It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Please explain anti-global warming to me

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

Originally posted by xelamental
Please enlighten me. Why do you not believe in global warming?


Because then they'll have to change. And change is hard.

I don't think the elites care that much whether people follow the global warming agenda or not. They own everything, the oil companies and all. So, I'm not exactly sure why there're so many tug of war regarding this climate change issue.


The reason there's a tug of war is because climate change is real. Many people are in denial. I call them flat-earthers

[edit on 6-12-2009 by ForAiur]




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
I tried to edit my post to include a link to a fascinating article. I failed in that edit so I post it here. Make of it what you will. I make of it that the government is a lie machine and we are not the nasty bed wetters we are led to believe.

And with that I am done with this thread, I can stomach only so much ignorance.

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

[edit on 6-12-2009 by SmokeJaguar67]


I am sorry you feel that way but a case can be made for the warming of all planets by man. The Science is there, they just haven't created the theory yet. The amount of emissions we put into the ozone are escaping our planet and warming other planets. I don't see how anyone can deny the fact that we are the cause of the warming of our very solar system.

The sun is getting hotter and hotter and we are the cause of it.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ForAiur
 


So it's up to you "round earthers" to try to halt the earth's natural fluctuation of temperatures? Fluctuations of the sun's heat throughout the solar system?
We are going to do in 200 years what multiple comet impacts that caused mass extinction could not do?
Capntrade is what's going to save us from this?

You leave me with a lot of questions.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Ditto. The climate model the carbon tax scheme was based upon failed. If you remember the hype from the 90's, the oceans were supposed to have obliterated islands, Florida houses were supposed to be on stilts, and all the ice caps were supposed to be gone by now. Actually, global temperatures have dropped slightly over the last decade.
As an "honest scientist", what would be your honest peer review to a theory that in real world statistical analysis, produced the opposite results of the thesis?

An honest scientist, even one who believed passionately a certain theory would at least have to concede that the theory is flawed and needs to be----at the very least----reworked with new models to try to figure out why it failed.
A dishonest "scientist" would just rename his theory to attempt to make it seem correct.

Hence, "global warming" becomes "global climate change".

If you happened to read not just the e-mails, (which are a small part of the UEA files) but the REM's of the program coders ( a very large part of the leaked files), you would have to come to the obvious conclusion that the data used for supporting the theory of global climate change was purposefully biased, with knowledge that the input parameters were designed and modified to produce the desired result.

History shows several attempts to make mankind a villain and earth killer who's only redemption is to pay money for his sins. You should read "Eco Science", co authored by our very own J.P. Holdren---"science czar" to the white house. The certain fact of earth's demise at the hand of mankind, and the ecological disasters decimating life on the planet are loudly proclaimed.


But------- Because the prevailing theory only a couple decades ago was that the planet was entering an ice age, and particulate emissions were blocking the suns energy from reaching the surface, the money scam to heal mother earth was a different one.

The theory that "evil polluters" are running a propaganda campaign with big money to discredit global warming----oops----"global climate change" is a false one. Indeed, the global tax scheme bothers them not a bit, as it won't cost them a dime.
Here is how it works, for any who care to look it up:

Everything will have either a "carbon debt" or "carbon credit" attached to it. Every company will have a carbon cap limit. Any person or item or company who exceeds their allotment will have to purchase extra credits-----from "Blood and Gore" (google the company, the name was changed, though I rather like the original)
The extra cost is not borne by the originator, but passed on to the end user.
Now, the other side.
Suppose you just happen to own a couple thousand forested acres in Paraguay. (Any names happen to come up?) Each tree in that forest fixes a supposed amount of carbon per year. That property owner gets a large amount of carbon credits to sell every year, while doing nothing but sitting on the veranda of his mansion slamming mint juleps.

In closing, honest science is done openly, with scrutiny and data open to review. Any who attempt to hide the data and refuse independent analysis are not doing science, they are following an agenda.

As a "scientist", you know this last to be factual.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 


There is an increasing suspicion that those who present themselves as scientific experts, particularly those in the field of "climate science", still in its infancy, have been less than honest with us about the "science" of anthropogenic global warming. It is rather unfortunate that you did not offer full disclosure of your own scientific background, and in your first post presented yourself as one who was on the fence about the global warming and claimed to have friends who were scientists. Then a few posts later you claim to be a scientist yourself. This is what is known as dis-ingenuousness, and only serves to add to the increasing suspicion that those self proclaimed "experts" of anthropogenic global warming have an agenda outside of science.

Indeed, in your first post you had made clear your very strong bias against oil companies and named them as evil while contrasting their accused evil behavior to that of environmentalism. Your anti-oil company bias is clearly an agenda outside of science whether you really are a scientist or not. You have not given anyone a good reason to simply take your word for it, especially given that you have brought up the statistical models for heating and their analysis of it, but you yourself made absolutely no attempt to explain the method used in these statistical models nor what these statistics supposedly showed. If you are a scientist who knows something about statistics and you expect readers in this site to take you seriously then explain these models yourself.

Statistics are no doubt an extremely important tool in science and if you have knowledge of statistical models that support the notion of anthropogenic global warming then kindly share that knowledge with the rest of us. There are many scientist who claim that there are no statistical models that can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance. If this is false, then explain how it is false and exactly what statistical models do exist that can predict climate change beyond one or two days.

While government funded scientists such as the members of the IPCC insist that we are doomed if we don't reduce the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere, we only have their increasingly dubious word to take for that. Conversely, we do not need to take the word of dubious government scientists to know that if we drastically shut down our dependency on oil without having effectively replaced it with a viable and marketable alternative we will undoubtedly shut down world economies.

There is much about the "science" to anthropogenic global warming that is worthy of questioning. There is, for example, the so called "hockey stick" chart presented by Micheal Mann in 1998 showing the Earth's temperature to have been relatively constant for the past thousand years and then dramatically changing upward in the beginning of the 20th Century. It should be noted that Mann's "hockey stick" chart was not subjected to peer review before being published in Nature Magazine in 1998. I ask you point blank, as a self proclaimed scientist, is peer review an over-hyped method of establishing useful data to add to the scientific method? If it is please explain how and why it is over-hyped.

This chart presented by Mann is predicated on the assumption that long past temperatures, admittedly never measured at the time, can now be accurately measured based on examining tree rings and ice core samples from glaciers several centuries old. How correct is this assumption? Going with Mann's "hockey stick" metaphor, wouldn't it be fair to say that the handle of this stick is based on guesses while the blade is actually based on verified actual measurement of the weather? How seriously should we take a comparison that offers assumptions based on guesses made from examining ice core samples and tree rings locked in ancient glaciers compared to actual verifiable weather measurements made today? Please, you being a self proclaimed scientist who knows something about statistics, can you explain the validity of such a comparison?

It should also be noted that this chart presented by Mann is for the Northern Hemisphere only. Yet, this chart was one of the very foundations of the IPCC's summary information and recommendations made in their very first report. There are also a few historical facts that seem to contradict the claims made by Mann's chart, including the "Medieval Warming Period" and the "Little Ice Age". Are we to believe, based on the "science" of Mann's chart, that the Thames River in London really didn't freeze over during this "Little Ice Age"?

It is my understanding that Mann's report is not raw data but was made using principal component analysis, where he used 70-80 data sets, attempting to gather significant component information from a vast and varied set of raw data. Is this understanding correct or am I wrong on this? If it is correct, could you explain to the layman what that means? If I am incorrect on this matter could you explain how Mann did come by his figures? Are you at all familiar with the analyst Steve McIntyre and the reverse engineering he worked on in regards to Mann's PCA program? Are you familiar with the Monte Carlo method? McIntyre subjected Mann's PCA program to the Monte Carlo method and discovered that no matter what data he fed it the result was always the same. Can you explain the significance of this?

Isn't it true that Mann's "hockey stick" chart has been thoroughly discredited? Was the "Medieval Warming Period" insignificant? It has been suggested that this period gave rise to the phenomenal success of agriculture in the Machu Picchu region. Do you dispute this? Is this yet another example of over-hyped science? It has also been suggested that the Medieval Warming Period helped Europe to emerge from the Dark Ages. Do you dispute this? More over-hyped science?

The "Little Ice Age" on the other hand, is credited with producing dramatic crop failures from too short of seasons that led to widespread famine in some of the more Northern areas. Do you dispute this? More over-hyped science? Speaking of "Little Ice Ages", isn't it a truism, at least in physics that there is no physical quantity known as "cold". Isn't it true there is only heat and lack of heat?

Cont..



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 


Continuing...

How important is black body radiation to the equation when it comes to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere? Isn't it true that warm air around us is being kept warm, in part due the black body radiation from the Earth itself? And what of conduction? Isn't it true that part of that warm air is caused by the contact that air makes with heated soil, rocks, trees and buildings?

What do you know of Atomic Absorption Spectrometry? Doesn't this method measure precisely which wavelengths of radiation a particular gas is capable of absorbing? How was Atomic Absorption Spectrometry used in the models you mentioned? Can you explain in simple terms how this precise measurement factored into these models? Does this model you mention follow or defy the laws of physics? It is unclear to me, and I, not at all being a scientist do not know, but there seem to be some fundamental problems with the physics behind the assertion of anthropogenic global warming. You, being a scientist could probably explain this better than I. Please do so.

Could you also explain the significance of water vapor to greenhouse gasses? Isn't it true that water vapor accounts for at least 95% of the greenhouse effect? Also, could you please explain how Co2 is essential to the livelihood of plant life and yet somehow dangerous to have in the atmosphere? Wouldn't an atmosphere even richer in Co2 only contribute to the flourishing of plant life and that flourishing contribute to humanities flourishing? Aren't plants a crucial equation in the ecosystem we are so dependent upon? Isn't it true that Co2 is in reality a non toxic, non polluting and even crucial component to our survival?

Let's, just for a moment discuss the word "if". How many "climate scientists" and those pure and ethical scientists from the IPCC rely upon the word "if" in their predictions? "If the sea levels rise to 40 feet..." "If the levels of Co2 continue to increase at the rate..." How credible is the word "if" in actual science? Let us now consider the saint of environmentalism Mr. Al Gore. Are you aware that the Washington Post reported that while in college Mr Gore's highest grade was an A in French and English as well as in Visual and Environmental studies but his lowest grade was a D in natural sciences? Mr. Gore has a proclivity towards using the word "if" quite a bit when it comes to prognosticating gloom and doom for the planet while advocating stronger government controls and investment in his own, contrasted to those "evil oil companies" carbon offset program. How scientific is Al Gore really?

Another poster brought up the discovery of other planets shown to be warming as well and you countered with this mystical model that you demanded he explain whilst you failed to do so. Either man is causing "global warming" or something else is. If, and being a scientist I presume it isn't being too unreasonable to ask that you take an unbiased view of this, if humanity is not causing "global warming" then what if anything is? Is "global warming" merely a cyclical effect that varies from age to age or is it at this moment truly a phenomenon being caused by human activity? How important is the sun in this equation? Wouldn't the sun be the most obvious culprit in regards to a cause for "global warming"?

Wouldn't it also help to explain how the formation of clouds help to cool the planet? What, if anything, do you know of the formation of clouds? Isn't it true that when the sun is not as bright as at other times that more cosmic rays are able to penetrate the atmosphere, which in turn allows more clouds to form which helps to cool the planet? Isn't it also true that the sun recently has been at its brightest levels than it has been for the past 8,000 years or is this just more of that over-hyped science?

Of course, if it is not over-hyped science, and solar scientist are correct, then the sun will be ending its brightest cycle and entering into a cycle that is less bright meaning much colder weather here on Earth which is arguably much more dangerous to the survival of humanity than if temperatures were to keep rising as the IPCC keeps insisting they will. Perhaps the single most important question in this "global warming" debate would be just exactly how one goes about measuring "global" temperature?

You presented yourself as one who truly wanted to know what the truth is about this so called "global warming" debate and feigned an ignorance that you just a few posts later sought to qualify with an assertion that you were a scientist who understood something about statistics. Please explain the statistical data used to arrive at an average for "global" temperature. And finally, please explain in simple terms why it is many of the modern scientists seem to have a proclivity towards acting like a priest class who deal in mystical incantations and special knowledge not shared with its laity?

Einstein was able to explain relativity in layman's terms by describing the amount of time a man spends on a bench with the woman he loves being the exact same amount of time he would spend on that bench with his mother in law but the time on the bench spent with his mother in law seems like an eternity where the time spent on the bench with the woman he loves goes by in an instant. That is very simple and easy to understand, no mystical E=MC2 chanting going on in that explanation. If anthropogenic global warming is real and scientifically verifiable then surely you or one of your scientist friends can offer as simple an explanation as to how humans are causing it that makes as much sense as Einsteins simple description of relativity.

Offering simplistic assertions that make no sense won't do. Just offer a simple explanation that effectively explains how an increase of Co2 is actually a threat to humanity and the planet instead of being a boon that would actually help to sustain the increase of population growth in humans. Is that too much to ask?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stinkhorn1
There are much bigger polluters than BIG OIL, look at the rivers and you will find more pollution from farmers using chemicals, municipalities dumping raw fecal sewage and multitudes of other industries dumping an acceptable percentage of toxic chemicals into the rivers of the world.


Actually, many of the chemicals that farmers put on their fields are derived from oil, but you do have a point that this side of it is probably more harmful to our environment than the direct effects of the oil industry.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I'm clearly outranked in the amount of scientific knowledge here.
So here goes with the practical stuff. My fruit trees seem to fruit earlier each year. But last winter my track was frozen up for longer than ever known. And this November we had the wettest November on record. Weather patterns seem to have been rocky for a few years now. So I'm convinced climate change IS happening.
I just have a gut feeling that all this is not caused completely by humans. Scientists themselves disagree. Heck some of them say that we are due a new ice age and that global warming is helping to put it off... So what am I to know? In fact this winter I'm buying a sled to get my shopping down the track. This is a first.
Maybe it's a bit of both. We do so like our facts a straight black or white, but often its a murky gray.
What I do understand however is that ultimately it's you and I, the ordinary people who just try to get by and pay our bills, who pay. If it's true that we can at least influence the pace of climate change, I would like governments to lead by example. They could start by turning of the lights in the government offices at night. Oh and by giving the likes of me a realistic grant to install renewable energy.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by unicorn1]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by unicorn1]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Did anyone see this video? This global warming nut really loses his temper and at the end of the video he does his cause no service at all. He is a twit of a man with an agenda of what I do not know... I am unsure if he is making money or what but I suppose his scam keeps him employed at the very least...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
OK, I'll try to answer this as much as possible. My position is due to not only scientific concerns but political clues as well.

To start with, I understand the basics of climatology. I would not place myself on the same level as those who research it continuously; however that would not be necessary for me to understand the science they put forth. I can also understand Relativity, but I seriously doubt I could have filled Einstein's shoes.

So my first reason is that the science being put forth is being put so in a manner that does not allow for an understanding of how the conclusions and predictions were arrived at. I cannot begin to understand how the conclusions were arrived at because the basic data is obscured. For example, what is the albedo of the planet as a whole? What percentage of infrared emission of the Earth is in the bandwidth that is absorbed by carbon dioxide? These are two questions that are absolutely essential to any calculation of expected temperature change; yet if the answer is anywhere on the Internet, it is protected by a password. If it is included in written physical data, that written data is buried somewhere (in the IPCC archives?); it is certainly not in the extensive library I have, nor in any public or university library I have been able to find.

Secondly, where is the complete source code for these models? Oh, it is available now... it was released along with the CRU emails, apparently. Why did it take a hacker to release the source code?

Without benefit of the information I just mentioned, calculations show a maximum temperature difference which is negligible (Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.). Now I realize these calculations may be lacking in some aspects, but in those aspects, the information I just finished mentioning as unavailable is needed.

I fail to understand how carbon dioxide scrubbing, such as that developed by Columbia University is not a solution. If carbon dioxide is a problem, then would removing it from the atmosphere not alleviate the problem? Greenpeace even admitted that the reason they condemned the scrubber was that it would allow people to continue to use fossil fuels. Apparently their complaint is not over CO2, but over the use of fossil fuels.

The proposal of Cap & Trade is an economic nightmare in the making. Anyone with a passing knowledge of economics should be able to see this, so for purposes of expediency, I'll not go into the exact reasoning behind such in this post; if you want a more thorough explanation of this, ask and I will oblige.

Cap & Trade also does not lend itself to decreasing carbon dioxide levels. Instead it purports to create an artificial commodity (carbon credits), the use of which is mandated by law. Any decrease in carbon dioxide levels would only be by a limit on carbon credits, which, since they are printed by the government and have monetary value (just like cash), would be as subject to over-printing as cash is today. What mechanism is in place to prevent this? Only the UN itself, the only entity on the planet with a worse history of scandals than the United States government (Food for Oil, anyone?).

Cap & Trade has also been advanced by the likes of Al Gore based on proven faulty data. Now, should most people be caught intentionally misrepresenting data in order to obtain a monetary gain, they would be prosecuted. Gore won a Nobel Prize and an OSCAR. That is evidence to me that someone in the upper hierarchy of society was extremely happy with his actions.

There have been multiple data inconsistencies by those who believe in anthropogenic carbon dioxide based Global Warming. It is generally held by such that local observations of temperature changes are not applicable to global temperatures (a position I agree with), yet any localized deviation from normal is also touted as evidence. They want their cake and want to eat it too.

The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today are much lower than what they have been in the past.

The temperature of Greenland today, as an example, is much lower than it has been in the recent past (the Vikings had agricultural settlements there).

The temperature curve of the planet has stabilized in the last decade, consistent with a sine wave curve which is indicative of natural processes. During the same time, carbon dioxides levels have continued to rise.

Historical records indicate that while there does appear to be some correlation between warming periods and carbon dioxide levels, the heating trends come prior to the carbon dioxide levels, disproving the cause and effect relationship from carbon dioxide levels to temperature increases. If any cause and effect is occurring, it would have to be from heating to carbon dioxide levels, the opposite of what is claimed.

A recent YouTube video series was presented to try and 'debunk the debunkers'. One clip was debunking the idea of the 'urban heat island'. In doing that, he also debunked anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The evidence was that warming anomalies did not correlate geographically to urban centers; those areas are aso where all of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is released.

There have been multiple reports of improperly-located temperature monitoring stations. They have been shown sitting a few feet away form air conditioning units, in direct sunlight next to concrete areas, or close to building entrances where heated air can affect them. The IPCC itself, in its own regulations, prohibits such placement; yet they eagerly accept the data from these stations.

A major climate observatory for monitoring of carbon dioxide levels is placed near Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide on an unpredictable schedule.

Carbon dioxide is only toxic at levels of 5000 ppmv; we are presently at 380 ppmv. To plant life, carbon dioxide even at levels toxic to us, contributes to accelerated plant growth, leading to more food production ability should levels rise. Yet, one of the concerns over carbon dioxide levels is that it will disrupt food production.

Now we have leaked emails stating clearly that there was at least a limited association of climatologists who were 'fudging' data in secret.

Now we have multiple reports of major problems in the computer models used.

Now we have evidence of cherry-picking data (throwing out all tree ring data from 1960 to present because it diverged from directly observed data, but leaving in all pre-1960 tree-ring data which supported the conclusions).

To summarize, we have hidden calculations that cannot be viewed by the public, hidden source code for modeling programs, known yet ignored errors in monitoring instrumentation, overtly falsified data being fed to the public, unscientific demonizing of carbon dioxide, evidence of collusion, evidence of improper coding in the models, evidence of cherry-picking data, denial of obvious solutions, rabid promotion of unworkable solutions, greed, obfuscation, and lies.

How much evidence does one need?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67

Originally posted by Xeven

[edit on 6-12-2009 by SmokeJaguar67]


You make some good points. I am on the fence but I can see where new technology moving us away from oil is good on so many different fronts. I drive an SUV as well.

I agree the Solar System and Earth go through change with or without us effecting it.

My reason for wanting to get off oil is because I would prefer if we were independent and not have to make world decisions for ourselves like going to war because we have to get it from people who in part hate us and everything we believe in.

I do not know how much our carbon emissions effect the changes going on. In fact maybe the extra carbon will save us from a deadly mini ice age?

So human made global warming could be good for us in the long run. No one knows.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Xeven]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Xeven]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Anti-global warming to me is another way of deflecting the
job of backing true energy devices and to keep the Carbonists
in power at the suffering of the masses.

If you do not know the availability of the solution, that is also
by way of the Carbon people.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by xelamental
 


Please explain anti-global warming to me

It is not so much as the globe warming up as it is finding ways to TAX everything to control the earth.

So when I hear global warming, I hear more taxes, fines and fees.

Anti global taxation.

That is my definition of anti global warming.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
[color=#33cc00]Humans are not causing the CO2 increase

The dC13 isotope reduction often called by AGWers as a "fossil fuel signature" is in fact perfectly correlated with ocean El Nino:

wattsupwiththat.com...

www.gasresources.net...

www.climateaudit.org...

Warmth, a change in ocean currents, solar cycles, changes in land use and in the biosphere all can affect CO2 output. To be fair, we may be messing with mother nature's sources and sinks e.g through ocean pollution but it is not due to direct CO2 emissions.

[color=#33cc00]Nature sources and sinks dwarf our output

www.newscientist.com...

www.newscientist.com...

The link above is sourced from the IPCC 2007 report which admits that 700 billion tons of gaseous carbon dioxide is produced and absorbed yearly by nature, mostly in the biosphere. We emit 26 billion tons or 3.7% of what nature does.

[color=#33cc00]The rate of CO2 increase is "unprecedented"

Using conversion ratio 7.7 gigatons = 1ppm CO2 air (Wiki page says there is 3,000Gt in air / 387 ppm = 7.75 Gt/ppm) the annual CO2 flux is 90ppm. If nature's sources of CO2 were turned off it would take 4 years for all the CO2 to be sucked from the atmosphere. I hope this puts in perspective the huge capability nature has to neutralise our CO2. Our emissions, estimated at 3.4ppm per year are just a bit player in this huge natural flux.

Consider this CO2 measurement from Mauna Loa:





Note the huge seasonal variation of 6ppm - the seasonal squiggle. Every northern winter sources outweigh sinks to produce a gain of 20ppm/yr for several months (centre of red circle). The yearly average increase of 2ppm is surpassed every northern winter by a factor of 10. It shows that nature is totally in charge of the CO2 content of the air. It can easily account for our puny 3.4ppm/year. Notions that nature is struggling to keep up with human CO2 are absurd.

And it's impossible to tell if the current yearly average increase is unprecedented because proxies for CO2 concentration such as dC13 can only be resolved in sediment sample to a few thousand years.


[color=#33cc00]The first 50 ppm of CO2 does the heating

jennifermarohasy.com...

yelnick.typepad.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.plantsneedco2.org...


[color=#33cc00]Global temperatures are declining

www.drroyspencer.com...

One of the most amazing things to come out of this Climategate thing is that this line we've been fed that earth warmed over the 1900's appears to be totally falsified. E.g. the NZ temp record is fudged.

Real temperature of New Zealand:


AGW faked temperature of New Zealand:


[color=#33cc00]The oceans are not rising

wattsupwiththat.com...


[edit on 6/12/09 by Avon8]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
[color=#33cc00]Antarctic glaciers are not melting

www.news.com.au...

[color=#33cc00]Himalayan glaciers are not melting

www.dawn.com...

[color=#33cc00]Greenland ice cap is not melting

[color=#33cc00]Floating north polar ice caps will not raise sea levels

See your local glass of water containing ice cubes

[color=#33cc00]Warmer temperatures will not result in higher sea levels

There is slight thermal expansion with warmth but a melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would be required to create any substantial rise and this would take thousands of years even if the air temp went up by 10C.

[color=#33cc00] The Maldives are not sinking

They're building an awful lot of new resorts there for a place that's sinking.

wattsupwiththat.com...

[color=#33cc00]Middle Ages warm period was 4C hotter than today

Grapes grown at Hadrian's wall, farms in Greenland; it's an inconvenient truth Michael Mann tried to hide in his hockey stick graph.

[color=#33cc00]4.5 billion years of climate change and only now we are to blame?

As you can already see from the above we are just an insignificant flea on this world.


[color=#33cc00]Kilimanjaro is not warming

www.livescience.com...


[color=#33cc00]The oceans are not acidifying

www.dailymail.co.uk...

[color=#33cc00]The hurricanes are not increasing

www.worldclimatereport.com...

[color=#33cc00]Outbound radiation increases with increasing surface temperature

[Lindzen, Choi 2009]

www.youtube.com...

www.friendsofscience.org...

[color=#33cc00]Water is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2

www.geocraft.com...

[color=#33cc00]Tipping points such as "clathrate guns" are not present today

[No proof there - made it up actually]

[color=#33cc00]Even if we did have 1 - 2C warming it would be a good thing not a bad thing

Just like the Middle Ages warm period - a good time.

[color=#33cc00]Drought in south Australia caused by Indian Ocean not global warming

www.reuters.com...

[color=#33cc00]CO2 rise lags warmth, not leads

Tree-o-mometers are useless (i.e tree ring temp proxy data) because cosmic radiation affects tree ring growth more than anything:

news.bbc.co.uk...

[color=#33cc00]The suns solar cycles affect cloud cover on earth

[color=#33cc00]Fossil fuels are not even fossil fuels

www.gasresources.net...

www.globalflood.org...

[color=#33cc00]"Scepticism is funded by big oil"

Take a look at this page with all the pigs lining up at the trough of global warming.

www.us-cap.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
[color=#33cc00]Well then what is causing global warming?

On a macro scale the Milankovitch cycles control warming and cooling, but what of shorter term changes? Could sun changes be responsible? Maybe. Could ocean changes be responsible? Probably. Could land use changes be responsible? Yes, certainly. An Australian physicist John Daly took the time to calculate the temperature anomaly and by excluding any measurement stations that were subject to the urban heat island effect he discovered no warming trend in the United States at all. Clearing the forest and building cities creates a local heating effect. So, yes anthropogenic warming is real but it's fairly local and not global.

Read it and weep warmistas. Hey where's my Nobel Peace Prize?!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
It doesn't matter how badly humans are affecting the climate with CO2 emissions. In 10-15 years, solar energy technology will easily be able to replace all fossil fuels.

So just chill out. It's not a big deal.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Global warming has been a favorite topic of mine for some time. Mostly because we have two opposing views shoved down our throats and yet still not one, yes read it not ONE climate model to date has accurately predicted the climate changes we are going through. That pretty much means that neither side really knows what is going on yet both yell and complain and shove out-of-context and skewed facts down our throats.

First off the theory of global warming state that due to the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent rise in carbon emissions into our atmosphere that the surface temperature over the globe will increase. It doesn't mean that if the temperature rises somewhere then we as humans are to blame. Every model predicting the temperature rise based on carbon in the atmosphere has been grossly in error. Unfortunately Global Warming has become a catch phrase and people forget that it is really nothing but a theory and a proven flawed theory.

Surface temperature can be attributed to changes in the sun, changes in our orbit, the urbanization and over-population of the planet, as well in types and amount of flora all besides atmospheric pollution that is being blamed. Does that mean that pollution isn't to blame? No, it just means that other reasons must be considered and studied as well; especially considering that the Global Warming theory is flawed.

Second thing to consider is that the majority of life on this planet would actually benefit from warmer temperatures. Oh sure it would affect our life adversely in many places but for life in general there has never been so many types and diversity then during the warmer times of the earths history. Warming that planet will not destroy it, but probably cause a proliferation of new species.

As to who is to blame for all of this. Well I am not sure there is any right to place blame, but if you want people to use sustainable means, and "green" techs etc, then you must get companies to make them viable alternatives for the majority. If I see two 4 packs of TP each about $2 and one is from recycled material, or bamboo or something equally good for the environment and both are of similar quality then I will buy the more environmentally friendly brand. However; if the green brand is $4 is feels like sand paper then it will stay on the self, and guess what the majority of the people on this planet feel the same way. Until environmentally friendly companies stop slapping "organic" on there stuff and charging twice as much they will always be second seat to the major corporations.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Anti-global warming? Is that like anti-maneating pillow cases? Or like anti-fire-breathing kittens?

How can you be against something that doesn't exist in the first place?


I'll tell you one thing I am against though.......junk scientists!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by xelamental
 


i care about the increase in CO2...humans will die if too much CO2 gets into the air. i will be dead in a few years, but my grandchildren will be breathing more and more CO2 as fossil fuels are burned. i don't know why this is so hard to understand. people just don't care about what is beyond their own lifespan. the planet can only absorb so much CO2 on it's own. that is why the levels have been going up.


explain to me how you are going to die from this...

the air you breathe is mostly nitrogen (78%) some oxygen (about 21%) and very little co2 (less than 1/2%)

The very PLANTS that produce the OXYGEN that you need to breathe so so through the photosynthesising of co2.

if we remove the carbon dioxide from the air we will die, and an increase in cabon dioxide will hardly kill you. maybe make you a little light headed... at most, but hardly kill you.

methane and carbon MONOXIDE are the ones you have to worry about, and it is because of the density differences mostly and that they displace the life giving oxygen in enclosed areas and can lead to suffication.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join