Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Memphis Slim]

The only thing blowing up is Al Gore's bank account. He'll never be president, but he is getting very, very rich.

 

[Carcharodon]

Give it up Tron....these guys are so fixed on this thing it's beyond understanding. Al Gore never accepted one debate on this issue. They chnged from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could still say they were right! This earth is doing just fine. Gore needed a legacy....this is it. But this one is gonna blow up in his face.

Actually, I don't view Gore as some messiah. I'm certain he does stand to make a few bucks on this issue. The people I listen to are the ones in the field. I get some pretty nice access to scientific journals. If you head over to Raybia's resource thread, you can find lots of great, peer-reviewed journals.

You could learn a thing or two, actually. At least Tron and SupermanBeyond came in here with some form of a coherent argument. Your first post was just a cluster**** of stupidity and ignorance.

China is the biggest polluter of all. Do you really think they care about Kyoto??

China is the biggest polluter. The thing is, they actually have one of the world's smallest footprints.

 

[Ice-man]

actually USA surpasses china's pollution emissions

 

[Tron5000]

At least Tron and SupermanBeyond came in here with some form of a coherent argument.

Some form? Wow, thanks for giving me a bit of credit. I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources. And I have plenty more if you'd care to examine the data that refutes the myth that humans are causing the planet to warm and weather cycles to change. There is also extensive data concluding that we are headed into another ice age, which would be far worse for this planet than the warming that was experienced in the previous century. My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time.

And I still need the answer...What is the prefect temperature? If you believe that the planet growing warmer is a problem, then what temperature should we aim for? Where should we set the thermostat?

 

[Carcharodon]

Some form? Wow, thanks for giving me a bit of credit. I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources. And I have plenty more if you'd care to examine the data that refutes the myth that humans are causing the planet to warm and weather cycles to change. There is also extensive data concluding that we are headed into another ice age, which would be far worse for this planet than the warming that was experienced in the previous century. My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time.

I meant no offense, dude. By the way, do you even know how the cooling data was extrapolated? It was established a long, LONG time ago and it was just that: an extrapolation. I've been exposed to this data several times, both by global warming theory advocates and people who think it's some, "magic bullet," to disprove the theory.

What that data tells us is that we should be in a general cooling trend based on data indicating past variation in climate. Doesn't it then seem a bit odd to you that we aren't in a general cooling trend?

There was the anomalous data that SupermanBeyond posted, but until further data can be gathered, it's just that: anomalous.

And I still need the answer...What is the prefect temperature? If you believe that the planet growing warmer is a problem, then what temperature should we aim for? Where should we set the thermostat?

There's no such thing as a, "perfect," temperature. The idea that you're asking me this after going on and on about your logical arguments is sort of astounding, really.

For those of us that know that climate does, in fact, operate in cycles, the question is ridiculous (and a bit condescending). What we can tell, however, is how and to what degree these changes in the average global temperature will cause ecological (and, consequently, economical) instability. Not perfectly, mind you, and yes, there IS a LOT of sensationalism out there, but there's a ballpark view.

 

[Carcharodon]

actually USA surpasses china's pollution emissions

If China hasn't already surpassed us, it sure as hell won't be long until they do. I was under the impression that they had.

 

[Tron5000]

I prefer to use data that's a bit more recent, say, from the past year.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

"Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."

 

[Carcharodon]

Oh, one more thing: "My guess is you have no desire to examine such data and sources, so I won't waste my time."

I'd love to read those sources, dude. How many times do I have to tell you I'm not 100% convinced by global warming theory? Honestly, it's more like 60 - 70%.

It's like you have this completely preconceived notion that anybody that argues against your logic is some die-hard proponent. You and Slim are very much the same in that regard.

So go ahead, WOW me. Show me some (relatively) unbiased sources, or better yet, peer-reviewed articles. I'll be waiting.

 

[Tron5000]

If China hasn't already surpassed us, it sure as hell won't be long until they do. I was under the impression that they had.

China will pass the US next year in total emissions.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/110

 

[Tron5000]

There's no such thing as a, "perfect," temperature. The idea that you're asking me this after going on and on about your logical arguments is sort of astounding, really.

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?

 

[Tron5000]

Also, I didn't go "on and on about [my] logical arguments." I mentioned the word "logic" once, in one post. If this constitutes "going on and on," well, then I apologize. But thanks for the exagerration/embellishment. Par for the course as far as the global warming debate goes.

 

[Carcharodon]

I prefer to use data that's a bit more recent, say, from the past year.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

"Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."

Sooooo you just reposted the very same thing that SupermanBeyond posted, from possibly the BEST source possible: globalwarminghoax.com. Great.

It's anomalous. BTW:

Followed a link from the same site:

"There has been no 'erasure'. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied."

So the part of your post that says, "The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time," needs to be taken very, very, very cautiously, if at all.

As for all of the specific anomalous weather patterns (e.g., extreme cold snaps), it's all predicted by the theory. That's why Slim's argument held no water, dude.

I'm NOT saying that they don't point to cooling. I'm not. What I AM saying is that if you want to bring an argument to the table, bring one that the theory doesn't have an answer for. There is support for the idea that anthropogenic climate change will cause instances of cooling while the average temperature rises. There are actual atmospheric mechanisms to explain it.

 

[Carcharodon]

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?

We'll know when the **** hits the fan. The worry is that there will be a point where the warming causes ecological instability, and when that happens, we're going to see the effects.

I honestly think you're oversimplifying it to a ridiculous degree, so I hope my answer was sufficiently simple.

 

[Carcharodon]

Also, I didn't go "on and on about [my] logical arguments." I mentioned the word "logic" once, in one post. If this constitutes "going on and on," well, then I apologize. But thanks for the exagerration/embellishment. Par for the course as far as the global warming debate goes.

Sorry, reading this only seemed to go on forever:

"I posted with logic, reasoning, respect and, most importantly, sources."

My bad. t:

By the way: I actually am enjoying this debate, regardless of the barbs we're trading. Don't get the wrong idea. I mean it all in good fun.

 

[Ice-man]

just thinking about it this winter has been one of the coldest long island has had, some nights its almost unbearable to go outside, its been in its 20-30's since december.

there have been a few strange hot days that got up to about 68.


id hope the cooling continues, it can re balance things.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I find it "astounding" that there is a "consensus" that the world is becoming too warm, yet there is somehow no "consensus" as to how warm we should actually be. If we can not identify the target, how can we know we have passed it?

This may give you an idea as to why some scientists jumped on board this good ship lollipop....

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.


Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”


This is nuts!!

 

[Carcharodon]

just thinking about it this winter has been one of the coldest long island has had, some nights its almost unbearable to go outside, its been in its 20-30's since december.

there have been a few strange hot days that got up to about 68.


id hope the cooling continues, it can re balance things.

Well, I'm not really convinced that the trend isn't reversible. There's a lot of doomsday scenario stuff going around, but I'm not sure about all that.

Should we reduce emissions? Yes. And hell, if we ARE scheduled to be on a cooling trend right now, at least that would buy some time for the atmospheric carbon to dissipate a bit and for us to get our act together.

 

[Tron5000]

You're basically just being combative. It is obvious that to attempt to discuss this with you is pointless, so keep believing what you want. As I said previously, the information is out there, and I won't spoon-feed it to you. You're free to attempt to search for this readily-available data whenever you like. I won't waste any more of my time.

And stop calling me "dude."

 

[Carcharodon]

This may give you an idea as to why some scientists jumped on board this good ship lollipop....

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.


Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”


This is nuts!!

You finally post something that I agree with.

 

[Carcharodon]

You're basically just being combative. It is obvious that to attempt to discuss this with you is pointless, so keep believing what you want. As I said previously, the information is out there, and I won't spoon-feed it to you. You're free to attempt to search for this readily-available data whenever you like. I won't waste any more of my time.

And stop calling me "dude."

Dude?

I'm being combative by asking you to provide these sources you keep shooting off about? So far all you've given me are conservative websites. I addressed your last post with a completely logical argument, nearly point-by-point.

It's cool if you're tired of the debate and don't want to continue, I certainly can't fault you for that. I really was enjoying this, though. Despite what you believe, I did look at your sources and learned a couple things (or, at least, expanded my view a bit).

I like debating. I'm not going to apologize for that. See you later, I guess.

 

[Tron5000]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

 

[Danalys]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

yes normally CO2 increase comes after temperature rise. but obviously human emisions don't follow that pattern. we don't think oh hey it's warm better burn more carbon. infact the opposite is true. now what matters is if CO2 and water vapour are in a self pepetuating cycle. an increase in one causes and increase in the other and visa versa, up until a tipping point where things cool again. his claims about what climate models are taking into account and what they should be able to predict i'm just gonna call bollocks.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."

yes global dimming. polution can factor into this aswell. airplanes have a habit of leaving vapor trails that have the same effects as clouds.and no the hockey stick graph has not been discredited as much as some would like and hope to believe.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

i don't really care what environmentalists think. many scientists may be against them, but i can't think of a word that really shows the gulf in amount between those many and those that disagree with them. classic spin this by the way, many scientists vs environmetalists, what a joke to even bring it up.

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

it's much simpler to predict long time scale change. think of it like predicting the amounts of coin tosses over 100 throws. you'll be far more accurate than if you were predicting for 5 throws because the probabilities are stronger factors over larger time periods.

 

[Carcharodon]

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

See, THAT'S what I'm talking about, dude. Thanks.

 

[Tron5000]

See, THAT'S what I'm talking about, dude. Thanks.

You're very welcome.

 

[Tron5000]

it's much simpler to predict long time scale change. think of it like predicting the amounts of coin tosses over 100 throws. you'll be far more accurate than if you were predicting for 5 throws because the probabilities are stronger factors over larger time periods.

So you're equating predicting the weather with tossing coins and guessing which side they will land on. Sounds about right.