The deep reach of global warming

Well it looks like even the poor little birds are not spared from the effects of global warming here's another proof to the already long list of global warming consequences we have come across on ats.

Here's the link.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Its sad to see what our technology has brought us

Thats just a natural process of change, not man made global warming. Our climate has always changed, and animals have come and gone, thats the way it is.

reply to post by andy1033


It's true. What you're talking about. "man-made global warming" doesn't exist. It's a lie…and hoax. The science to support his is overwhelming, yet there are still those who cling to this phony science that somehow humans are destroying the earth.

Sad, really.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by andy1033

 

It's true. What you're talking about. "man-made global warming" doesn't exist. It's a lie…and hoax. The science to support his is overwhelming, yet there are still those who cling to this phony science that somehow humans are destroying the earth.

Sad, really.

Can you please provide information to prove that global warming is not man made and is part of the natural process.

I could..but there are about 1000 threads here at ATS that have already done that, in great depth.

I think search is down right now but when it comes back up, I'd be glad to point you in the right direction.

reply to post by nyk537

well yes quite possible about the number of threads regarding this but you cannot deny one fact that the amount of greenhouse gases has increased exponentially over the century and there is no denying the fact that the amount of greenhouse gases are the highest in the history of entire earth judging from the ice core of the past.

My personal stance on global warming is that we simply do not know first if the globe is actually undergoing a prolonged "warming" phase, and second if this warming phase is actually caused by humanity, and third we don't know if it is caused by humanity if we can do anything to slow or stop the process successfully. Since we do not know and have no concrete evidence pointing to us being to blame, I feel that an alarmist stance is ill-advised. I'm not saying the OP or all global warmists are alarmists, but the problem with this issue lies on their doorsteps, IMO.

There are many conflicting peices of data on this issue, but I advise you look some of these links over to clear up some frequent misunderstandings with global warming:

scienceandpublicpolicy.org...
scienceandpublicpolicy.org...

While both of these are from the same website which is pretty much geared against GW theories, there is some important information there for you to digest in order to better understand the other side of the GW fence.

Plus, here is the NOAA saying this past winter was the coldest for the globe since 2001...interesting since I thought we were warming out of control...20 years, billions of refugees or something to that effect, right? :

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Here are some other reports of global cooling:

www.bloomberg.com...
www.dailytech.com...
translate.google.com...

While this article is from 02, it shows that even 6 years ago there was actually ice increase taking place:

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And 5 years later the artic was found to have been increasing its sea ice at record pace:

www.thedailygreen.com...

There are endless amounts of information on this issue out there, and most of it conflicts. The end result is, we don't know, so why panic until we finally can give a definitive answer on this. And no a movie that misrepresnts the whole issue horrifically (Inconvenient Truth) is not the definitive answer and should not be shown to students of our schools as fact, but rather an opinion peice shown alongside the conflicting data and reports.

I hope you can look at this issue after gobbling up these links as certainly being far from determined one way or the other, and that is my only point.

On a side note, I feel it is important to note that many scientists back the AGW theory as it will give them more funding for alternative energy projects and the like. While I fully support alternative energy research, I feel scaring people into funding it is the wrong way to go about it. And I feel many people in the science community back this issue strongly solely to receive additional support and/or funding for their causes, even if the science isn't fully there to back their claims. This is just opinion and speculation here, but I feel like it makes sense that some scientists laugh while backing GW simply because it will help their own endeavors, not because the science behind it adds up.