Who Believes in Global Warming?

[Montana Cowboy]

Evening All
I listen and hear all this talk about "Global Warming". Do you think what the so called experts are saying is true? Myself,No I don't. We have accurate records on global weather for only about 150 years. 150 isn't even a blink of an eye compared to how long this earth has been here. Yes I know that they have taken core samples of the earth in many places and it is but one clue to the whole puzzle.
There are so many things that affect the earths weather. 10,000 years ago we had an ice age, obviously there were not enough people and no industry around back then to influence the earths weather to cause the ice age.
I'm all for doing my part to not pollute by recycling , vanpooling and trying not to be wasteful. What say you? MC

[skeet]

MC, I believe we are in a period of global warming and I feel we(mankind) have a part of the blame to bear. The world historically until the Industrial Revolution had about 1/2 Billion people. With no real industry and all the forests etc etc etc we no longer have. Now there are 6 1/2 Billion without all the good things to help the world. However as the Earth is warming so to is the next planet out in the solar system. Mars is also warming. So it seems as though the sun is helping it along also. I do my part in many ways but you are right.... even a thousand years is but a blink of an eye in the time of global change. Things are changing and neither you or I have the means or wherewithall to stop the changes!:confused: :D

[gd357]

I believe that we do have an effect on the environment, however I don't think that it is as big as people would want you to believe. I've heard (but can't substantiate) that human impact on the environment has less than 2% of the total effect on global temperature. Also, weather patterns are cyclical, and we are probably in an upswing in the cycle currently. Now 1% over the time length since the industrial revoltion would have an effect, but not the significance that is widespread belief in some circles. JMHO

gd

[Rocky Raab]

It may or may not be warming. We really cannot tell because we have not been measuring it long enough to know. It's like measuring your breathing during that brief instant between breaths - and then claiming that you've stopped breathing.

The earth's climate runs in long cycles (analogous to breathing) of warm/cold/warm/cold. We are certainly in a warm period, but where in that period we do not know. We could be approaching the peak, but if so, we won't pause there, but immediately start to cool again. Ten thousand years from now, where I'm standing might be under a mile of ice.

What causes this cycle? Like evreything else, I'd bet there are lots of contributing factors. The tilt of the earth, our distance from the sun, the output of the sun, the fluctuation of the earth's magnetic field (allowing more or less radiation in), the amount of algae in the oceans, the amount of vegetation on earth, volcanic activity...the list goes on. Any (or more likely all) of them may have an impact. If two or three heat their peak at the same time, things get warmer.

Humans might kill themselves off with their own garbage and waste -- but it doesn't have anything to do with global climate.

[L. Cooper]

Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming has his head in the sand. The science is overwhelming. The scientific community has no doubt whatsoever that the climate is warming. It's not a case of believing in it or not; it is.

The exact proportion of the warming trend that is man made is not proven, but the fact that greenhouse gasses produced by human activity are, in fact, contributing to the warming trend is also scientifically indisputable.

Canada and the U.S. are the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses on a per capita basis. Continued production of greenhouse gasses will worsen an economic and social disaster of such proportions that it will make the economic and social price of reducing our emissions look like peanuts.

We are fools if we don't act to reduce our contribution.

[Niteowl]

any one who thinks we are warming up....hasn't spent the last several weeks in Michigan....hahaha....one morning was -34 with the wind...air temp was -22,I don't know if we are warming up or not...but in a thousand years I don't believe I will be bothered that much by it,but I will wear these just in case.........:cool:

[M.T. Pockets]

I'm no scientist, but I believe it's happening. People a lot smarter than me keep track of the average temperatures and can track it. Just living in Minnesota I can tell you the winters aren't what they were just 30 years ago. 20 below used to be a normal low, now it's big news. When they start canceling dog sled races because the ice isn't safe in February, it's something to think about.

I don't know if it is caused by man's pollution or not, but either way, why don't we quit polluting so much and see if it helps.

[DogYeller]

I believe man made Global Warming is a hoax, but if it isn’t at least one Canadian has a plan.
http://wordpress.com/tag/global-climate-treaty/feed/

[Andy L]

"Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming has his head in the sand. The science is overwhelming. The scientific community has no doubt whatsoever that the climate is warming. It's not a case of believing in it or not; it is.

The exact proportion of the warming trend that is man made is not proven, but the fact that greenhouse gasses produced by human activity are, in fact, contributing to the warming trend is also scientifically indisputable.

Canada and the U.S. are the biggest contributors of greenhouse gasses on a per capita basis. Continued production of greenhouse gasses will worsen an economic and social disaster of such proportions that it will make the economic and social price of reducing our emissions look like peanuts.

We are fools if we don't act to reduce our contribution."

Most of this post by L. Cooper is absolute, left wing, Al Gore spread BS. Yes there is some warming. Its happened many times since the beginning of times. The same crowd thats spouting this now was spouting an Ice Age 30 yrs ago. Its a knee jerk reaction.

In short:

The little puffs that Mt St Helens put out over the last few years released more harmful gunk in the air than all the people on earth.

Alot of the reason for the warming of the oceans and subsequent extreme weather can be traced to earthquakes and volcanos under the sea. There is alot of plate movement right now. Go look it up. Where do you think the tidal waves are coming from?

And, if humans have any impact, why would you think the US and Canada are the worst offenders? When China and India have basically no regulation on what they put in the air? Their populations make us look tiny.

Its natural cycles folks. I cant believe how many people are buying into this crap. Scientists will say whatever they are told to say. Cash talks.

Of course this is totally my own opinion and we all have one. It just shocks me to see the same generic replys, over and over. Its a trained response.

Like the great Mr. Gump said. "Thats all I got to say about that."

[Montana Cowboy]

Watching the experts on the boob tube tallk about global warming is interesting. The ones saying that this is a cycle that the earths weather go's through and their data to support it was convincing to me. Man ( in my opinion) is just one part of the problem. There are so many things that affect weather as I had said in my first post, and as Rocky has pointed out some of them. It is just hard to figure out which ones cause the most change. MC

[Rocky Raab]

All due respect, L Cooper, but the scientific community is not in unanimous agreement on this. It may seem that way because only the segment of it that follows the PC/ Gore/ doomsday/ panic-crazy media format get quoted. The scientists who disagree never get a moment of air time or an inch of copy.

And a helluva lot of them disagree.

You are quoting what you sincerely believe, but believing it does not make it true.

[L. Cooper]

The truth is that the vast majority of the scientific community believes the planet is warming very rapidly. The truth is also that it is the minority dissenting opinion that gets way too much exposure through the media that seem very concerned to present a "balanced" view on the subject. The result is that many people think that there is some sort of split in the scientific community. There is no such split.

The media talk to one scientist supporting the theory of climate change and then find a dissenter to present the "balanced" view. It looks like it's almost a 50/50 split, but that is a complete distortion of the science of climate change.

No scientist will say, "This is the cause of climate change" because that is not the way science talks. Absolutes do not exist in any scientific discussion. But that does not, as so many think, mean that the science supporting climate change is weak at all.

Science talks about the "theory of plate tectonics". The word "theory" does not mean there is any doubt in the scientific community that the earth's surface is made up of moving plates. There may be the odd person with science credentials that is a dissenting opinion, but plate tectonics is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. Theories of climate change are in exactly the same state.

Another example: no scientist will say he knows what an electron actually is. But we are doing very well with present theories of quantum mechanics as everything from nuclear energy to this forum will prove. It's "only" a theory, but it works quite well.

One of the great dangers of our time is the misunderstanding of the way scientists describe their "theories" and how that word is used by some to try to discount the truths on which those theories are based.

The vast majority of scientists who study climate are united in their view that the earth is warming, and that human activity is contributing to it.

[gumpokc]

L Cooper, believe what you wish, but look at a few things first:

We are entering a period of increased solar activity. This has been proven.

We are in the process of a magnetic field reversal, this has been proven.

We are in a "warm spot" in the current geolocigal "period" and technically are still in an iceage, this has been proven.

None of the above items are in debate at all, they are accepted as fact to the best of our knowledge.

Now lets put a little common sense here.....the earth has been warming slowly for the last 8000 years out of it's glacial iceage.
Sure there's little lows and highs but warming nonetheless.

mangetic field reversal's can take from 2000-15000 years to switch, during which the magnetic fields drop drastically in strength. It's also the thing that protects the earth from the vast majority of "cosmic radiation" and even radiation of many types from our sun.

as mentioned our sun is more active than usual, and as the"power source" for the solar system, this means with less protection, we are goign to get more radiation from all sources including heat.

Now...are we as humans affecting out environment??? most definately. Are there things we could do to affect it less? most definately. Are we a major contributor to our planets weather conditions, and weather cycles??? not a chance in hell.

We can affect small (relitively speaking) areas with smog, poison our lands and waters, kill each other in any number of ways, but to even suggest that we are capable of affecting the total global weather patterns on a long term basis is such an egotistical view that it's laughable.

Is the planet warming? yes, it has happened before, and it will happen again, it's perfectly natrual.

Now you'll bring up the "hole in the ozone layer".
Guess what Einstein, the earth is spinning on it's axis and it isnt perfectly round, no matter what your globe looks like.
it's a little fatter at the equator, and a little squished on both ends. Now when you take a spinning object with liquids or gasses at the poles, because of centifugal action, it makes the atmosphere thincker at the equator and thinner at the poles.
(interesting point they never like to mention, but the mantle and crust are also thinner at the poles, imagine that) Now where is this hole at??? oh yeah the poles....they get bigger and smaller...in cycles...gee just like everything else on the planet.
Maybe it's mother natures way of being a "saftey valve" to either let in more heat/radiation or let it out?

So what is global warming? it's the same thing as the Y2k and any number of other scams. People don't want to know that something is natural and there is nothing they can do about it.

They want to be told they can help, so they can feel better about themselves and what is happening. Thats natural too.
Also natural are the predators, both literal and figurative, who feed and prey off others, whether it's for food or money, or political power, doesnt matter, it's the same principle.

[Montana Cowboy]

Evening All
Would like to thank all of you for your replies to this subject. Did do not want this subject to turn into an argument . We all have our opinions. Rocky feel free to lock this down if it starts to go toward the dark side.
I asked what folks thought about global warming because I do not feel that man alone is the major cause of global warming the way the media, Al Gore and the Holywood elite would like us all to believe. Man in my opinion is a small part of global warming.
Mr. Cooper I respect your thoughts and opinion on this subject but I disagree with you. MC

[skeet]

Wow, Gumpokc. Hate to say it but you just about hit the nail on the head. Yeah we are affecting the weather on the earth but we surely aren't THE major cause. But I must say that we affect it more than most imagine...at least on a short term extent. When we cut the rain forests in the world and denude the edges of the oceans with our pollution it will just take a bit longer for all to turn around. Maybe you are right about the radiation thing too. More radiation means more cancers etc as well as a possible lowering of the birth rates for obvious reasons. Less people means less people to ruin the place we call home. When scientists say that there is more CO2 put into the atmosphere by one (or two or twenty) volcanes every year than people put there...well ours adds to the destruction too. But you are right. There are more things affecting the environment than just us people. LOTS more!! :eek:

[scalerman]

I just want to throw my two cents worth in here. First a question- Does anyone else remember back about 30 or 35 years ago that all of the scientists were convinced that we were headed for another ice age?

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter is neither created or destroyed during a chemical reaction- it changes form (solid to gas) it changes compositon ( forms other types of hydrocarbons as a result of the chemical reaction) but there is no more matter at the end of the reaction than there was at the start of the reaction. The point is this- there is as much carbon on the earth today as there was at the beginning (whatever that is). It may exist in different forms but it is still there. I find it incredibly hard to believe that when forest fires would start in one part of the continent and burn until they got to the other side of the continent that we are releasing more carbon dioxide now than during that time. After all there is exactly the same amount of carbon now as then.

I don't think that these scientists could calculate their way out of a wet paper bag. As many others have said we may be in a warming trend but to say that the end of the world as we know is here is irresponsible. The guy behind the talk here in Canada is David Suzuki an environmental activist from way back. He also advocates human habitation of other planets in order to "lighten the load" here on earth. I however do not see him offering to lead the expedition. As far as I am concerned he has no credibility. I don't know how our friends south of the 49th parallel fee about Mr. Gore

Just MHO

[Baylian]

Not meaning to offend but the law you mentioned in the previous post is the Law of Conservation of Mass. It is not a Thermodynamic law. It was discovered by Antoine Lavasier in the late 1700's. It does state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed in an ordinary chemical reaction. The First Law of Thermodynamics is the Law of Conservation of Energy. It states that the increase in the energy of a system is equal to the heat being added to the system minus the work being done by the system.

TJ - Chemistry teacher

[scalerman]

Thank you correction noted.

[Andy L]

Good Gawd. You guys are too technical for me. :)

All I know is there are cycles. There are cooling periods and there are heating periods. Anytime a cycle even begins to show itself there will be nutjobs playin chicken little. Funny thing is, man hasnt even been around long enough to see a full cycle yet. Remember, were new here.

But in one century, if you believe the nut jobs, we managed to screw her up. :rolleyes:

[Rocky Raab]

What gets me is that the "climate experts" predict we'll have a half-degree (or one degree or two degree) increase in the average global temperature by 2050.

Excuse me?

They can't predict within one degree of what the temperature will be TOMORROW!

It's horsepuckey. All of it.

Let the sumbeeches tell me what the STOCK MARKET will be next Tuesday, and I'll perk right up. The climate? Nah.

[Classicvette63]

Like Dennis Miller said, "how can we trust Ezekiel to have taken correct temparature measurements on his way to the outhouse over 100 years ago.":D

[scalerman]

If you believe as some do that the earth is very old how can you possibly try to predict long term weather patterns based on what amounts to a nano- second of the overall time frame.

This is all about fear mongering and trying to convince everyone that they need to follow the environment saviour.

[DogYeller]

I think it's worse than we believe. The way it's taught to children and the way it's shoved down our throats by the media, I believe environmentalism will be the new religion.

[skeet]

It already is a type of religion. Look at all the treehuggers. Don't get me wrong. I know they are passionate about their beliefs. As passionate as I am about hunting and shooting and the outdoors. So to some extent I do understand. The difference between them and us...is that they want to control our beliefs and make us convert to their beliefs and values. HEY...does that remind you of any other religions!! Which brings us to the question. If every religion or belief feels and says theirs is the only true belief or religion...a whole bunch have to be wrong. WHO is wrong?? Or the other question... WHO is right??:rolleyes:

[rattus58]

I wish I had the time right now to really say what I want to say about global warming, but I don't. So I'll keep this to just one chapter.

We as humans are not able to affect nature over the long haul. I don't care how we raze the land today, nature takes over. Look over any old abandoned farm, or Mt. St. Helens even, or old abandoned mines, mills even empty lots in the middle of the city. Nature soon takes over. That being said, yes we can affect things in a unique way in an instant situation.

Our planet is alive. Apparently we live on moving tectonic plates, that once had us joined at the hip with Europe or Asia... not sure I remember which now.. Asia I think... Wow... and we used to be covered with ice. Hello? What happened to it all? We still have a glacier remnant on Mauna Kea... in Hawaii? Yes. Does this not speak of change?

Environmentalism, like someone said, can be likened to a religion. It can be likened in fact to fundamentalism no different than Radical Muslim Fundamentalism. Environmentalist champion the unchampionable. Everything is in crisis, a crisis we will not see in our lifetime, so we don't know if they are right or wrong. Their argument is, "but what if we're right?" If their right it was going to happen anyway.

Warming intensifies here on earth in relation to sunspot activity, something we've just gone through or maybe are still going through. Volcanoes. There is an active volcano under antartica spewing out 500 degree plumes of superheated water. So hot in fact that it melted the protective coatings on the undersea devices that they had taking pictures, temps, and samples. There are undersea volcanoes all over the world. We have them off of the Big Island. We have them all over the Pacific. We have active volcanoes all over the world and this adds to the heat.

Global temperatures are taken around major cities. I would be more interested in the upper atmospheric temperatures around the world over the last 20 years instead. That is free air temperature that I think would be relatively undisturbed. Have we ever wondered why the temperatures around the US can be on any given day, 50 degrees apart in the winter, and 10 degrees apart in spring, and 50 degrees apart in summer? I wonder about it all the time.. and though I've been given the theory of air masses and circulation and such, I find it facinating that we can have so much individual change all over the country almost every day.

Oh.. yes we are warming.. do I care... no. There is nothing we can do about it, besides, were gonna be hit by a meteor before the floods come anyway.

Aloha.. :cool:

[Niteowl]

"There is nothing we can do about it, besides, were gonna be hit by a meteor before the floods come anyway."


Time to call on Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck.... hahaha
:D

[8X56MS]

that moderate, temporary global warming is happening, is not really in question. The hoax here, is what is causing it.
Note that the more vociferous proponents of man caused global warming are, for the most, part anti American, anti capitalist, anti Western culture, and socialist.

[Rocky Raab]

Remember that great scientific mind and environmentalist Woody Harrelson :rolleyes: predicted that the oceans would be completely devoid of life in ten years if we didn't DO SOMETHING NOW!

That was 20 years ago.

[skeet]

Was , has been and always will be an idiot. Anti gun type too! But because he was a movie and tv "star" he knows more than all the rest of the people in the world....combined!

[Lilred]

I think that what we're doin caint be all that good. It just caint.
The human race as a general rule is just like any other...they consume themselves by the desruction of the environment or the destruction of each other. That is the way of life.
Then again, I dont think the scientists can accurately predict the who what where ands ifs or buts about global warming.

Can we control what the world will do? I just caint see the human race alterin the world's cycles. To a certain degree anyway...but I can honestly say that I do believe we aint helpin matters none.
Or, ya'll can look at it this way....them dinosuars aint have no cars, cell phones, nuclear bombs er nothin else...but they still went kapoof! we will too....wether it's by the environment or ourselves....natural selection will overcome all.

[rattus58]

Originally posted by Lilred
I think that what we're doin caint be all that good. It just caint.
The human race as a general rule is just like any other...they consume themselves by the desruction of the environment or the destruction of each other. That is the way of life.
Then again, I dont think the scientists can accurately predict the who what where ands ifs or buts about global warming.

Can we control what the world will do? I just caint see the human race alterin the world's cycles. To a certain degree anyway...but I can honestly say that I do believe we aint helpin matters none.
Or, ya'll can look at it this way....them dinosuars aint have no cars, cell phones, nuclear bombs er nothin else...but they still went kapoof! we will too....wether it's by the environment or ourselves....natural selection will overcome all.


Depending how you want to look at it, everything in this life uses something. Carrying capacity in nature is a self righting thing. Some years there is abundance, and animal growth explodes, only one or two years later to wind up starving, dying from the elements, etc till they can fit back into their habitat... if they haven't ruint it for ever by overgrazing.

Man can do no more either... only on a grander scale maybe... but consider this... everything we build comes from the earth, so what are we really doing.. I mean we are recycling everything.. from dirt to adobe, from sand to glass, from rock to steel.. its all there... and remember... you cannot leave anything for long before nature wants it back... in fact takes it back... look downtown at any vacant lot... even a paved empty vacant lot.... mother takes it home... yup..

Aloha.. :cool:

[PJgunner]

Someone asked about temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and if there had been any real change? I can only speak for the time I was in Nevada and Arizona, and I've been retired for close to eight years now and the memory ain't quite as good as it used to be. First off, it's a bit nippy way up yonder. Between 30 and 40 thousand feet temperature range from minus30 degrees Celcious to minus 50 degrees Celcious, depending on the time of year. As I recall, the colder tempertures up there occur in the summer and the warmer in the winter. it's not all that surprising when you take account that in the winter there is a lot of cloud cover a good part of the time and heat from the sun is reflected back into space off that cloud cover. Say you get a big snow storm and it's relatively warm for the time of year. Then a strong high pressure area moves in pushing the clouds out and that open sky lets what heat there is escape, reflecting off that snow. I personally have seen a temperature at midnight go from +32 degrees F. to -36 degrees F. in just a little over seven hours after the coud cover moved out. The heat will rapidly rise warming the upper atmosphere, maybe raising it about 5 degrees C. over a period of time. You won't get that effect in the summer. But then again, in the summer you won't have the cloud cover to give you a modicum of "shade".
Another big source of global warming are cities. As we become more urbaized, citied grow larger. When I move to Arizon, Tucson and Pima county had maybe 500,000 people, give or take. Now the population is over 1,000,000 and growing like a weed. All the nearby areas I used to hike and hunt a few rabbits is now wall to wall houses. Tucson and it's close neighbors have created a monstrous heat island. Look al L.A. and it's eviorons. hell, look at the growth around any big city and it's suburbs. More massive heat islands. I'd venture to guess a goodly part if the problem comes from the fact that we're blacktopping the planet to death, world wide.
At one time, it was said that a squirrel could start at the Atlantic Ocean and travel all the way to the Missippii River and NEVER touch the ground. Now he's have to take the Interstate. Where are all those trees today? Even the rain forest of the Amazon are disappearing rapidlt to the tune of something like, IIRC, 20,000 Hectares daily.
Just how much of the problem is man made I can't say. Man sure ain't helping. Still, this old ball in space has been around for quite a while, and I think it'll be here in some form long after we're gone. I am more inclined to going along with the bigger part of the problem is the sun going through a warming cycle. It's happened before in the past where daytime gtemps ran around 130 degrees, so who's to say it's not happening again. It may take us a while for it to reach that point in which case we humans had best learn to adapt to the changing conditions.
Paul B.

[L. Cooper]

Have a look.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1587268,00.html

[Skyline]

The solution to all this is for all countries to establish reduced population targets. Encourage couples to have only one child and help reduce the population.

Instead of governments bending over backwards to try and create more daycare facilities and increasing the childcare benefits to parents for all of the rugrats they produce......only give benefits for the first child and after that you are on your own. You decide to have more than one....you pay for it and don't expect the rest of us to help.

That would encourage people to focus on a smaller family unit. Less people means less greenhouse gasses, the energy reserves would last longer, etc. :D

[skeet]

The only thing that article really said is that they wanted to blame the US and other 1st world countries for global warming...and that countries like China want a free ride. Well, yeah the world is in a period of warming..and yeah we probably have something to do with it...but there it is again. The UN wants to jam it up our backsides on another matter other than guns and being a global policeman.:rolleyes:

Again I think we(the population for the planet) have something to do with global warming but are we the only reason?? Heck no! That article was just politics as usual for the UN and the countries that want to belittle the US. Time to quit the UN and policing the world. Even if we do things right we'll be wrong:confused: :(

[rattus58]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
Have a look.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1587268,00.html

Oh for cryin out loud... what a phony bunch of crap....

If you believe in global warming and feel that now for sure we're gonna die:

have another mushroom, take another toke...
become completely paranoid, sniff a line of coke
The world will right herself, there's ballast in her keel
I say pedal to the metal, lets mine up some more steel

This world is such a fancy place, all colors hues, and sheens
It'l grow about just anything, cucumbers, fruits and beans
Some say there's global warming, they belong all in a cage
Have you noticed their behavior, they're almost in a rage

Forget it please my son, the world will be alright
Its Iran, Iraq, Korea, that should give us pause for fright
The Warmingers are terrorists, another fundamental faction
Tell them go to hell, now that's where they'll see action

[scalerman]

The UN has been since its' inception been trying to present a case for itself as the one world government. None of the research that has come from the UN has had any credibility. This is just another nail in the coffin of the UN. It is an organization that has no use in the real world. It has created a bureaucracy that is so expensive and self serving that it is shameful. The UN is irrelevant.

[L. Cooper]

OK, so Time magazine is a puppet of the United Nations.

How about the more than 400 articles on climate change in Scientific American at:

http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SCC=Q&Q=global%20warming&x=16&y=14

[scalerman]

I don't know if you've noticed but the scientific community is a very closed community. If you do not come up with research that supports the agenda of those who ard supporting your research your endowments get cut off. When I was in school you formulated a hypothesis, tested it and reported your findings. Now you start with the findings and search out ways to support it then you formulate your hypothesis. The scientific community has been invaded by the almighty dollar. I don't trust scientists either, not without finding out where their funding is coming from. One has to do his own research into the research being brought forward in order to find out what political camp the scientist is in. It is the same with the newspaper "just the facts Ma'am" does not exist anymore. Every newspaper and reporter has a political agenda. Sorry not buying any of the articles in Scientific American. Sorry it will take more than that to convince me.

[Rocky Raab]

This is long, but I suppose I'm forced to do it. Spend an hour on Google, and here's what you can dig up...

Global warming is mostly due to natural processes

Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than
human activities for the observed rising temperatures.

Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of
Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the
International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost
throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency,
Jan. 15, 2007 [11]) (See also [12], [13], [14])

Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in
the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air." [15] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for
increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s
increased greenhouse gas content." [16]

Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in
Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in
predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some
of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17])

George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern
California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global
forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major
supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial
activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their
corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes
are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18])

William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean
currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet
little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.
We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [19]) "I am of the opinion that [global
warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington
Post, May 28, 2006 [20])

"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and
research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
(Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [21])

Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological
Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the
concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation
(21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [22])

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research,
University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to
the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
(May 15, 2006 [23])

Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes,
then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale,
... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in
particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors
are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of
their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the
anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."
(M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [24])

Tim Patterson [25], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this
[geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now,
about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the
last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's
modest warming?" [26]

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy
of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes
observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon
dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [27]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably
somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being
more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more
dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming
[over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to
anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few
centuries. [28]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia:
"The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult
to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [29]

"The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that
human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [30].

“It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and
so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)

Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong
evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the
United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation
of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven
true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming.
In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
(Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [31])

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively
few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make
low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th
Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed
the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a
reduction in low cloud cover." [32]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this
stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard
IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the
principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools
of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory.
If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important
driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."
(In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon
cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [33], [34])

[Riposte1]

I am no scientist but I have a theory on global warming: I speculate that on most days (not all) that part of the globe warms in direct correlation to the a broad spectrum of visible and invisible light from sun rise to sun set.

Think I might be able to get some grant money? :)

Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence but I dont think there is any universal agreement on this...not even a consensus. There seems to be two camps with firm opinion and highly credentialed folks in each.

What I do think is that the knee jerk reaction to the fear of global warming will end up costing us far more then the actual and natural results of the phenomenon itself...if indeed it exists.

One sure way to reduce global warming would be for all the pundits to just shut up...that would reduce the amount of "hot air" strirring around ;)

Best regards,
Riposte

[L. Cooper]

If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

[Skyline]

Well this discussion is interesting. I think it is safe to say that just about everyone agrees there is global warming taking place. The bone of contention is whether it is man caused or a natural phenomenon taking place with perhaps a bit of a hand from man.

There are definitely two main camps...........both with the posters and the scientists...........those who think it is mostly just a natural planetary occurence and those that think mankind is systematically killing the planet. I do not think that anyone on here is going to convince the campers one way or another.

Not too long ago there was a group of scientists that proclaimed the beef industry was responsible for a significant portion of the methane gas emissions on the planet. My god, there were millions of cattle in North America that were burping and farting methane into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. I never saw it in print, but I often wondered how they decided that the methane produced by the domestic bovines was somehow more destructive than the methane produced over the millenia by the 60 million bison that previously roamed the continent.

I think that as the decades go by, we will find that the current 'truths' held close to the heart by both camps in the greenhouse gas debate, will in fact prove to be partial truths........with reality somewhere in the middle.

[Riposte1]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

Oh I think there is a point to the discussion. There is probably no point to discussing whether there is in fact global warming due to things we can change - because all of our arguments will most like fall into the "appeal to authority" type and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash.

The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future?

For a minor matter, things sweetened with corn syrup will now cost more than double...and to what gain? Most of us will never see "alternative fuels at the pump".

Riposte

[L. Cooper]

"The discusion worth having is, are we going to destroy civilization as we know it in the present to prevent something we do not know will happen in the future? "

Like stopping someone from using his weapons of mass destruction? Like driving on the right even when we can't see someone coming? The future is always uncertain, but we act in the present on the best evidence we have about what the future will be like. That's life.

And lowering our pollution levels will hardly "destroy civilization as we know it."

"and, since there are equal numbers and degrees of authority, then that is a wash."

That is the very illusion I am trying to dispell.

[Rocky Raab]

Since you are clearly NOT succeeding in dispelling anything here on this board, may we call it quits?

Not permanently, I promise. You may reopen the discussion if and when Florida is under water and we're growing bananas in your home town.

[rattus58]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
If people think the cost of reducing the human contribution to climate change will be high, just watch what the cost of climate change will become.

"Seriously, I have avoided looking deeply into the scientific evidence....."

Then there is no point to this discussion at all.

Cooper... Give it up.... will you.. there isn't any criteria to support what you say, what they say, and yes times and all mainstream media are hard left media with an agenda against capitalism and free enterprise. Look at the solution to Global warming according to them. What does that do for us???? yes the solution is WE PAY MONEY TO OTHER COUNTRIES VIA THE UN. Screw that, screw the UN... screw anybody who promotes Kiyoto and screw anyone who won't look at ALL THE DATA that is out there. There is more data to explain why its happening and it aint because of man...

[Rocky Raab]

I don't want to lock this because I've posted in it, but I may have to. Just drop it...EVERYBODY

[skeet]

I like the beating a dead horse. Where can I get one of my own? I've already killed the horse..just the emoticon or whatever it is:D :D

[muledeer]

Well there was "The Law of Conservation of Mass" and the "First Law of Thermodynamics". Let's try "Boyle's Law":D

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of
Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so
"profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying
it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a
soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state
that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to
Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of
change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order
for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of
Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year
that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take
into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2
must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already
frozen over.


The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it
follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore,
extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine
being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

[skeet]

I love that one!!

[rattus58]

I did too... someone please send it to al... :)

Aloha... :cool:

[L. Cooper]

OK, I'll stop.

But you guys started it!

;)

[Montana Cowboy]

Muledeer
Excellent post:D . Ok Rocky lock this one down. MC

[rattus58]

Originally posted by L. Cooper
OK, I'll stop.

But you guys started it!

;)

We probably did.. but really... Al Started it .. so Rocky... instead of beatin my compadre into submission... start beatin on Al... this is all his fault... :)

Aloha ... :cool:

[Rocky Raab]

Skeet, just right-click and save it. Here's another...

[skeet]

Saved 'em both. One for the high brow arguments and one for the down in the dirt kind!!

[captain2k_ca]

I stayed out of it :p

Even though I know the TRUTH behind it all!!

Its the Gremlins....they are doing it.....but the Government wants to keep it all hush-hush....

Heres a pic of what to look for.....If you happen to see one, sunlight kills em.......

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g293/captain2k_ca/Funny%20Stuff/1820gremlin-160x200.jpg

[Contenderizer]

There is little doubt in my mind that there is some warming going on and the strange weather patterns here in the US are a result of it. How much man has to play in all of this may never be known, however.

Personally, I believe mankind is in more danger of being wiped-out by an astroid than global warming; or perhaps by one of the Captain's gremlins - one of which should be sent with great dispatch to Al Gore.

[rattus58]

I agree with you that there is global warming... that there is global cooling ... that the earth is changing no doubt. It is interesting that while they were cutting hundreds of acres of native forests in south america about 3-5 years ago, there was this stupendous growth of trees in siberia. Could it be the earths natural balance beam stimulating more growth because there is more supposedly carbon dioxide in the air?

We are actually not at optimum levels of carbon dioxide according to a lot of scientists... we are still a few parts per million short for trees especially to benefit, and as well as bushy plants which could grow 10-15% thicker. Keep an eye out on your plants. Are they growing faster under normal circumstances... hmmmmmmm

Aloha... :cool:

[Blktail]

This debate demonstrates perfectly all that is wrong with the internet. Only a tiny fraction of what can be found on the web is scientificaly verifiable. People believe what they find on their favorite sites. There is more unverified and purely wrong information on the web than peer reviewed data. The ignorant (do not read stupid, there is a huge difference) just don't know how to tell the difference.

Myself, I am not sold either way. I am not a cynic of one side or the other, I just don't believe there is enough data.

I reckon that one way or another people will destroy their environment to the point most of us won't survive. This may take place 10 years from now or 1000 years. I am not betting for 1000. As always, the poor will suffer the most.

If you don't believe me, look at the debate over marijuana. 10,000 sites discussing the benefits far outweigh the 4 or 5 proving the damage done by the crap.

People believe what they want to believe.

If you don't believe that, you don't want to believe that!;)

[Gaven1030]

Al Gore is right, only if you beleive in him.