A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

Asking for a negative proof implies that you have first proved your original hypothesis.

I have taken the same data and massaged it to both prove and disprove the original statement depending on your original bias.

Don't we first need to establish that global warming is in fact occuring?

reply to post by traderonwallst


Why so many records at both extremes - warm and cold - within so few years, if "everything is normal"? Can you explain this?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Why so many records at both extremes - warm and cold - within so few years, if "everything is normal"? Can you explain this?

i know the thread author asked for facts, not drivel, but why on earth do you believe that everything should stay as it is? this expectation is frankly absurd.

look at the past, when humans were still living 'with nature' ie. like animals (without power tools, lol), did freak weather occur? what aboutt hose frozen mammoths? not that i'm really inclined to believe that snowstorms are the whole story, but you'll probably get my drift.

Please, Wrap your mind around the concept that things might just change without our help or consent, we are only mortals, after all.

Originally posted by Animal
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.

The problem is not evidence but a belief in what is a cause and effect. To this extent each side has a belief in their own cause and affect analysis.

One annnoying development is the way the US skeptics (in particular) are saying its a tax scam by the likes of Al Gore. This plays into the limited understanding and gut reaction politics of a significant proportion of the population (who don't like to think but hate taxes and politicians). This is not "evidence" but fear mongering by association. A rather distateful tactic.

Decisions should be made based on evidence and analysis of that evidence. My biggest piece of evidence is CO2 and its rise to human activity as can be measured by the ratio of the isotopes of carbon and hence proportion due to fossil fuels (only a creationist can deny that evidence)! So the question then is : is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Evidence that it is not please.........

Originally posted by Indy
You can challenge all you want.

Not in this thread. I have high respect for animal, he's asked for a particular approach in this thread, and I'll keep ignoring your goading to allow the thread to develop.

This is your chance to shine, use it.

Originally posted by malcr

One annnoying development is the way the US skeptics (in particular) are saying its a tax scam by the likes of Al Gore. This plays into the limited understanding and gut reaction politics of a significant proportion of the population (who don't like to think but hate taxes and politicians). This is not "evidence" but fear mongering by association. A rather distateful tactic.

is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Evidence that it is not please.........

yes, yes, everyone who disagrees with your creed is a) uninformed, b) thinking with his or her intestines and is c) paranoid, because it's extremely wrong to believe that people who sold countless scams, lies and rip-offs might just as well be using *drumroll* Global Warming as a financial asset.


you know what? does it matter if CO2 a 'greenhouse gas'? do you even know what it's doing? do you know what a 'spectral line' is ? taking one variable out of a complex system and claiming it's evil has no basis whatsoever, by the same logic, you could claim water is strictly hazardous, because you can drown in it. just perhaps, what if you were buying into the fear yourself? this tidbit is quite revealing, imho, and if i were into psychology i'd call 'projection' on this one.



the reason i oppose Algore's air tax plans is because i don't see how it would change anything overall, those with money would get a greater share without actually spending it, that's all as far as i can tell and, please be honest, Who in his right mind would want to pay more for Nothing, save a few greedy scamsters' luxury? if you are that type of person, please donate to your local church of fanatics, or better yet, found one, that way You might finally understand the concept of large scale scams (being on the receiving side and all), especially that they all have good advertising and professional planning behind them. GW is by no means an exception.


if we are so uninformed, please tell me how cooked data (see my first post's addendum), dire predictions with a delay of 5 decades and more (ie. baseless scare mongering, it's exactly the type of nonsense which makes the predictions forum look bad), constant amending of failed predictions ('Climate Change' rather thena 'GW' because it snowed in Palestine) and selective perception data make You informed and Me ignorant??!

it gets old, as does the stereotype that it must be 'US sceptics' throwing the wrench in. i am not an 'US sceptic' but let me give you a hint, the North America did not become what they are today because the fell for every lie in history, or employed a good old 'gut reaction' everytime. from what i see on this forum, their advantage of sobriety may be on the decline, either that or naive peoples' words and actions are just inconsequential on the long run.(

So I have decided now would be a good time for me to begin responding to all of you have offered to participate in this thread, and before I begin let me thank you for doing so, especially those who chose to do so in the manner that I requested in my OP.

reply to post by budski


The links you provided were interesting reading, to say the least. My overall impression after reading the material? I think it is motivated by an agenda and rather than being 5 or 6 links based on research into climate change its content is primarily character attacks and arguments opinions that the information of those who do engage in scientific research is somehow false.

More importantly is one piece of specific history of the "Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2]" Link to Wiki
Founded as a conservative think tank by a republican it "received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [5]. The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]" Link to Wiki

IF you do not like hearing it from wiki here it is in the New York Times, who it is important o note would have been in trouble publicly had they printed lies about anyone. "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. But Mr. Landrith said the growth was not as sharp as it appears because the money is actually spread over three years."
Link to the NYTimes Article.

reply to post by Long Lance


The articles you have posted really made me think, and I think they do highlight an important issue which is the reality of natural climate cycles and thus raises the question, at least for me, how much power do humans have to create climate changes? Please people, I m not looking for your opinions on this I am just sharing my thoughts.

The last article you posted, by the former editor of New Scientist is really in line with the thoughts the article on the ice caps rose in my mind. It is really important to challenge the status quo; too often do we (using “we” for status quo) become stuck in a rut so to speak, and refuse to leave the rut. For the sake of honesty, rigor, and the pursuit of true knowledge I think it is vital that we do not become ideologically frozen. I would like to say thank you for sharing your thoughts they really did make me think and expanded my horizons.

reply to post by Indy


You have obviously been around for awhile man, and I am sure you have contributed some excellent content to ATS. However I am going to call this one like I see it. You contributed nothing to the thread at least in relation to the topic at hand "Proof". I have no problem with you having an alternate opinion, but it was tiring to see that every time you posted it was to only contribute your opinion. I have nothing to say to you about your opinions as they mean very little to me.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Beachcoma I have really respected your point of view for most of the time I have been on ATS, as I have learned a lot from reading your posts. I would really love to hear more about the information you have on water vapors roll in climate change. The limited sources I have read made me believe due to its nature it played a small roll even though it was the most abundant gas. If you would be so kind as to point me i a good direction I would be most obliged.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by forestlady

 

To me, this site is more about the questions we should be asking ourselves about AGW or GW - it's not really about proof, more about telling people what is actually going on and where the problems lie with certain propaganda material like AIT.

This is the major tax con of our times - as well as being a nice little earner for many.

I am sorry but it is hard for me to look at the SPPI as anything but a propaganda organization after learning that they receive money for Exxon. If I were you I would branch out and start finding other sources to cite rather than the SPPI alone as their motives seem highly dubious.

reply to post by rezial666


Thanks for sharing that link. Theories such as this do interest me and? I should definitely look into it more as it seems to make such perfect sense. Still based on the one article I am not convinced, but thank you all the same.

In the end, or at least at this point I have to admit that thanks to the contribution of some of you, I am much less certain than I was yesterday. Though I still believe that human activity is partially responsible for climate variations I am more and more convinced that our roll plays a smaller part than other cycles. Still there is a lot I need to read to make up my mind and to those of you who contributed to the body of knowledge that I have been able to read a big Thank You!

Another note that I would like to point out is to the many who share their opinions and thoughts based on little or no supporting information. Despite how eloquent many of you are, and how logical your ideas seem, your posts by and large contributed nothing to my changing opinion. I do not say this to pick on you only to make an important point. I am an open minded person who believes in AGW. I am more then willing to listen to the other side of the story and in cases where I am shown credible information I am willing to change my stance. Yet when the only thing I am offered is your opinion and a vague reference to some vague material you read at some other point but have not bothered to produce I find your point below compelling.

Originally posted by Animal
In the end, or at least at this point I have to admit that thanks to the contribution of some of you, I am much less certain than I was yesterday. Though I still believe that human activity is partially responsible for climate variations I am more and more convinced that our roll plays a smaller part than other cycles. Still there is a lot I need to read to make up my mind and to those of you who contributed to the body of knowledge that I have been able to read a big Thank You!

Another note that I would like to point out is to the many who share their opinions and thoughts based on little or no supporting information. Despite how eloquent many of you are, and how logical your ideas seem, your posts by and large contributed nothing to my changing opinion. I do not say this to pick on you only to make an important point. I am an open minded person who believes in AGW. I am more then willing to listen to the other side of the story and in cases where I am shown credible information I am willing to change my stance. Yet when the only thing I am offered is your opinion and a vague reference to some vague material you read at some other point but have not bothered to produce I find your point below compelling.

Well.
At least this is the most polite response I have ever recieved from the other side.
Thanks for that.
And if my posts seemed a bit agitated, it is only because I expected to be in another verbal "tit for tat" argument about the meaning of the facts that is so prevalent in this area.
I do posting on this subject on several forums, several times a day, and the mood on all others has been "prove it or shut up".

So forgive me, if you will, of being guilty of assumption.

reply to post by Animal


I just feel compelled to throw my opinion on this. Since the opposition to AGW is quite weak (like I suspected it would be) I will only post couple points that will crush even the weak argumentation. I still wonder how someone is wasting his/hers time to oppose the findings on IPCC; multinational-peerreviewed-study that explains and summarizes pretty much the present knowledge on this issue. Even the US gov has run out of excuses to do nothing about GW.

So for starters people could make them selves familiar with this short description of climate warming. The graphs are from IPCC reports and show the undeniable trends of UNNATURAL warming since the end of 1800. Such coinsidence that it is the point that humankind got industrialized, isnt it?
www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk...

So then this question about natural warm and cold periods. This is all true, BUT at the moment we should be heading towards next ice age not record high temperatures! We are at the moment generally in cold period and living only an interglacial period. You can see this from the above link or from this one:
en.wikipedia.org...

An what comes to this water vapour and CO2 small proportion compared to it and that making CO2 not relevant GH gas, just one word - nonsense! Water vapour is the dominant GH gas, BUT it doesnt absorb in every wavelengts IR radiation is radiating from earth surface. In fact water vapour is already catching all the radiation available to its characteristics. The only radiation "window" is in the wavelengts (10-15 microns) that happens to be in the CO2 absorbtion area.
www.globalwarmingart.com...

I would be actually quite surprised if someone could dismiss the results from IPCC. Im absolutely positive that there are no (sane) arguments that could somehow question the current consensus about climate change and global warming.

ps. Im already apologizing my bad grammar since im not native english speaker.

[edit on 6-2-2008 by piiper2]

[edit on 6-2-2008 by piiper2]

reply to post by gotrox


You are welcome for the friendly nature of my response and I personally think you have little to apologize for, rather use this as an opportunity for learning. This topic in general is a heated one and the purpose of this thread, as selfish as it seems, was an attempt by me to gather relevant information to help me clarify my position. And by default what I asked for made the thread seem llike a debate and with debate there is disagreement and sometimes people get heated.

reply to post by piiper2


Thanks you for posting your comments and outline piiper, this logic is the logic I tend to agree with. Still as much faith as I have in the idea that humans are playing a big roll in climate change I have to admit there appears to be more to this phenomenon than I originally thought.

Somewhere in this thread someone asked me to consider where I first learned of global warming, for me it was my first year in college in a class I took titled "Contemporary Issues in Science". I was introduced to the science and the debate on global warming in this context. I have never been a member of "Al Bore's Cult of Fear". Still I salute Gore for bringing to people's attention the importance of paying attention to how we treat and interact with our home Planet Earth.

Though I remain a believer in AGW, I have to be fair and honest and admit I see the strong likelihood that there is more to these climate changes than the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere.

Regardless, I really do appreciate your contribution to this thread. I helped keep me grounded and aware of ALL the information that needs to be paid due attention in the quest for true knowledge.

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, this is getting silly now. We do this stuff in science all the time.

If I make the prediction that taking out your brain will lead to an inability to write coherent english, then we test and find that after removing your brain, you can write coherent english. I've just falsified my hypothesis.

Ok very well. Vostok core samples indicate a pattern of climate change going back hundreds of thousands of years to which we are at the top of a natural warming period. This is proven fact so that proves the idea of AGW as false. So in order to prove AGW is real you must prove that natural warming has ended. Until you can prove natural warming has ended AGW is nothing more than lab science and that goes into the same bin as lab rats and caffeine studies.

Just because of one factor, it doesn't mean that AGW doesn't exist. The climate is made up of multiple factors. Saying that ice core samples show that the climate goes through natural cycles doesn't really support anything. It doesn't rule out that AGW exists because ice core samples don't tell us what CAUSED the cycles. Sure, they could be natural, but how do you know that this current one is? We might also be going thru a natural cycle, but we humans might also be contributing to the changes as well.
You can't just grab one fact to disprove AGW, there are so many other things to factor in.

reply to post by Animal


Hey Animal,

About water vapours, it actually play a very big role in climate change. It actually amplifies whatever warming effect the other greenhouse gasses produce. The resulting warming in turn heats up more surface water, producing a kind of feedback loop.

The following link expands upon my simplified explanation above:
A 'Wet Blanket' Greenhouse Gas

It should be noted that my initial post in this thread wasn't made to downplay the other greenhouse gasses, nor was it made to specifically champion water vapour as the sole cause of climate change. My intention was to draw attention to the potential effect aircraft contrails have on the climate. Aircraft contrails are basically clouds. In other words, water vapour. But they're not just any cloud. They're man-made cirrus clouds. And when they occur high up in the atmosphere, they can linger for quite a while and let in more light than they radiate heat back out.



The following paper analyses this potential in greater detail:
Contrail-Cirrus and Their Potential for Regional Climate Change

Some more reading material on the subject that may interest you:
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

reply to post by Beachcoma


Thank you kindly for the explanation. I look forward to reading over the links you provided. I have to admit, on face value I find contrails to be hard to swallow but I will have to pay more attention to the topic before I call you names!

Originally posted by Animal
In the end, or at least at this point I have to admit that thanks to the contribution of some of you, I am much less certain than I was yesterday. Though I still believe that human activity is partially responsible for climate variations I am more and more convinced that our roll plays a smaller part than other cycles.

it's obvious that human activity alters the planet in many and often detrimental ways, there is no denying that climate will be affected to a degree.

just in case i came across as overzealous when it comes to global warming, the IPCC and the like, i fully understand that i'm not really qualified to assess their findings per se, as i don't know much if anything about their scientific procedures, just the results. otoh, i am not inclined to trust them at face value either, and for the very same reason, the whole thing is opaque, therefore all i can really do is offer conflicting information (which is there, although it does not receive much attention), point out errors in their data (data sets derived from varying sets of outposts are incompatible by default, if there's a huge drop in numbers, the situation is excaberated, as well as apparently sloppy data gathering, again, see my first post here) and, which i will do in this post, adress the impact and effectiveness of so-called counter-strategies, ie. reduction of CO2 emissions in particular.

on the flip side, reducing carbon dioxide will supposedly 'save' our climate, which i will simply characterize as 'maintaining as is' ie. complete with Greenland and polare caps covered in ice, miles high, arid deserts in Northern Africa and Arabia and so on, which may sound trivial, but will most certainly get you thinking, whether that elusive status quo is so desirable after all.

www.livescience.com...

The Sahara is believed to have once sported vegetation and even a human population, but their austere and, compared to today, primitive lifestyle seems not to have saved their environment from climate change. the same goes for Viking settlers in Greenland of course. (although in the latter case, it can be argued that planet-killing SUVs might have improved their lot by melting these advancing glaciers /jk)

if climate changes on its own, it follows, the question doesn't just reduce to 'what can we do to save the planet', but 'how do we control its weather patterns', a preposterous proposition and a losing one at that. so, to put it bluntly, in order to do the impossible, we are supposed to try harder and harder, because someone said the world would come to an end if we didn't, while there's ample evidence that similar or worse (than projected for this century) climate variations did not have that predicted result.


Now, if slashing CO2 emissions was an easy task and overdue anyway, why not? the reality of the subject is quite different though, we have so-called green or bio-fuels high on the agenda, which are destructive all on their own, they pave the way for monoculture and its bastard step-child, while reducing food stocks while ususally being kept alive by tax money. to top it off, synthetic fertilizer is derived from fossil fuels, but is not taxed like gasoline, which therefore creates a loophole, if you wish, for cheap fossil energy, whose use they're alledgedly trying to reduce.

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

most of these are derived from food sources and the vast majority of them is at least diverting large amounts of land from food production, with predictable results, namely price hikes. other fuel sources include plain garbage and other genuine waste products, manure and robust speciment growing on otherwise truely unusable land, but these are barely known. more on the subject can be found in an old thread here

Moreoever, unreliable electric power generators like windmills are sold as a viable alternative to existing plants, which will predictably fail (even if you had only 1 hour of downtime due to insufficient windspeed in a week, would you consider losing all power for that duration acceptable? in reality, it's much worse, not to mention that we'd need millions of these things and they're neither pretty nor silent and backup plans are costly and have their own problems such as irregular cycles and partial load issues) and result in a hasty construction of nuclear power plants. it's imho very clear who will be leading the way down this route, there'll be a captive market and little time ($$$$$$$$$^15), so the profits will be guaranteed. Finally, Jane and Joe Bloe are supposed to foot the bill for all this, and if they object, they're considered 'uninformed' (= newspeak for backwards/stupid). is it really a surprise that a certain bellingerence ensues?


coupled with the fact that huge countries like China or India are building dirty, unfiltered coal plants like there's no tomorrow, while many EU member states declare unattainable goals, with no intention to ever fulfill their empty promises, see f-ex.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's no surprise that many people consider it a purely political issue used to divert both attention and money from other issues that are more pressing.

[edit on 7.2.2008 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by mek12
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?

Oh for god's sake! - That's why I hate the EndGame movie, (well, just that part, the rest is great) - David Roschild is a demonic... child, & surely the solar system is getting warmer, & since changing the climate by releasing MILLIONS of toxins from burning gas in your car (even a small car) , not JUST CO2, it's Carbon Monoxide, deforestation, etc, ARE changing the climate, we can say that unnatural alterations of our world are surely going to affect it, but we cannot be to blame, for it is NOT man-made... - It has been caused by capitalism, & clean energy suppression, & the use of the term CO2, & 'carbon footprint terms is only to keep things simple, & to indocrinate the public into thinking we are a bunch of dirty threats to the Planet, justifying their desire to exterminate 80% of us. - But keep believing Alex Jone's OPINIONS about the situation, & stay in your fairytale, where Plants are just BEGGING to suck up all that SMOKE coming from ... that car I can see RIGHT NOW, just sitting there, as if there is not enough pollution in the world... Heck, perhaps he saw end Game, & thinks it's okay to keep polluting, when MILLIONS of premature deaths occur each year worldwide due to air pollution. - It has been assessed that plants have a hard time assimilating the CO2 they need because there is so much other crap floating around, such as CARBON MONOXIDE. So, this will be my last participation in such .... posts, as I am SICK of people WASTING time debating. - Sure, Al Gore & all them have agendas to use this to get their NWO, but ... Remember, you WILL be forced to pay a Carbon Tax, your children WILL be shot in front of you, or your babies drowned, like they do in China right now, because you won't have the time to see the TRUTH, & will lack the oportunity to say ' NO! - It is YOUR fault we have been forced to have no alternative to oil, & this is outrageous! - Sometimes I get so mad about this, I tell batent polluting pieces of crap " HEY! I DONT RESENT YOU POLLUTERS ANYMORE; BECAUSE WHEN WE ALL DIE IN A TOXIC WASTELAND, AT LEAST YOU WILL GO DOWN WITH US. -

NO offence, OP, but you are being mislead by (legitamite) reasons to have SERIOUS suspition due to Al Gore's dog & pony show, but ... Just think for yourself... Look around you....

The question we should be asking is: If the Sun is increasing in temperature, (or we may be crossing into a galactic season, who knows, the government doesnt tell us these things, ) then... I don't know about you, but I'm sure I could figure this out if I was 3 years old.... - : It would be INCREDIBLY stupid to have STARTED polluting in the first place, knowing there could be natural variabilities in the weather.... - But this (industial age of polluting , insustainable infrastructures) has gone on far too long, & it's time to wake up, or bake up!

(natural variability could cause us to have incredible natural disasters, yet, life would still survive, as it would not pass a theshold of mass extinction. - All we are doing is guaranteeing that that will happen. THANK YOU VBERY MUCH!

P.S. ---> Wake up & smell the Carbon Monoxide!!! - Oh and to the oportunity that we can demand the remake of the EV1 , mass-production of solar power, or better yet, the release of zero-point energy systems... But I guess y'all enjoy paying your electric bills, & for gas, right?

reply to post by criticalunity


would you mind clarifying this statement:

NO offence, OP, but you are being mislead by (legitamite) reasons to have SERIOUS suspition due to Al Gore's dog & pony show, but ... Just think for yourself... Look around you....

i would really appreciate it.

well, what about

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice."Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

what about this gem?

wanna tell us ivory leaguers can't read seismic records of just hear volcanoes going off under water? maybe read the odd geology related article?

sick sick joke.

taken from www.abovetopsecret.com...

Part 1
Any student that has graduated high school knows that ozone is made from two things: oxygen and sunlight (yielding O3 aka ozone). The ozone is incredibly important, but the "holes" in the ozone repair themselves quickly. The same student could also tell you the gas makeup of earth's atmosphere is:

Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%

Oxygen (O2) 20.946%

Argon (Ar) 0.934%

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %

Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %

Helium (He) 0.000524 %

Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %

Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%

Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %

(source: wiki.answers.com...'s_atmosphere)
Suddenly, CO2 doesn't look so bad.

It is also common knowledge that the energy the sun produces is NOT a constant. Just looking at the surface of the sun could tell you that it is an unpredictable beast capable of subtle changes in the Earth's temperature as well as massive solar flares and other such phenomenon. The energy that does reach Earth fluctuates due to a massive amount of variables that range from the activity of the sun to the clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. These are facts. The information is there if you look for it.

This alone could be responsible for "anthropogenic global warming". Just a theory.

Part 2
The link below leads to a thread on global warming where I saw this in the second post:

Another interesting quote relating to human's CO2 footprint:

"Humans produce a small fraction, in the single digits percentage wise, of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere."

Dr. John Christy
IPCC Lead Author
Professor and Director
Earth System Science Center, NSSTC
University of Alabama in Huntsville
NASA and AMS award winner

(source: community.discovery.com...)

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Xeroxed_Horizon]