Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change

page: 1
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+55 more 
posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The following 10 Facts and 10 Myths on climate change were written by By Prof. Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, Global Research.ca
(Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.)

rense.com...
The 10 FACTS:


1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warmingsince 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +15 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).


The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto was a "first step" then it was in the same wrong direction as the later "Bali roadmap".

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.



The 10 Myths:


Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Facts 7 The sun's output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.






posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Nice post Prof.
Starred and flagged, and thank you for the links, and excerpts.


Anyway, for some rason this concept that the climate. and even the environment of Earth has NEVER been "stable" is something some people cannot understand for some strange reason.

Should we be concerned about the environment? of course we should. But we should be at the middle of the road and not on the left side of the road wanting human beings to suffer because of some flawed idealism.

I probably spend less in electricity than most leftwingers. I have alternative sources of energy which I can charge simply by using something similar to a step machine. Around 40 minutes of a normal exercise will completely charge my batteries. I have had light, and enegy when there are blackouts and most people unfortunately have no power, and energy in my area.

I can't depend on solar power in my area because there are times when for days, and even weeks there is barely any sun, and like in my area the same happens in many parts in the world.

Am I going to be driving a small "hybrid car"? no... I live at the foot of a mountain, and a place where YOU NEED a 4X4 with a lot of power to be able to move through the area, and in winter we can have up to two feet of snow up here, so sorry to say that I will continue to use my gasoline truck....



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Cool opinion piece.


While there is evidence to support what Dr. Bob has to say there is also evidence to the contrary.

I think what the contradictory evidence clearly shows is the need to continue to work to clarify the issue of a human based component to climate change.

I think it is also good advice that:


1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.


I personally think that due to the fact that the jury is apparently out on the human link it only makes sense that we work to mitigate our potential impacts on the planets climate cycles.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
1) There has never been a carbon dioxide related warming for at least 10000 years, but that is because carbn dioxide has remained stable for that amount of time.
2) The recent increase in snow is caoused by la nina and the sun cycle
3) According to NASA there has been a sharp increase of CO2 after sthe industrial revolution. George Durkin who created the Global Warming Swindle has a bad habit of drawing his own graphs
4) Ethenoal acctually creates more carbon dioxide than gasoline
5) There is more ozone in the atmosphere than CO2
6) water vapor is more abundent than CO2 but CO2 blocks twice as many wave lenths
7) polititions like ethonal and so does big oil it is easy to support
8) You will not feel the full effect of global warming, only your children and grand children will
9) There is no other explanation for the sharp increase in CO2
10) New York city.. etc will be flooded after you die
11) Peak oil is a bigger problem
12) the US rejected kyoto because it is unfriendly to corporations
13) copehagen is friendly to corporations
14) only 2-3 out of 13 years of emails show a cospirncy. And 3 of those will be disporved of you read the replys

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mantisfan72]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Saying that the climate can change with out global warming is like saying dogs have fur, what bugs me is that polititions care nothing about reducing CO2. Copehagen is to make Obama look good and still get 'funded' bt Exxon.

Sorry for double posting

[edit on 10-12-2009 by mantisfan72]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Thank you for this thread - you get my very FIRST Star and Flag - good job. Now buckle your seatbelt because the Gore-ites are about to attack everything you posted - they will attack Dr. Carter's credentials, political leanings and associations. They will attack your intelligence, political correctness, and anything else then can feebly latch onto to be able to continue their quest to perpetuate this falsehood known as "Man Made Global Climate Change". Stand tall, take the high road, and continue to expose this fraud for what it is.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Read each others posts and try to disprove information before you dismiss it.

Gore is a expert at WORDPLAY and not at climate change!!

Durkin's movie is even worse it was so inaccurate that FRIS CHRISTIANSON COMPLAINED!!!



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Why is it whenever I read about some "Professor" debunking Global warming "myths" ...I google him and find out stuff like this?



Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia. He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181

Carter is a member of the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, was one of the founding members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, an organisation set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

en.wikipedia.org...

"adjunct research" professor...Geologist....the guys oil companies employ to find oil.

What is the IPA...the orginaztion he works for?


It is funded by .... ExxonMobil, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[2] Gunns Limited, Monsanto Company,[3] Murray Irrigation Limited,[4] and Visy Industries.

The IPA advocates right-wing economic policies

en.wikipedia.org...

So... he was the founding member of two organizations bankrolled by ExxonMobil, Western Mining, Monsanto and Phillip Morris...His focus was Geology...until he started getting checks from big oil and mining..now he describes himself as an envirornmental scientist.

Oh did you notice Phillip Morris too..."Professor" Carter has claimed that the science behind ciggerete smoke being bad for you is a BS as well.

Science for hire of the worst kind.

Not buying any propaganda today...thanks though.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TSZodiac
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

Now buckle your seatbelt because the Gore-ites are about to attack everything you posted - they will attack Dr. Carter's credentials, political leanings and associations.


Oh...I am sorry...I posted before I read your post...

My bad...from now on I will take any claims, evidence or purported credentials as gospel when discussing Global Warming.

I was confused for moment and actually researched before mindlessly accepting the data...my bad.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Yep there is no doubt Carter is just another crank in the employ of the big oil cartels.
He is not even a climate expert (like so many of the deniers).
He is a fraud who is pretty much ignored in Australia.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Enjoyed the read, nothing I didn't know but a good source of information for anyone who's looking.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yabby
Yep there is no doubt Carter is just another crank in the employ of the big oil cartels.
He is not even a climate expert (like so many of the deniers).
He is a fraud who is pretty much ignored in Australia.


Indeed I got a chuckle out of this information when I read it as well. Employeed by big oil, ignored in his homeland, pretty much told me what I needed to know. Our world is changing (as it always has and will) but mans negative impact on the planets enviroment is certainly greater then the positive. Our pollution, our planet, lets clean up our act.

We stand around bickering about who and how the fire started as the house crumbles to ashes. Lets just keep playing those violins as Rome burns.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Helmkat]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TSZodiac
 





They will attack your intelligence, political correctness, and anything else then can feebly latch onto to be able to continue their quest to perpetuate this falsehood known as "Man Made Global Climate Change". Stand tall, take the high road, and continue to expose this fraud for what it is.


Thank you for your post, and for contributing.
I don't worry about Gore or his clowns. Unlike Gore, I was an NSF Fellow in graduate school. I think that credential carries more weight than Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize for his inconvenient lies. Al's educational background includes a B.A. in government, and failed attempts to get a law degree and a divinity degree in graduate school. He never did succeed in getting a graduate degree, although as is always the case with him, he says on his resume that he ATTENDED Law school.

Al Gore has exaggerated and lied all of his life. His claim to be responsible for the Internet, and his claim that "Love Story" was written about Tipper and him are really laughable.

Here are more of Al's LIES:

www.probush.com...



FICTION: Al Gore recently claimed that his mother-in-law pays more than $100.00 for the arthritis medicine Lodine; and he claims that his dog takes the same medicine for $37.00, claiming "This is wrong!"
FACT: Gore's aides were quick to apologize for Gore's lie, saying the information was from a Democratic study. Washington newspapers also reported that Al Gore wasn't even sure his mother-in-law was taking any medication at all and wasn't even sure she had arthritis. And, he doesn't know anything about his dog's "arthritis".

FICTION: Al Gore said his father, a senator, was a champion of civil rights during the 1960's.
FACT: Gore's father voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was a racist who was fond of using the "N----" word.

FICTION: Al Gore said that his sister was the very first person to join the Peace Corps.
FACT: By the time Gore's sister joined the Peace Corps, there were already over 100 members.

FICTION: The same sister died of lung cancer years later and Gore vowed to never accept tobacco money as campaign contributions.
FACT: Just four years later, while campaigning for office, Gore spoke to the tobacco industry and said he was one of them because "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." He raised over $100,000 in "reported" Big Tobacco contributions.

FICTION: While running for office, Gore's campaign literature claimed he was a "Brilliant Student".
FACT: Washington newspapers said he barely passed Harvard and consistently earned D's and C's.

FICTION: Gore claims an extensive knowledge of law as a result of his extensive study at law school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of law school.

FICTION: Gore claimed that his knowledge of God and spirituality came to complete fruition while "finishing" divinity school.
FACT: Al Gore dropped out of divinity school.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed responsibility for inventing the Internet in the 1990's.
FACT: Shocked scientists were quick to speak out, explaining that the Internet had been in widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?"

FICTION: Gore claimed that as a reporter for a Nashville newspaper, his stories led to the arrests of numerous corrupt criminals.
FACT: He later apologized for his claim and actually said it was untrue (Also known as lying).

FICTION: Gore claims to increase diversity in the staff that follows him daily, especially among blacks.
FACT: Black members of the Secret Service are suing because they claim they are not being promoted to positions guarding theVice-President.

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was even aware of it.

FICTION: Gore said just recently that if elected president, he would put harsh sanctions on the sleazy producers of Hollywood's extreme sex and violence.
FACT: Just six days later, Gore attended a fundraiser by Hollywood producers and radical gay activists where he told them that he would only pretend to "nudge them" if elected. He raised over $4 million in campaign contributions.

FICTION: Al Gore said he built his Tennessee home with his bare hands.
FACT: Totally untrue!

FICTION: Al Gore says parents should not have a choice between private and public schools because public schools are far better.
TRUTH: Al Gore attended private school and he has sent his children to private schools.

FICTION: Al Gore remembers his mother lulling him to sleep as a baby by singing the popular ditty, "Wear The Union Label".
FACT: The popular ditty was created by the unions when Gore was 27 years old.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed to co-sponsor the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.
FACT: The Act was not sponsored until he had been out of office for over a year.

FICTION: Al Gore claims to be instrumental in keeping gas prices low.
FACT: Gore has voted on numerous occasions to raise the tax on gasoline. In his book "Earth In The Balance" Gore claims that the nation's Number One enemy is the internal combustion engine. (That's the motor in your vehicle that gets you to work and takes your kids to school.)

FICTION: Gore pretends to champion the rights of poor women to be tested regularly for breast cancer with the most modern technology.
FACT: While giving a speech on the subject in September, Gore didn't know what a mammogram was.

FICTION: AL Gore promised Florida's senior citizens that they would finally have low-cost drugs with no interference from government.
FACT: Gore's plan calls for the creation of a huge federal agency that would tell you which doctor you are allowed to see in order to get the "special rates".

FACT: Al Gore told NBC's Lisa Meyers that he had never told a lie. When Meyers pressed harder, "You've never told a lie?!" Gore said, "Not that I know of." (DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?)




He is truly an astounding liar. The fact that the Nobel Prize committee awarded him the Peace Prize shows how ignorant they are.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Why is it whenever I read about some "Professor" debunking Global warming "myths" ...I google him and find out stuff like this?



Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia. He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181

Carter is a member of the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, was one of the founding members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, an organisation set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

en.wikipedia.org...

"adjunct research" professor...Geologist....the guys oil companies employ to find oil.

What is the IPA...the orginaztion he works for?


It is funded by .... ExxonMobil, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[2] Gunns Limited, Monsanto Company,[3] Murray Irrigation Limited,[4] and Visy Industries.

The IPA advocates right-wing economic policies

en.wikipedia.org...

So... he was the founding member of two organizations bankrolled by ExxonMobil, Western Mining, Monsanto and Phillip Morris...His focus was Geology...until he started getting checks from big oil and mining..now he describes himself as an envirornmental scientist.

Oh did you notice Phillip Morris too..."Professor" Carter has claimed that the science behind ciggerete smoke being bad for you is a BS as well.

Science for hire of the worst kind.

Not buying any propaganda today...thanks though.


Good research maybereal11


Quite obviously, you've done more research on this thread than the OP.

I think it's a good thing that the OP is a Professor Emeritus - out of the academic mainstream, and away from students. Right where fringe AGW deniers should be.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


So if you were a national science fellow as a grad student how do you now justify posting 'opinion' as 'fact'?

for example your first post and the claims that it made were backed up by what? looking into it i would say nothing. does this type of information seem legitimate to you?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 





"adjunct research" professor.

Ah, you mean like B. Obama, who was only an adjunct professor?
BTW, I was a fully tenured professor.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
You don't have to support Al Gore or AGW to use common sense...

We sit here and talk about how man contributes to global warming, but nobody here seems to remember our past? Hmmm... I guess the ice ages were just a fluke the MULTIPLE times they occurred, or the eruptions of single volcanoes that lowered the earth's overall temperature for months and years at a time don't count here...

Do the math and you'll see that even at our worst, we couldn't possibly emit the amount of gasses that these NATURAL events do and have never even come close, yet the earth always seems to recover just fine, with or without our help. Even if we were to warm the earth another 10+ degrees, one big enough volcano will simply erase that and most of us with it.

I just have to say... anyone here with an ounce of intelligence knows that our movement around the sun is not perfect, even though it is cyclical, and that the movement of our solar system is not perfect, even though it too is on a cycle... even a Wil-E-Coyote genius can figure out that those two variables alone would attribute to countless different variations and changes in the energy that reaches the earth. Why isn't that being considered in the global warming figures? Because that would be real science....

If you JUST look at sun-spot cycles, you'll see that the past two years have been almost 80% sun-spot free, and it is those sun-spots that eject heat and energized particles towards the earth to interact with our atmosphere and warm/react with the different layers of it, which ultimately has a directly correlation to our weather and climate. It just so happens that in 2004-2005, we had very strong sunspot activity, some of the highest since we started keeping record. That same year, we had the most hurricanes on record, the worst heat waves on record and one of the worst earthquakes on record. It all just happened to be during the peak of the solar maximum. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not... but these past two years have had almost no sun-spots or major flares and temperatures have been lower, there have been average or less than average number of hurricanes and we are not seeing the same melting of sea ice as in the past few years... and it just so happens that now we are in the solar minimum (but moving back towards another max).

In ancient times, the SUN was revered as a deity, god-like, because without it, there is no life on this planet. It was worshiped and respected and people of those times did everything they could to understand it. The same goes for the other planets in our solar system because ultimately, even if it seems insignificant, they also have an impact on us. The sooner we start understanding how all of those things, which are far bigger than humans, have an effect on this planet and every creature on it, the better off we will be.

Some reading material (slightly dated):

www.newscientist.com...

motls.blogspot.com... ature.html

www.unisci.com...

To think that we as humans have the ability to kill an entire planet and every thing on it says a lot about how supreme we think we are and how big our egos really are. Our creator would be ashamed. To the OPer, S&F for you my friend for bringing some fact to the table.

- Namaste


[edit on 10-12-2009 by SonOfTheLawOfOne]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 





I think it's a good thing that the OP is a Professor Emeritus - out of the academic mainstream, and away from students. Right where fringe AGW deniers should be.

I see. When you can't scientifically PROVE or DISPROVE something, you resort to name-calling. How utterly intelligent of you, and your GW friends.
I won't bother to respond to name-calling or personal attacks on this or any other thread. Since you obviously can't discuss the SCIENCE of it, your contributions to this thread are nil.
Have a nice life.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Al Gore has exaggerated and lied all of his life. His claim to be responsible for the Internet, and his claim that "Love Story" was written about Tipper and him are really laughable.



I'm really starting to wonder where you received your alleged academic titles from "professor".

Your above attack on Gore is one of the easiest to verify as myth. A four year old could have found the information in minutes that clearly refute your above claim.

The more I read of your poorly-researched claptrap, the harder I find it to associate academic integrity with your moniker.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mantisfan72

1) There has never been a carbon dioxide related warming for at least 10000 years, but that is because carbn dioxide has remained stable for that amount of time.

Probably true, but 10000 years is an arbitrary timeframe. There have been much greater carbon dioxide levels during the period when life existed on the Earth. See www.grida.no...


2) The recent increase in snow is caoused by la nina and the sun cycle

Relevance? I thought the problem was the temperature. Apparently the ocean temperature has much more to do with carbon dioxide levels, and is not overly affected by those carbon dioxide levels, according to this observation.


3) According to NASA there has been a sharp increase of CO2 after sthe industrial revolution. George Durkin who created the Global Warming Swindle has a bad habit of drawing his own graphs

Define 'sharp'? 100 ppmv atmospheric volume increase over what? 60 years?


4) Ethenoal acctually creates more carbon dioxide than gasoline

Possibly. Relevance? How then will ethanol help us? Would fossil fuels not be more eco-friendly?


5) There is more ozone in the atmosphere than CO2

Ozone is primarily located at the upper edges of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is primarily located at the lower levels of the atmosphere. Ozone absorbs UV radiation, while carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation.


6) water vapor is more abundent than CO2 but CO2 blocks twice as many wave lenths

WRONG! Absolutely, unconditionally, absolutely WRONG.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.
Source: nov55.com...


7) polititions like ethonal and so does big oil it is easy to support

Subjective analysis.


8) You will not feel the full effect of global warming, only your children and grand children will

Fear-mongering. Please present evidence.


9) There is no other explanation for the sharp increase in CO2

Irrelevant. Please prove what this increase does. CO2 is not poisonous anywhere near present (or predicted) levels.


10) New York city.. etc will be flooded after you die

Fear-mongering. Please present evidence.


11) Peak oil is a bigger problem

Not if the theory of abiotic oil is accurate. It does have some scientific support.


12) the US rejected kyoto because it is unfriendly to corporations

The US rejected Kyoto for multiple reasons. We need those things the corporations produce, yes. It is also silly to specifically exclude the two fastest-growing producers of carbon dioxide on the planet.


13) copehagen is friendly to corporations

Copenhagen's treaty as far as corporations go is about the same. Similar restrictions on carbon dioxide in both.


14) only 2-3 out of 13 years of emails show a cospirncy. And 3 of those will be disporved of you read the replys

Wrong. An explanation is not necessarily proof. I do not toss out accusations without evidence to do so.

TheRedneck


[edit on 12/10/2009 by TheRedneck]

[edit on 12/10/2009 by TheRedneck]





new topics

top topics



 
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join