reply to post by pikestaff
You just need to look at the effect sunlight has on CO2. And then look at the relationship CO2 has with temperature. And then look at the historical
record of CO2.
Thats what I did.
I found that CO2 and solar radiation have a specific relationship. I found that historically Co2 has had certain levels that occur naturally. I found
that now humans have pushed Co2 out of he natural cycle.
All of that is basic fact. I don't need to have a politician tell me, you cannot make it up or invent a science to prove it, its fundamental,
testable and observable. Basic.
It is basic math then. Co2 effects temperature, it is basic physics and we are putting Co2 into levels outside of the natural cycle. Then I found
obsrvations that support the facts globally, temperature is rising. I link a video on page 1 i think as just one such observation. Those observations
are basic and you don't need to speculate or interpret the observations, they are global ice melts happening at a faster rate.
I then looked at the possibility that other sources could be the cause. The sun, underwater volcanoes, cosmic radiation etc etc. You name it, I looked
at it. Or had it thrown at me, as happen on ATS.
I found them to be unsupported. I then went back and found it undeniable that if we pump copious amounts of Co2 int the atmosphere independantly of
the natural cycle we will have an effect on the temperature of the planet.
And that is what I am observing via a number of sources.
As I said, make your own mind up. I did and I didn't need Al Gore or any other politician to do it for me.
The other thing I did was look at all the denial material and the science and looked at who was funding it and why.
I also looked at the media attention and the percentage of reports for and against relative to the scientific material for and against.
What I found was that scientifically the material was overwhelmingly supporting the fact that we are effecting the climate. What I found in the Media
was that it represented the arguments against science at a disproportionate rate to the scientific community.
This all but solidified my position, because if the media is representing diessent on par with science when in reality the scientific communty shows
no such disssent then something must be up. Because the media never report the truth.
And in this case they are onsong with creating the myth that there is scientific debate over the subject when there is no such debate.
Added to that I researched groups like OISM which put out that Oregon petition claiming scientists(31,000) were arguing against AGW. I found this to
be a think tank group funded to disseminate propaganda against the scientifc community.
I found this type of behaviour to be the norm for most propaganda arguing against science. Again, you can find this out for yourself by merely looking
at your sources.
You can find this all yourself.
There are studies on scientific journals compared to media reports on global warming.
You can research the groups that produce things like the Oregon petition and other propaganda etc for both sides of the debate.
Do it for yourself.
What I found is that it comes down to udeniable science and common logic.
CO2 effects temperature. We are pumping CO2 in huge amounts outside the CO2 cycle, a cycle which previously had an input/output balance.
We are observing global changes related to temperature increases.
The one thing that struck me was this.
We get hundreds of thousands of years of climate data from Vostok. 400000 thousand years of atmospheric and climate data.
It is melting. 400000 years, and now its melting. And melting faster than they thought it would.
Wow, I wonder what has change dramatically that 400000 thousand years of Ice is now melting.
What do you think has changed?
Find out for yourself.