? They are heating up as well. I have no doubt that our fossil fuels are not helping at all as far as the earth goes, but I just wonder what you think about the other planets.
That same question was put to the rothchild heir and he had the audacity to say that mars, jupiter and saturn are closer to the sun than earth. Do you believe that mars, jupiter and saturn are closer to the sun than earth?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Without going into a lot of detail, I find that the temperature drop that occurred roughly between 1930 and 1975, precisely at the time when humanity was really pumping out the CO2 in mass quantities, has to make one stop and think a little harder. I remember all the worry about the new Ice Age happening at that time.

That obvious link between solar output and warming (unless humans are somehow making the sun hotter) is also worth considering.

Author Michael Crichton wrote a really lousy book ("State of Fear") about global warming terrorists (did I mention that the book was really, really awful?), that had some good summaries of the discrepancies in the data.

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Nohup]





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join