New Scientific Report Destroys Global Warming!

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by rwfresh


Ohh. Ok. All scientific bodies state "humans caused global warming". Wow. Sorry i thought you were here for a real discussion. And no. NONE of them state that. Re-read my statements. You will find ZERO scientific organizations that state "humans caused global warming". What they do PROPOSE is humans have created an environment that "tipped the scale" of CO2 conditions in the atmosphere that "contributes" to global warming. Read friend. Read.

Here is a scientifically accurate statement of what scientists actually believe:

www.agu.org...

In a nutshell, humans are causing the global warming which is being observed now.

The "tipped the scale" is referring to equilibrium---natural greenhouse effect of course raises temperature above what an atmosphere-less Earth would be, but that is not the issue.

Note that human cause of global warming does not invalidate natural causes of global warming in geologically ancient times, however similar natural causes today would also result in clear experimental observations and mechanisms which are not observe today.

edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

So what is the ratio of Natural to Man made CO2 right now? Thanks.

reply to post by mbkennel


Tipped the scale as applied to global warming is what we did. We accelerated it by a thousand years and we will pay for it. All we have to do is tip the scale back by replanting forests quickly and leave them grow. What should have happened already is we should have triggered the beginning of an ice age but it didn't happen. Something is terribly wrong.

Tipping the scale only takes two to three percent compounded increase in CO2 emmissions over 40 or so years along with deforestation increases. These two can easily be corrected but we will have some wild weather for a while. Extra energy in the atmosphere relates to more severe storms.

The line of thought on this topic reminds me of another similar global media brain burning bonfire fear-for-all. The spin.
Remember CFC's causing that nasty ozone hole in the ionosphere over the North pole? Now, whether CFC's, aka R-12 (AC refrigerant) really did cause depletion of ozone doesn't matter. It's not important.
It seems that CFC's were made illegal about the same time that the patent on R-12 held by Dow chemical ended.
And who do you suppose holds the patent for R-12's replacement? Dow chemical of course. The new (R-13), is supposedly worse for the environment than the old stuff.
On the other hand, I heard a spokesperson say that HAARP is just an atmospheric HEATER! So maybe someone should tell them turn it down to simmer...
We all should remember one thing. They- (TPTB) ALWAYS use Divide And Conquer on us, because we are too many.But with our differences, like spokes on a wheel,from opposing directions, we reach for hubs of truth, making us the stronger ONE!
Just a thought.

I remember when i was young way back in the 70s they were saying that oil would run out by the year 2000, and we would be having an ice age becouse the world was getting cooler very fast. Now there children are ranting on about the world getting hotter. One point many seem not to understand, who is making money from all this ?
Well surprise, its the oil firms and the goverments. They are the ones making massive amounts of money and that money is coming from people who dont have it, the greens are in effect the people who are harming the world.
I belive that the people behind this world warming are the people making money, and to be sure there followers keep working hard it has been made into a religion, which means that anyone who does not belive must be driven out.
People want to know the truth as long as its the truth they know already.

reply to post by rwfresh


If the amount of C02 in the atmosphere was a road a1000 miles long, man is responsible for about the first 6 inches.

In other words we dont even contribute, when compared to say, a single volcanic eruption, which spews more in 1 single eruption than man in his entire existance. multiplied by multiple active volcanoes simultaniously erupting every day year round.

So the whole C02 arguement is tired, quite pathetic, and getting retarded at this point.

I will still stand with,
NASA
National Geographic
Scientific American
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
American Statistical Association
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society[41]
American Institute of Physics[42]
American Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
And every scientific organization of national and international reputation. All the above organizations have issued statements that humans have significantly contributed to global warming. NASA part of the conspiracy? American Meteorological Society part of the conspiracy? To believe that EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and international reputation is part of a conspiracy is loony!!

“Ohh. Ok. All scientific bodies state "humans caused global warming". Wow. Sorry i thought you were here for a real discussion. And no. NONE of them state that”
rwfresh
Go here en.wikipedia.org... and here www.ucsusa.org... for their actual statements.
I gave those sites as evidence for my position. Obviously, you do not read posts before responding to them with emotion and no logic or evidence. I’m here for a real discussion. Obviously, you are not.

Great OP! It proved that global warming is real and humans have significantly contributed to it!! I love it when a scientifically illiterate person proves himself wrong!

rwfresh
Considering that you know more about science then the entire world’s scientific community you must be an extraterrestrial! Do you wish to be called “ZOLTON” or the full “ZOLTON THE MAGNIFICENT”? Actually, I think your tin foil hat needs adjusting!

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“Show me the amount of CO2 generated by humans last year compared to natural CO2 generated last year. Good luck.”
Rwfresh
co2now.org...
Good grief! Do I have to teach logic 101 again?!
Even tho your statement is www.merriam-webster.com... (many fox “news”enthusiasts do not know what contentious means) , lets suppose that what you imply is correct , that comparing human influence on the environment to natural effects will show that the sun and earth have a greater influence on earth then man. DUH!
SO WHAT! If you have a leak in your gas tank , speeding up ( a human willed event) will still be a stupid thing to do!
I’m sure you will argue that ultimately, the sun is to blame and not humans. DUH!! That is like saying that if the thermostat is on high, that is the ultimate reason for the room being hot (greenhouse) and opening a window will do no good. DUH! Obviously, only a fool would not open a window if the thermostat was stuck.

Good grief! You really don't read posts!!!
“So what is the ratio of Natural to Man made CO2 right now? Thanks.”
rwfresh
The letters in yellow are a site. You will have to actually read it to find the info you asked for.



Also, your question shows a complete lack of logic. It is totally unrelated to the question , “ have humans made a significant contribution to global warming”? Suppose my thermostat is at a comfortable setting of 80 degrees. Your logic would say that I will still be comfortable if I reset the thermostat at 100 degrees because that is only a rise of 20 degrees and that is only 20% of the heat contribution. Silly argument!

reply to post by wittgenstein


Maybe I have not had enough coffee just yet to fully awaken, but it seems as though there is no argument between you and the other poster. Are you both not saying humans are helping with the rise in carbon or not?

I think it's evident that man is not helping, he is actually hindering the problem.

It is natural for the earth to balance herself out, although with man being here making bad choices,, I'm sure it's a hard task!!

Rwfresh takes the ridiculous stance that humans have not contributed to global warming. He also made the obviously absurd statement that no scientific organization has stated that humans have significantly contributed to global warming.

Originally posted by wittgenstein
In case the same old junk science arguments are brought up www.scientificamerican.com... . Whoops I forgot en.wikipedia.org... is part of the conspiracy!!!!
Then of course the Oregon petition will be brought up
en.wikipedia.org...
According to the Oregon petition if you have a B.S. degree you are a climate scientist!!! DUH!
Then of course “climategate”
www.huffingtonpost.com...
The made up charges by the illegal hackers were found to be silly. For example, when a scientist said that he found “a neat trick” , it was as suspicious as a mathematician that said,” I found a neat trick to solve this calculus problem quicker.”
YAWN! The tin foil hatters are easy to debate and win against. Humans have contributed to global warming and the entire scientific community agrees!

edit on 4-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

Rwfresh,
This will answer all your objections that are based on junk science. You will realize that real science has proven that humans have contributed to global warming and the objections are based on junk science and faulty reasoning.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? synthetic oil made from zero fossil fuels has been regularly used and is far more readily available than oil out of the ground, Biofuel (to people with common sense is ethanol) has been used for +100yrs as fuel instead of petrol, it is cheaper, easy to make and clean burning,

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM??

We have never "needed" oil from the ground, never needed petrol to fuel vehicles

there was no panic or economical disaster when iron ore ran out in the early fifties, they just looked for ther ways of extracting it from elsewhere,

most mining isnt done from necessity, its done for money, if they discover a way of extracting oil from other sources (tarsands for example) the best way to market it is to tell people its running out and get it while you can no matter what the cost, Panic buying!

it works! each time a rumour, no matter how vague it is that fuel pumps are running out, people panic and empty the pumps themselves!

when you buy oil for your engine, 9 times out of 10 it is either full orpart synthetic!

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

We dont need oil, we are just told we need it

there has always been alternatives, they just arent marketed

you culd electrically power your house using a generator fueled by home made ethanol,

you can use synthetic oil for engine lubricant made from home grown oil, (rape seed for example)

you can fuel yur car using the same ethanol.as your generator

What more is there to say?

Aircraft use ethanol too, as do turbine engines, the list goes on why we dont need fossil fuels, we just get sold them

Just one more thing, there is no such thig as global warming, its gibberish at best,


PS: i see the kids have drifted off the subject and engaged in ridiculae absurdum

reply to post by jjf3rd77


HEMP YOU ****!!!!! corn ain't viable cause you only get 1/3 the crops of corn compared to HEMP PER YEAR. it would be cheaper than diesel. how you like THAT little plan? it also takes little water to grow.... BUT NO, BOTH PARTIES FOSTER IGNORANCE to belittle the smart people and raise the people willing to be evil.... I SAY let's debate this in the forum of your choice. literally you are F*CKIN RETARDED

reply to post by stukadogg


You can only take so much out of the soils before you deplete them. Corn is not a viable sustainable form of energy. We need good soils to grow foods in the future. These soils take a very long time to rebuild.

We are increasing the CO2 levels past the tipping point and will pay the price whether you agree or not. That many scientists around the world would not come onboard with this if there wasn't so much evidence. To change policy you need evidence, policy has been to ignore pollution. People who profit from exploitation of the earth have great wealth and power, they can buy a lot of scientists by donating to their research. I see more motive to deny global warming than to except it. We can't keep raping this planet. And no, I do not consider myself in any way an environmentalist. I will cut a tree if it is necessary but question peoples perception of necessity.

I really do not understand why anytime someone tries to argue that global warming is not caused by man you always have people saying OH YOU SUPPORT BIG OIL.

WTF does oil have to do with global warming??? I was being told that just being alive and having kids was causing global warming.

There really isn't anyone who would say we do not need to find different sources of energy but I am very curious why everyone always goes to the YOU SUPPORT BIG OIL bullcrap.

It really takes the focus off the fact that man made global warming was going to be used to tax you more and to restrict you more.

It is a good thing that we have fought that off as it was completely ludicrous.

reply to post by munkey66


The green movement should never be confused with the whore politicians that claim to represent it. Regardless of whether humans are speeding up Global Warming the facts of the matter that the whore politicians on the other side of the aisle are paid to deny are:

Fossil fuels will run out.
Fossil fuels threaten ecosystems on a very large, widespread scale.
Ecological balance is vital to the survival of mankind.
Green laws are bribed away or fines paid because it is cheaper to pay the fines then conform to restrictions and that won't change until the cost of breaking those law equals loss of right to practice business or we adopt a Right to a clean planet, globally.
Science has sold out.

Bottom line... we still need alternatives or we're screwed.

Do any of you remember global cooling and a new ice age??? How can science be so wrong as to first predict global cooling then all of a sudden global warming?? If they were wrong then what makes you think they are not wrong now??? I am not disputing that CO2 levels have changed or not but how are they sure that this will cause what they predict. Science has been wrong before.. or do we just forget that possibility?? People have so much stock in evolution yet they do not believe the world can adapt to this situation. Our earth has seen many different things.. I mean our geographical layout was very different in the past yet we were not around to cause "global warming" to cause those changes at that time. What makes people think we will not adapt to any changes caused to our planet man made or not. Is evolution real or not?? This is a chance to put your money where your mouth is

Originally posted by votan
Do any of you remember global cooling and a new ice age??? How can science be so wrong as to first predict global cooling then all of a sudden global warming?? If they were wrong then what makes you think they are not wrong now??? I am not disputing that CO2 levels have changed or not but how are they sure that this will cause what they predict. Science has been wrong before.. or do we just forget that possibility?? People have so much stock in evolution yet they do not believe the world can adapt to this situation. Our earth has seen many different things.. I mean our geographical layout was very different in the past yet we were not around to cause "global warming" to cause those changes at that time. What makes people think we will not adapt to any changes caused to our planet man made or not. Is evolution real or not?? This is a chance to put your money where your mouth is

Sorry, but there's a severe lack of logic in a lot of this ^^^

Science wasn't "wrong" about global cooling; in fact few scientists believed it, but it was a brief cause celbre in the media...

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, the basis of that comment is way off base.

As for science adapting to new facts, what would you rather it do?? Would you like governments and societies to ignore information, because other better information may be discovered?

That seems very ridiculous to me.

Especially, when you consider that there's MUCH more data on global warming, and humanity's part in it, than there is for gravity... but of course you don't see people claiming gravity is a wrong headed theory, and we should wait for more information before we start building planes, or tall building, etc.

As for the ridiculous claim that it might be ok because people will probably adapt... well, sure, it MIGHT be ok, for you... but less ok for all the thousands who's countries are being flooded by rising sea levels, etc. Or to the many species that are going to be wiped out...