Does Global Warming exist?

If so, how has it been measured, observed, and proven?

Come to me, >>10

>>7
Fun fact: None-one ever said DDT was banned.  What WAS said is that people who use DDT do not receive Government/US funding.  Try again, dipshit.

Fun Fact: It IS only 1% of the glaciers that are melting/receeding in the world, as of 2004.  The majority of the 100's of 1000's of glaciers around the world are growing in size.

Fun Fact: Current computer models (1995-2004) of the Environment are being found to be as accurate as computer models made in 1980.  In other words, up to 400% off target in the "world is not getting warming" direction.

>>8
As stated, the world began to warm in the 1850's, not in the 20th century.  This is again after a 400 year long drop in world temperature.  1000's of scientisis have also failed to bring real-world models and evidence proving the idea that the world is becoming warmer and that humans are to blame.  Other models created by scientists NOT funded by either a Government agency nor an Environmental agency state that sea levels *may* rise as much as 20 feet...by the year 3000.  Definately NOT in the next 50 to 100 years.

Also, 1000's of scientists also once believed in something called Eugenics less than one hundred years ago.  You know, people like Alexander Bell, Sir Francis Galton, Lewis Terman, Irving Fisher, William Castle, Adolf Meyer, W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, etc.  This fraudulent science was taught in all of the U.S. and European schools and Universities (back when a University meant a collection of the greatest minds in the world) and was supported by the public and the worlds' Goverments, even though there was never a single piece of factual data to support the idea (exactly like Global warming, mind you).  Of course, anyone who raised the slightest voice in opposition to Eugenics were immediantely silenced, much like opponents to Global Warming today, hmm.  After World War II the entire theory was dropped by every nation except Russia, which finally dropped Eugenics in 1960. 

What is Eugenics?  Creating better, healthier humans through selective breeding and either locking away or terminating the "outcasts" of humanity.  Who were the "outcasts"?  The poor, the deaf, the blind, the non-white, the Jewish, the retarded, those with or has family histories of medical problems, etc.

Again: 1000's of scientists once believed in locking away and/or terminating people they found "unwanted" in broad definition, exactly as how people believe in Global warming today, with the same lack of factual and scientific evidence to support the idea that the "unwanted people" will destroy humanities genetic code as scientists lack regarding global warming today.

>>9
If you want references, then one of the best places to find 20 pages worth is at the end of the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton - a book which in and of itself is being argued over on both sides of the global warming controversy.

13 GET!

>>12 is factual and pithy.

Especially the reference to Michael Crichton, a true scientist!

>>14
Actually, I read that book.  The author is not a scientist, but his references were.  And yes, there are 20 pages worth of references to published scientific journals, conferences, speeches, graphs and studies by nasa, and scientific books.

>>12 is right.

Wow, that's some naivite.

Did you verify those references, >>15? Did they actually say what Crichton said they said, and were those articles in respectable journals? What about evidence since then?

You'd think after class acts like Anne Coulter people would have learned that footnotes aren't enough. *1

*1 LaVrey, John. An Analysis of Anne Coulter's Pyschosis. http://goatse.cx/ New York, 1998.

the huge effort to disprove Global Warming is being heavily funded by Big Business. Big Businesss turns out tons of fakes or sinned statistic every year.  What do have to lose?

Ann Coulter puts the P in Plagerism

what do they have to lose.  Making profits at the expence of the environment and the publics health

>>16
Yup.  And *SHOCK*!  They're ALL real and substantiated, and the sources themselves are highly credible.  A good number of which are, *gasp!* privately funded/not funded by "Big Business".  Or did you not read anything that was written previously?

Oops to you.

Everyone who thinks Global Warming is real is a tool.

And did anyone once stop and wonder why the OP stuck this in Politics, instead of, say, World News or Science?

It's because Global Warming is nothing less than a political stunt, one nearly all of you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. 

Is it bad to toss waste into the ocean? 

Duh. 

Does releasing gasses into the air, gasses which naturally make up less than 1% of the entire atmosphere and is 1000's of times less than what nature normally tosses into the atmosphere, bad?

You gotta be a real retard to believe that.

You wanna know how to save the world?  Then learn how to MANAGE the world rather than CONSERVE the world.  Conservation of forests, oceans, rivers and streams, wildlife--that's a crock.  Nature is one, continuous, change.  To force nature to stop changing is unnatural in itself.

Of course, that is the problem: Acedemics and scientists know just as much about nature as their peers did 500 years ago.  As in, they still don't know how nature works.

>>21

you, on the other hand, is the son of gaia

Fossil fuels are going to get expensive. At one point in the next 300 years our only practical sources of energy will be from plants, wind, water, tides, burning trash and nuclear power.

when the pilot light goes out will we have global cooling?

>>23
Wind power is great!  Unless we end-up chopping up the world's birds.

Solar power is great!  Hope Texas doesn't mind if we bulldoze the state for enough solar panels to powerthe U.S.

Tidal Power is great!  Until it confuses the sealife and they all die.

etc.

>>22

Nope.  I, on the other hand, am a realist.

>>20
You read them and verified them? Really?

Excellent!

Because it is now trivial for you to refute all the following:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes?mode=PF
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

I wait with baited breath!

Three sources, two from the same website.  Yup, I've read those articles, too.  I've read thousands of articles on global warming over the past 15 years.  And I read the articles refuting Chriton's sources, as well as articles agree with them.

My challenge to you, since you like to find links: Provide 5 links to serious scientists not funded by any groups, entities, or individuals directly or indirectly related to any political or environmental movements, who are not funded by politicians, environmentalists, whose best interest is not served by swaying their results in any one direction for special favors, money, etc., and finally who all agree that global warming is a human-caused, imminent threat to the worlds' eco-systems, and we'll talk further (hint: News agencies isn't excluded from this).

I won't wait with baited breath, because you won't find it.

>>28
I think a rebuttal of the links in >>27 would be a nice start. With your "thousands of articles on global warming over the past 15 years" it should be easy.

By the way, I'm the queen of England. It's true because I said so.

>>29
You're the one to receive the challenge.  I'll take your last reply as a surrender: You are unable to prove that "Global Warming" even exists, much less you can find 5 independant scientific sources whom say it does and poses an immediate threat.

The reason is because it doesn't, if it even exists.  Which no scientist has been able to prove conclusively.

duct tape him

nuclear power is the way forward

>>32
It could have been, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

>>30
That's because your argument is pure bunk. Facts are facts, fiction is fiction, regardless of the source. Got it? If a compulsive liar told me that air is composed of 21% oxygen, does that make it not so?

Instead of refuting the above linked articles, you come up with a ridiculous red herring that wouldn't fool a child. That's because your claims are probably bunk (why aren't you proving it?), and your posturing ("thousands of articles on global warming over the past 15 years" = 133 articles a year! lollers) bullshit.

Who do you think you're kidding? You're just a teenage troll without a clue. You can't disprove the above articles, so you keep coming up with excuses so you don't have to.

>>34
The exact same can be said of you.  You haven't proven a single claim that global warming is real, coming from a 100% independant source.  So instead you demand I prove that Global Warming doesn't exist to throw off attention to your factual deficit.

What this is called is a stale-mate.  Except, it's your move.  I'm simply waiting for you.

There is no global warming. Period.

You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."

There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.

Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.

A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.

Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."

Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man has done.

In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.

The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even draught on every continent on earth.

It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.

How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe.

There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.

One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country.

Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl.

The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.

We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.

Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.

TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS

We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop it.

Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of "scientists."

There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they know.

Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.

And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.

Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American science.

A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.

At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.

Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America, if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many times they test again before drawing conclusions.

Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.

But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.

Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers, that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the old one.

FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS

Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.

But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers.

Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.

So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.

SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON

And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.

What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.

He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallup Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.

Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes."

Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none.

by Professor David Bellamy
Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.
Dreaded

To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'

You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'

At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding  along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.

And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.

Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.
Melted

The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
Ignored

But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY

A few years ago, President Bill Clinton, addressing a group of meteorologists at the White House, said that "Global warming is a fact, and human activity is the cause."

 It's bad enough that one of our past presidents believed in astrology, but to have another president make two totally false statements about science is a disgrace. Yes, TOTALLY false. Human activity is the least contributor of problems to the climate, and global warming, does not exist the way we have been led to believe.


This may be a harsh reality in light of all of the recent news stories, but quite frankly, any supposed warming of the atmosphere may be coming from the hot air of politicians and environmental groups that are feeding us misinformation.


First of all, what is global warming? According to science, it is a very gradual increase in the temperature of the planet of about ten degrees over a century of time. Has this happened? In the past hundred years, the temperature has gone up; to the tune of one half of a degree! This increase is within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.


Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.


And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. It is causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming, and putting holes in the Ozone. Well, not quite.


Most of the so called "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. The proponents of this greenhouse effect tell us that carbon dioxide is the main problem, and we should be spending billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars, factories, etc. According to governmental agencies, to cut back these emissions of twenty percent in the next ten years, we would have to spend about 100 billion dollars a year. And that would still leave one of the biggest polluters untouched: trees. Yes, trees and plants only clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, they actually give off carbon dioxide!


Not to worry however, because carbon dioxide is not the main greenhouse gas that we have to worry about; water vapor is. But the environmentalists can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Keep in mind, that if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor gives us, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be zero degrees! And while we're on the topic of messing up the climate what about the man made Chlorofluorocarbons, otherwise known as CFC's. We have all read that they are putting a hole in the ozone layer, but again, this is not quite the truth.


The CFC fiasco has led companies to slant their advertising towards telling us to buy pump sprays instead of spray cans to save the environment; Nonsense! According to this scenario, CFC's from spray cans, air conditioning units, etc., migrate into the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone. This is a surprise to most scientists, as CFC's are heavier than air and cannot get from the ground to the upper atmosphere, and also because scientists have found bacteria that naturally break down the man-made CFC's.


The thinning of the Ozone is due to natural causes. As winter begins in the Southern Hemisphere, polar winds prevent warm air from entering the region. As temperatures fall, clouds form from water vapor and nitrogen, and falling snow carries the nitrogen from the air, which in turn forms chlorine. When warmer temperatures return to the region, the clouds evaporate, and the chlorine thins out the Ozone. This cycle happens every June through November, and during the next six months, much of the Ozone fills back in again. This occurs in the Southern Hemisphere, as in the Northern Hemisphere, a more complex pattern of continents and oceans causes a less intense vortex of cold air, and hence hardly any thinning of the Ozone.


Like most people in the science field, I believe that the CFC theory of ozone destruction is another creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, to keep itself in business, similar to the Radon scare they have also created; more on that another time. There has never been any proof at all, that man made CFC's destroy ozone. Yet, it will cost this nation literally trillions of dollars to get rid of Freon, and use the new substitutes.


For example; If your car needs an air conditioning recharge where the refrigerant must be replaced, the entire refrigeration system must be replaced since R134, the Freon replacement will corrode the existing systems. The new units can cost as much as $1000,00. The household refrigeration industry is now doing a massive retooling that will cost around $300 Billion, making the cost of refrigerators higher for us. Each supermarket will spend upward of $100,000.00 to retrofit their refrigeration units, which will amount to higher food prices. When one combines all of the costs to replace or retrofit all of the refrigeration units in the United States to work with this new substance, the cost will run in the trillions of dollars; all for the replacement of a substance which has never been proven to effect the environment.


I could go on for ever, but here are the FACTS to keep in mind. The temperature of the Earth has not increased out of its natural variations. Water vapor and not carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. Natural events have a greater impact on the climate than human events. CFC's have never been proven to destroy the ozone.


The whole thing in a nutshell, is that the Earth's environment and it's climate are very complex, and to really understand what is happening, we must weed out the political, environmental, and media propaganda, and examine the facts. It is very hard to solve a problem, when one does not exist, and as far as global warming and human cause goes, there is no problem to be found, therefore there is none to solve.


Until next time, "Look to the Skies!!!!"

 


GLOBAL WARMING: WHO TO BELIEVE?

About a month ago, I wrote a column about the myth of global warming, based upon facts from leading scientists in the field. Several weeks later, a reader from King Ferry wrote to the editor implying that I had misrepresented the facts, based upon information he received from the Union of Concerned Scientists.


I believe this is good. No one should immediately take as gospel, the writings of scientists, without researching the matter further. Scientific debate, keeps science healthy and true. All scientists now, and in the past, have had their followers and opponents. Even Galileo, Einstein, and Carl Sagan, were debated.


However, more important than the facts or opinions, is the source of the information. The Fox network on television for example, has tried to prove the existence of aliens with a tape called Alien Autopsy, which many school children and adults believed was real. They still show this tape, but conveniently forget to tell the viewers, that the two people who made up the whole thing in their basement, are now in jail for fraud. In the past, someone on the Internet started the rumor of the spaceship in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp, and we all know what the result of that was.


For real science, we must go to real scientists, and that's where the Union of Concerned Scientists falls way short. The U C S was founded in 1969 by students and faculty members of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a club to save the environment. Keep in mind, that at that time, all schools were forming environmental clubs, with yours truly being the president of the one in my high school! Currently, their thirteen member board of directors consists of eight college professors, three executives of private corporations, and two lawyers. However, not one of those thirteen members has a degree in anything related to weather or climate!


Among the 70,000 plus members, are farmers, homemakers, poets, people with no scientific background, and people from the sciences; this from their own newsletter. In other words, a good portion of the U C S members have nothing to do with science. All you have to do, is donate at least twenty dollars, and you are a member. So weather you are a Ph D Chemist, or a seventeen year old who slings hamburgers at the local fast food place, you can become a member of the U C S. And where does that membership money go? For the people that print up all of the mis-information that the U C S sends out. In reality, the Union of Concerned Scientists is the Union of Concerned Non-Scientists.


Now, what do real scientists say about global warming? First of all, the temperature of the Earth last year was up by a tenth of a degree, not one degree according to U C S. Of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels!


Surprisingly trees only clean the air when growing. The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. Also, fallen leaves and branches give off Carbon Dioxide. That "haze" that makes the Smokey Mountains such a beautiful sight, is composed of natural compounds of which much of it is Carbon Dioxide.


Surprisingly, this much maligned "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. The real problem 'Greenhouse Gas" is actually water vapor, which accounts for about two percent of our atmosphere. However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming folks can't stop it, they ignore it and pick on the Carbon Dioxide instead. According to scientists with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system".


One must keep in mind, that temperatures on the Earth will rise, and fall, but are within the normal cycles of our planet's climate. According to scientists at the National Climactic Data Center, the weather and climate during the past 20 years has not been out of the ordinary. And further more, the study of tree rings and cores drilled in the ice caps, going back more than 100 years, has indicated no significant change in the climate. These studies have also indicated that the last big warm-up of the Earth was about 600 years ago, long before there was human interaction from factories, cars, and the burning of fossil fuels.


According to the Laboratory of Climateology in Arizona, " environmental disaster is nowhere imminent", and according to Richard S Lindzen from M I T, one of the nations leading experts on atmospheric science, "we don't have any evidence that global warming is a serious problem".


Fred Singer, the first director of the United States Satellite program has another view. IF, and he emphasizes IF, global warming takes place, it could be beneficial. According to him, fears about the rising sea levels are not necessary. New research indicates that increased ocean evaporation due to warming, would lead to more rain, and therefore to more ice accumulation in the polar regions. This in turn, would actually drop sea levels. Also, due to less temperature gradient between the Equator and the Poles, severe weather would be less frequent.


None the less, the whole thing in a nut shell, is that the Global warming myth has been created by self interest groups and the government. Keep in mind, if an organization creates a fake problem, then goes about fixing it, it's good for their publicity. As one scientist has said: "global warming is a political, rather than a scientific creation".


The public however has a right to research the facts, by reputable scientists, and not by "so called scientists". When all of the pro's and con's have been explored and studied, you will find out that the consensus of real meteorologists and climateologists is what I have been telling you faithful readers for years: Human interaction as the cause for Global Warming is a myth!


Until next time, "Look to the Skies!!!!"

 

"HOLE" IN OZONE NOT CAUSED BY FREON!

If you thought that the Global Warming scenario was a fiasco, wait till you find out about what is really happening to the Ozone, and the relationship to the "Non-hole" with Freon. Last Sunday a Citizen editorial said: "...the damage to reputations far outweighs the hypothetical wounding of the environment from minute releases of an antiquated refrigerant in Auburn". The Citizen has hit the nail on the head; the key word here being "hypothetical".


In science, there are two schools of thought. One is theory, and the other is fact. For example, although many Astronomers believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, it is still a theory until proven. Then it becomes fact. In the case of Freon and other Chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFC's) putting a hole in the Ozone, this has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER been proven, but has been based upon theories and assumptions from experiments that have been done in laboratories. Read on, and find out what is really going on with the CFC fiasco.


First of all, here's how the CFC theory is supposed to work. Man made CFC's, such as Freon, escape from air conditioners, cars, compressors, etc., and migrate into the stratosphere, a layer of the atmosphere which lies about six miles up and continues to about thirty miles up. The CFC's are then broken down by sunlight and they form chlorine atoms. Each atom then destroys the molecules of Ozone, which in turn allows ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth, altering the ecology and creating an increase in the rate of skin Cancer.


There are several major flaws in the theory. First of all, man made CFC's are heavier than air, so there is no way for them to travel from air conditioners, compressors, or spray cans, and get six to thirty miles up into the atmosphere. Secondly, scientists have found bacteria that naturally break down CFC's. And third, the supporters of the CFC theory have ignored the almost three million tons of natural CFC's a year that are blasted into the atmosphere by volcanoes, as these natural phenomena have the capabilities of sending heavier than air particles into the stratosphere.


As far as skin cancer is concerned, the increase in the rate has been misleading. Yes, the actual number of skin cancer cases has gone up, but look at the reasons. The population of the Earth has increased dramatically over the past fifty years so there are more bodies around to get skin cancer. Also, during the past decades, more people have taken cruises, and have sunned themselves on beaches than ever before. And what about the swim wear? Back in the 1930's, bathing suits were full body from head to toe. Take a look at the bathing suits of today, and see how much more flesh we are showing, and in turn, how much more is exposed to the Sun. So while we have decided to show more of ourselves to the opposite sex, we have also been showing ourselves to more of the ultra-violet rays from the Sun; so don't blame the Freon!


The CFC theory of Ozone depletion is based upon computer models and laboratory experiments, whose results have not been confirmed in the real atmosphere. Yes, the Ozone is being depleted, mostly in the southern hemisphere, but here's why. Take a look at a globe of the Earth to understand this a bit more. Starting around June each year, as winter begins in the Southern Hemisphere, stratospheric winds in excess of 150 miles per hour blow around Antarctica creating a polar vortex. This blocks warmer outside air from entering the region. As the temperatures fall to about 100 degrees below zero in July and August, clouds form from nitric acid and water vapor, found naturally in the atmosphere. When the snow falls from the clouds, it carries nitrogen from the air, which helps to form Chlorine. When a good amount of sunlight return to the region around September, the temperatures begin to rise. The clouds evaporate, leaving chlorine atoms, which begin to destroy the Ozone. By October, with the temperatures beginning to rise, a THINNING, of the ozone is detected; NOT A HOLE, but a thinning. By November, this Ozone poor air spreads over portions of the Southern Hemisphere.


This thinning does not happen with any alarming rate in the Northern Hemisphere, as the North Polar region has land masses in the way that prevent a polar vortex from forming. The above ozone depletion scenario is not a theory, but fact. Also, this depletion is higher in years following large volcanic eruptions.


The CFC depletion supporters, assumed, with no facts, that as long as natural CFC's from volcanoes were thinning the Ozone, than according to their computer models, the CFC's from spray cans were doing the same. So in 1976, The United States banned the use of CFC's in spray cans, and in 1990, the Federal Clean Air Act called for a total phase-out of all CFC's by the year 2000. It was at this time, that Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency, to monitor the reduction of CFC's, and set the standard of all matters relating to air quality. At the same time, Congress imposed a tax on Freon and other CFC's at a rate of sixty cents a pound, which by 1994, was up to forty dollars a pound. And take a guess at which agency profited from the tax?


Unfortunately, this is where the problem lies. The EPA, has kept themselves in business, by continuously "creating" an "Ozone problem", which doesn't exist. Think of it. If the EPA admitted that natural CFC's from volcanoes were depleting the Ozone, then they would not be able to fine cities and companies that don't follow the rules and laws of their Office of Air and Radiation Stratospheric Protection Division; yes, that's the real name! If a real problem doesn't exist, then the EPA is out of business.


Now here's something to really think about. The man made CFC's, such as Freon, which the EPA insists are destroying the Ozone were not invented until 1928, and were not in full production until the 1930's. Unknown to most of the public, is that the Ozone layer has been under study since 1881, and as early as 1926, scientists were talking about the thinning Ozone!


Now let me sum this whole thing up.


Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that municipalities should go against the EPA mandates and break the law by not going through the Freon removal process, but one must look at the reality of the whole picture. Freon removal equipment costs between one thousand and fifty thousand dollars. That does not include maintenance, filters, installation, or the cost of training and certifying the operators. Add to this, the cost of retooling the entire refrigeration industry since the Freon replacement gas will destroy the old systems. All of this amounts to a cost of almost six trillion dollars. And who is paying for all of this? You and me, with a higher price for frozen foods, refrigerators and freezers, and air conditioners in our homes and cars.


Not to mention, that the replacement gasses for Freon are toxic, flammable, corrosive, and in some cases, even carcinogenic.


All of this, because a government organization known as the EPA, has decided to take unproven theories, and pass them off to the public as scientific fact. All of this, just to keep the EPA in business, monitoring the problems that they themselves have created.


Hopefully now, you will understand a bit more on what is causing the "Freon Soap Opera" in Auburn. Whatever the outcome, you now know the facts surrounding Ozone depletion, while unfortunately, the organization that sets the rules and makes the laws, has ignored them.


Scientific theory is good "food for thought" but should not be used to make laws and regulations. If, and when, theory turns to fact, then appropriate actions should be taken. Until that time however, scientific theory, is just that.

We had an earlier thread on global warming here. (http://dev.smm.org/buzz/node/76) Now, just to complicate matters, a group of researchers is arguing that warmer global temperatures are actually a good thing. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/12/nwarm12.xml)

"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity".

Other scientists dispute these claims, and point to other evidence.

And that's exactly how science works -- you make a hypothesis, then you test it with an experiment or compare it to evidence to see if it stands up.

The problems is, both sides of the global warming debate have made some pretty outrageous statements -- which leaves us citizens in the middle not knowing who to believe. And that can be dangerous: if a group keeps making extreme claims that turn out to be wrong, who will believe them when they're right?

What do YOU think? Is the debate over global warming helpful, or confusing? What, if anything, should we be doing about it?

And something for both sides:

http://www.moneyfiles.org/weather.html

Link Headers:

YES, IT IS REAL:
# Polar bear research shows global warming is real (harvar.edu)
# Global warming is real and underway (ucsua.org)
# Report Warns There's 'No Doubt' Industry is Primary Cause (sfgate)
# Yes, Global Warming is real Mr Bush (70south.com)
# Experts at science conference warn global warming is real and getting worse (eces.org)
# 2,500 Nobel Laureates Acknowledge The Threat (tompaine.com)
# NASA: Global Warming is Real - What Should Be Done? (climateark.org)
# Global Warming Is Real and Imminent (politicsol.com)
# Global warming 'detected' in the US (bbc)
# Global warming: A Hoax? (teriin.org)
# Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us, Threat Greater than Terrorism (observer.uk)
# Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible (commondreams.org)
# Global Warming Explained by Brighter Sun (telegraph.uk)
# Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert (commondreams.org)

NO, IT DOESN'T EXIST: 2006

    * Global Warming Alarmists Seek 'Circle of Death,' Group Says (crosswalk)
    * BBC Climate Change Experiment Cocked - Garbage In, Garbage Out (inquirer.uk)
    * Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists (telegraph.uk)
    * There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (telegraph.uk)
    * Is Global Warming Getting Colder? - Time Cover Story Offers No Evidence Of Human-Driven Warming
    * The Global Warming Scam (rockwell.com)

2005

# A Contrarian Voice (cato.org)
# The global warming scam (atimes)
# Don't Bet on a Global Warming Doomsday (globalclimate.org)
# The Global Warming Hoax (capmag.com)
# Global Warming Is Greatest Hoax Ever (americasfuture.com)
# Global Warming (fathersoflife.org)
# Opinion: Global Warming is a Hoax (cs.usask.ca)
# That Global Warming Conspiracy (enbanc.org)
# Global Warming Theory Finally Disputed (powerlineblog)
# Global warming: a load of hot air? (theage.au)
# Corrected satellite data still disagree with Global Warming models (nasa.gov)
# There is No Global Warming (americanpolicy.org)
# 18,000 Scientists Say No Global Warming (oism.org)
# Settling Global Warming Science: Good news: the world isn't coming to an end (techcentralstation.com)
# Global Warming Bombshell, An Artifact Of Poor Mathematics (technologyreview.com)
# A 1240-Year Record of Arctic Temperatures Stands In Stark Contrast To The Climate Alarmist Claim (co2science.org) - new link
# Global Warming Computer Models Are Still Unreliable, New Study Warns (heartland.org)
# Crichton's New thriller: the threat of global warming is exaggerated (afp)
# The global warming scam (asiatimes.com)
# Study: Global Warming Predictors Lacking
# Global Warming: The Smoking Gun? (techcentralstation.com)
# Reviving "global warming" (cei.org)
# Global Warming: More Scare than Science

FOLLOW THE MONEY - TRUTH FOR THE BEST AND THE WORST!?

# The Consequences Of Kyoto and The Ensuing Economic Damages (cato.org)
# Global Warming Is A Giant Hoax Perpetrated By Special Interests ...(wanniski.com)
# Global warming: Why Can't The Press Get Basic Facts Right? (nationalcenter.org)
# Death By Ecology: CO2 Limits Suicidal For Competitiveness (01.21.04) (guardianuk)
# Global Warming Legislation Introduced in U.S. House Is a 'Scam' (www.heartland.org)
# MoveOn, Gore Push Movie to Promote Global Warming Agenda (freerepublic.com)
# Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media (cato.org)
# Climate Change 'Is Costing Millions' (guardian.uk)
# A Hoax to Raise Our Consciousness With The Help Of Propaganda (mises.org)
# Green Laws 'Cost Business £4bn' (bbc) | guardian.uk
# Oil is Running Out, But the West Would Rather Wage Wars than Consider Other Energy Sources (commondreams.org)
# The Coming Apocalyse (liquid & liquity crises) (saag.org)
# Global Warming: A Natural Phenomenon That Can Be Tracked Through The Millennia - Kyoto Protocols’ Hoax (federalobserver.com)
# The Fraud of Man-Made Global Warming (lewrockwell.com)
# Kyoto Protocol a Mistake (lewrockwell.com)
# Heatwave Study May Fuel Global Warming Lawsuits (reuters.com)
# Is Kyoto Kaput? (csmonitor)
# Bill Moyers: Many Americans Welcome Environmental Destruction for Religious Reasons - the other apocalypse (wanttoknow.info)
# The Global Warming Scandal - Russian Academy's President Claims Tokyo Fraud (www.inauka.ru)
# Environmentalists Surf Tsunami Tragedy: Environmental activists are shamelessly trying to exploit last week's earthquake-tsunami catastrophe in hopes of advancing their global warming and anti-development agendas (foxnews)
# Is Kyoto accord the answer? And ‘Carbon colonialism’ (greenleft.org)
# EU Warned Against Pursuing Its Climate Change Agenda (cei.org)
# The Kyoto Protocol is Dead, The activists don't know it yet (reason.com)
# Increasing US Media Concern About Global Weather Chaos (goldismoney.info)
# Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' (guardian.co.uk)
# Japan's economic recovery makes gas emission targets hard to meet
# New Crichton novel casts environmentalists as villains
# The end is nigh - but Kyoto will cost us dear
# Kyoto is Not Enough to Tackle Climate Change
# Exxon chief calls for Kyoto reality check (the implementation of Kyoto, would prove very difficult to achieve)
# Kyoto, Global Warming, and the Economy
# Carbon ru$h at World Bank - Kyoto has ignited what could become one of the world's biggest markets - carbon emissions - with a value that could be as high as US$250 billion. And guess who's cashing in? (asiatimes.com
# How Come It's Still 1984? ... Global Warming Has happened Many Times Before - Death by Environmentalism
# The new global warming treaty is estimated to cost $100tn for the hypothetical prevention of a 1 degree Centigrade rise in the average global temperature - driving the world, particularly developing countries, toward economic ruin
# New Study Finds No Link between Global Warming and Air Quality
# Kyoto Goes Nuclear
# Meanwhile, the Kyoto Protocol is moribund
# Canada to grid electricity from coast to coast to go hydro - get off coal
# Global Warming and Terminating the economy

OIL PEAK SCAM AND OTHER RELATED DECEITS

    * The Myth of "Peak Oil" (mises.org)
    * The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: 'Owning the Weather' for Military Use (globalresearch.ca)
    * Peak Oil Is a Scam to Promote World Depopulation
    * Control all 'tyrannical' world oil chokepoints?
    * The Final War for Resources: Special Update - Neo Cons Lose Control of Iraqi Oil
    * Oil Fields Are Refilling... Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly
    * The Final War for Resources: Special Update
    * 1 hour show on Peak Oil scam
    * Oil for dollars, and dollars for US deficit

 
NANOTECH: PROMISES AND RISKS... COLD FUSION, SOLAR ENERGY TO THE RESCUE

    * Risk v. Reward (abetterearth.org)
    * The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: Benefits of Molecular Manufacturing
    * Solar-powered Molecular Motor Built - AND many other articles (betterhumans.com)
    * Nanotechnology Helps Solve The World’s Energy Problems (nanotech-now.com)
    * Free E-Book: Engines Of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (foresight.org) - new link
    * An Explanation Of Why Cold Fusion Is Possible (cheniere.org)
    * Cold Fusion, The Infinte Energy (infinite-energy.com)
    * Free Energy News (website)
    * Million solar roofs achievable by 2018 (libertypost.org)

I was hoping for something a little more substantial, like articles from a respected journal (like Nature) or society (like the IPCC).

You know, something like this (a picture is worth a thousand words):
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

Or any of these: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=global+warming&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Nature+OR+Science+OR+Journal+of+Climate&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2006&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=

Yeah, and my grandfather has a graph of the temperature changes at  his house over the past sixty years.  Your point?

And I'm glad to see you're FINALLY posting something to prove your point.  It took you, oh, only a little cowing to do so.

It is real how can you question that?!!?

Yeah, and my grandfather has a graph of the temperature changes at  his house over the past sixty years.

So what?

And I'm glad to see you're FINALLY posting something to prove your point

Why should I need to prove my point to someone who has "read thousands of articles on global warming over the past 15 years"?

Hate to butt-in here, but who gives a rats ass about graphs?  Did these scientists also keep track, and include in their findings, every time their equipment broke?  Software upgrades and malfunctions?  Or every time they replaced one piece of equipment with another?  Or every time someone was too tired, too sick, or just forgot to record their findings?  What the variances are/margin of error?  How well the equipment worked each recorded and unrecorded day?  Scientist expectation of final results at onset?

That's why the comment about taking temerature measurements from nature awhile back is far and away more reliable.  Nature doesn't fuck-up.

>>44
Why do you feel the need to prove your point at all then?  If you can't even debate someone into considering your position, then why did you reply at all?  To read your own words and masturbate or something?  Go to /b/ for that, boy.

Hate to butt-in here, but who gives a rats ass about graphs?
Why shouldn't we? It's a nice graphical representation that can be easily grasped.

Did these scientists also keep track, and include in their findings, every time their equipment broke?  Software upgrades and malfunctions?  Or every time they replaced one piece of equipment with another?  Or every time someone was too tired, too sick, or just forgot to record their findings?  What the variances are/margin of error?  How well the equipment worked each recorded and unrecorded day?  Scientist expectation of final results at onset?
Ever heard of "confounding variable"? You do realise scientists are several steps ahead of you here?

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8305
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8319
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
http://newton.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Global_Warming_Essay


There are your links, thousand-article boy. It is a scientific consensus that global warming being caused primarily by humans. The articles that have been cited against it are a handful of scientists who disagree and who are very much the exception to the rule, much like the scientific consensus that evolution exists. Global warming exists and humans are the main cause, you morons.

>>47
And what are you doing about it personally?

>>47
Yet no-one agrees on the cause beyond industrialization (which is bad for 3rd world countries to try and break into while first-world countries reap in the rewards).  Yet no-one agrees on what will happen.  Yet no-one agrees on what to do about it.

Yawn.

Everyone in the thread is boing me.

Gawd I'm so bored I can't even type 'boring'.  You people really ARE pathetic.

>>49
>>50
How about this...

We might end up stuck on this planet for eternity because chemical rockets are the only practical way to get into space and once fossil fuels get scarce human civilisation may not have the stability or foresight to mine the moon etc..

In the next 800 million years the sun will begin to burn more and more fuel as it begins to die and the earth's surface will be too hot for life to survive. Whatever happened in that 800 million years, whatever humans evolved into and what civilisations and 800*1000*1000 years of history they had will be wiped off for eternity and if in the rest of the unimaginably huge universe an alien species is more succesful than us and slowly crawls across it to find our solar system they will never know that sentient life once lived here. Our legacy would be a what if.

Sure we're selfish, I'm selfish, I want to be rich, but the fact that quadrillions of lives may or may not exist due to our actions here today certainly gives a new perspective to those parts of my psyche which encourage me to be selfless (or whatever part of my psyche gives me emotional pleasure for being selfless).

>>51

Exactly.

Commonly, the "anti-Environemental anti-Global warming" are conservatives and neo-cons. On the most basic ideological level they don't believe in a "future". For the sake of their belief, it would be better if we did destroy the planet and us along with it. >>40, >>50 falls firmly into this category. And if not, your beliefs are still in the same vien as disregarding mankind's existential fate.

A hoax can be a hoax, but mankind should be slowly weening ourselves out of the "animalistic competition"/"fatalistic apocolypse" mindset and realize that ensuring the collective existence of our rare and diverse species is top priority and any cultural or social memes that go against that must be eliminated.

LALALALALA FUCK U

OP here, cutting-in before someone call someone a "poopie-head".  D'oy.

This thread turned out as I'd expected, sadly.  But it died bring up some interesting points and thoughts.  Here, though, are the facts:

No-One has been able to prove global warming exists.  No-One has been able to prove global warming doesn't exist.

The yes people like to cite increasing air temp. and melting glaciers over the past 100 years as proof of their stance.  The no people like to cite fuxuating and overall decreasing air temp. and growing glaciers over the past 3 milion years (from ice core samples, actually) as proof.

What is a reliable source?  Is it printed media in journals, magazines, etc?  Some say a source is only as reliable as those who author it, but that is incorrect.  A source is only as reliable as the audience it targets.  When readong from a source, who is the information you're gathering originally for?  For what purpose was it released?  Was it scientist-to-scientist?  Was it to politicians, who give out grants for research?  Was it to the public?  Was it free, or did the information have to be bought at some point?  If so, then ask yourself which sells better, "Everything is Okay, Read Why Inside", or "We are Doomed, Read Why Inside"?

If you believe global warming is real, then what do you do at home to stop it?  Many world industries have begun to clean-up their acts, so to speak, at great costs.  Many industries are only able to use, due to limited scientific knowledge, certain replacement technologies for what has been shown to cause global warming.  Technologies when have proven to cause cancer, are poisons, etc.

If global warming isn't real, then why is so much time and energy being spent on the subject, rather than on ending social prejudice, interplanetary colonization, ending disease and hunger, new forms of stable and renewable energy, etc.?  Why release statements to the public without any/with little background information, whose only purpose is to make people afraid?

When does mankind typically make their greatest achievements: When content with everything, or when terrified of something? 

I'm touching on several subjects here that could use a little expansion...

We are all going to die!! You go first.

How much has the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased?

what do plants thrive on?

>>51
We might end up stuck on this planet for eternity because chemical rockets are the only practical way to get into space and once fossil fuels get scarce human civilization may not have the stability or foresight to mine the moon etc..

Eh?? Where'd you get that idea? Even now there are ideas popping up on ways to get into space without chemical rockets, and trying to predict the future of science is impossible. 200 years ago cars and planes were unimaginable. Who knows what other methods of energy will develop in even the next 50? Maybe dark matter will end up being a source of energy, maybe (probably) cold fusion will eventually work, there are a million maybes. We will get off this planet, although we may not be quick enough (See: Steven Hawking). So we should definitely try to save the environment in the meantime.


>>48
Off the top of my head: I walk, I bike, I take public transportation, I use a front-loading washing machine, I use a push lawn mower, I set my AC and heat +/- a few degrees respectively, I plan on buying a hybrid car, I recycle, I plant trees in my yard. I know I can always do more, everyone can do more, but it's a start.

>>56
I highlighted your sentence and googled it:
The latest data, as of March 2006, shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.[3]

Percentage wise, that is a very significant increase. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, yes, but nature is delicate and an increase like that causes lots of detrimental effects. If the oxygen level were to decrease in that same ratio, about 50%,  you can bet it would be very bad.

>>57
Water, nitrogen and potassium fertilizers. Depends on what they have enough of and what they don't have enough of.

>>59
don't forget sunligt, lolol

>>60
farms provide the largest amount of sunlight they can get by eliminating competing flora

farms however cannot for instance flood the fields and expect their crops the grow more because different species only need a certain amount of water

>>61

anonymous is farmer!! :OOOO

>>59 might co2 be one of the answers?

Holy . . . shit.

>>63
Experiments have shown that plants already have more than enough CO2, plants need to be hydroponically grown with as much water, warmth and nutrients as they use before increasing CO2 has an effect. Commercially hydroponics is only profitable for plants which cannot grow in the climate the demand for it is in and transportation either reduces it's value and is costly enough for hydroponics to be profitable.

>>65
I take it your providing the fertilizer.

>>66
I smell what you did there.

>>66
No, but if I were I would be a fool to sit here and explain everything to you and not supply my brand name since I would simply be advertising every other fertilizer provider on the market.

>>36
>>But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

>>Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

I'm going to put forth a suggestion that maybe you had not considered yet: Macro is much easier to predict accurately than Micro.

Case in point, lot's of people could have told you quite accurately in the early 80's that in a decade personal computers would be common-place in many homes. That was evident from current trends.  But nobody could have told you with any great degree of certainty that Microsoft would be the producer of the dominant operating system.

In the same vein, we can predict approximate numbers for how the newest video game systems will sell this Christmas season, but we can't predict accurately which homes will get a system.  Yeah, they'll sell strongly, but at a certain depth level of analysis you have to just say, "I may not be able to predict where every snowflake will land, but I can see that there will be a blizzard."

>>36
>>The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

You can't be serious.  If you're suggesting that allowing tropical conditions to exist at the north pole would be perfectly acceptable to you, then you really are a fuckwit; and therefore I can assume that there's not one consequence in the world that could convince you this could be a problem.

When you speak in the hypothetical like that, keep in mind what the temperature in the rest of the would be if the north pole were tropical!

And I wish people would dispense with all this "It's a natural course of nature." talk.  It isn't, and even if it were, I wouldn't give a shit.

You talk like we can just rebuilt cities in a day, someplace else and adapt.  If God himself came down and through an asteroid at our planet, I know at least two movies that basicly illustrate the correct human response: stop it from happening, regardless of whether or not it's natural, because it will destroy a lot of our stuff.

Stop with this, "Mankind will adapt to a changing environment."
That's what WE're trying to do!  We just want to adapt without letting the changing environment wipe out large chunks of our treasure.

Supposing our current global warming experience were a part of a natural cycle and not man created, would that make it any less of a threat to our coastlines?

>>69
>>70
troll'd

>>71
Actually, 69/70 doesn't realize he's talking to a copypasta.

I am personnally covinced that algore is a major contributor to rising co2 levels. He's also a major producer of fertilizer.
What is truth?

>>73
So are Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Rodman, and Dan Quale.

I wonder why no-one has tried to answer the question: "
Why this is in Politics?"

>>75
Bear Pig Man

As odd as it may sound I no longer see butterfly's where I live. Ive researched the species that come here and they dont have any long-term migrationroutes and lifecycles. 1 Degree might seem small, and so might the fact I nolonger see a butterfly in the midst of spring or summer, in fact it may seem stupid, but it still makes me sad.

>>77
Go outdoors more.

>>78
GTFO

no