Global Warming Con Job

You know, Stellar, you don't need to be so insulting of my work. I have been studying GW ever since the '60's, when it was first discovered. And yes I do know something about atmospheric science and climatology.

You yourself gave NOT ONE referernce. I've at least come up with alot of them. Where are your sources or should I just believe you when you call me a liar?
I am NOT a liar and I don't make things up. I know good science when I see it, as well as good research. Your post contains none of that.

When you can come back with solid sources for your claims instead of mere insults, then I'll deal with you but not until then.

Originally posted by forestlady
My sentence was probably difficult to understand, but Dave I am in agreement with you about humans contributing to GW. I do not think GW is the sole result of humankind's actions.

Since thinking that would be complete ridiculous?

There are many factors involved, but the human factor means it is happening much, much faster than a normal climate cycle.

Evidence that can not be explained by more mundane and historically consistent ways?

It means that species don't have time to adapt to the changes.

Based on what?

I do think that the human factor is the largest one in GW.

Then bring me the date suggesting that the environmental releases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are smaller than those released by human activity. I don't want ' it's so data' i want specific volumes as that's the only way to prove what your suggesting.

Originally posted by forestlady
Thankyou, I think that is an excellent explanation. CO2 is the major problem as far as greenhouse gases.

Based on?

Water vapor reflects UV rays, how could that be the biggest contributor?

The greenhouse gas that is responsible for the greatest part of the greenhouse effect ( otherwise world temperatures would be on average 30 degrees Celsius lower) is in fact water vapor but they refuse to talk about it since human activity has not significantly ( at all really ) effected it.

Over 900 peer-reviewed scientific papers and not ONE says GW isn't happening.

If that was the case ( and it is not) one should be very suspicious as the atmospheric sciences are relatively badly understood. There is no way such a level of agreement could come about by mere scientific 'investigation'.

Nor do I think any of them say that it's not human caused.

According to the Journal "science" ( and i wonder sometimes)

Of the 900+ such abstracts found, none contradicted the view of the major scientific organizations that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."

Now tell me what that really means? Does it means we are warming it ,cooling it or not really doing much at all? I can't tell but maybe your willing to continue speculating?

That is unprecedented to have the scientific community all agreed about something.

Not really! If you investigate the illustrious history of science establishments you will find that they almost always back the wrong 'idea' for as long as they can or until the main proponents have died out. The sad reality is that the science establishment itself ( despite all the good papers being submitted and rejected) can determine our perception of reality by deciding what to publish and what not to. The inherent bias in that process leads to almost no serious disagreements ( unless you take bits and pieces from each noticing the massive contradictions in detail but not in overall conclusion ) in all that large volume of papers. Should such general agreement without agreement over specifics not make us wonder about the process employed?

Listen to the scientists, they've spent their whole entire lives studying it.

They study what their sponsors ask them to study and the science establishments of the world are normally part of government institutions or the military industrial complex.

We've knokwn about GW for 40 years and in that time the consensus among scientists just continues to grow ever stronger that it IS happening and that humanity is mostly responsible, not natural cyclesl, although that may play a part, too.

Consensus based science is about as useful as religion for uncovering great new truths about objective reality. The sad thing is that in the 1970's it was STILL global cooling that was ' in vogue' and too many of the same institutions and people are once again involved saying the exact opposite and once again coming up with doom and gloom scenarios.

The joke about the entire global warming( as resulting from mostly human industrial activity) facade is that benefits of significant warming would far outweigh any negative aspects and that is especially true for industrialized countries of the world. Is it not odd then that so many of the so called leaders of the west want to reign in energy consumption while the third world waits to pick up the slack and basically pollute as much as they want with ? This is just another attack on humanity in general and technological progress in particular and we should resist this blatant and easily disproved ( to say nothing of how easily we could manage or benefit by any real global warming) attempt to reign in our improving living standards that is almost entirely based on intimidation and fear mongering.

If you want to get involved in a more constructive discussion with source material by the train load just say so as i take particular pleasure in defending the little bit we do know, about objective reality, in defense of human progress and civilization in general.

Stellar

Originally posted by forestlady
You know, Stellar, you don't need to be so insulting of my work.

Actually it deserves insult and worse but i should not have indulged myself and wont do so again.

I have been studying GW ever since the '60's,

How could you have been studying GW since the 60's when the Earth was still cooling down last i checked? I used to think that spending huge amounts of time on any given subject increases one's odd's of understanding the underlying realities and discovering some truths but after the last few years i no longer believe that time spent helps at all. How can you, after nearly half a decade, have come to such a unsupported assumption about human contributions to the slight global warming that we did experience in the 80's and 90's?

when it was first discovered.
And yes I do know something about atmospheric science and climatology.

Well by the standards you seem to employ they should give me some degrees!

You yourself gave NOT ONE referernce. I've at least come up with alot of them.

I didn't see more than one link and it seemed to be broken. Anyone who provides one link and then loudly proclaims ' I told you so" don't merrit much trust. I didn't bother with links as you provided nothing in the posts i responded to but my invitation for a proper discussion stands.

Where are your sources or should I just believe you when you call me a liar?

If you think you should 'believe' anything i say you should not be taking part in the discussion? Since when are we supposed to simply believe what others say and why should you pretend that i could force you? Why should i bother with source material when you made so many claims based on no provided sources either? If you want to take part industrialized society don't you think you should be the one providing massive volumes of well sourced and accurate information? Global warming or not ( not, imo) people's lives ARE getting better and you want to reign that in with no useful alternatives offered? Why not investigate the case for vacuum energy and cold fusion and insist that our governments allow such technologies to reach the market instead of just insisting that we just 'stop' doing what were doing?

I am NOT a liar and I don't make things up.

Well there is always the possibility that you really just don't know what is going on and were fooled like so many others but i like to give people more credit and assume that they are well informed ( especially when they insist that they are ) and not just spreading misinformation due to their ignorance on any given subject matter. Since i know what you say is not accurate i just gave you the benefit of the doubt as you would be in relatively educated and well rewarded company.

I know good science when I see it, as well as good research.

Well ' know' and 'good' are probably not the words i would have used but i generally feel the same about science and research. Pistols at dawn then?

Your post contains none of that.

Well i am not scientist and i rely on actual scientist for all the information i have used in the past and there was never a need for me to rely on fringe or dissident scientist to arrive at what i currently believe. One can rip the entire human inspired global warming notion apart by simply cross referencing the claims made in those 900 odd papers; the atmospheric sciences do not rely on internally consistent sets of data and theories so it's a good old fashioned free for all where you could easily believed whatever you wanted to and especially if your sponsors encouraged you in certain directions...

When you can come back with solid sources for your claims instead of mere insults, then I'll deal with you but not until then.

You first! I might or might not provide more sourced material than i have in the past but i see no need yet as your apparently happy insisting that we should all just believe what some scientist are saying others said.

Stellar

Originally posted by Essan
But he's a Biologist

So presumably he understands the scientific method well enough to know how to arrive at what is best supported by the evidence?

Are you saying biologists know more about atmospheric science than atmospheric scientist?

Are you saying that knowing a great deal about a topic matter leads logically to making correct predictions or arriving objective reality?

There are many scientists who disagree with the conventional AGW theory . However there is almost complete consensus amongst atmospheric scientists - those who actual study the subject.

When there is complete agreement on anything it's probably not a good sign as history so adamantly proves...

Now, they may be wring. But so what? Almost everything we need to do to reduce carbon emissions are things that any intelligent species would be doing by now anyway.

In the same vein of logic why is global warming trend of a few degrees over the next hundred year such a bad thing? Where is the evidence that it will have a overall negative impact on human civilization?

Although maybe turning the lights off to reduce your energy bills, or walking to the shop to save petrol and parking costs and lose weight, is just too complicated a concept for most people to understand?

Why should i spend my mental energy on worrying about such nonsense when my government is killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq while getting my husband,wife,son or daughter maimed or killed? There is not a country in the world that does not face far larger and more immediate problems than any realistic scenario of the results global warming might have. We can all speculate about what global warming could do but then we could just as ignore that as Jesus ( insert whatever saviour you pray to) is coming back soon any ways; fatalistic/pessimistic types always find a part of the sky that seems unstable in their minds.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Why should i spend my mental energy on worrying about such nonsense when my government is killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq while getting my husband,wife,son or daughter maimed or killed?

Talk about a non sequitur!

Are you saying that the war in Iraq means trying to save a bit of money, or keep yourself fit and healthy is too much of a mental effort?

The simple fact is that many people in the world today (and of course the real big issue is that there are simply too many people ) are just too damned lazy these days - and would rather drown in a cesspool of their own making than go to the extreme effort of actually getting up and climbing out. And indeed, why even try to climb out when surely it's someone else's fault you're there in the first place and, besides, isn't it someone else's job to pull you out? Who wants self determination and personal responsibility when you can pay someone else to have it for you?

Now, back on subject: I personally do not believe a lot of the hype around global warming (most of which originates from the media, protest groups or politicians ) but I do respect the works and opinions of climate scientists studying the issue (some of whom I'm in daily contact with) and I certainly wouldn't be so arrogant as to dismiss them as being wrong without some very strong evidence.

The fact that discussions like this happen all the time does however show that there needs to be more honesty, and less extremist scaremongering

When did you hear anyone explain that although Arctic temps are warming faster today than at any time in recorded history, the best available data shows even greater changes have occurred previously during the Holocene? (and no, I don't mean the Medieval Warm period either - that was actually still quite a cold spell comparatively speaking for Greenland! Check out the GISP2 ice cores). This doesn't mean that current warming is not anthropogenic, but it does put it in proper context.

Of course the other issue is that anthropogenic climate change isn't all about carbon emissions and global warming. What happens when you chop down half a rain forest? Take a look at the Sahara for a clue ..... Take a birdseye look at a large metropolitan areas 2 days after a heavy snowfall, and compare with open countryside. Which absorbs solar radiation and which reflects it back into space? Why are there so many more high level clouds around these days? And what has the huge rise in commercial air travel over the past 15-20 years got to do with it all? etc etc

Originally posted by Essan
Talk about a non sequitur!
Are you saying that the war in Iraq means trying to save a bit of money, or keep yourself fit and healthy is too much of a mental effort?

I am saying , quite clearly IMO, that there are far more important issues that we should have in and on mind than thinking about which lights are burning and how to make time to walk to work one or two days or spend time and energy arranging the organized stress that is drive-along clubs.

The simple fact is that many people in the world today (and of course the real big issue is that there are simply too many people

There really is not and even if we persist in sticking to the current energy paradigm we could sustain tens of billions for a long time indeed. If you do not know how this is possible do some research.

are just too damned lazy these days - and would rather drown in a cesspool of their own making than go to the extreme effort of actually getting up and climbing out.

There are too many powers in the world that keeps shoving people back the moment they climb out and if some have chosen to simply accept their fates ( and not risk getting shot for managing to get out of the hole) and the little cover that the hole's provide i have sympathy with that. Do you know that the US government , or it's support structure in Europe, have been undermining Democratic and freedom movements all over the world for centuries? Why are people not allowed to better themselves and why are they attacked when they do?

And indeed, why even try to climb out when surely it's someone elses fault you're there in the first place and, besides, isn't it someone elses job to pull you out?

Hundreds of thousands of human beings spent years in trenches ( cesspools really) during the first world war and they were happy to have them as the alternatives were worse. If you can instill enough fear and prove that you are willing to terrorize people will accept their fates ( given you allow them their very basic right to a day to day survival) and generally lack the enthusiasm or energy for attempting anything revolutionary.

Who wants self determination and personal responsibility when you can pay someone else to have it for you?

One only has to look at the history of the world to see what it generally took to crush the independent spirit of those you wanted to oppress or control. Do you realise what the British had to do to keep control over Ireland ( their first colony) the past eight hundred years? There is some very good reading on that topic that should prove how hard it is to oppress and well practiced our oppressors are.

Now, back on subject: I personally do not believe a lot of the hype around global warming (most of which originates from the media, protest groups or politicians

I see too many scientist that are actively engaged in hyping what they very well know is not related to good science. Why are there so few of those supposed 900 science papers that does nothing to expressly undermine global warming even if they do so by openly contradicting statements in their various papers? Why is the peer review process failing so badly if such contradictions are allowed to fester without attention?

) but I do respect the works and opinions of climate scientists studying the issue (some of whom I'm in daily contact with) and I certainly wouldn't be so arrogant as to dismiss them as being wrongwithout some very strong evidence.

I also respect their views and opinions even if i sometimes strongly disagree with the conclusions that does not seem to follow and are seemingly driven by overt or covert bias. We must investigate why the dissenters are being so effectively suppressed and why this is possible with a supposed critical media...

The fact that discussions like this happen all the time does however show that there needs to be more honesty, and less extremist scaremongering.

One only have to look at the global cooling scare ( we were all going to free to death according to too many prominent scientist in the 70's) to realise that the system is broken and must be fixed if we expect to give us data that have much to do with reality.

When did you hear anyone explain that although Arctic temps are warming faster today than at any time in recorded history, the best available data shows even greater changes have occurred previously during the Holocene? (and no, I don't mean the Medieval Warm period either - that was actually still quite a cold spell comparatively speaking for Greenland! Check out the GISP2 ice cores). This doesn't mean that current warming is not anthropogenic, but it does put it in proper context.

Well i have read a little bit ( and i believe that asking the right questions of the right people can make up for a great deal of general ignorance on any given subject) and i have read about that on at least a few occasions. There are so many of these contradictions that go unreported that i see no reason to suspect mere 'coincidence' in reporting bias...

Of course the other issue is that anthropogenic climate change isn't all about carbon emissions and global warming. What happens when you chop down half a rain forest? Take a look at the Sahara for a clue .....

I think we can ask the Chinese and look at their response of rapidly taking apart their foresting industry...

Take a birdseye look at a large metropolitan areas 2 days after a heavy snowfall, and compare with open countryside. Which absorbs solar radiation and which reflects it back into space?

Which would be really significant if metropolitan areas covered any significant part of the world's surface.

Why are there so many more high level clouds around these days? And what has the huge rise in commercial air travel over the past 15-20 years got to do with it all? etc etc

I don't think that is related to commercial air traffic and i don't think there is actual evidence for those claims.

Stellar

Global Warming does not exist. Carbon dioxide is a combustion byproduct. It is not harmful.

You would think with the way some people (and I mean Popular Mechanics) treat the issue, that they have already forgone the thought that it is carbon monoxide that is poisonous and lethal, not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide dissovles readily in water, is not poisonous and is the standard by which an industrial economy is measured (like sulfuric acid production in the old days).

Global Warming does exist. It's measurable worldwide. CO2 while organically beneficial IS A GREENHOUSE GAS! Saying it isn't is going against a half a century of science.

Am I right in thinking that the single largest factor in the earth's temperature, by several orders of magnatude, is THE SUN?

If that's so, then I wonder why it is we hear so little about the sun's energy output and so much about mankind's supposed contributions to global warming.

Could it be that there is no political hay to be made by blaming the sun?

There is no question of whether or not global warming is happening in my book.
I've lived in Michigan for most of my years and always owned snowmobiles, sledding stuff and snow skis. I haven't owned any of that stuff in over 10 years now.
There simply hasn't been enough snow on the ground and the lakes haven't frozen over long enough to be safe to play on.

A few years could be a fluke, El Nino or whatever you want to label it.
Five years could be a coincidence.
But ten years is a fairly undeniable fact that "something" is changing weather-wise.

Up until this week, aside from a freak snow in October, we've been enjoying t-shirt weather here in Michigan. I thinking of planting some palm trees in my yard this spring, I'll bet they will do fine in the coming years as long as we keep up this warming trend!

the question is not wether GW ís real or not, but wether we are supposed to listen to every wacko with an agenda when he says that we need to get into the hydrogen economy or pay air tax (see Kyoto protocol) for comparably benign CO2 emissions. we should of course adress changes in climate, in a sensible, understandable manner and, most importantly, without turning it into a racket at taxpayers' expense.

see www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Nemithesis
There is no question of whether or not global warming is happening in my book. I've lived in Michigan for most of my years and always owned snowmobiles, sledding stuff and snow skis. I haven't owned any of that stuff in over 10 years now.
There simply hasn't been enough snow on the ground and the lakes haven't frozen over long enough to be safe to play on.

So without a doubt things have changed in your part of the world. Is that in your opinion enough to be sure of a global warming?

A few years could be a fluke, El Nino or whatever you want to label it.
Five years could be a coincidence.
But ten years is a fairly undeniable fact that "something" is changing weather-wise.

And that's what all the peer reviewed papers say as well but their not very specific as to what kind of chance in taking place.

Up until this week, aside from a freak snow in October, we've been enjoying t-shirt weather here in Michigan. I thinking of planting some palm trees in my yard this spring, I'll bet they will do fine in the coming years as long as we keep up this warming trend!

As Scott would say " keep looking up" .

www.weatherwars.info...

You can read the three part series as i believe that might answer many of your questions. If it does not please ask as i believe i may be able to clarify a few issues in more detail.

Hope that helps!

Stellar

to be honest,
i did not read thru the 3 pages of responses 1st....

i just wanted to share this Global Warming Test

10 quick Q & A @

www.geocraft.com...




i missed 1 Q.....i think i was trying to outguess myself?
enjoy it yourself!

Originally posted by sardion2000
Global Warming does exist. It's measurable worldwide. CO2 while organically beneficial IS A GREENHOUSE GAS! Saying it isn't is going against a half a century of science.

In that case, so what? Measurable worldwide means nothing. Saying it is a greenhouse gas means nothing. I am waiting for the ice caps to melt, the oceans to rise and mass flooding. None of this will happen. CO2 abundancy is at about 0.04% atmospheric concentration. It is absolutely nothing and marvelous though it can be measured in such discrete quantities.

I see some people saying GW is because of us
I see some people saying GW is because of nature

I don't think 100% of scientists agree on this but its about 75% believe its because of us vs 25% who believe it is because of nature or whatever

so....
WHO CARES?!?!!?!?!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!!?!?!?!!
its up to us to do something about it. If we don't, we die.
Switch to clean energy, plant some F'ing trees, do your part or F'ing kill yourself now you dumb mother F'ing SOB's

and im not targeting any individual on this website, my anger is aimed at humanity in general. Theres a problem and its a big one. Solve it. Quit arguing, theorizing, contemplating, and waxing philosophic about it. DO SOMETHING. The time to act is now! Right now! Right F'ing NOW!!!!

My parents live near the Deleware river. Its flooded here 3 times in two years. There has been little to no snowfall here in an area where as a child I regularly experienced blizzard conditions. This is the warmest year on record. EVER.

I don't even own a car, Im moving to SoCal where the temperature stays within a comfortable level so I dont need AC or Heat, I use those low power long lasting light bulbs. Im doing my part. I see these jerks in thier SUV's driving 80 miles a day to work, commuting from thier suburb house where they leave thier AC running all day long with nobody home. It just makes me so freakin mad.

People are stupid. So very very stupid. I LOVE every Hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake or other such disaster that KILLS a portion of our ignorant self-destructive species. We arent making the world better, so we should just die. Die en masse. walk into the sea and drown like the lemmings you are.

Originally posted by guyopitz
My parents live near the Deleware river. Its flooded here 3 times in two years. There has been little to no snowfall here in an area where as a child I regularly experienced blizzard conditions. This is the warmest year on record. EVER.

So what can you prove, about global environmental change, based on those personal experiences?

I don't even own a car, Im moving to SoCal where the temperature stays within a comfortable level so I dont need AC or Heat, I use those low power long lasting light bulbs. Im doing my part.

All you are really doing is making yourself feel better and 'involved'. If this is all your going to do your not going to achieve more than unwarranted emotions of 'righteousness' which sadly wont save the world or even you...

I see these jerks in thier SUV's driving 80 miles a day to work, commuting from thier suburb house where they leave thier AC running all day long with nobody home. It just makes me so freakin mad.

Get even angrier as you could be spreading the knowledge of free energy technologies instead of just getting angry and turning off your low power light to fume in the darkness.

People are stupid.So very very stupid

Mostly ignorant as our brains are the same size and have the same potential as far as my knowledge goes.

. I LOVE every Hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake or other such disaster that KILLS a portion of our ignorant self-destructive species.

This is what doing something as pointless as turning off your low power lights results in. Doing something you realise wont change anything just results in feelings of powerlessness and then anger. Even thought a few people get exactly what they deserve in this world that is most certainly not the case for the absolute vast majority who were never afforded the opportunity to learn enough about 'how things work' so that they may take truly self interested action for the common good.

Don't waste your energy on anger as that will just add more destruction. If your current attempts at saving the world leaves you feeling this way it's time to change tact as your rational mind is telling you in no uncertain terms that your wasting your time by trying to do it alone.

We arent making the world better, so we should just die. Die en masse. walk into the sea and drown like the lemmings you are.

The world is certainly a friendlier place than it was at any other time in recorded human history and considering mass extinctions of past bad things happens with or without humans. The fact that your wishing for the extinction of your own species leaves me wondering about the state, or lack of it, of your mind. Maybe it's time you change your mind about a wide variety of issues.

Originally posted by guyopitz
I see some people saying GW is because of us
I see some people saying GW is because of nature

I don't think 100% of scientists agree on this but its about 75% believe its because of us vs 25% who believe it is because of nature or whatever

According to the 'consensus' we affect the climate but that is about as much as they seem to have concluded. If you are willing to make conclusions based on such a vague 'consensus' your free to do so.

so....
WHO CARES?!?!!?!?!?!!?!??!!??!?!?!!?!?!?!!
its up to us to do something about it. If we don't, we die.

Well there is no consensus that we are killinh of the human species by out actions. You only have to look at the world growth rates to notice this.

Switch to clean energy, plant some F'ing trees, do your part or F'ing kill yourself now you dumb mother F'ing SOB's

Well we should but governments will only allow that under huge pressure from their voters and then only provide as 'clean' energy as solar, hydra and wind can which imo is the type of half measure that is not really worth the trouble.

and im not targeting any individual on this website, my anger is aimed at humanity in general.

What has humanity done that you find so aggravating? Would you care about the environment if you did not know where your next meal would come from? Poverty destroys the environment much much faster than people the people that drives SUV's can normally manage.

Theres a problem and its a big one. Solve it. Quit arguing, theorizing, contemplating, and waxing philosophic about it. DO SOMETHING. The time to act is now! Right now! Right F'ing NOW!!!!

Just calm down a bit as i am worried you might injure yourself while attempting to save the world ( that never asked) in your present highly excited state.

Stellar

[edit on 11-1-2007 by StellarX]

Im a firm supporter of all this being CRAP.

Why does all the data used for charting historical temperatures come from very speciffic periods of time? I saw a chart going back 112 years! Why 112!? That seems like a very odd number. Why not make the chart 80, 90, 250, 300 years? Hell, the thermometer was invented in like 1612 or some crap like that.

Reagrdless of charting a selected period of time any period of time is pretty much insignificant. How long have we been here? Like 30,000 years or something like that? How long has the Earth been hear? Like 2 billion years! Im sure throughout different 112 year periods it has been both hotter and colder than it is now.

Not to be a jerk or anything, forestlady, but since youve been working on this for about 40 years what were you doing 30 years ago when scientists working for grant money and an always objective media were drilling into our heads fear of the coming ice age we would be powerless to do anything about?

And where the hell are those killer bees that were supposed to eat us all alive in the 80's?

Sorry, but Ive developed a deep mistrust of pop-science stemming back to when butter was good for you, or was it bad for you? Which is it now?

When the world is dead and gone and history can be charted with absolute objective accuracy I might buy into some man-made global warming/climate change theories but until that day forgive me for being less than eager to drug our cattle to limit methane emissions, blast sulfur into the atmosphere to block the suns rays or even buy into an electric vehicle. You do know that electricity 9 times out of 10 is produced by burning coal, right? Or does it just magically flow from any hole in any wall thanks to Ben Franklin?

Oh, Im certainly not ready to allow or even ask the government to tax me further in the name of fighting some phantom menace. If GW is anything its a convenient way for the government to create more taxation and more legislation further limiting out freedoms. But Im sure all you guys in the UK actually want that. Having cameras every 5 feet and given up all of your guns, knives, criket bats, hammers, and large pieces of rock and wood in the name of safety.

my first post, so please forgive any breaches of etiquette.

people spouting nonsense winds me up

people spouting nonsense about climate change is very very very dangerous

a) 500,000 years of climate records - check out the vertical lines at the right of teh graph and explain how we have 30% more CO2 in the atmoshere than at any other time in the last 500,000 years... and then caluclate the odds of this happening bang on the industrail revolution and yet been unrelated [hint: v low chance]

b) get up to speed here, Jim Hansen is the man on this stuff... learn why the climate is regarded as an 'ornery beast' - a little nudge and it overreacts, badly

and try this analogy for size:

take a party balloon and blow it up. the balloon is the earth. the 'skin' of the balloon is the atmosphere. the atmosphere is very very thin and we can easily destroy the balance held within it

and remember - highest human permanent is at about 14,000 feet altitude - so we can only live in a fraction of the atmosphere - we should take care of it...

GW is real

never mind these theories that the NWO or whatever are maniopulating us with fear, question why we aren't been told the full truth...

Originally posted by revepelli
my first post, so please forgive any breaches of etiquette.

people spouting nonsense winds me up

people spouting nonsense about climate change is very very very dangerous

a) 500,000 years of climate records - check out the vertical lines at the right of teh graph and explain how we have 30% more CO2 in the atmoshere than at any other time in the last 500,000 years...

please read post www.abovetopsecret.com...

then either acknowledge that CO2 is not the culprit or refute my train of arguments. CO2 levels once were much higher than anything we experience today and the planet did not turn into Venus, singling out contributing factors may sell, but has nothing to do with so called 'sound science'.