Discussions
Global Warming is NOT man made!!!!
Posted by monkeysuit • 12/22/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: global warming is not man made
What is your view on this HOT topic? I personally think it is not caused by man and have gathered a little bit of facts to support my views and posted them here randompoliticalthoughtsandnews.blogspot.com/2008/12/global-warming-is-not-c... now before you start the first video is Glenn Beck and yes I know he is an ass, but that doesn't discount the video so please listen to it also there is a link to an article after the videos which has several interesting facts that discredit global warming being created by man and stating it is nothing more than nature.
Before you start hating on me I do support finding other ways of getting rid of our trash and support recycling but not because I think it contributes to global warming but because its smart to reuse things. I also think as a matter of freedom from foriegn oil we need to explore alternative feul sources but not because of CO2.
User Comments
-
Wait you are using a Glenn Beck argument as a source?
Yeah... nevermind.-
Glenn Beck obviously isn't the source of the information. But I understand your feelings he is a jackass.
-
-
I have yet to see any legitimate sources for the argument that man isn't contributing to global warming, and since I'm not a scientist, I'll go along with what the vast majority of scientists say.-
Well there is more than Glenn Beck on there. I am no scientist either but I don't think the vast majority go along the man is to blame. They may go along with the climate is getting warmer but that is all.
-
I have started a new debate group and this is the first topic of debate if anyone would like to join - your input is valued greatly!
www.blogcatalog.com/group/debate-group-join-here/discuss/entry/is-global-wa...
-
-
You have got to be kidding. You are promoting junk science being proferred by a fraud. Over 90% of the world's scientific experts in climatology are agreed that carbon emissions from man made causes are the primary cause of global warming. Of course there is no such thing as 100% certainty when it comes to the natural world but if your counsel doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions then check out the kind of thinking expressed here
Interesting Argument About Global Warming www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
Frankly I’m astonished at the level of ignorance exhibited in the BC forum threads on this subject. Have you seen these videos? wonderingmind42.com/-
Its funny how statistics are just pulled out of mid-air like that. Now what about when the world was going to freeze a couple of decades back and oh no I think the world was going to burn up too around the early part of the 1900's. So it is nature being nature and to suggest that we have that much control over nature is pretty ignorant. We have no idea leading climatologist or not on how nature reacts and what to expect. They can't predict the weather.
-
Here is a partial list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:
* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
* Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely. -
Umm. Its 2008 isn't about to be 2009 I have only read the first few but they are refrencing 2001 studies and stats.
-
You can easily update them yourself. There's no way that I'm going to do that for you.
-
Did you really watch the videos? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. My observation is that if climate change deniers put as much energy into changing the way they live and reducing the carbon emissions they generate the rest of us might extend them some credibility. However, I learned when I had an environmental blog that climate change deniers cling to denial like some folks cling to religion. So I don't intend to continue this conversation with you. Bye, bye.
-
Ok and here are some interesting stats must be from the 10 percent.
www.newsmax.com/headlines/global_warming_ice_age/2008/04/24/90591.html
www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html
www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008aug30_cover.html
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/brrrr-nasa-reports-bogus-global-warming....
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11660
www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_ice_age/2008/11/19/152917.html -
this wonderingmind42.com ? didn't play.
-
OOPS! I'm sorry about the bad link. When I have fewer customers I'll check out my reference files and post the others.
-
newsmax.com ?!??!? That is a propaganda web site and not a legitimate news source.
-
-
Are you kidding me with this thread? Not even the GOP's presidential candidate believed this. And the ultra-conservatives' darling Palin had to change her stance, because she knew how outlandish it was, even on the right.
I've argued about this in the past, but I don't have the stomach for more. I did speculate earlier in the year about why this skepticism exists: markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/why-skepticism-about-global-warming/-
I'd say the GOP candidate hardly held views supported by the GOP.
-
Which is why I also referenced Palin.
-
Because they wanted her to fit in McCains mold.
-
-
Time magazine said the same thing about 30 years ago. Didn't come true.-
Exactly and nobody wants to acknowledge that.
-
should we wait for them to be right? Then it will be too late.
-
-
When I readed your topic I had no doubt:
You were american. Only americans (and not all them) do not belive that global warming is caused by man.
It´s scientificaly proved, only some american scientists who work to the government are aganist that theory.
Bush administration contradicts itself in that question when they say it is just natural causes and then say that they only will limit his CO2 emissions if Japan and China to do so.
All world is fighting global warming, in Europe those who are best implemented to reduce emissions have had success. -
There are plenty of scientists out there who do not believe Global Warming is man made. Much of the so called evidence in support of Global Warming has been dis-proven, yet that does not stop the alarmists with an agenda from promoting proven falsehoods as fact.
Red Hot Lies www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380-
You're going to take the word of a Washington lawyer?
-
There are plenty of scientists out there who do not believe Global Warming is man made. Much of the so called evidence in support of Global Warming has been dis-proven, yet that does not stop the alarmists with an agenda from promoting proven falsehoods as fact
Oh really? Then I challenge you to name them and tell us specifically which corporations and industrial complexes they work for please?
-
@timethief Name the ones that do you keep giving me organizations and as we know many of them want government funding and will tell them whatever it is they want to here to get the money.
-
All the scientists and agencies and organized that employ them are clearly stated in the documents at the links I provided.
-
More and more scientists are abandonning the carbon global warming bandwagon. And yes some have received threats.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-%27climat...
Anyways, gotta go and shovel snow, in a region which hasnt seen snow in 30 years.
-
-
I am open to both sides of the argument; however, I would like to see studies/references that are not from government supported agencies/scientists.-
@madmadmargo
Really? How many scientists do you know that don't work for:
(1) government departments or government funded agencies?
(2) and/or for the big heavy industrial complexes?
(3) and/or for the international organizations primarily headquartered in the USA that own the heavy industrial complexes that are generating much of the carbon emissions? -
@MadMadMargo
There are videos on my blog and a canadian news article randompoliticalthoughtsandnews.blogspot.com/2008/12/global-warming-is-not-c... -
TT, I worked on Capitol Hill for many years. I know first hand how federaly funded study results are often skewed; therefore, the political community, once again, takes credit for having saved us from doom.
Again, I am open to both sides of the issue and I would like to see studies/research references that are not funded by any governments. For example: Public Policy Groups, Think Tanks, etc. -
@MadMadMargo thanks that is what these people are not realizing. They want federal funding they all want something period. They will tell the government anything they want to hear.
-
-
The Science is Clear
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/26/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=env... UK Guardian Climate Change Q and A - clear and concise explanation of what climate change is.
www.ipcc.ch/ IPCC: The Scientific Basis - link to the latest report issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supported by the world’s leading climatologists.
www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)- a debunking of the 12 most common climate change myths.
www.realclimate.org/ RealClimate: A climate change blog, run by climate scientists.
environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 New Scientist: "Climate Change; a guide for the perplexed.
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 The Scientific Evidence is Overwhelming: - not one of 928 randomly selected climate change studies disagreed with the conclusion that human behavior is to blame for the current warming.
www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=... - The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming: here's an article written by renowned author, Ross Gelbspan, that summarizes the scientific evidence on man-made climate change.
www.rsc.ca/files/media/other/G8_climatestatement2005-en.pdf G8 Climate Statement (PDF) - here's a joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).-
Thank you, I appreciate your time in compiling this list. I am not arguing either side - I am only seeking knowledge. I gotta get reading - thanks again.
-
-
Read TimeThief's many links if you are still unclear about the role humans play in global warming. Fortunately, I have a friend who did graduate work in climatology (even edited a major textbook on the subject), and got a lot of detailed info about the state of the research and the views in the scientific community.
Of course, there are doubters, skeptics, and people with scientific credentials who deny global warming. The same holds for creationism (or intelligent design), esp. at the Discovery Institute.
There are gaps in our understanding of climate, but the general forces at work and where they are headed is clear. The important questions for the research community now are how the process will unfold, and what if anything people can do to slow it down, or ride it out. -
Away from all the rhetoric and bs in this thread. Isn't this one of those things where we err on the side of caution?
-
No I think if anything we need to err on the side of more research and a wider scientific consensus. Al Gore is just as insane as Glenn Beck and if you don't listen to one you shouldn't listen to the other. Doesn't it bother you that Al Gore flies around in jets pumping all of this "harmful" stuff into the air only to sit down in packed places consuming how much energy to give false information and skewed facts not to mention all of the people who drove their SUV's to hear his bs. You can go on Youtube and find all the information about how his facts are wrong and its also in the beck video. He claims the more CO2 the warmer it gets and he has two graphs one on top of the other claiming that to be the case but if you put the graphs together you get the real picture the earth warms then we see the levels of CO2 go up now how is that if CO2 is what is causing global warming? Al Gore is an idiot and his facts are skewed to show what he wants you to see. He's a politician he has an agenda.
-
Away from Al Gore... I mean wouldn't a sustainable energy policy be good for everyone?
I don't know who has more agenda Al Gore or the Oil and Auto Industry?
What about this bullshit of "Clean Coal" there is no such thing as clean coal. It seems that these companies have more of an agenda than anyone else.
I would prefer that we start working towards sustainable energy and stop the massive amount of pollution that we are doing while we continue to "debate" this.
-
-
-
Thanks for the link I too wasn't for or against it and started doing research and found similar things to the information contained on this page. I have come to the conclusion that it is not man made. Thanks again for the link.
-
-
I'm picking up the questioning pointless banter has yet to receive an answer to. I'm sick and tired of seeing my own country and America try to bullsh*t their way out of taking responsibility for what we belch into the air, land and water. I'm also sick and tired of government decision makers, who prefer to kiss corporate ass. as opposed to acting like statesmen. I'm even more sick and tired of the folks that spout the denial rag in their blogs because they have no expertise, and they lack what it takes to answer this question:
What harmful effects do you fear will flow from developing sustainable energy?
Either we want to leave a legacy of the cleanest possible air, water and land for the coming generations on this planet or we don't. If we do, then it's incumbent upon us to act.-
Take heart in the fact that the stance held by Monkeysuit is increasingly a minority position. Look who won our presidential election. Even better, I have heard that many of his cabinet and staff picks have energy expertise. Take Bill RIchardson, for example, who this time round will be Secretary of Commerce and who under Clinton was Secretary of Energy. A cap and trade scheme for emissions might be difficult to sell this year because of economic conditions, but exploring alternative energy sources will be easy because that money can be seen as economic stimulus.
From what little I understand of Canadian politics, I expect change will be on the way there soon too. -
@markstoneman
Acknowledged and choose to cease posting to this thread. -
I don't know about your countrymen, but mine devote an astonishing amount of time and energy to creating and sustaining any kind of theory, however convoluted, that will make them NOT RESPONSIBLE for virtually every problem that exists in the world. If we've got to stand on one hand in the corner and squint just right with our heads cocked to the left and the other hand over our opposite ears to see things in a way that means we don't have to do anything or give up anything, then by God that's what we're going to do. -
-
-
i think, the people who are not willing to take the blame, say that global warming is not man made....
i am willing to take the blame. global warming is mainly man made -
There's one thing wrong with the argument that government funded studies are skewed: the government has fought the idea of man-induced global warming for the past eight years so why would they skew the data to prove themselves wrong?
I'm not totally convinced some of it's not cyclical, but I say we err on the side of caution and cut down on polluting where we can.-
@sati The government as whole has not this administration maybe but there always exists the special interest and it is and has been alive and well.
-
-
i look at it this way, burning fossil fuels can't be good. there old for cryin' out loud. besides, when reports by gov scientists are altered and reworded by bush bureaucrats before presentation to senate and house committees, i get suspicious. but hey, you and big oil and the big three keep looking for some proof. meanwhile, the rest of us will save you from yourself. thank you very much.
-
Here's an idea. Who cares if global warming is man-made? Whether it is or isn't, greening your life is most logical course of action.
Lifestyle A creates more trash, recycles less materials, consumes more water, consumes more energy. It is more wasteful and less efficient.
Lifestyle B creates less trash, recycles more materials, consumes less water, consumes less energy. It is less wasteful and more efficient.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a politician to figure out that being green is smarter than being non-green.-
@gabrielgadfly
It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a politician to figure out that being green is smarter than being non-green.
I wasn't going to post again but now I have to just to say:
Right on!
-
-
One of the problems is that even if we are driven into safe free energy, we still have to purchase
the energy one way or another or the sources to make it.
This is the problem I am seeing as I am trying to get some solar energy for my home so I can have some free electricity but I still have to purchase the friggin solar panels and solar box for my basement, which only last so long until you need to repurchase a newer model again.
This never ending dilemma of purchasing something to run free energy is ridiculous.
It should be "TOTALLY FREE" once and for all.
I am tired of paying for electricity to these electric companies whose service sucks
and these do it yourself models to obtain free electricity or solar energy still require you to purchase something which keeps me enslaved to this capitalistic system. In other words "IT SUCKS". www.earth4energy.com/-
So make your own energy.
williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/
That's the blog of William Kamkwamba. He built a wind generator out of spare parts. Wasn't very efficient at first, but it worked well enough until he was able to upgrade it.
Everything wears out. When you take your energy generation into your own hands (i.e. with home solar panels, etc), you also take on the responsibility of maintaining them.
We don't worry about the necessity of maintaining our cars. Use public transport, and someone else gets to maintain the vehicles. But we like the freedom of having our own vehicles. Same principle. With the freedom to create your own energy comes the responsibility to maintain your energy production methods.
-
-
GabrielGadfly....Many have tried but there is a minor problem.
If the Government sees that you are doing too well with your own Free Energy, they can come in
and take your plans in their possession, stop you from producing anymore, even throwing you in jail
if you are too insistent that you have a global plan for everyone to have totally free energy, especially if it is a threat to their economic capitalist system.-
So change the government. Elect officials who are pro-green. Lobby to have corrupt politicians removed from office. Write letters -- ten a day, twenty a day, whatever it takes. Blog. Youtube. Podcast. Upload-download. Leave flyers, stickers, business cards. Scribble messages in chalk on sidewalks and walls.
Disagree with the government's opinion, convince others to do the same, and create a world in which you can live your life the way you want to.
Reality transmits virally. Create the reality you want, and it spreads. -
GabrielGadfly...AGREED and I hope more people jump on it too and fight this corrupt government bullshit. I love a good fight.
-
-
Is it God made>?-
Nature!!!
-
u mean God, right?
-
-
I read that a few times part of certain warming cycle kind of thing -
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=...
The following quote sums up my feelings about the situation:
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.-
And a Paleontologist know what about the climate and climate change exactly?
-
Acebrock: Actually, yes, a paleontologist would probably know more about climate change than most 'scientists' - try Googling stuff first, or risk sounding like an idiot.
-
-
As GabrielGadfly already said, I don't much care about the source of global warming. I take it as a wake-up call that people treat the world like crap and should quit polluting. Regardless of the climate, we're running out of natural resources.
We've got too many people and not enough water - shouldn't we stop polluting what we've got? Urban sprawl eats up land at an alarming rate, accompanied by vast landfills of plastic and petroleum products that will stay there for centuries - wouldn't reducing both the sprawl and the garbage make sense? Childhood asthma and adult lung problems are on the increase because of air pollution - shouldn't we try pumping less crap into the air?
Arguing about fault won't change the fact that people are wasteful and self-centered. I don't leave myself out of that generalization, by the way. I don't necessarily advocate cutting yourself off the grid entirely, but the whole point of making basic lifestyle changes isn't just to reduce global warming. It's to help preserve what resources we have left so that our great-grandchildren aren't left acting out a bad apocalypse movie. I know, you don't even know them, but for me this question is about personal responsibility.-
I couldn't agree with this more.
-
-
Write a controversial post and get traffic. Good strategy. But don't mislead with posting things like the one in your post. Let the time give you the answer. -
I've worked in state, local, and federal governments for over 30 years. You would be shocked at the amount of deception that goes on at every level. It is the coming (ice age) that will be the end of life as we know it. -
I learn towards that it is not also. Mars lost its atmosphere. I didn't know people were driving cars there. It is just a natural process probably. -
My thoughts on Globe Warming is that it’s a name that has been coined to help people take notice of the damage that has been done on this earth, and how it effects us and it as a whole and the steps they can take to improve it.
If it causes people to examine how and why we are doing things and if it can be changed to a better way that will cause restoration or improve the only place we have to live on then more power to it.
But instead… what seems to be happening is that some people… as usual… are resenting being told what they should and shouldn't do…. because in some cases it may effect the wallet/purse and it’s contents… Human nature I guess.
I think people are skeptical because we have been handed so much garbage in my short lifetime on what is good and what isn't, then a few years down the road that information is backtracked and we are told... oops!
But I figure if it is something that can improve our lives and the lives of my future great grandchildren then it is something to be seriously considered. I want my grandchildren to experience a wonderful earth with clean air and water. To experience going to different areas of this earth and see for themselves the variety of climates, animals, plants and lifestyles.
Anyhoo... not being scientific minded, nor an expert in this area I have probably not explained my thinking on this subject very well. -
Good Article, all I have to say is that anyone who supports any effort of reduce emmissions of CO2 and is totally for a greener environment, must first consider are they a meat eater, Actually, diet is the most important factor in being an environmentalist.
Nothing impacts the world as negatively as the consumption of animal products.
Environmentalists who are not vegan, are hypocrites.
Ref:
www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
www.goveg.com/environment.asp-
So, boden, assuming that you were correct (which is a big assumption since your only sources are advocacy groups), you're saying that anyone who isn't going to do every single thing possible to help the environment might as well do nothing?
-
Dang, I had no idea it was an all-or-nothing prospect!
-
What if I only eat vegans?
-
-
-
Estonia Taxes Farmers for Cow Farts
Farmers in Estonia received their first "Cow Fart" tax demand, following the issues of global warming, Estonia cited that a single cow produces 350 L of methane gas and 1500 L of carbon dioxide a day from flatulence and burping. www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/05/13/estonia-taxes-farmers-for-c...
Maybe we should kill all the cows, and eat more fish. .... Do fish fart?-
lol
-
-
Well MadameX for one thing their is certainly more proof about animal farts than I have mentioned, WhatMeWorry also shows another proof, we can all joke about it, but that dosen't resolve anything, another point is that when people are going to realize that each and every one of us have unlimited powers to accomplish anything, and if and when humans will wake up then all of the planets problems, even poverty, hunger, sickness, so call natural disasters will come to pass, but I guess I could only quote "Albert Einstein: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
But all and all I still want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year... -
There are just too few like you Boden. For the most part in our greed and lust, we are like an out of control virus. However the earth shall soon return to a frozen hell, and purge us from the planet; that will remedy the situation.
-
Our SUV's must have ended the Ice Age too.
-
I find it easy to be a man-made global warming denier when it turns out that the net world temp since 1998 has been down. And, ocean graphic predictions for the next dozen years are for cooling temperatures. I look upon this "Cap and trade" farce as being sure to bankrupt our country--if the current financial collapse doesn't do it first.
I say give me back my freon and forget all about this fool switch to polluting, mercury-filled light bulbs. I also want my incandescent light bulbs to stay in place. And, I may even acquire a mean Doberman for my SUV to protect it from government seizure.-
Well you better get a bullet proof vest because those poor polar bears are more important than your life, to the liberals anyway.
-
-
damn straight,
it's woman-made (all that hair product)-
good one
-
-
How about the possibility that global warming (lack of rain) is/was due to electromagnetic antennas and towers? My wee experience on a local level was conclusive. Anyone else care to experiment?
www.warriormatrix.com/post-27494.html&highlight=ciconas#27494
www.orgoniteinfo.com/ -
Nature will continue to do what it does regardless of what we do. We are but a speck in this great big world.
-
You're either a republican or you live in a cave. Read this, make a comment, and sign up for my feed:
greenerpastures.responsiblepersonalfinance.com/2008/06/27/global-warming-fa...-
Not a Republican and I doubt a cae would have internet access. Did you see my post on this? It has many things in it that discredit your claims. Also my claim is that it isn't caused by man this big .6 degree warming is natural!!! I doubt all of our SUV's ended the Ice Age.
-
-
Lol...
it's because of all the people farting!
No...wait, that was on 'South Park'.-
LOL!
-
-
In time, the cold will come and kill us all, until then what little heat we get is a blessing. An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that the Earth will enter a "Little Ice Age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity. Dr. Velasco described as "erroneous" predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming. The models and forecasts of the IPCC "are incorrect because they are based solely on mathematical models and do not include, for example, solar activity," said Velasco, who is also a specialist in predictive image processing. "The phenomenon of climate change," he added, "should include both internal and external factors. Internal would include volcanic activity,while external causes include solar activity."
"Curiously, the Sun never has been seen as a cooling agent, but as a cause of warming. It clearly has roles in both cooling and warming," he said.
At present, Velasco holds that the world is going through a transition phase of considerably diminished solar activity, "so that in two years or so, there will be the beginnings of a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years,and the immediate consequence of this" he added, "will be drought." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2064374/posts -
There are some indications that natural forcings are more dominant contributions to global warming.
See:
sansteknologi.blogspot.com/-
Very nice thanks for sharing.
-
-
-
Nice
-
-
well given the amount of toxins we put in the earth's water and air I would think it has some impact on the environment. Whether it is global warming or not, man is definetly harming the environment and we need to eliminate green house gasses, reduce toxins in our lives and in our water and land.-
Let's start with chemtrails
-
-
I have started a new debate group and this is the first topic of debate if anyone would like to join - your input is valued greatly!
www.blogcatalog.com/group/debate-group-join-here/discuss/entry/is-global-wa... -
The thing is, if global warming is not manmade, there is no problem. But if it is, we are putting all the mammal species at risk, including ourselves. So, if we find out 10, 20, 50, 100 or more years from now that it is our fault, and it certainly appears to be, it will be too late to fix it. There is no downside to being more responsible about our resources, so let's do it. Dig?
-
All I can say about this is that the mere fact that government and academia are so closely tied together makes this argument not only pointless and futile, but it actually wastes server resources...
Funny how nobody ever considers the servers they are forcing to globally warm the planet when they discuss global warming.
Reality: Global Warming IS caused by man, but it is completely irrelevant - Earth's climate has never been stable. The last ice age was likely caused by too much CO2 in the air, actually... and I don't think the dinosaurs drove Hummers around...
Just a result of humans, as usual, forgetting about everything other than our own extremely short and insignificant lives. If we kept in mind the fact that humans have been around for a hundred thousand years if not more - and the Earth even longer - we would all learn to be happy with this magical and short-lived opportunity to have experiences.
The Earth will be here long after we are all dead. It knows how to compensate for and deal with imbalances. Remember the dinosaurs? That's us now... Earth was not created for humans. Please stop living like it was. -
Silly people, it is a historic fact; we are all doomed by ICE!!!
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
www.iceagenow.com/
New Ice Age Predicted -- But Averted by Global Warming?
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081112-ice-age-global-warming.html -
I've been a long supporter against the whole global warming "Al Gore" debate. I do agree that human pollution and CO2 causes adverse effects like respiratory disease. However, our planet's rising temp is caused by Mother Nature. If you research on the net such topics as climate archeology, you will discover that Earth always had a roller coaster type climate history going from hot to cold hot to cold etc...long before humans were even thought of.
I am convinced that the scientists who are scaring the heck out of people are in the back pockets of politicians. Instead, efforts should be made to help people pollute less and use less instead of thinking the world is going to boil. -
Climate change is grossly overstated.
Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.-
Thank you. There are too many climate change scientist benefiting from this via money to research.
-
-
Okay. Actually GM is the no doubt a human factor disease. Why do we care about global warming? because by the cause of our ignorance (we pretend to be ignorance to be exact), the earth bully us back. and that is the reason why we seems so much in care on this topic.
My point is so controversial, even some prof. would disagree with me. Here is my statement "what we do, what we are up to, we can avoid, or resist global warming by using the updated technology". But this is practically nonsense because, we are now know the technology, we have the updated behavior, social and mindset but in term of technology, we are far behind the time.
eg: open burning. 100 years ago, open burning is no problem because mother nature can handle it pretty nicely. 50 years after, we have a bigger factory, that was an upgrade for open burning but, upgrade open burning need a CO2 filter in which we fail to invent it up to the time and size standard. after 100 years? now, we are then aware about this issue, trying to reduce the emission, created a better filter but that filter is only applicable for the technology of 50 years ago. Why? because now, we already able to released the brand new chemicals/compounds. and the filter is again 50 years outdated as compared to the current. Do you understand me?
Its like we are always inventing something new, time updated... but not 100% goes to the new, we invented the new car (the design, the shape, the better speed) but what left behind is the engine. Okay we use diesel, we are now researching on hydro-engine. but the point is, we should already use it 10 years before and now, not in the state of developing it (the time need that technology right now). or else... we are bullying the time and we must accept the negative feedback/comment/action from the mother nature.
We want to be updated, want to be on the standard lifestyle line, but we are not moving up the green standard on the similar steps like we go on other things. and that is the problem. So? who created the global warming? not you, yes! the mother earth! because the mother Earth want us to listen. the mother earth want us to know that when you create/use something, you must create/use everything (from the whole angle).
You create the factory, you who use the products created from the factory, you who release those all ++dioxide gases, why you want to leave that gases be cleaned by MrEarth (MrEarth don't buy/use your product from your factory at all)? MrEarth is not your workers, you don't pay him any penny to do the cleaning. and he (MrEarth is now tired to do the cleaning anymore, he need vacation, he need not to be disturbed). when you release the emission, clean it by yourself (that is what the mother earth want to tell you, yet still, we pretending that we still did not get it, not understand the sign). Maybe you are waiting to be slapped off, direct-pointed on your face.-
What in the world are you talking about?
-
-
Man made or not, civilization has little regard for anything that is not centered around itself. So even if we don't cause global warming we will still build dams, cause oil spills, exterminate other species and do whatever we have to do in order to support our petty existence.-
I am not saying we shouldn't clean up and make sure we cohabitat nicely with other species if that is what you want, don't use climate change as an excuse to try and scare people into doing what you want. Sounds like you have some other issues that aren't climate change related.
-
-
I am just saying if it is not one thing its another. We can't all hide in our monkey suits and pretend that we are not helping in some way to destroy our environment.
-
haaaaa
-
-
Whether or not global warming is man-made is not a matter of opinion, and it is not even a matter for debate. It is a matter for science. What that means is that it doesn't matter how many people accept or reject the theory. It doesn't even matter how many scientists accept or reject the theory. The only thing that matters is whether or not the theory is correct or not. And that can only be determined by scientific experiment. So unless you would like to report on an experiment you have done that disproves the theory of global warming, you really have nothing to contribute to this topic that is of any value to anyone.-
Um it is most certainly a matter of debate if you have people trying to tell other people what to do and you have the government using taxpayer money to do all of these green things that may or may not be needed.
-
-
Global warming is a natural result of the end of the Ice Age.
What most people on this thread are referring to as Global Warming is actually the ACCELERATION of global warming due to the CO2 emissions.
What would have taken thousands of year to occur naturally has been exponentially accelerated by humans consumption of fossil fuels. Now, instead of a couple thousand years for the Earth to slowly warm up, we are looking at massive, climate change within the next few generations.-
Yes and we control the universe too. To think we have that kind of power to stop or be the cause of global warming is ridiculous. This planet has been here much longer than we have and we can't possibly know everything about it.
-
Say that global warming isn't man made. What is the harm in conserving our resources, limiting CO2 emissions, recycling, and in general being more respectful to the world we live in?
The Earth will survive without us. We are just making life on this planet more difficult for US by heedlessly using up our resources. -
@monkey
We don't know everything about it...but we know this. If you consider the fact that 99.9% of scientists agree that this climate change is man-made you would have to be a complete and utter moron to think otherwise. Yes, I am calling you a moron. No, I'm not going to take it back until you stop talking out of your arse. -
@StillThinking
If you look up in the thread I say there is nothing wrong with doing those things. But don't try and mask it with this global warming stuff and trying to scare people into doing it.
@SiuilARuin
The percentage who think it is man made is not 99.9% nice try. So I guess you are the moron. Maybe 99.9% of the scientists seeking money agree. -
unlike the scientists who claim climate change isn't man-made who are employed by....erm....oh yeah, the oil companies...
-
Haa are you serious? You can take your own fatso nonscientist Al Gore's own material and prove him wrong.
-
-
I never thought I would say this, but the lawyer is right.
-
As a farmer I like it warm, and dread the killer cold. I hope we do have Global Warming.
-
The issue is that both "camps" are correct.
There is indeed a historical cycle to the changing climate of the earth, and from that data comes the "not man made" arguments.
But at the same time, man made effect has never been so prevalent, and there is also serious data confirming that whatever the natural cycle,"man made" is a larger and larger contributor.
About the only data that is spurious seems to be the "I can see it with my own eyes" data, which so many lean on for argument. Climactic change is a very slow moving process - even in it's current, speedy form - and observation is a poor methodology. Snow in April this year(as it is outside my window) means nothing more than random variation.
In the end, it really is only contentious in the USA, where it has become a political football. Outside of the US, where there are no politics about it, climate change is real and threatening, regardless of the source, and must be addressed free of finger pointing and point scoring.-
Ok explain then when you take Al Gores own graphs which show CO2 and the tempurature and put them together the temp goes up then the CO2, not the other way around as he would make it seem by keeping them separate. And that is the main point people point to CO2 and it doesn't add up.
-
-
Well no matter how we look at it, Man is still doomed by ice. It is just a question of how long it will be, until the end of life as we know it.
-
Why Are Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner Working Against the Interests of America? Either certain Republicans are unreasonable, playing politics with energy and security, or they don’t care about what’s good for the American people.
Read more --> www.desmogblog.com/why-are-mitch-mcconnell-and-john-boehner-working-against...
Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell's Big Green Lie
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are spreading outright lies in an attempt to oppose a new cap-and-trade plan being considered by Congress.
Read more --> www.desmogblog.com/rep-john-boehner-and-sen-mitch-mcconnells-big-green-lie
Ad features 100 scientists willing to stoke the climate crisis - Who on earth might have, say, half a million dollars to drop on an advertising campaign aimed at getting Americans to doubt the well-established science of climate change?
Read more --> www.desmogblog.com/ad-features-100-scientists-willing-stoke-climate-crisis
Oil Giant in a showdown with Local "Big Loop Group" Ranchers in Alberta - Looks like Petro Canada and Suncor are in for a Wild West Showdown with a group of angry landowners in Alberta.
Read more --> www.desmogblog.com/petro-canada-natural-gas-pipeline-alberta
David Bellamy Gets It Completely Wrong on Climate Change Science - There’s another strong contender for the Christopher Booker Prize for Bullshit Reportage of Climate Science.
Read more --> www.desmogblog.com/david-bellamy-wrong-climate-change-science
And Here's the Appallingly Criminal Magnitude of Their Denial! Global warming is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by many as a trigger for "dangerous" change, a Reuters poll of scientists showed on Tuesday. Nine of 11 experts, who were among authors of the final summary by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 (IPCC), also said the evidence that mankind was to blame for climate change had grown stronger in the past two years. Six of the scientists said world average annual temperatures would set a new record by 2015 -- and another four projected that it would happen by 2020 -- dismissing views from skeptics that global warming has stopped.
www.desmogblog.com/and-heres-appallingly-criminal-magnitude-their-denial
Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice 04.06.09 - Additional imagery and background information for this story can be found here. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html
See the image showing 2009 Arctic sea ice maximum. This data visualization from the AMSR-E instrument on the Aqua satellite show the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, which occurred on Feb. 28, 2009. Credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio
See the map showing Arctic sea ice extent. During the winter, winds and currents push some of the thick, multi-year ice out of the Arctic Ocean. In the past, that thicker ice was replenished by new ice that survived several summer melt seasons. Credit: Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik, University of Colorado, and NSIDC
See the map showing Arctic sea ice extent Maps show the relative age of Arctic sea ice at the end of February 2009 and over time. Thin, first-year ice is the predominant type covering the Arctic Ocean this winter. Credit: Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik, University of Colorado, and NSIDC
See the graph showing decline in sea ice coverage The decline in multiyear (including second-year ice) sea ice coverage has also been measured by NASA’s QuikScat satellite from 1999 to 2009. Each field shows the coverage on January 1 of that year. There is a 40 percent drop in coverage between 2005 and 2007. Credit: Ron Kwok, NASA/JPL
See the larger image The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.
Arctic sea ice works like an air conditioner for the global climate system. Ice naturally cools air and water masses, plays a key role in ocean circulation, and reflects solar radiation back into space. In recent years, Arctic sea ice has been declining at a surprising rate.
Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
Read more --->
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html -
I saw the International Literacy Day Ads on the right sidebar,
That may be helpful for you.
just kidding -
-
Not really want to go into an argument about this, but I tend to lean towards thinking that global warming is not man made. The reason why I think that is that people LIKE to believe they can control the nature. They want to think that by reducing the carbon emissions we can reverse this and save ourselves. It's a lot harder to accept that some things we cannot control and we just might all die because Sun shines brighter. (What irony!)
Having said that, I do agree with reducing carbon emissions and every possible nature saving method thinkable. The way I see it, it won't hurt even if I do believe it won't stop the global warming. I don't want to talk anyone out of believing in it though. It has set the world on a better, healthier path with the nature. However, I hope people won't throw in the towel if and when we sink under water and the dooms day is upon us because nature didn't comply no matter how kind we were to it.
There is a massive amount of environmental disasters that humans are responsible for. Global warming though.. I don't think is one of them.
Last Christmas I got an amber necklace from Denmark. In the description it said: "...this piece of amber started to form when Denmark was sub tropical..." Denmark may be sub tropical yet again, and the time that amber was forming, there was not a factory in sight. -
It seems that many people who don't believe in global warming are mainly just not able to picture how humans could affect something so large as the earth. Look at our history. There are forests that no longer exist in Europe and Americas because we chopped down all the trees. There are dead areas in the ocean because of farm runoff. There are species disappearing every day because we hunt them or kill their environments. The night time tempuratures in cities can be as much as 10 degrees warmer than surrounding countryside. There are a lot of us and although many of us won't ever chop down a tree, our purchases encourage others to chop down forests on our own behalf.
-
No, that's not it. Of course we know all that. My counter argument to that would be that people who believe the global warming is man made are unable to think that nature would be the reason for such large changes on the Earth. I think it scares people to think that you can't control the nature.
-
My counter to your counter isn't that we have control issues nor is it that we don't understand that the earth has been much hotter AND much colder than it is now without human intervention. There are two parts (to simplify) to earth's temperature, that which we cause and that which we didn't cause. The change that we are causing seems to be speeding up natural changes. It is this compounding of temperature changes and the speed of change that has the potential of causing us real challenges.
-
-
As I have already commented before about the various
problems mankind faces, as long as their is negativity,
doubt, fear in the minds of everybody which obviously allows endless discussions, of who's right or wrong, all of this
will lead to further discussions.
There is one thing everybody is missing, have you ever
heard of Dr Joseph Murphy, he was around in the 50's,
his book "The Power of Your Subconscious Mind" I can't
describe the book entirely, but I can say by experience
that it's not only positive thinking, faith etc. that
accomplishes results, perfect visualization and belief
that it has happened for whatever you want or to find
out, your subconscious will respond to your feeling,
whether this is accomplished by a single person, or
all of mankind together than and only then will their
be peace, love and harmony on earth resulting in
perfect health, perfect climate, and wealth to all,
especially no more hunger, natural disasters, or illnesses,
all of this can be accomplished without discussions and especially religion... one of my favorite quotes
"The thing always happens that you really believe in
and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
-Frank Lloyd Wright-
Great I guess...
-
-
-
Man is sure contributing to Pollution. As for Global Warming this is another story for I remind this from the Book of the Founder of Club of Rome an Institution affiliated to the Rockefeller :
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome
www.amazon.com/First-Global-Revolution-Alexander-King/dp/0679738258
The Rockefeller, Kissinger are all part of the Club Of Rome, they take people as slaves and find there are too many and so they want to reduce the population by at least 50% if not 90% for Ted Turner -
but actually it's man made because man is playing vital role in global warming i've blog related with globalwarming2009.blogspot.com/
-
Um... no man is not, water produces 97% of the CO2 which is supposed to be the main factor in global warming.
-
-
I've just read the news article from The Sun newspaper on fat people, that states that they are the cause for global warming. I'm sorry but I have never heard such a crock of s**t in all my life! (Excuse the language)
Apparently "Overweight people cause excess greenhouse gas emissions because they eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car."
No 1- How about the greenhouse gases cause by sending thousand of military troops into countries that most have no right to be in... How much does that add to the 'footprint'? (Not saying this is the cause, but it's a factor that is never brought up by the media or taken into account)
No 2- Global warming is NOT a new phenomenon, it's happened since the dawn of time and the greenhouse effect is necessary to maintain a habitable planet- we just contribute a tiny percentage to it. Life on the Earth has been wiped out no less than 15 times already- in fact, we're way overdue
And No 3- Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapour is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapour is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. -
The Future, as an Ice Age Begins
At this time, winters are getting milder in North America due to ice melting around the North Pole. There is also an increase in rainfall due to warmer oceans evaporating more moisture. With growing seasons getting longer, this all adds up to good agriculture. The corn belt has moved farther west into the plains over the past 25 years producing record corn and soybean harvests.
This trend should continue for a century or two, until a temperature reversal occurs. It may be a volcano which causes the temperature reversal, because there is no apparent reason why a cool-down would begin otherwise.
The reversal occurs when snow and ice increase in northern areas reflecting away more radiation from the sun. Precipitation stays high, because oceans stay warm at the beginning of the reversal. The precipitation creates more snow when the reversal begins, and since more snow reflects away more sunlight, the cool-down is very rapid and irreversible.
There is not enough precipitation at this time to cause snow to increase during the winters. But precipitation is increasing as oceans warm up. It will probably be another century or two before snowfall increases enough to cause the temperature reversal.
nov55.com/fure.html
What do you think? -
"After insisting once again that there is a consensus on Man-made Global Warming (while paradoxically comparing those not in consensus with those who deny the moon landing), Al Gore denies, downplays and refuses to discuss the role that CEOs played in crafting his Cap-and-Trade C02 trading schemes.
Rep. Scalise points out that Gore met with Ken Lay, of ENRON-fraud fame circa 1998, as well as top members of Goldman Sachs-- all of which Al Gore obscures and denies.
In point of fact, Al Gore's founding partner in the sustainability-investment firm Generation Investment Management, LLC is none other than David Blood, CEO of Goldman Sachs' asset-management division until 2003. Gore-Blood founding their Carbon-trading Corp. in 2004."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C28avoSrYyQ-
Al Gore is an ass!!!
-
-
Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/05/15/global_warming_explo... -
Global Warming is NOT man made!!!!
it is the Women and all their cooking -
My Baloney has a first name, it's G-L-O-B-A-L
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/05/burger-king-global-warming-us -
Hundreds turn out in support of Cap and Trade
-
Haaa awesome. Yes our electricity bills will explode!!! Using it as another reason to raise taxes.
-
Indeed, Monkeysuit. Withut mentionning a further hollowing out of American Industry - or should I say gutting?
"A new report from the George C. Marshall Institute says that cap-and-trade will operate as a permanent tax on American families. Based on last year’s Lieberman-Warner bill that failed in the Senate, the study estimates that the average American household would pay as much as $1,437 more annually by 2015."
Waxman-Markey "Bureaucratic Nightmare"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnYMxDYpCSA
-
-
Yeah right. As if the world is not better off without us. Volcanoes come and go but it's the humanity that's the biggest source of pollution. It is not cool to reuse garbage. But if it helps to stop global warming then why not?-
Because we are not contributing to global warming. It is smart to reuse what we can but not for the reason you state.
-
-
Violent Revolution will sweep the planet. This nation's Tea Parties were just the beginning!
geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2009/04/violent-revolution-will-sweep-thi...-
WWW,
Actually, there is a comment I tend to agree with at your link.
The controllers (Illuminati) want civil war. etc
-
-
Scientists will continue to argue about whether it is man made or not. Considering the dire results if the nay-sayers win, and they are wrong, do you really want to take that chance? Sensible people take precautions even if dangers are not necessarily obvious: we put on seat belts to avoid car crashes, even the most cautious of drivers wouldn't do otherwise. We should be very careful about what we do to the planet, because it's not like we can just trade it in for Mars.
-
that's preposterous monkeysuit where do you get your theories?.
-
Humanity pumps 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (and increasing).
The thermal properties of CO2 are very well understood.
Less and less CO2 is fixed by biological processes as the rain forest is depleted by deforestation.
80% of the the atmosphere is contained in the troposphere which is only 10 miles high.
Where do you think all the man made CO2 is going? Do you dispute the physical properties of CO2?
Look here is all the atmosphere we have to fill up with CO2, it is not a lot when you see it in perspective.
That blue bit, that's all that keeps us from mass extinction. -
The way I understand it, Co2 is the effect of global warming not the cause. GW was due to the sun cycle, which is now past it's peak. Hence, what awaits us is global cooling rather than warming.
To say this claim is preposterous is rather exaggerated.
Here is an article from a geophysicist.
lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html
Also, as MS indicates, nuch of the data is skewed in favor of special interests, and all this bill will do is export more industries abroad.-
Yes and no. In the past increased atmospheric CO2 has been a symptom of global warming.
However symptomatic CO2 production has always, historically, exacerbated any particular global warming event because increased CO2 causes global warming.
What is different today is man made CO2 (30 billion tonnes of it a year). The high CO2 levels seen today 0.038% (the highest for at leat 650,000 years) are NOT symptomatic of global warming but are in fact the driver of global warming. -
@Polybore,
I'll leave that aside for the moment. I'd have to dig the numbers up again. There is a video which aired on BBC which you may be interesting in watching: "the Global Warming Swindle".
Also note: "As David Deming points out in his excellent article today, temperature data collected by weather stations is being artificially impacted by measuring systems placed nearby to sources of heat. This is why claims that global temperatures are still rising are completely contradicted by real world evidence of falling temperatures and what some scientists are warning is the beginning of a new ice age."
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for environmental measures, like reducing our consumption of meat etc. but not in a dispendious bureaucratic fashion.
This Cap and Trade will be an extra financial burden for the middle classes and will continue to hollow out American industry to the benefit of more environmental unfriendly countries.
Cap and Trade is brought to you by Government Sachs.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/nobodys-talking-cap-and-t_n_138083.html
-
-
The thing is, we are contributing to whatever the imbalance of nature is today. i am not saying that nature doesn't have its own cycle. i mean the last ice age as scientists pointed out was probbaly the result of an asteriod hitting earth. now these are big cosmic incidents that we can't control. nor if there is going to be a solar flair. but what we are talking here are things that we humans do contribute to create global warming. and if we don't do something about it, no asteriod or solar flair is big enough to supersede what we have started .yes at this age global warming is man-made. It's interesting to note that tv hosts not scientist sometimes make their own theories...which are not based in scientific experiments and findings.
-
@Celticmusicfan,
This scientist expects an ice age to start before ten years.
University of Mexico expert says lack of solar activity to cause significant cooling that will last over half a century
www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2008/081908_ice_age.htm-
This scientist has his own political propaganda. I stand by my own opinion
-
-
How about a show of hands: how many of you CARBON-based critters plan to walk out in front of a tractor trailer to save the planet from your breathing out of dangerous chemicals?
edgycater.blogspot.com -
Some say the world will end in ice.
Some say in fire.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction
Ice is also great
And will suffice.
Robert Frost -
Everyone knows that Global Warming is just propaganda that is being circulated by Roland Emmerich so he can promote that new movie of his about the world ending. -
I think you can see that politics and science do not mix. Politicians can get the science to say what they want it to. The real science can be found by people who have no political agenda. You will find that global warming falls into this and that the actual science is not there to say that man is causing the world to warm.
-
Wrong. Science rarely deals in absolutes. It deals in hypotheses. We remember when absolutes come along such as the Theory of Relativity; however, even scientists question that to this day.
There is always room for doubt in science; and the only way we should do nothing about climate change is if we're absolutely, 100% sure that it has nothing to do with us. We don't have that certainty; therefore, for our own safety's sake, we're obliged to do something about it. -
Yes my point exactly the people that say global warming is man made are trying to make the science fit to be absolute when it can't be. I agree with many things to make our air cleaner, water safer and reuse our trash, but I will not be "scared" into thinking if I don't support or do things that we are all doomed and going to die. Science being what it is without absolutes can not be used then to push political ideas.
-
-
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
The context
LOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008).
The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm -
Ok limme post this and i will get back with the rest:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0902-our_changing_climate.htm -
-
The Middlebury Community Network
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global".
However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?
More- www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html -
I didn't make it through this entire discussion, partly due to the fact that there is a whole lot of condescension and general snarkiness. I just want to throw a few things out there.
I guess I am politically conservative. Not so much a Republican (not many Republican conservatives left), but rather a conservative like Ron Paul.
My conservatism extends to all facets of my life. I am frugal (some would say "cheap"). My apartment is filled with second or third hand items. I haven't bought any new clothes in two years. My computer is seven years old. My car is twelve. In short, I have not surrounded myself with all of the "things" that so many Americans take pride in accumulating.
I recycle, not because I am an environmentalist (I'm not), but just because I believe in conserving. It's the right thing to do.
That being said, I do not believe in man-made global warming. I think it is incredibly arrogant to believe that in roughly two centuries of industrialization, we are on the verge of destroying a planet that is billions of years old. How many climate cycles has this planet been through in that time? How do we even know for certain that the period we are experiencing is normal?
There are simply too many unanswered questions, and we need to avoid making kneejerk reactions (dangerous legislation) that may prove very costly, and not provide any real long-term benefit.
The most troubling aspect of the debate over man-made global warming is the debate itself. You see, I think I can consider myself to being a pretty "green" person. I don't blow my money on a bunch of shit I don't need. I don't waste water. I use CFLs (hey, they save money on the light bill) and I turn my lights off when I leave a room. Granted, I don't drive a hybrid, but my car is reasonably fuel-efficient, and I put less than 6000 miles on my car per year. (I do live in a rural area.) And despite all of this, despite the fact that my lifestyle is most probably far more green, and my carbon footprint much smaller, than a lot of the lefties (this is boiling down to a right vs left issue) that are pushing for damaging legislation, I get to read and listen to the fascists that want to stifle any discussion and debate on the matter.
The tone exhibited by so many people against "deniers" is what I find most offensive. The arrogance, the elitism... I had someone call me a troglodyte for the simple fact that I do not believe global warming is man-made. The simple fact is many of them do not care how you live; they want you to agree to agree with them, end of discussion.
Kinda like the (many) people who said "If you don't vote for Barack Obama, you are a racist."
Okay, so you think I'm a racist. How does your opinion of me affect my life? And how does the fact that you think I am an uneducated, hilljack denier affect my life?
The answer is obvious in both cases: no affect at all. -
Too many articles.Hmm .. too much to read for my ADD.Pffft! You guys write long articles.Ok Global Warming is Manmade. Who is with me
-
July 2009 was officially the coldest July on record in six U.S. states, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Specifically, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Not one of the coldest, mind you, but the absolute, rock-bottom, chilliest on record. Records go back to 1895. Meanwhile, four others – Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri and Kentucky — had their 2nd-coldest July ever recorded.
www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-08-10-july-climate-report_N.htm
-
To base claims about long-term global climate changes on local weather conditions in a short time frame is a highly questionable proposition at best.
-
-
I agree. I am now convinced that m 3 cats and their stinky farts are directly responisble for global warming. -
If global warming equals more storms, where are they?
www.metro.us/us/article/2009/08/10/23/4727-82/index.xml
"The now iconic image of murky dust rising from a smokestack in the shape of a hurricane on the cover of Al Gore’s global warming documentary draws a distinct correlation between rising temperatures and stronger storm patterns.
But here’s an inconvenient truth: This year’s hurricane season has gotten off to the slowest start in 17 years. And yet global warming alarmists continue to ring their doomsday sirens.
The official start of the hurricane season is June 1. And not since 1992 — the year of Hurricane Andrew — has the Atlantic Ocean been silent past Aug. 4. Meteorologists have yet to name even a single tropical storm in the Atlantic in 2009."
Ooh yes it's orgone night and the feeling is right, ooh yes it's orgone night, ooh what a night...-
More dubious logic. Global climate change is not about your senses or the national weather report.
-
-
Logic is the realm of subjectivity. Go make some orgonite.
-
I threw up a couple links to new perspectives on the politics board a couple days ago, but they're relevant here too.
First, there's the national security angle: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html
Second, there are pastors banding together with scientists to protect what evangelical Christians call the creation: www.creationcareforpastors.com/
The more people who care, for whatever reasons make the most sense to them, the better. -
And a story about the world's coral reefs, which was on NPR this afternoon: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111757927
-
"The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say."
Pundits were calling for an above average hurricane season in 2009...
Violent storms and drought only happen where there is a complete lack of positive orgone. If you are truly concerned, do some "gifting": orgoniseafrica.com/blog/ -
"Many scenarios of global warming in Africa include more drought, floods, land degradation, epidemics and resource wars.
But some scientists and meteorologists now argue that some deserts – including the Sahara, one of the most arid areas on earth - could ultimately get greener and experience more rainfall."
Hmmm, deserts getting greener... I wonder why?
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/06/090624_greeningdesert1.sht... -
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.
www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowes... -
NO DARK and smoke-filled room greeted the man Prime Minister Kevin Rudd decries as part of a worldwide conspiracy of sceptics intent on sabotaging any new climate treaty.
Instead, a gathering of avowed ''sensible'' environmentalists listened closely in the plush surrounds of Melbourne's Park Hyatt Hotel to a speech by Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton, who dismissed as ''bogus'' fears of global warming.
''Those who have been fostering what is essentially a baseless scientific scam have being trying to make the obvious sound absurd and the absurd sound obvious, and we are now going to turn the tables on them,'' Lord Monckton said.
www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/lord-of-climate-change-sceptic...
Lord Monckton
www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
