A Call for Evidence Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming

reply to post by Indy


Had to give you a star for that one. I, too, believe that the role of CO2 is being overplayed (for a taxation agenda) whilst the effects of water vapour is being neglected. Personally I think the increase in temperature is the result of an increase in high-altitude cirrus cloud (natural or from contrails), which appear to mirror the increase in air travel. This is of course my own personal pet theory (not entirely scientific) which I concluded after much reading on the subject of contrails (thank you chemtrailers!)

If you would like to learn more, I've authored a thread on that subject:
Aircraft contrails contributing to global warming?

As I've stated Melatonin.. you can't prove a negative. But if I must offer something as evidence I'll point to the Vostok core samples which shows a natural and repeating pattern of warming and cooling to which we are currently in a warm phase. That would indicate that warming over thousands of years is completely natural. That would put the burden of proof on those supporting AGW. They would have to prove that natural warming ended and new warming was created by man. That would be impossible to prove.

Proven is a history of large temperature changes. Proven is us at the top of a many thousand year temperature rise. So I guess that proves climate change is natural and not man made.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
If you would like to learn more, I've authored a thread on that subject:
Aircraft contrails contributing to global warming?

Strangely enough post 9/11 there was a report out that stated contrails actually provided cooling and that the lack of them post 9/11 contributed to a slight warming. Of course I think that was terrible science and a pathetic and desperate attempt to get published. They were using something like a 4 day sample. It was really quite amusing :-).

Originally posted by Indy
As I've stated Melatonin.. you can't prove a negative.

But you're trying to disprove a positive claim

The author of the thread wants us to prove something doesn't exist. That is what I mean by proving a negative. That goes into the category of proving god doesn't exist or proving Iraq didn't have WMDs.

The best you can do is to provide items for review that try and prove your claim. It doesn't disprove the other person's claim. If you show evidence that suggests CO2 causes warming and that man is producing CO2 would be evidence to support your claim but it doesn't disprove my claim that we are in a natural warming cycle that has been going on for thousands of years. Likewise me showing evidence that we are in a many thousand year long warming cycle doesn't disprove man isn't causing warming.

[edit on 2/5/2008 by Indy]

reply to post by Animal


The first thing I would ask you is, when and where did you first hear about Global warming. Look at where the information is coming from. Also notice that mainstream has switched gears and is now using Climate change rather than global warming.

Secondly, I do think we play a certain role, we contribute by polluting but we are not the cause. We are going through an inevitable cycle. A natural process that repeats itself overtime, blaming it solely on humans is another way to capitalize and control.

Peace.

Originally posted by Indy
The author of the thread wants us to prove something doesn't exist. That is what I mean by proving a negative. That goes into the category of proving god doesn't exist or proving Iraq didn't have WMDs.

OK, this is getting silly now. We do this stuff in science all the time.

If I make the prediction that taking out your brain will lead to an inability to write coherent english, then we test and find that after removing your brain, you can write coherent english. I've just falsified my hypothesis.

See, science is easy.

Carry on...

reply to post by forestlady


Here's the mission statement from the site:

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.

Though some say anthropogenic "global warming" is the most serious issue facing humankind, security of energy supply is a far more serious problem, since the fossil fuels that cause "global warming" may soon be exhausted. The Institute urges critical appraisal of legislative “climate fixes” for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utility or futility.

Proposals demanding prodigious economic or political sacrifices for the sake of negligible climatic benefits should be rejected in favor of policies to address graver, more immediate concerns about which something constructive can actually be done.

source

To me, this site is more about the questions we should be asking ourselves about AGW or GW - it's not really about proof, more about telling people what is actually going on and where the problems lie with certain propaganda material like AIT.

This is the major tax con of our times - as well as being a nice little earner for many.

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, this is getting silly now. We do this stuff in science all the time.

If I make the prediction that taking out your brain will lead to an inability to write coherent english, then we test and find that after removing your brain, you can write coherent english. I've just falsified my hypothesis.

Ok very well. Vostok core samples indicate a pattern of climate change going back hundreds of thousands of years to which we are at the top of a natural warming period. This is proven fact so that proves the idea of AGW as false. So in order to prove AGW is real you must prove that natural warming has ended. Until you can prove natural warming has ended AGW is nothing more than lab science and that goes into the same bin as lab rats and caffeine studies.

:yawn:

Yes, you've made your point. Carry on.

Me -> :X

Originally posted by melatonin
:yawn:

Yes, you've made your point. Carry on.

Me -> :X

At least my point is based on solid science, history, and reality. I tend to stay away from lab rats and caffeine.

BTW I see China is being overwhelmed by "Global Warming" right now.

:-)

Originally posted by Indy
At least my point is based on solid science, history, and reality. I tend to stay away from lab rats and caffeine.

BTW I see China is being overwhelmed by "Global Warming" right now.

:-)

If you say so. I suppose this is the best opportunity you'll have to slip these canards past me unchallenged.

Carry on.

Me -> :X

Good grief, I have explained this so many times I am beginning to tire of it already. Here it is again, so ladies and gentlemen, without delay, Why Global Warming is actually an Alternate Climate Cycle.

The entire Global Warming issue is a contrived one, and I know exactly why. First of all, Meteorlogical records have only been kept for a relatively short amount of time. This, combined with mankind's lack of complete knowledge towards even everyday weather events, should lead one to begin to open up their mind in regards to the Theory of Global Warming. Now onto the subject of Climatology, I happen to know a few Climatologists who are extremely keen, intelligent, and totally immersed in their field of work. I will lay it out plain and simple: We have known about Global Warming for 15 years, and since 15 years ago, we have also known that there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to reverse it. We could all drop dead, and cease any and all emissions of CO2 etc., and the Earth will still be forming a new Climatic pattern. The Earth has gone over multiple Climate Cycles since the very beginning of time, and life still thrives (no, do not panick, we will not vanish overnight). For those of you who do not know, we had an Ice Age in the 1600-1700 A.D. time frame, before which Greenland WAS actually Green. Many Native tribes populated the interior of the land mass, but when the cold spell came about, they began to die off. Most of this die off was due to the encroaching Glaciers and Ice Masses, which ceased production of the Native's current food supplies, and thus they starved and/or froze to death due to their inadaption towards a Polar Climate. Their entire lifestyle revolved around grasslands, and cultivation, which when exterminated lead to their demise.

Now, why is Global Warming being so overhyped and shoved into peoples faces? It is a VERY simple reason, and I will explain it to you. Pollution and such is an ever increasing problem on this home Planet called Earth. It has been an increasing problem leading to the die off of numerous Animal Species, as well as the contamination of our water and food supplies, and a truly exacerbating factor in diseases and health issues in general. We DO need to cut CO2 emissions (as just one example) because of this impact it is having upon the Planet. The problem however is that no matter how hard programs, groups, and activists tried, not many people were catching onto the entire environtmental crisis. SO, how can you get people to care about the environment upon which they have a great deal of impact? Attempt to take a natural phenomenon, tie it in with Human/Earth impact, and send people into a frenzy in order to clean up the Earth and their dirty ways. Plain and Simple.

Now, if you want to hear a real mystery towards Planetary Warming, tell me why Mars is also facing receding Polar Ice Caps?

Originally posted by Animal
just to keep this topic I would like to remind people that I am looking for posts with EVIDENCE to support their claims. As much respect as I have for the members of ATS opinions are not helpful. I started this thread in order to accumulate factual evidence that supports the premise that humans are not responsible for global warming. I guess controlling people's participation is not a right I have but it is my request.

Once this thread has collected a significant number of posts with such information, then I think it would be a good time to begin the discussion of the facts.

This is what I was hoping to accomplish, but please do not take this as me trying to give orders, again it is a humble request.

Then read my link. From almost 34 years ago, the complete opposite, from respected and tenured scientists and irrefutable data.
You can do your own research back to the 1890's, and find published documents declaring scorched earth and ice ages flip flopping every few decades.
This is not difficult, and you can locate the evidence with a few mouse clicks to take you to the actual data and not the hype.
I swear I'm going to take copy of all the links and just paste them on every thread demanding proof so I don't have to keep typing it several times a day in response to the climate change religion.
Yes, religion.
It is a faith based theory---faith in the people supporting it, and ignoring or villifying those who oppose it.

You asked proof. AGAIN I say, how can you provide proof refuting human caused climate change when the supporters of said theory use your own proof as support?
If it's hot where you are, it's human caused global climate change.
If you are under 6 feet of snow and it's 20 below, it's human caused global climate change.

For those wishing to blindly follow our saintly world leaders, I have a cure for global climate change.
Just make a voluntary donation above and beyond your carbon tax to the U.N

How about blaming the sun - check out this study.
www.livescience.com...

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

[edit on 2/5/08 by rezial666]

[edit on 2/5/08 by rezial666]

reply to post by Beachcoma


I believe the chemtrails are there to cool the planet. It is always about 10-15 % cooler when you the sun is directly behind the dispersed cloud.

reply to post by rezial666


It's not day-time temperatures that I'm interested in; it's the heat radiating back out at night that piques my attention. Try observing what the temperature is like on a cloudless night as opposed to a cloudy one.

reply to post by Animal


Excuse me...but for years now scientists have been trying to prove that Global Warming exists. Yet they have not been able to prove anything more than temperatures go up and temperatures go down. Look at China right now. RECORD SNOW, RECORD COLD...more record snow.

Things change.

Ya know when I lived in Florida for a while we had a saying. If you don't like the weather....wait 5 minutes.

Global warming does not exist, therefore......MAN IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

OK, start with all those same old charts and graphs.......go ahead. Make sure you include all data though. Algore and the IPCC cherry pick their data to fit the model. We here at ATS fully expect you to be above and beyond Algore and his hate America crowd.

Originally posted by melatonin
If you say so. I suppose this is the best opportunity you'll have to slip these canards past me unchallenged.

Carry on.

Me -> :X

You can challenge all you want. You should as it is your religion that is crumbling down around you.

But listening to the views of an AGW supporter is like taking relationship advice from a divorced friend. You hear them talking but all you can think is "Aren't you divorced?" lol

Cmon. The AGW theory is crashing down like a house of cards. Aren't you going to try and cook up something to protect it? All good religions have to threaten death or something to keep the myth alive. Don't you have a wild graph with manipulated numbers or wild predictions by unproven models to post?

:-)

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Global warming does not exist, therefore......MAN IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

That is brilliant. I didn't even think of that approach. That is basically the approach the IPCC and their congregation take. Man is here and the planet is warming therefore man must be responsible. AGW supporters make some reckless claims. They claim CO2 drives climate change. Unproven. They claim certain changes in CO2 result in certain global temperature changes. Unproven. And then they make the most ridiculous claim of all that man is doing it. Also unproven. The first two alone are the killers. The 3rd is for laughs. But that is why they have to use worst case scenarios. They do this so you are afraid to question the numbers. Their claims are silly, unsubstantiated, and are used as a tool for extorting money from governments and special interests groups. It is all about separating a fool from his money.