A quick question about Global Warming?

Do scientists agree global warming is real? All i see is scientists comming out saying its a hoax

I also remember a UN member came out and said the same thing , its a hoax

[edit on 29-6-2009 by dino1989]

No they don't say its a hoax.
What they say is, the Earths temperature is constantly changing has been for billions of years.
And not just 1 thing, being us, causes it.
They agree the Earth has warmed but disagree it is significant enough compared to other periods when we were in very small numbers.
Therefore the evidence they have factual science says carbon trading is a sham.
It is based nothing at all upon real science and will just cover up the real pollution being put into the environment.
At a nice big profit to the corporates.
You see Carbon is not pollution, it is contained in every single thing on the earth some things more than others.
Depleted uranium on the other hand does not occur in nature.
Neither does Plastic.
Plastic has less carbon footprint than humans.

Its not so much as a hoax, its just that we cant decide on wether global warming is a fact.

The reason being is, there is not enough historical meteorological data, to determine wether global warming has/is occuring or not. Climate records, based on human observations, only go back for approximately a century. We cant tell if the recent trend of warming is a product of human intervention, or is part of a large global phase, where the earth warms then cools, for long periods of time.

Personally, given that the earth has cooled over the last couple of years (and that Im one of the guys that monitor weather for a living), I would say that the earth cools and heats periodically.

But again, we just dont have the data to prove one way or another

Hope that helps

It's a big fat lie with one aim and that is control energy, while screwing us for everything they can get through carbon taxes.

euro-med.dk...

Earth's favourite parasites. Go figure.

Rothschild Australia and E3 International to take the lead in the global carbon trading market

Sydney, Australia - Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.

In a move that will re-shape the fledgling emissions trading market, Rothschild Australia and E3 International today announced their intention to launch the Carbon Ring Consortium -- an investment vehicle that will provide companies in the Asia Pacific Region with an innovative way of learning about and understanding their risks in the new carbon market.

www.prnewswire.co.uk...

Go figure.

Consumers will need to pay more for energy if the UK is to have any chance of developing the technologies needed to tackle climate change, according to a group of leading scientists and engineers.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Go figure.

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

They have an agenda and they couldn't care less what anyone else thinks and that includes the experts who know what they are talking about. Most of the science & scientists who support man made global warming are probably bought and paid for by the same cronies.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Global Warming Fraud Exposed.Pt.1/3

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Ditto what he said.

I don't know either, but if what we can ascertain from ice core samples, tree rings of very old growth, astronomy and a myriad of other observational data...and considering the scale, the size of the Earth, it would seem that in the grander scheme, what we Humans are capable of in terms of influencing the planet as a whole is insignificant....at least, in the short term. That is, within one Human's lifetime.

But, what do I know? I never pick good lottery numbers.....

PS...just in case, I advocate a dedicated and fast-tracked mission to colonize Mars....just as a vacation home, mind you

I would like to point out the sunspot issue...

When there are many sunspots, the solar system warms. Last cycle we had many, but this cycle there have been virtually none.

The last time so few were noted was preceding the "Mini-Ice Age."

And it is cold and wet THIS summer. Very different and colder than the years I have seen here.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
...there is not enough historical meteorological data, to determine wether global warming has/is occuring or not. Climate records, based on human observations, only go back for approximately a century...But again, we just dont have the data to prove one way or another

We only vaguely understand Earth's meteorology based on the scientific observations of a mere 200 years, but the fact is that the data we DO have — based on deep core samples and geologic indicators — suggest that our planet has endured MANY drastic climate changes over the ages, and that Life DOES NOT CAUSE climate change. If anything, Earthly climate change is always precipitated by solar radiation and seismic upheaval. Life either adapts to the change or it falls to extinction, but Life DOES NOT and CANNOT spontaneously change the climate.

There is NO data to prove that Life in general or Mankind specifically is capable of triggering climate change.

Current arguments offered by the foaming manmade global warming theorists can be likened to an argument based on a single snapshot of a forest fire. The theorists assess the snapshot they see — trees, flame, and smoke — and somehow arrive at the backwards conclusion that smoke CAUSES fire that in turn consumes the forest.

I mean, that's just how fragile is the logic behind manmade global warming theory. It's so fragile, in fact, that warming theorists have repeatedly been caught falsifying evidence — as with Al Gore's infamous "hockey stick graph" — or sweeping contrary evidence under the carpet and persecuting those who dare to dissent.

As has been said all along, all we need do is follow the money to see who benefits from the manmade global warming hoax. The U.S. House of Representatives has just rammed through its approval of the largest and most damaging taxation bill in the history of the United States, a bill so detrimental and unconstitutional that our Congress does not want the American people to review it or voice their opposition to it.

Congress is going to steamroll this bill into law, against the will of the people, initiating a massive flow of additional cash from taxpayers into government coffers.

Follow the money.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 6/29/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Yes, thats true about the ice cores etc

But what Im talking about is real time observations and analysing data from those, rather than analysing data from a sample, taken from long ago.

global warming is most likely a real phenomenom, but at the same time, depending on how you interpret data and trends, we could also be STILL in global cooling....


you interpret that graph and tell me what you think, by the way i have a harvard/oxford text book with this graph in it

In some parts of the world however, it might be real. Annoyingly real in my case!

I've observed it for more than a decade. I'm now risking all my little savings just to have chance to migrate to New Zealand for the much bearable climate. That's about 8000 USD worth of expenses. I am that poor

The world has gotten warmer, no question about it. It's how the global warming fraud gained traction.

These sorts of sudden warmth spikes have happened before.

Four different studies have found Mars getting warmer. See links:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

www.space.com...

And if you have 75 or so minutes, an excellent documentary . . . . not produced by Republicans.

Earth and the Sun follow cycles. The one thing that never changes is that EVERYTHING CHANGES.


We have periodic cooling periods, we have warming periods.

Some are fairly cyclical, some are cyclical, but we don't know why.

A single volcano eruption can spew many more tons of CO2 and other global warming gases in a few days than all mankind can spew in decades.

The volcano also spew particulates which will drop global temperatures.

Precipitation is the Great Regulator. The warmer it gets, the more water evaporated to become water vapor, the more rain and other precipitation, the more cooling.

Well the earth has gotten warmer, but wether or not that is due to human activity is the question that scientists are trying to answer (and argue about). I think that with all the gases that we are producing we must have some sort of impact on our climate. Having said that I don't believe that we should be worrying about it and changing out lifestyles to make a better earth. Even if all of North America were to switch over to green energy, China and the rest of the developing world is still adding a great amount of pollution to the atmosphere which will almost make anything we do seem insignificant. Green energy costs money and not everybody in the world is willing to spend it for improvements that we may not even see in our lifetime.

You know what else is causing global warming??

-The collective consciousness of the planet, that includes us. Figure it out!

@CaptainCaveMan

Depleted uranium on the other hand does not occur in nature.

Er... yeah it does.

Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element with a half life of around 4.5 billion years.

This 4.5 billion years is the time it takes for HALF of a sample to *DEPLETE* and decay into another element.

Hence, Depleted uranium IS natural, but nowhere as abundant as nuclear technology produces.

@OP

Ok, global warming is REAL, and so is Global Cooling.

The planet fluctuates its temperature constantly, with its temperature variables being as numerous as:

Average sunlight
Average solar radiance
Average cloud cover
Average cloud thickness
Average albedo
Average atmospheric composition
Average distance between earth and sun
Average Solar Wind composition, speed, MeV/particle
Etc
etc
etc
etc....


Global climatology is one of the most complicated subjects known to man, and no on can say for certain what WILL or WILL NOT happen.

Global climatology is not yet understood to any degree of predictability.

Therefore, the climate change "Theorists" have absolutely no testable hypothesis on which to base their *Presumptions*

Furthermore, a "Carbon Tax" would not be the best way to combat climate change even IF it was happening, and even IF Carbon WAS responsible.

The "Climate Change" legislation is an attempt by corporations to make money off of unfinished pseudo-scientific hyperbole.

Furthermore, it is designed to move industries to third world nations who would not enforce these legislations in the first place, (Sort of like what NAFTA ended up doing to the US economy)

So, NO... Climate change is not something that you can stop with a TAX.

And even if you wanted to STOP it, you would first have to find a different energy source than fossil fuels to run our infrastructure on.

That is one debate that you will NEVER see, even though it i would be the ONLY way to prevent climate change.

IT is being pushed because it does not stop Oil companies from polluting (Read: Proffiting), and merely taxes consumers for using an energy resource to which no alternative is allowed by the current power/energy elite.

IT is Crap.


-Edrick