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.

 

STUDY: Atmospheric CO2 HAS NOT Risen in 160 Years

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 




Originally posted audas
This has not occurred yet - and this makes sense as it would not be a gradual process - rather a sudden shut down - which is very worrying as it makes the process that much more dramatic.


Well considering this has not occurred yet, and their has been no evidence that it has ever occurred then perhaps the evidence suggests it never will occur.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by kennyb72]




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
Whatever - venus has one of the densest carbon atmospheres - this in turn causes massive global warming on the planet through increased trapped heat from the sun and blah bla bla blah blah case closed.

Pardon, but do you not see any other glaring fact staring you in the face?

That Venus is only 67 million miles from the Sun.

The Sun.

Closer to the sun = hotter climate.
Farther away from the Sun = cooler climate.

Venus (close to Sun) is very hot. Earth (farther away from Sun) is comfortably warm. Mars (still farther away from the Sun) is cold as hell. And Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, too.

I'm not seeing any proof from the MMGW quarter that CO2 content has significantly warmed a planet beyond what it should be anyway. From whence do these scientists draw their information? Oh, CO2 has caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.

Is that bad? No, it's a natural condition on Venus.

What if proximity to the Sun causes carbon outgassing? That is to say, as a planet warms up from the Sun, the planet's atmospheric carbon levels climb. Is there any evidence of this?

As a matter of fact, yes there is.

Miners in America's Rocky Mountains have known for decades that CO (carbon monoxide) levels flucutuate way down there in the mines. The reason is unknown. But one thing they do know is that when there is a hurricane in the Atlantic, the CO levels down in the mines climb. Very predictably.

Nobody knows why. But I have an idea.

Hurricane activity is a direct indicator of planetary warming and cooling. When the planet is very warm, we have more hurricanes. Hurricanes are dynamic heat-sinks that gather ocean heat and conduct it into the upper atmosphere.

The MMGW fans think more atmospheric carbon = more heat = more hurricanes.

They think.

But what if the solar heating of the earth produces carbon outgassing from the planet's interior? Thus accounting for the rise in CO down in the mines during hurricane season.

NOT that atmospheric carbon causes a build-up of planetary heat but that a build-up of planetary heat causes carbon outgassing.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.



This raises a flag for me. The official explanation on why some studies show temperature isnt increasing around the globe is apparently because land temperature is lowering while ocean temperature is growing at a higher rate in comparison. This is why they say the earth is warming.
So if oceans are taking in less co2 then why are they warming at a faster rate than before?
I keep saying it. There is an unidentified factor in climate change that no one understands. It is this unidentified factor that would explain the co2 temperature lag on record.
I hope this makes sense i've drank a lot of whiskey.
Happy 2010.


[edit on 1-1-2010 by heyo]

[edit on 1-1-2010 by heyo]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by audas
Whatever - venus has one of the densest carbon atmospheres - this in turn causes massive global warming on the planet through increased trapped heat from the sun and blah bla bla blah blah case closed.

Pardon, but do you not see any other glaring fact staring you in the face?

That Venus is only 67 million miles from the Sun.

The Sun.

Closer to the sun = hotter climate.
Farther away from the Sun = cooler climate.

Venus (close to Sun) is very hot. Earth (farther away from Sun) is comfortably warm. Mars (still farther away from the Sun) is cold as hell. And Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, too.

I'm not seeing any proof from the MMGW quarter that CO2 content has significantly warmed a planet beyond what it should be anyway. From whence do these scientists draw their information? Oh, CO2 has caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.

Is that bad? No, it's a natural condition on Venus.

What if proximity to the Sun causes carbon outgassing? That is to say, as a planet warms up from the Sun, the planet's atmospheric carbon levels climb. Is there any evidence of this?

As a matter of fact, yes there is.

Miners in America's Rocky Mountains have known for decades that CO (carbon monoxide) levels flucutuate way down there in the mines. The reason is unknown. But one thing they do know is that when there is a hurricane in the Atlantic, the CO levels down in the mines climb. Very predictably.

Nobody knows why. But I have an idea.

Hurricane activity is a direct indicator of planetary warming and cooling. When the planet is very warm, we have more hurricanes. Hurricanes are dynamic heat-sinks that gather ocean heat and conduct it into the upper atmosphere.

The MMGW fans think more atmospheric carbon = more heat = more hurricanes.

They think.

But what if the solar heating of the earth produces carbon outgassing from the planet's interior? Thus accounting for the rise in CO down in the mines during hurricane season.

NOT that atmospheric carbon causes a build-up of planetary heat but that a build-up of planetary heat causes carbon outgassing.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]


Moron - how can you possibly be so moronic ?

Venus further away from sun then mercury - venus hotter - stupid, stupid, stupid post.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by audas
 




Originally posted audas
This has not occurred yet - and this makes sense as it would not be a gradual process - rather a sudden shut down - which is very worrying as it makes the process that much more dramatic.


Well considering this has not occurred yet, and their has been no evidence that it has ever occurred then perhaps the evidence suggests in never will occur.


No the evidence suggests that over 150 years there may not be as much as evidenced in different studies which have pointed to a fractional change over shorter - more specific time frames - do you bother to read to find out the truth or merely to acquire unsubstantiated arguments to prop up your preconceived world view ?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 



ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009)
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.


Well, considering this study contradicts an important element of computer models that predict global warming, then anything these models predict will be flawed.


You don't have a clue about modelling do you - lets be honest here - you have no idea what so ever - again however you have en emotional preconception of the world which you seek to reinforce with conforming arguments devoid of factual integrity - thats known as fantasy.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Here is another article that says the same thing, but in different terms. It also makes it more clear that what is being said is that the earth's ability to absorb CO2 is much greater than originally thought. It seems that most prediction models assume that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 will decrease as the volume of CO2 goes up. This apparently is not the case, according to this new research:

Controversial New Climate Change Data

What seems most clear from the research is that the earth has mechanisms for dealing with CO2 that are not well understood by science, and since policies are being proposed that are based on this erroneous understanding, it would be best of more research is done and greater understanding is gained before making changes that will have vast sweeping effects throughout the world.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
Moron - how can you possibly be so moronic ? Venus further away from sun then mercury - venus hotter - stupid, stupid, stupid post.

I love these little MMGW goons scurrying around, sniffing each other's butts, sniffing my butt, and barking incessantly.

Mercury has no atmosphere, dummy.

So, as carbon-outgassing planets go, we begin at Venus. Mercury does not seem to have a climate nor a carbon problem.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Here is another article that says the same thing, but in different terms. It also makes it more clear that what is being said is that the earth's ability to absorb CO2 is much greater than originally thought. It seems that most prediction models assume that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 will decrease as the volume of CO2 goes up. This apparently is not the case, according to this new research:

Controversial New Climate Change Data

What seems most clear from the research is that the earth has mechanisms for dealing with CO2 that are not well understood by science, and since policies are being proposed that are based on this erroneous understanding, it would be best of more research is done and greater understanding is gained before making changes that will have vast sweeping effects throughout the world.


Oh yeah right - ummmm - what a load of garbage - there are no doubts about what is happening, there are no uncertainties there are no debates - WE KNOW exactly how much the carbon is entering the atmosphere and what that is doing - no doubts about it.

The facts stand very, very clear - we know.

All of our assumptions, approaches, assesments on what we are planning to do are based on the absolute minimum - BEST CASE scenario. The fact of the matter is that any science which is not 100% settled and settled for twelve months is not included in the arguments at political level - thence the original DEBATES regarding the first UN reports.

The reality is that NO POSITIVE feedback mechanisms are being considered by the global agenda at Copenhagen.

You can BELIEVE the bull crap from the global energy giants all you want - buts its bull - the science is well and truly settled - its not that hard - and the fact that there was so much ridiculous marketing by corporate shills to foster doubt and debate simply means that the science is now more settled and concrete than ever.

The fact of the matter is that we are all screwed - completely stuffed - and your're grand children are going to live an apocalyptic nightmare because you feel that it is too costly to avoid ?

The effects of global warming are well and truly upon us - the transitional effects of natural cycles of the planets temperature fluctuation take around 30,000 - 100,000 years to occur, our actions are causing change to occur in less than a hundred years. Our current cycle is at a peak warm period - even during the previous hot periods we have not seen polar and glacial ice loss to the extent we are now seeing - it is not a myth when it is happening right in front of your eyes.

The ability for plants and animals to adapt to climate fluctuations of even a fraction of a degree take thousands of years - (unless your a creationist and the God just whips up new species on the spot) - in other words a one degree shift can kill our entire wheat and corn growing regions on earth - the plants will not have a chance to adapt - we die.

Species all over the planet will be wiped out - so even if a a species occurs naturally in a hot climate - it is not adapted to any other eco-system even if the temperatures there are suitable - moreover humanity can not simply play global gardener and redistribute the global ecology - in short we are all going to die through starvation. Not a maybe - not a possibility - thats whats going to happen.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by audas
Moron - how can you possibly be so moronic ? Venus further away from sun then mercury - venus hotter - stupid, stupid, stupid post.

I love these little MMGW goons scurrying around, sniffing each other's butts, sniffing my butt, and barking incessantly.

Mercury has no atmosphere, dummy.

So, as carbon-outgassing planets go, we begin at Venus. Mercury does not seem to have a climate nor a carbon problem.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 1/1/2010 by Doc Velocity]


One more time for the mentally challenged - why, oh why, oh why is mercury hotter when it is further AWAY from the sun ?

Well our OBVIOUSLY retarded friend here (as evidenced by his own avatar is) has kindly pointed out to us that mercury does NOT have a an atmosphere (actually it does but it is so negligible that it is not worth mentioning) hence Venus is hotter BECAUSE OF ITS CARBON ATMOSPHERE - thats just sensationally stupid of the highest order.
Ok - so one more time for those that are clearly mentally impaired - that avatar again - Venus is HOTTER THAN MERCURY (which is closer to the sun) because of the GREEN HOUSE EFFECT - ok - thats it - its atmosphere is over 90% carbon - it traps the heat and causes the temperature to rise - Mercury which is CLOSER to the sun is cooler because it has no atmosphere to trap the heat.

That has to be the STUPIDEST post I have ever, ever, ever seen on any web site anywhere on the internet - thats DUMBER than Buffalo wings. Incredibly stupid - Doc Velocity = Jessica Simpson - check out 2:52 in the video below and you can all have a good look at Doc Velocity in REAL LIFE.




Hang on waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit here is another one of the DOC - this time thinking that there was chicken in the sea - thats why its probably still absorbing carbon.






[edit on 1-1-2010 by audas]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
The article first quoted stated that "about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere." That sounds like it is growing especially with other articles stating as such underneath the first in the links provided. I'm all in favor of making the planet cooler and reducing the acidity of the oceans. I'm in disagreement over the method the politicians here in the US and elsewhere want to implement. I believe many are unclear since I am as well, what effect decreased solar radiation has on the climate. We are going to be entering a period of decreased solar radiation. I don't want to spend thousands extra on energy costs only to find out a few years later that decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Of course if the oceans reach a limit and suddenly absorb a lot less carbon dioxide, we should find out pretty quickly what happens when greenhouse gas levels double. A profitable method to remove carbon dioxide and use it might take care of the problem if there is such a method. I believe iron ore powder in the oceans might remove a lot of carbon. I think this whole issue has been too political for years. When scientists disagree, the public won't be too interested in spending a lot of money in fixing something. The exciting thing is, we should all know within the next 20 years if decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the greenhouse gas level.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
The article first quoted stated that "about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere." That sounds like it is growing especially with other articles stating as such underneath the first in the links provided. I'm all in favor of making the planet cooler and reducing the acidity of the oceans. I'm in disagreement over the method the politicians here in the US and elsewhere want to implement. I believe many are unclear since I am as well, what effect decreased solar radiation has on the climate. We are going to be entering a period of decreased solar radiation. I don't want to spend thousands extra on energy costs only to find out a few years later that decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Of course if the oceans reach a limit and suddenly absorb a lot less carbon dioxide, we should find out pretty quickly what happens when greenhouse gas levels double. A profitable method to remove carbon dioxide and use it might take care of the problem if there is such a method. I believe iron ore powder in the oceans might remove a lot of carbon. I think this whole issue has been too political for years. When scientists disagree, the public won't be too interested in spending a lot of money in fixing something. The exciting thing is, we should all know within the next 20 years if decreased solar radiation was a bigger factor than the greenhouse gas level.


Scientists do not disagree - there is no disagreement about global warming - the ONLY debate is exactly how bad it will be (starting off with very bad) and exactly what the effects will be (methane hydrates decompressing and oxidizing is a bad one - would create fire storms which would reach half way across the united states and scorch the entire country - no snitztel) .

The only opposition to the facts has come from people who have either been misquoted, taken out of context or are using inadequate data, erroneous data or not considering all the facts. Again - there is not a single counter argument to the facts of AGW which has any evidence, studies or even scientists to back it up - not one.

I have had a long standing challenge for any one to present evidence to the contrary of AGW with studies and evidence to back it up and this has never ever ever been met - not once.

As to your theories we will have to do something if we wish to survive - there is no doubt that the point for limiting Co2 output and impact has well and truly passed - we are now moving to a phase of dealing with the consequences rather than preventing them.

There is no way of capturing the carbon from the atmosphere in any reasonable manner.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

I'm not seeing any proof from the MMGW quarter that CO2 content has significantly warmed a planet beyond what it should be anyway. From whence do these scientists draw their information? Oh, CO2 has caused a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.


Really, Fourier knew Venus had a dense CO2 atmosphere in 1824?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I've read there is consensus that there has been global warming going on for some time. A did a quick internet search and I found this article called "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
www.rightsidenews.com... ml

With articles like these out there, the average Joe isn't going to want to spend thousands of dollars extra in energy costs just to suit the demands of those who say we are all going to burn up. When you look at personal experiences, it's just about as cold in my backyard as it normally is this time of year. The average Joe might think predicting global warming is like predicting the weather, they are often wrong. I'm not aware of any studies relating to solar radiation output of the sun to temperatures here on the Earth so I'll stop speculating for the moment how a drop in radiation output could correspond to a drop in temperatures here. I'm not an expert on this so I will not be quoting any studies one way or the other.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
WOW!

One proponent of the Global Warming actually looks into the article. Star for you sir.

The others, let us use our fallacies people.

Would you like me to quote one of your comments and point out all of your fallacy techniques.

Either talk about the OP or just quit posting you fallacious drivel.

Debate and discussion, something totally alien to people with an agenda.

OP, just another nail. S&F



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Yea....I don't really see it.

It is talking about the fraction that stays in our atmosphere. If we exhert more CO2, that fraction = a larget amt. of CO2. Isn't it as simple as that?

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


If you were to actually read the studies, and not what you want to infer they mean from an article linkyou would understand that Knorr actually states that C02 is effecting climate change but that it is currently limited by sinks.


Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.

Knorr states the importance that the sinks have in preventing ADDITIONAL climate change from occurring whilst pointing out the IMPORTANCE that these sinks are possibly failing.
40% of emission remain in the atmosphere.
40% of anthropogenic emissions.
That 40% that was emitted by us was not previously there.
We have increased C02 by our emission per year.
40% of which stays in the atmosphere. So while our emissions are increasing the percentage of those emissions that remain in the atmosphere is relatively constant.


The importance of these studies by Knorr et al, I loath to say, will be reflected on by referring to them when the sinks fail and we see C02 percentages of emission that remain in the atmosphere begin to rise, and rise rapidly.
www.newscientist.com...

This is from Bristol Uni. Same place that the Knorr is from(the source in your linked article.)
www.bris.ac.uk...


Bristol University researchers Pru Foster, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jo House and Colin Prentice from the University’s QUEST programme, together with a world-wide team of experts report that over the past 50 years the average fraction of global CO2 emissions that remained in the atmosphere each year was around 43% - the rest was absorbed by the Earth’s carbon sinks on land and in the oceans.

Dr Jo House adds: “During this time this fraction has likely increased from 40% to 45% suggesting a decrease in the efficiency of the natural sinks. The team brings new evidence that the sinks are responding to climate change and variability”.

The scientists report a 29% increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and that in spite of the global economic downturn emissions increased by 2% during 2008.


These guys seem to think the fraction is moving, and not in a good direction. They released their paper just after Knorr.

They both agree on this though.


Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions.


So anyone that thinks this is a Nail in the Coffin of AGW, should stop banging their splinters of denial with they're heads. You are only banging them against the wall of reality.








[edit on 1/1/10 by atlasastro]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



orignal post by audas
No the evidence suggests that over 150 years there may not be as much as evidenced in different studies which have pointed to a fractional change over shorter - more specific time frames


The report states quite clearly

"trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero".

The University of Bristol press release



New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.


I had to read what you said several times to actually understand what you where saying. After some analysis I think you are saying that you have evidence of another report that somehow falls outside of the time frame between 1850 and the present date.

If this is correct are you saying that this report is inaccurate?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by audas
 



orignal post by audas
No the evidence suggests that over 150 years there may not be as much as evidenced in different studies which have pointed to a fractional change over shorter - more specific time frames


The report states quite clearly

"trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero".

The University of Bristol press release



New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.


I had to read what you said several times to actually understand what you where saying. After some analysis I think you are saying that you have evidence of another report that somehow falls outside of the time frame between 1850 and the present date.

If this is correct are you saying that this report is inaccurate?



See the post above - read the article and do one second of research.
IN so doing you till understand.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
I've read there is consensus that there has been global warming going on for some time. A did a quick internet search and I found this article called "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
www.rightsidenews.com... ml

With articles like these out there, the average Joe isn't going to want to spend thousands of dollars extra in energy costs just to suit the demands of those who say we are all going to burn up. When you look at personal experiences, it's just about as cold in my backyard as it normally is this time of year. The average Joe might think predicting global warming is like predicting the weather, they are often wrong. I'm not aware of any studies relating to solar radiation output of the sun to temperatures here on the Earth so I'll stop speculating for the moment how a drop in radiation output could correspond to a drop in temperatures here. I'm not an expert on this so I will not be quoting any studies one way or the other.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by orionthehunter]


There is a very, VERY strong and well funded campaign to spread "DOUBT" about global warming. This is very well documented - Inhofe has been at teh spear head on this for many years. There is an EXCELLENT book called the Republican War on Science which explains this process very well.

The energy companies started many "grass roots" organisations set up to promote the idea that the science is not settled and there is still doubt - where there is no doubt. This process is exactly the same tactic used by Big Tobacco to promote doubts about the link between smoking and cancer - (they even employed the same marketing companies). No one can ever know for sure that it was smoking that causes cancer - how many millions of people had to die for that myth to be allowed to continue until someone finally said enough of the lies.

The list of people Inhofe has raised - in fact almost all the scientists he quotes have no idea about Environmental and Atmospheric science - in fact there are TV actors an weather men on the list - ridiculous.

www.thedailygreen.com...

Secondly the Japanese scientist who doubt the science are not specialists in the field - they are Earth scientists - Geologists. Which is often the case - Physicists and Geologists are often teh ones who have the most difficulty comprehending the issues as they always tend to see things in Millennium - which is fair enough.

The fact of the matter is that the earth does and always has fluctuated naturally - thats what Ice Ages are - we all know this and they are not pointing out some fantastic GOTCHA that no one has considered. The point which they - and so many others fail to consider is that these fluctuations take place over thousands of years and allow the environment to adapt - the current phase is incredibly fast and nothing will be able to adapt. The point is that such a radical, explosive shift can not be attributed to Solar activity, cyclical patterns or even solar orbit fluctuations.

However the idea has been given due thought and a significant effort has been put into the idea of solar activity being the cause - however it has become abundantly clear after many studies that this simply is not the case.

Rational thought - logic - would point to this not being the case - and science has confirmed it. There are still however some scientists who think just because they are scientists they understand all science - I never want a biologist building me a plane.

Senator Inhofes list is about as relevant as the SCAM email that went around 10 years ago with 30,000 dissenters on it - it was crap.

Just look at he arguments - there are literally thousands of studies confirming AGW - and nothing - nothing at all to disprove it.

There are several books out which proclaim to have evidence from scientists who dissent - however a very quick search will show that these same scientists have prepeatedly declared they have been taken out of context, misquoted or simply revoke what they have said - and in some cases never said it. Many have taken legal action.

From these types of publications come other publications, web blogs, web sites, videos which all link to these bad text and repeat the lies ad infinitum - the same fallacies over and over and over.

The worst of these was the great global warming swindle which brought channel 4 up for a license review for even airing the show it was so obviously full of lies and propaganda - almost all the scientists involved have distanced themselves from what amounted to the biggest lie of them all - that however doesn't matter as the damage is done. Stupid, stupid people continue to believe what is in effect the most evil, dangerous marketing campaign in the history of the planet - for profit. It is quite grotesque.

Senator Inhoffe - while he says there is no such thing as Global Warming - also says that it is Gods Way of punishing us. There are some people you should not listen to - no matter what they say. He is DEFINITELY one of them.

The situation is simple - if there was anything, any study and evidence anything at all which disproved AGW then the science would be settled in the opposite direction - however there is none. Nothing.

Further Inhoffe may have a list of a couple of hundred celebrities who aren't sure of things - however there are literally thousands upon thousands of specialists in the very area of concern who are all absolutely unanimous - there is no possible conspiracy - it is like saying that people drinking coffee are all conspiring against tea drinkers - it is just an insane, insane hypothesis of the most ludicrous kind.

The opposite however - that there is a concerted effort by corporate oil men to sow the seeds of doubt to delay the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels - well there is something that is highly plausible - and is in fact exactly what is happening.

I find it beautifully ironic that this website - set up to uncover the conspiracies is infested with people who have actually fallen FOR the conspiracy - it is just insane.

Here is some analysis of Inhoffes scientists who dont believe -

www.achikule.com...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join