It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:18 PM
What fact, development, trend, chart, etc piece of data or admission would it take for you to admit it's false / a hoax? Even better, is it possible for you to admit it ever, under any circumstances, even to yourself?

If you did change your mind, after a reputation of arguing for it, would you just not join in the discussions, or would you bark just as loud against it? A thread of this concept is imporant in many other areas as well, but especially important considering the measures about to be enacted in response to this whoel ordeal.

Is it unreasonable to admit that we truly dont know with absolute certainty, meaning science is too weak, computers too lackluster and these so-called scientists lack the ability to even be sure themselves. Doesnt it make sense to discount dire warnings from scientists whom it can be demonstrated that they go to great lengths to make data fit their theories? If a scientist is absolutely convinced of something despite an equal debate from the other side(s), shouldn't they in effect be ignored in general?

Under the premise of inconclusive science, shouldnt the most energy go into the economics, social impacts and potential uninteded consequences of proposed measures to deal with the potential risks. I think you'd call that a cost/risk analysis. Assuming you have spent oodles of time studying and debating the potential risks, what ratio of time in comparison have you spent researching the economic etc impacts mentioned here?

Are you familiar with the history of Politicized Science, such as the history of Eugenics, a key example? Don't you find it alarming how deeply this issue is fueled by other political agendas? When the celebrity proponents of the alarmism talk the talk but dont walk the walk, as well as have financial interests in their theories spreading, shouldnt they be cast down and be totally rejected?

Where does reason begin or end on this matter?

In the past I've posted threads directed at both sides to give their best arguments for their case. Hopefully this thread wont be derailed as they were...

[edit on 20-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:22 PM
I suggest that the entire globe could reside under a kilometer of ice, the entire planet dead, apart from 2 scientists in a bunker somewhere in the arctic huddled over a terminal saying, "3 months Frank, 3 months and all the ice will be gone".

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:25 PM
The whole global warming hoax conspiracy is a politically embedded American creation. Since it's inception, it's gained a few foreign political interests, generally right leaning. But it could only find roots in a country like America which has right and left leaning "scientists" that back causes to the highest bidder. America has even employed the very same organization that defended the tobacco industry to skew the evidence to their favour, that's quite telling.

Real scientists, who have no part in American politics, or are connected to American interests, are basically of one stance on global warming, being that of human causes. The moment you leave America's boarders, you find the "controversy" suddenly evaporates.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:30 PM
when human kind stops producing co2 altogether and if the changes continue then i know it wasnt humans....simple as that

[edit on 20-11-2009 by loner007]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by loner007

Well, 550 gigatons are "natural" from plants decomposing, breathing, etc.

35 gigatons a year are man-made from burning fossil fuels.

How much should we reduce are CO2 output and why?

Hell, what does it matter?

Really... the whole "Solution" of carbon credits is just a big scam.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:41 PM

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by loner007

Well, 550 gigatons are "natural" from plants decomposing, breathing, etc.

35 gigatons a year are man-made from burning fossil fuels.

How much should we reduce are CO2 output and why?

Hell, what does it matter?

Really... the whole "Solution" of carbon credits is just a big scam.

Just intersested to know where you get your figures from?
please link the source coz i know for a fact those figures are from fantasy land.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:45 PM
removed by Rhain

[edit on 20/11/09 by Rhain]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:46 PM
all the planets are warming, not just earth. this has been proven. this is all the evidence we need to know the truth.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row

Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth

Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator

here is a very interesting article from March 2007 -

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:47 PM
Man, took awhile to find it again. Anyway, this is the "real environmentalist" who's work led to the ban on CFC's to save the ozone. One: He believes in global warming but not the BS carbon credit scams & He has a solution to really sequester CO2 but there isn't any money in it for the politicians and financial elite so they now shun him... ironic isn't it.

With his 90th birthday in July, a trip into space scheduled for later in the year and a new book out next month, 2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people. - (skip a few questions)

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by infolurker]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by grantbeed

all the planets are warming, not just earth

It's true that a few of the planets are warming, but not all of them.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by infolurker

according to ice core samples greenhouse gases which include carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and cfc-12

Gas Preindustrial Level Current Level Increase since 1750
Carbon dioxide 280 ppm 387ppm 107 ppm
Methane 700 ppb 1,745 ppb 1,045 ppb
Nitrous oxide 270 ppb 314 ppb 44 ppb
CFC-12 0 533 ppt 533 ppt

now Natural greenhouse emissions EXCLUDING man made emissions are part of the natural cycle in which the greenhouses gases are balanced out .

Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity, but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era.
Thats a 38% increase just on carbon dioxide alone that is being added to the atmosphere since 1750

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor engulfs as much as 2% of the atmosphere and is the reason for approximately 66% of the natural greenhouse effect

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor.

So more warming equals more water vapour which equals more warming...............

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:15 PM

What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

It would take a leaked collection of documents from a leading climate research center with proof of manipulation of data!

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:18 PM
"If biochar could be massively applied around the globe," he says, "we could end the emissions problem in one to two years."

Yeah, 1-2 years. That is the solution, NOT the bull S#it Carbon Credit Financial Scam of the century.

But YES... Get it yet?

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by grantbeed

I don't want to give the impression that I'm sold on manmade warming but an increase in solar irradiance is not the only possible reason for the observations of apparent warming on other planets or Earth. I wouldn't use it as evidence against.

It would seem strange that Saturn, closer to the Sun than Neptune, does not display a similar effect. Perhaps the Sun is not the cause after all.

Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response. Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer.

The changes on Jupiter are also not necessarily related to any increase in solar irradiance. It is thought to be caused by a regular climatological cycle which lasts 70 years.

Marcus bases his prediction in part on the observed appearance of three large white ovals, all thousands of miles across, on Jupiter in 1939, and the unexpected disappearance of two of them between 1997 and 2000, during which time they all merged into one.

Other smaller spots have gone away since.

Marcus says the demise of still more spots over the next seven years will mark the end of a newly proposed, 70-year climate cycle.

During this time, Jupiter's equatorial region will warm up a whopping 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius) and the planet will grow cooler near the poles. Then the stage will be set, as in 1939, for another batch of white ovals to dramatically appear by 2014.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

Like Earth, the other planets have cycles. The warming we're seeing is most likely part one of those cycles but there is not a lot of evidence to tie them to changes in the Sun.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by Phage]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:42 PM
heres a very interesting graph that was never in al gores movie!!

this has happened in the past over and over again. this warming is nothing new at all.


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by wiredamerican

What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

It would take a leaked collection of documents from a leading climate research center with proof of manipulation of data!

LOL, they just got hacked. Here is some.

1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia

Nice. This could be fun.


Surely these emails can’t be genuine. Surely the world’s most prominent alarmist scientists aren’t secretly exchanging emails like this, admitting privately they can’t find the warming they’ve been so loudly predicting?:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

This has to be a forgery, surely. Because if it isn’t, we’re about to see the unpicking of a huge scandal.

I mean, the media will follow this up, right? In the meantime, use with care.


Have I said “conspiracy” already?

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

See attached note.



Mopping up any awkward evidence about the IPCC’s latest report before Climate Audit gets hold of it?

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal.


This, if true (caution!), is especially sick. (Note; John Daly was a Tasmanian sceptic who did superb work, especially on sea level rises on the “Isle of the Dead"). I’ve added the boldening):

From: Phil Jones
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.


“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@XXXX)

Reported with great sadness


I said conspiracy, but Professor Overpeck (a contact of Robyn “100 metres” Williams) prefers they be called the “team”:

At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.

any other thoughts team?

(Thanks to various readers.)

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:46 PM


The anonymous hackers offer this brief summary of their alleged finds so far:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4


Regarding that FOI request sent to Jones, referred to above. Here (if the email is genuine) he discusses in a file called “jones-foiathoughts.doc” his evident reluctance to hand over information, presumably to Climate Audit - and lists as one option sending back the information just as raw data, which would “annoy” those behind the FOI request:

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.


The warmist scientists at RealClimate show how carefully they’ve screened and manipulated their site to muffle any scepticism:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

I have mentioned “conspiracy”, right? RealClimate is so far silent.


Reader Chemist finds more which - if true - make this proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn science, given the stakes:

Here are some gems. “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly.”


How to minimise data to exaggerate a warming trend (bold added):

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.


Keeping sceptic Chris de Freitas out of the IPCC reports:

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Phage

good points phage. i guess the most solid evidence either way is best found right here on earth as at least we have ice core samples etc which tell us a lot.

To know for sure about the other planets it would definatley take lots of study.

Im more convinced its a cyclical thing to be honest. i believe this whole thing has happened before on earth. Co2 or no co2.

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:42 AM
reply to post by infolurker

Actually 770 Gt CO2 anually is natural, meanwhile 26.4 Gt anually is manmade..

Then again you get the idiots from all over the globe, you do know that most of the world's population are ignorant, although for the most part it is not their fault, but rather because they are poor, but it is only the idiots who claim that because the amont of ignorant people in the world is more, they must be right, meanwhile not giving one iota of evidence to support their ridiculous claims, except to claim "it is all made up by the Americans".....

Meanwhile such idiots ignore the fact that thousands of scientists from all over the globe disagree with the religion that the mayority of the idiots of Earth want to follow....

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:48 AM
reply to post by Phage

What are you about Phage?... You claim Saturn has not shown Climate Change?...

Global warming destroyed Saturn's ring

According to a generalized global warming theory, Saturn's rings must be static for thousands of years. It turned out that the innermost ring, the D-ring, looks completely different than 25 years ago. It's dimmer and it may even disappear. Also, there are minivan-sized objects in the outermost A-ring. This short period of time - 25 years - in which things can change proves that the humans who drink Coke and their production of carbon dioxide must be behind these celestial developments, the generalized theory of truly global warming says.

More seriously, subtle things in the Universe, which includes Saturn's rings as well as Earth's climate, are simply changing. They're naturally changing, they have always been and they always will. Hurricanes and typhoons are naturally created all the time and the people are too weak to change these basic processes, and whoever does not like these laws of physics should try to find a better Universe to live in.

EVERY planet, and even Moons with an atmosphere has been undergoing Climate change in the form of Warming at the same time that Earth was.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in