The worst attempt to justify Global Warming... Ever

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup
Wow, even with 98% of climate and environmental scientists agreeing that global warming is real, crazy people still find a way to doubt actual science. Global warming is real and that really isn't even up for debate. It's not caused by the sun or space aliens, or anything ridiculous like that. It is caused by pollution. It is a direct effect of factory farming, oil dependency, deforestation, and general lack of care for the planet. Anyone who says global warming isn't real is just looking for excuses to be lazy and to continue stuffing their face with factory farmed meat, driving their S.U.V., and all around apathy towards our planet. This is our home. This planet enables us to sustain our lives, isn't it time that we started enabling the planet to sustain its life?

what a dictatorial little attitude you have, that may wash in some fascistic forums, but not here hombre

I'm participating in this thread, so I won't be moderating it, but as a fellow member, if not a mod, I must ask that we focus on the topic and not pollute the thread with personal attacks and other irrelevant nonsense that nobody cares about.

Just sayin'

reply to post by Essan


Not really much and none if your talking major contributions. Now, I am a chemist working in the trenches type. My research work while in school would have been in areas such as the denaturization of sugar with plane polarized light. If that interests you as a research project. My education was in Environmental Sciences and I've worked as both a Bioligist and a Chemist. My hobby is studying real time weather patterns and their effects on the micro climate, since that directly affects my work now. I work closely with meteorlogical data and anylize the quality of various data collection methods for submittal to databases you can query. I suppose that is my contribution to the overall discussion of environmental affects of man. True, there are some nasty affects of man made pollution to our enjoyment of the earth and that is what motivates me to work for such low pay.

However we got here, for us to ignore the huge swings in the temps demonstrated in our geological records and demonstrated in ice core samples, is not scientific. Continuing to do ignore such data leads to insane ideas like "man made global warming is going to kill us all". Therefore, I speak out to something I have at least a rudimentary understanding. My education teaches me that quite probably SUV's did not change the climate of the other planet's in the solar system as they seem to be undergoing changes like the planet we live on also. Therefore, it is not a reach to see that something is affecting us from outside of Earth which is the source of our real problem wether it be warming/cooling or in transition towards one end of the spectrum.

So, either we can agree there is a geological record we can point to, or not? But we all can see ice ages are bad for crop production. Let us make green house gases a win-win instead of an Al Gore gets rich scheme if it is warming the next 50 years. But as of now, the long range models weathermen use normally miss the 5th day out almost every time in the seven day forecast. You trust them to have it all properly calculated for how far out into the future? I have 4 days as my limit and it might be a real stretch to go past 2 d.

Well I thought I'd stick my oar in.

Personally I have a hard time buying into all the global warming stuff, mainly because, our expanse of human history is puny in comparisson to the timeline of earth, and our recorded history is even smaller (about 3 nanoseconds ??? I'm not a mathematician).

I believe the external influences of this planet, the sun in particular have more to do with our climate, than any influence we as humans could exert. Unfortunately yet again the human condition of the ego, propels us to attach such self importance, that we overstretch our understanding of our capabilities.

Any impact we could have on "Global Warming" in the grand scheme of things, has to, by definition, be too small to be significant.


Plus, (and I'm always saying this), science is progressive, very little is set in stone.

Of course the notion of "Global Warming" is having an impact, by way of giving our governments more imaginative ways to tax us, in addition its a great tool, to try and preserve the remaining oil in the world, with everybody re-using their plastic, its less of a drain on oil demand (although dare I say it is good practice given that one day it is going to run out).

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The BBC is a properganda tool thats why everyone in the UK is force to pay for the service by law wether they want it or not. Its almost entirely run by the Old boys network / Old Etonians . Its also used by the goverment / MI6 to spy on other countries.

edit on 5-7-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Every major news outlet and ninety percent of the smaller media outlets are on the payroll of the NWO . They have been feeding us half truths and total disinformation foe years . You should be use to it by now.

Originally posted by solargeddon

Any impact we could have on "Global Warming" in the grand scheme of things, has to, by definition, be too small to be significant.

edit on 5-7-2011 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)

We may be small and seem insignificant, but something very small, and insignificant can cause big stress on the bigger scheme of things. For example, a CD looks perfect, but there are small imperfections that can disrupt how they function. Let's watch a CD spinning and say it's the world, and we are a small imperfection. Watch the entire video and notice that at about 1:35 the imperfection starts to get to work.



The CD spins fine for a while, then that little imperfection throws things off a bit.I don't see this disk recovering.

I'd like to point out that we may look insignificant, but we're more than capable of derailing what Earth had going for it before we started to get to work.

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup
Wow, even with 98% of climate and environmental scientists agreeing that global warming is real, crazy people still find a way to doubt actual science. Global warming is real and that really isn't even up for debate. It's not caused by the sun or space aliens, or anything ridiculous like that. It is caused by pollution. It is a direct effect of factory farming, oil dependency, deforestation, and general lack of care for the planet. Anyone who says global warming isn't real is just looking for excuses to be lazy and to continue stuffing their face with factory farmed meat, driving their S.U.V., and all around apathy towards our planet. This is our home. This planet enables us to sustain our lives, isn't it time that we started enabling the planet to sustain its life?

"Every time somebody tells me "99.9% of scientists believe in AGW," I hit 'em back with "Yes, because 99.9% of scientists are utterly dependent on government grants for their next meal."

Cross the funding source, and you can count on having no budget next year. These politicians are hell-bent on taking over the energy sector--which is the whole enchilada, really--and they've got "science" over a barrel."

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by TheUniverse

 

When the Earth warms or cools for an ice age, it is on pretty much a regular schedule. The warming and cooling takes about 8k-10k years.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b4d86b570fb.png[/atsimg]

Not 2 decades.

Hrm... when did i say 2 decades? Liar much? I said Inter-Glacial Periods usually last 20,000-30,000 Years Get your facts straight.(You may want to look at the graph)

The CO2 released comes after the warm up, as a result of the oceans warming.

Correct also CO2 is released from the melting Ice Caps.

In turn, a warmer atmosphere heated the oceans making them much less efficient storehouses of carbon dioxide and reinforcing global warming, possibly forestalling the onset of a new glacial age

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia- Glacial And Inter-glacials.

If the sun remains in a solar minimum, this will not cause another ice age, as current CO2 levels produced by man have 3 times the radiative effect of the Sun.

That is an out-right lie. refer to this post i surmise i'll copy and paste it to this thread since you ignored the data from my previous post (don't bother replying if you're not going to go over the data that i posted or quote my source and try to refute it, Other wise you're just spouting non-sense.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Puny Humans think their Meager 4% or less C02 output compared to Earths Overall C02 Output is the main factor in the melting of the Ice.

When in-fact it has minimal Effect; Quite minimal in-fact. 50% of the C02 we actually release is absorbed in the first year by the Oceans plants and life on Earth.

The Anthropogenic(Human) Global Warming (Climate Change) Is a lie.

The weather has always been fluctuating and the Sea level was rising from 18,000 years ago until present. These people are just looking for funding .

GeoCraft- GreenHouse Gas Effect.

Water Vapor is the Greenhouse Gas with the Most effect on Temperature by Far Compared to all other Greenhouse Gases

Wikipedia- GreenHouse Gases - Roles of Water Vapour
"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[10] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/829f40736889.gif[/atsimg]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Only reason we can account for the 2 ppm (PART PER MILLION) Increase of C02 in the atmosphere per year is most likely because of the mass deforestation going on.

The Forests are a large carbon dump and are being reduced in number. We can also probably factor in the Warming of the Oceans which has been happening since 15,000-18,000 years ago (Way before the Industrial Revolution)

Putting it all together:

total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.



To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases

(3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only

(0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The

greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below


Title (For Graph):Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48e8f28fb4fc.jpg[/atsimg]


Putting it all together:

total human greenhouse gas contributions

add up to about 0.28%

of the greenhouse effect.

The interglacial periods, however, are not always so systematic, and some have reported to be as long as 28,000 years.

That is true they are not always systematic i was just generalizing the Inter-Glacial's for the past million years have usually been around 20,000-40,000 years at most for the past million years.

Not matter what the reason, no human should be able to observe a climate change in their lifetime.

Ok I'm not sure exactly what you're pertaining to there. But the Climate on earth has always changed so the factoid that Global Warming Hi-jacked the Climate Change Slogan Because they couldn't forge their Warming trend anymore since the Temperatures haven't increased since the peak in 1998-1999

But Get Real.

Technically we should be at the end of the interglacial period by 1,000 years. The evidence of the cooling beginning would be the northern ice sheets growing and thickening, but they are not. They are shrinking.

That is the most absurd statement i've ever heard. We cannot predict exactly when the Inter-Glacial Will end (or if it will probably will though) But it could be anywhere from 100's of years to 10,000's of years

The evidence of the cooling beginning would be the northern ice sheets growing and thickening, but they are not. They are shrinking.

Yes Sea Ice Melting is whats been happening for 1000's of Years Since 18,000 years ago approx Whats your point? You're grasping at Straws. Next time you try to refute my post try quoting me before spouting rhetoric.

The Earth is at a point where no natural warming should be occurring.

And you know this how?. The Climate has always been changing on the Earth. We are in the middle of an inter-Glacial Period.

The climate spikes up and down during inter-glacial's just like it has been doing always. Care to examine the Vostok Ice Cores.

You really are spouting nonsensical statements.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b4d86b570fb.png[/atsimg]

2009 was the lowest solar activity observed in a century. So why are we still warming up.

Suns Activity Increased in past century Study Confirms- Yes i know this is earlier than 2006- but the second Space.com article will explain you're minimum in 2009

As i said the climate goes up and down through cycles and not always systematically; but we may be heading into a maunder Minimum in 2015 or around that time

You stating that the climate is warming doesn't prove anything the past 10 years we haven't warmed at all since 1998-1999 the temperature was higher that year; When it peaked. Source for this is right on the OP.

Space.com 3 Major Studies come to same Conclusion- We could be heading into a maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age)

As for the warming a million years ago, that was a million years ago and whatever the driving factor was it has no bearing on what is going on today. In fact there have been several global warmings, but most can be contributed too volcanoes, earth tilt, etc.

You're only stating a few of the variables that are causation for Global Climate change there are several some of them being Continental connections, Ocean Currents, Sun Cycles, Earth Tilts, Wikipedia- Milkantovich Cycles and many more Variables.

As for the warming a million years ago, that was a million years ago and whatever the driving factor was it has no bearing on what is going on today.

OK FIRST OFF Your WRONG. I said we plunged into an Ice-Age 3 million Years ago And i stated the sources I will copy past them again so you can read them. If you don't have the time don't bother replying.

I can see you didn't take the time to read properly since you think we warmed since millions of years ago actually we have gotten a lot cooler.

and it has a HUGE FACTOR on what the climate is like today
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/50986aa0800e.gif[/atsimg]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also to note the Climate is always changing; always has been constantly throughout the Earths history.

In the recent past we have gone through many changes in climate. Our primitive ancestors seemed to have survived it all

Wikipedia- Isthmus of Panama

Over time, massive amounts of sediment (sand, soil, and mud) from North and South America filled the gaps between the newly forming islands. Over millions of years, the sediment deposits added to the islands until the gaps were completely filled. By about 3 million years ago, an isthmus had formed between North and South America.

3 million years ago when you see the sudden increase in variance between temperature fluctuations is what occurred when South America and North America Joined at The Isthumuth of Panama

This blocked the Current that joined the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans together between the two continents.

It is widely accepted that this is what most likely caused the change and increased variance in fluctuations of temperature from warm to cold.

And causes the Earth to fluctuate in-between Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists believe the formation of the Isthmus of Panama is one of the most important geologic events in the last 60 million years. Even though only a small sliver of land relative to the sizes of continents, the Isthmus of Panama had an enormous impact on Earth's climate and its environment. By shutting down the flow of water between the two oceans, the land bridge re-routed ocean currents in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Atlantic currents were forced northward, and eventually settled into a new current pattern that we call the Gulf Stream today. With warm Caribbean waters flowing toward the northeast Atlantic, the climate of northwestern Europe grew warmer. (Winters there would be as much as 10 °C colder without the transport of heat from the Gulf Stream.) The Atlantic, no longer mingling with the Pacific, grew saltier. Each of these changes helped establish the global ocean circulation pattern in place today. In short, the Isthmus of Panama directly and indirectly influenced ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, which regulated patterns of rainfall, which in turn sculpted landscapes.

[1] Evidence also suggests that the creation of this land mass and the subsequent, warm wet weather over northern Europe resulted in the formation of a large Arctic ice cap and contributed to the current ice age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skeptics just LOVE to debate CO2. But CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that is playing here. There is ozone, methane,sulfer dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,sulfer hexafluoride, and the list goes on.

Yep i know this but CO2 is the most prevalent effect on the Greenhouse Effect other than Water Vapour.

See above for my lesson on Greenhouse gases i suggest you read before spouting non-sense again.

As for recent crazy weather, it has to be more then a one time event for scientists to be concerned. They are very well aware of flukes. But when it happens more then a few times, and becomes a pattern, then it is looked at for climate potential.
For example, Florida is on the radar because it has been overly wet or in a drought for the past 30 years.

That's Not really on Topic so i'm not replying to this again its probably related to cycles.

reply to post by mc_squared


I suggest you take a look at my post above I'd love to see your views on it.

Mc_squared. Nice Ocean Video btw Except for the NOAA Warming trend over the past 10 years that parts a fraud.

reply to post by solargeddon


Good post i starred it I'd like you to see my post above and tell me what you think about it.

reply to post by Majic


Care to reply to my post above? ... Because its apparent you dodged this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...


reply to post by Justoneman

However we got here, for us to ignore the huge swings in the temps demonstrated in our geological records and demonstrated in ice core samples, is not scientific. Continuing to do ignore such data leads to insane ideas like "man made global warming is going to kill us all". Therefore, I speak out to something I have at least a rudimentary understanding. My education teaches me that quite probably SUV's did not change the climate of the other planet's in the solar system as they seem to be undergoing changes like the planet we live on also. Therefore, it is not a reach to see that something is affecting us from outside of Earth which is the source of our real problem wether it be warming/cooling or in transition towards one end of the spectrum.

So, either we can agree there is a geological record we can point to, or not? But we all can see ice ages are bad for crop production. Let us make green house gases a win-win instead of an Al Gore gets rich scheme if it is warming the next 50 years. But as of now, the long range models weathermen use normally miss the 5th day out almost every time in the seven day forecast. You trust them to have it all properly calculated for how far out into the future? I have 4 days as my limit and it might be a real stretch to go past 2 d.

Good post i'm glad you see AGW(AnthroPogenic Global Warming (Climate Change)) For the Fraud that it is

And yes more Greenhouse gases may actually be a good thing to prevent us from going into another Ice Age which may be due in a few thousand to 10,000 years or so.

If the Earth actually gets warmer it would be a good thing. All the land in the Northern Areas of Russia and Canada would become much more habitable and a massive increase in Crop production since the Northern Hemisphere has much more land-mass.

If (and when we do Most likely probably) Plunge into another Ice-Age the Northern Hemi-sphere will be largely covered with Glaciers.

Thank you for your contribution i suggest you take a look at my contrived and compiled posts and research above this post good stuff man

Gating Events

Originally posted by TheUniverse
Care to reply to my post above?

... Because its apparent you dodged this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think "dodged" is a dubious way to characterize not responding to a rhetorical question that wasn't relevant to my own question, but the answer is yes.

I downloaded the "Climategate" files when they first hit the 'Net, reviewed them carefully, found ample evidence of poor science and unethical conduct, and consider the hand-waving used to defend it unconscionably dishonest. The barrage of data accompanying your question really wasn't necessary.

But what I have heard of and the topic of this thread are not the same thing. The subject of climate change as a whole is much broader than that and attempting to address it all in one thread would be counterproductive, no matter how enthusiastic the attempt may be.

Rather, I found the apparent contradiction odd and asked about it, and that's all there is to it.

reply to post by Majic

But what I have heard of and the topic of this thread are not the same thing. The subject of climate change as a whole is much broader than that and attempting to address it all in one thread would be counterproductive, no matter how

So you're simply going to ignore the Data i have laid out that shows to what minimal effect Humans Green House Contributions To the Atmosphere have; and many other various facts about the Climate.

I see Dodging again.

You have addressed nothing because you can't

And i have a hard time seeing you going over all the information i brought to you (including links) In the time it took you to formulate your reply; and lets not forget the time it probably took you to find my post as well. Or at-least attempt to reply to it.

Which you have dodged so carefully as if to ignore the facts i have laid out so carefully for you any other claimed and/or purported supporter of the absurdity known as AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming(Climate Change))
and its summation of effects on the Climate; That which i have laid out in my posts above.

But what I have heard of and the topic of this thread are not the same thing. The subject of climate change as a whole is much broader than that and attempting to address it all in one thread would be counterproductive, no matter how Proof by intimidation

Yet you fail to contrive a counter-argument simply posting rather that i over-loaded you with information.

Thats actually hypocritical its more along the lines with what the AGW'ers tow the line with

They always leave out the factoid of Water Vapour being the main Green House Gas yet they never tell you that Humans Overall Contribution to the Green House Gas Effect is only 0.28%

I'm still waiting for you or someone else to lay out a counter argument i know its a tall task and daunting(probably)

But it doesn't lend you any credence when you come out blasting everything i brought into question and examined by just brushing it off as too verbose or Proof by intimidation

That either shows your too lazy to counter-argument or just can't prove otherwise;( Or that you're a mod and if you're proven wrong it makes you look bad)

No hard feelings i just don't like when i take an hour to contrive something and people dismiss at non-sense or as you said Proof by intimidation

When clearly its not you just can't formulate your own counter-argument or the following i stated above.

Climate Shift

reply to post by TheUniverse

This thread isn't titled "Majic addresses questions about Climate Change". I'm not making any claims about climate change here (aside from my solicited comments on Climategate and my opinions in this post) and will endeavor not to participate in derailing it away from the actual topic, which is much narrower in scope than the walls of text you have posted.

Rather than adopt a bull-in-china-shop, challenge-everyone approach to the issue, which will only serve to alienate people who might otherwise agree with you, I suggest bearing in mind that attempting to lump everything into one big blob is one of the key problems plaguing the whole imbroglio in the first place.

What is referred to as "Climate Change" is a complex web of science, politics, religion and mass hysteria that becomes more opaque the more it is blended together and, ironically enough, has little to do with what is actually happening to global climate in the end.

While that phenomenon is intriguing in itself, I'm more interested in the underlying facts than being roped into the hullabaloo, and will make up my own mind on what to believe or disbelieve without the need for badgering or proselytization. I am no more obligated to read through your boilerplate than I'm obliged to read every solicitation I receive in the mail, and urge you to consider a more focused approach to topical discussion.

Your attempts to characterize my position as something it is not undermine your own position, and I would appreciate your not posting false claims about me, my credibility or my opinions in these forums. :shk:

reply to post by Majic

What is referred to as "Climate Change" is a complex web of science, politics, religion and mass hysteria that becomes more opaque the more it is blended together and, ironically enough, has little to do with what is actually happening to global climate in the end.

Ok that could be pertaining to a number things you're really grasping semantics here and generalizations.

While that phenomenon is intriguing in itself, I'm more interested in the underlying facts than being roped into the hullabaloo, and will make up my own mind on what to believe or disbelieve without the need for badgering or proselytization. I am no more obligated to read through your boilerplate than I'm obliged to read every solicitation I receive in the mail, and urge you to consider a more focused approach to topical discussion.

If you're interested in underlying facts many of them are laid out in my post instead of contriving mental anecdotes you will not address the Data and research; Yes you are not obliged to but in no reason is there to dismiss it as a hullabaloo a straw man and any other fanciful word you can concoct to make you sound more intelligent and/or objective on the issue.

Those cute anecdotes don't really offer anything to the thread though just more wall of text not pertaining to the CO2 Emission and/or climate change more like an attempt to summarize how i concocted and contrived my posts.

I know you can reach and pronounce whatever fanciful words you want from your expansive Lexicon Vocabulary and/or purported verboseness; but that in turn is an attempt to summarize my attempts and arguing and/or counter-argument to the people who believe in the Absurdity that AGW (Not saying you in particular but many others) is the main factor in Climate change. Which many AGW'ers actually believe.

I have laid out the "wall Of text" as you seem to proclaim it or purportedly Proof By intimidation

But dismissing such posts as such is just ignorance of truths/facts and evidence provided.

To explain and/or therefore Demonstrate how much Man effects the Global Warming (Climate Change) And/or Also some cute explanations i have made about other Climate Factors. That have happened throughout Earths History.

Your attempts to characterize my position as something it is not undermine your own position, and I would appreciate your not posting false claims about me, my credibility or my opinions in these forums.

My attempts to characterize your position right??? Your position is citing a source that is the IPCC clearly that is not what point i was arguing. You were citing a source that claimed the temperatures were going up.

Does this mean you are an AGW'er; No it doesn't but it means you cited a source that attempted and/or was counter-productive to the OP's cooling trend source from the BBC.

So that i see is a stance counter-argumentative to my own as to the reason i replied.

Ups And Downs

According to the IPCC, Global Average temperature have continued to rise, even since 1998.

Yet the study cited here reportedly claims otherwise (I wasn't able to find it on the PNAS website).

Which is correct?

Yes and i realise that perhaps the climate has been warming but it has been for the past 18,000 years overall it has gone through its cold and warm cycles between now and 18,000 years ago.

But the gist of it is that most people who follow the IPCC's data agree with the lunacy and absurdity that Humans are one of the main contributors to Global Warming(Climate Change)

Not that i'm saying thats your position but most people who will do this are in that position especially when referring to the IPCC

Observational Humor

Originally posted by TheUniverse
Ok that could be pertaining to a number things you're really grasping semantics here and generalizations.

Let's assume so. I think the disconnect here is that you seem to think I'm presenting myself as some sort of expert on climate change. Quite the opposite.

My citation of the IPCC was in no way whatsoever an endorsement of their claims, but simply offered in comparison to what I apparently misunderstood the premise of the PNAS study to be. Nothing more, and any assumptions to the contrary are false.

I don't know what the truth is about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever the euphemism du jour is. Indeed, the more I learn, the more obvious my ignorance of the subject becomes. So any presumption that I have some strong position to promote or claim to know more than I know regarding it is patently false.

What is the truth about Climate Change? I honestly don't know.

What I have learned, however, is that the truth tends to reside as far as possible from the extremes of fervor and bluster that permeate the issue. The truth will not be revealed by rancor or zeal, but by honesty, patience and reason. And -- dare I say? -- by the scrupulous application of the scientific method, a tool which seems to find little use in too much of what is passed off as "science" these days.

In the meantime, there will be much sturm and drang, and precious little in the way of enlightenment. But that's hardly unique to this matter. Indeed, here I am being set upon simply for asking a question. That's never a good sign.

I truly appreciate your passion for the subject, encourage you to pursue the truth wherever it may lead you and hope you can appreciate that there aren't enough hours left in my lifetime to chase every lead or upend every stone on this or any other question, for that matter. I'm grateful for the efforts of those who do, but hopeful that I can be forgiven for not being one of them.

My curiosity about this particular aspect of this huge hairball of an issue has been piqued, and I pray that in this, as in so many other cases, curiosity alone will be enough. I am really not interested in being miscategorized nor otherwise challenged on the basis of something I've never said nor believe, and hope you can understand why that is so.

Meanwhile, my ruminations really don't shed any light on the topic, so I'll try to focus on learning and keep my comments pertinent going forward.

reply to post by Justoneman


2 points. Firstly, the fact that climate has changed in the past for natural reasons does not preclude the possibility that human activity can also change the climate. We certainly do so on a local and regional level, why be so sure that there is no global impact? And remember, we're not just talking carbon emissions, whatever Gore and his cronies might think!

Secondly, climate models and weather models are completely different things. One says whether it may rain more or less than usual across the country as a whole next summer, the other says whether it may rain in your town tomorrow afternoon. You should not compare them. The fact we cannot say for sure whether it'll rain in Manchester next Sunday afternoon does not mean we cannot say that in 50 years time there will, more often than not, be less rainfall during the course of the summer.

reply to post by Majic


Ok well i'm sorry i may have misinterpreted you're disposition on the matter.

What I have learned, however, is that the truth tends to reside as far as possible from the extremes of fervor and bluster that permeate the issue. The truth will not be revealed by rancor or zeal, but by honesty, patience and reason. And -- dare I say? -- by the scrupulous application of the scientific method, a tool which seems to find little use in too much of what is passed off as "science" these days.

But much of the research i have presented is in corroboration with the Scientific method. Especially the matter on Green House Gases
Geocraft- Green House Gases- Data

Socrates " I know that i know nothing"

I have ascertained similar summations that you have realised; the more you learn the less you know is sometimes true; You begin to realise that we all know very little of anything!

reply to post by TheUniverse

For what it's worth, I'm not saying you're wrong. I was just taking exception to the notion that my question constituted some sort of claim.

Well... I wasn't expecting to come home to such a healthy debate! I'll put the more personal attacks to one side and begin again with a side-by-side story run on BBC yesterday...

UK faces more harsh winters due to drop in solar output

So yes, it's regional, if you can call our solar system regional. Somebody mentioned this as a defense for overall global warming continuing whilst small pockets cool down. I personally wonder if a 3 degree drop in average temperature during winter of 2010 / 11 is an insignificant minor blip. Wasn't it the global warming proponents who said a 1.5 degree average rise would cause the oceans to swamp London?

Another very odd accusation is that the sun is only a part of the overall problem, so other factors have to be given consideration.

This is wholly false, and I'll tell you why.

The sun provides ALL our heat. It provides enough radiance to re-heat our deserts from freezing point to 50 degrees celcius every single day. So the global warming model should be RE-modeled with the energy output from the sun as the PRIMARY factor, and all the tiny and insignificant water and air based eddy currents that are the Jet Stream and the Global Thermohaline Circulation, and the La Nina and El Nino effects placed secondary to this. After all, you wouldn't boil a kettle and then say 'if we opened the lid it would've taken longer'.

Cause and effect.

The sun causes all our weather patterns through a 24 hour heating and cooling cycle primarily, then the 365 day seasonal cycle, then orbital variations, and earth axis wobble, then chuck in a varying sun output cycle. What do you get?

Humans taking a hilarious guess that we can control this, and everybody buying into it.

As Mastercard would declare... PRICELESS.

reply to post by boyg2004
Hey there all, dont worry this Carbon Tax, Global Warming crap is driving us all crazy here in Australia too. I dont get it..How come everyone you speak too thinks its just a Revenue Raising load of crap and the polls say the same yet our stupid Government insists on dragging this beautiful country into economic disaster. It almost feels like they have a hidden agenda. One wonders what international money spinner is puting the pressure on these Countries leaders. People are so angry here it could cause an uprising (if we weren't so laid back)

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by mc_squared

 

I suggest you take a look at my post above I'd love to see your views on it.

Mc_squared. Nice Ocean Video btw Except for the NOAA Warming trend over the past 10 years that parts a fraud.

reply to post by solargeddon

 

Good post i starred it I'd like you to see my post above and tell me what you think about it.

reply to post by Majic

 

Care to reply to my post above?

... Because its apparent you dodged this one
www.abovetopsecret.com...


reply to post by Justoneman

 

However we got here, for us to ignore the huge swings in the temps demonstrated in our geological records and demonstrated in ice core samples, is not scientific. Continuing to do ignore such data leads to insane ideas like "man made global warming is going to kill us all". Therefore, I speak out to something I have at least a rudimentary understanding. My education teaches me that quite probably SUV's did not change the climate of the other planet's in the solar system as they seem to be undergoing changes like the planet we live on also. Therefore, it is not a reach to see that something is affecting us from outside of Earth which is the source of our real problem wether it be warming/cooling or in transition towards one end of the spectrum.

So, either we can agree there is a geological record we can point to, or not? But we all can see ice ages are bad for crop production. Let us make green house gases a win-win instead of an Al Gore gets rich scheme if it is warming the next 50 years. But as of now, the long range models weathermen use normally miss the 5th day out almost every time in the seven day forecast. You trust them to have it all properly calculated for how far out into the future? I have 4 days as my limit and it might be a real stretch to go past 2 d.

Good post i'm glad you see AGW(AnthroPogenic Global Warming (Climate Change)) For the Fraud that it is

And yes more Greenhouse gases may actually be a good thing to prevent us from going into another Ice Age which may be due in a few thousand to 10,000 years or so.

If the Earth actually gets warmer it would be a good thing. All the land in the Northern Areas of Russia and Canada would become much more habitable and a massive increase in Crop production since the Northern Hemisphere has much more land-mass.

If (and when we do Most likely probably) Plunge into another Ice-Age the Northern Hemi-sphere will be largely covered with Glaciers.

Thank you for your contribution i suggest you take a look at my contrived and compiled posts and research above this post good stuff man

edit on 5-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

Thanks,
I would like to think my rants have sparked you to compile this wonderful display of common sense wrapped in hard data. I'd give you a pile of stars if I could!! Now if people would just listen to common sense while looking at the data, this will be over and we can move on with making do with what the Earth sends us while being stewards of the land. I suggest those who doubt one side or anothers genuine desire for the truth, then follow the money trail of who is getting money for the scrawny technology they allow us to use while they demand we pay heavy taxes with hidden costs at the checkout line.

I have stated on ATS several times H2 is clean and easy to get via solar panels and a simple electric device, I know that a Middle TN State Professor is riding the engine in a Nissan made prototype car to 1st place awards at every alternative fuel shows. Built it 20 years ago and it's still not in production. Could this be true if TPTB really wanted to get rid of oil? No, big oil is in charge and the little man is going to get taxed for it. It is clearly a scheme to soak the middle class and poor and it needs to stop. By shifting to Carbon Credits because of AGW they divert the real story about how we steadily ignore real renewable energy and safer thorium nuclear generators. Sure splitting of water it takes more energy than you get, but the Sun isn't going to run out of free energy anytime soon and our borrowing it is just that. After all, you know you can't destroy energy. If you know your Physics that is.