Global Warming is a hoax.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1238605' date='Apr 11 2007, 08:34 AM']Truly, the point is moot. We know pollution is harmful so we should be as clean as reasonably possible, whether or not we are a significant contributor to global climate change.[/quote]

Excellent point my friend, and I agree.

That which I dispise is those who would exagerate the situation to gain attention, fame, whatever. These people spread misconceptions and often push solutions which are harmful to the very objectives they claim to aim.

There is no need to panic in my opinion, but there is a persistent responsibility which cannot be denied.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1239052' date='Apr 11 2007, 05:13 PM']Excellent point my friend, and I agree.

That which I dispise is those who would exagerate the situation to gain attention, fame, whatever. These people spread misconceptions and often push solutions which are harmful to the very objectives they claim to aim.

There is no need to panic in my opinion, but there is a persistent responsibility which cannot be denied.[/quote]

Didacus,

I'm going to try to respond to all of your questions here.

How many models have predicted the future? You'll have to be more clear on what you mean, because models have been able to take inputs from the earlier portions of the century and matched up with what happened later. That is as close as we can get to 'predicting the future'. But they demonstrate an ability to realize [to an extent] the trends of Global Warming. It's a method not yet perfected, but surprisingly useful in it's ability to predict trends as a result of C02 input. I say, trends...not specifics. But if your going to reject absolutely anything until it's absolutely proven then you cannot function as a rational human being. By that same logic you shouldn't worry about standing in the way of oncoming traffic because we don't know all of the variables. We don't know for 100% certain that you could get hit. People narrowly avoid getting hit all the time, it's a natural trend in the earths history. 80-90% certainty [as proven by peer reviewed science...again no one here has been able to wage an argument against peer reviewed science...] is about as good as it gets when it comes to these kinds of things. I am a realist, I don't believe in some global conspiracy of fame hungry scientists, nor am I some environmental extremist...I am simply a realist because I accept the science on the matter. I've read both sides of the arguement.

Speaking of argument, Anomaly...that article you posted wasn't peer reviewed science...it was simply an unproven hypothesis - not published in a peer reviewed journal from the last 10 years. The sun is unlikely the cause of Global Warming because the trends don't match. 2005 was the hottest year in recorded history [until 2006], and was preceded by gradually hotter and hotter years leading upt o it...however the output of the sun was at the lowest point of it's 11 year cycle. Why didn't we see a reverse in the warming of the earth? The hypothesis that claims that Global Warming is caused by cosmic rays from the sun is unsupported by science. Also the claim that these same cosmic rays can cause different type of cloud formations is true but this has already been studied and has already been determined to be of such small influence on Climate Change that it's virtually negligible Now this would change if Svensmark could bring up any new evidence...but he hasn't. And yet you claim that the theory of AGW has a lack of evidence? Here is a point by point rebuttal of Svensmark's argument. [url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/index.php?s=GCR&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site"][Link][/url] It does a great job at pointing out how he 'cherry picks' the evidence, and conveniently neglects so many facts that we've already established and that crush the GCR argument.

Some more literature that puts the GCR argument to rest.

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/"]Recent Warming but no Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays.[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/broadly-misleading/"]Broadly Misleading Arguments against AGW[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/"]Did the Sun record highs over the last few decades?[/url]

[url="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/"]A critique of the Celestial Climate Driver hypothesis.[/url]


Back to Didacus,

Do you really think that the 2500+ scientists in the IPCC are doing it for fame? Because their names, while available, are not broadcast everywhere. They all have much less fame, and much less potential for fame than the Climate Deniers that are getting so much attention in the media.

As for your point on efficiency for efficiency's sake? I fully agree with you, in fact when it comes down to it that is my point. We should all do our part in reducing our waste, in reducing our Carbon emissions etc. By sacrificing a little convenience here and there, and living a more humble lifestyle we can each do our part to help. The theory of AGW isn't motivated by money or consumerism...in fact there is very little money to be made in asking people to shop less, drive less, use less energy.

In the last 10 years, people who deny the highly supported theory of AGW have released just as many peer reviewed studies and reports as the people who believe the earth is flat, that's right : Zero, None.

Now I find your argument that this has happened in the past, and that it's a natural part of evolution to be very interesting. It demonstrates a poor understanding of the history of climate change, and the mechanism of natural selection. What we face today is much different because it has never, ever as far as all the science can tell, happened nearly this quickly AND this globally.

When other huge catastrophes have caused large amounts of damage - as this is projected to -for example asteroid strikes, super volcanoes, etc...it is not a healthy thing for evolution. Healthy natural selection requires a large amount of biodiversity...when so many species go extinct because something is happening at a rate so quickly that they cannot adapt - then those genes are lost from the gene pool and it takes a long time for life to rebound in that area - usually a very long time. Genetic diversity is necessary for healthy, natural evolution to progress...however the current rate and magnitude of Man-Made Global Warming is deleterious to this mechanism - AGW threatens 3 out of 5 species with extinction in many parts of the world. It's happening too fast for many things to adapt, in fact we have already lost various species of animals due to desertification, loss of water tables, loss of particular climates, due to Global Warming. Feel free to research the Golden Toad. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Toad"][Link][/url]


All of the best evidence...in fact ALL of the peer reviewed scientific evidence in the last 10 years indicates a loss of biodiversity that the Earth doesn't usually experience. It is going to take life a long time to bounce back from something like this. You are misinformed on the method of Natural Selection, the more genetic diversity the better. I recommend that you read the book 'The Selfish Gene' [selfish not referring to moral standing, but to a genetic mechanism - don't be confused]. It will clear a few things up on this matter.

Now I need a shower.

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[ThomasDM]

The one question that I keep asking, but that no one as answered me: Why hasn't there been anything that disputes the theory of AGW published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years? Why? That's not a hard question to answer. They either have evidence that can stand up to criticism and cross examination, or they don't.

Didacus, Anomaly, can either of you answer that? You've been sidestepping that question this whole time. Why?

-Tom

[jeffpugh]

Just wanna comment that last I was on (yesterday I think) we were at page 8. now we're at 10. I sorta skimmed through the 10th so bare with me if this was said... I'd like to comment that nuclear energy is not exactly perfect because of the waste factor: the output of the nuclear material can not be properly disposed of this time so the alternative is putting the stuff in the bottom of giant pools of water. To me, the energy source isn't that great unless we figure out how to harness or deactivate that radiation efficiently (opposed to waiting for hundreds of years before it stops shooting off tiny bits of matter).

[Didymus]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1239116' date='Apr 11 2007, 07:46 PM']The one question that I keep asking, but that no one as answered me: Why hasn't there been anything that disputes the theory of AGW published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years? Why? That's not a hard question to answer. They either have evidence that can stand up to criticism and cross examination, or they don't.

Didacus, Anomaly, can either of you answer that? You've been sidestepping that question this whole time. Why?

-Tom[/quote]

a peer reviewed scientific journal? because they're all either liberal or fully realize it would be a waste of time arguing over something this rediculous

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1239331' date='Apr 11 2007, 09:33 PM']a peer reviewed scientific journal? because they're all either liberal or fully realize it would be a waste of time arguing over something this rediculous[/quote]

That's the most convenient answer I could have hoped for.

Thank you for your answer.

-Tom

Edited April 12, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Anomaly]

Tom,
The inconvenient truths you keep ignoring are:
- Not all 2,500 scientists referred to in the IPCC report even want their name to be associated with it.
- Not all 2,500 scientists agree with the methods, analysis, or conclusions.
- Not all 2,500 scientists are qualified in the field, other than being educated persons.
- The IPCC is fraught with political answers and opinions.
- Since you don't specifically define what you understand Global Warming is with reference to a document, you opinoin is ambiguous to provide specific rebuttal.
- Global warming as an immediate, short term, or long term problem. There is a variety of opinion, including in the IPCC report.
- Causes of Global Warming are mostly man-made, partially man made, not man made.
- Disagreement regarding natural causes, the amoung to influence, etc.

You can't (and won't) provide a firm answer to the above, only than referencing politicized repots such as the IPCC.

You de-bunk Svensmark's work because of 1 anomalous year which is anomalous only because of mis-interpreting his theory of cosmic rays which warm the ocean, eventually creating more clouds, then the clouds reflect the rays, acting as a 'thermostat'. Particulate pollution was not addressed either. Particulate pollution causes clouds to form and rain. If particulate pollution is great over the oceans, it could cause water vapor to condense sooner, shortening the normal cycle of water vapor in the atmosphere, reducing the effective cloud cover.
Svensmark just recently got $$ to do further studies after over a decade of effort. His trouble in getting funding was becasue he wasn't going with the politically correct crowd that was getting the $$. Follow the money.

Speaking of anomalies, how does the CO2 alone crowd explain the cooling cycle of the 40's and 80's as well as the 'little ice age'?

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1239732' date='Apr 12 2007, 05:25 AM']Tom,
The inconvenient truths you keep ignoring are:
- Not all 2,500 scientists referred to in the IPCC report even want their name to be associated with it.
- Not all 2,500 scientists agree with the methods, analysis, or conclusions.
- Not all 2,500 scientists are qualified in the field, other than being educated persons.
- The IPCC is fraught with political answers and opinions.
- Since you don't specifically define what you understand Global Warming is with reference to a document, you opinoin is ambiguous to provide specific rebuttal.
- Global warming as an immediate, short term, or long term problem. There is a variety of opinion, including in the IPCC report.
- Causes of Global Warming are mostly man-made, partially man made, not man made.
- Disagreement regarding natural causes, the amoung to influence, etc.

You can't (and won't) provide a firm answer to the above, only than referencing politicized repots such as the IPCC.

You de-bunk Svensmark's work because of 1 anomalous year which is anomalous only because of mis-interpreting his theory of cosmic rays which warm the ocean, eventually creating more clouds, then the clouds reflect the rays, acting as a 'thermostat'. Particulate pollution was not addressed either. Particulate pollution causes clouds to form and rain. If particulate pollution is great over the oceans, it could cause water vapor to condense sooner, shortening the normal cycle of water vapor in the atmosphere, reducing the effective cloud cover.
Svensmark just recently got $$ to do further studies after over a decade of effort. His trouble in getting funding was becasue he wasn't going with the politically correct crowd that was getting the $$. Follow the money.

Speaking of anomalies, how does the CO2 alone crowd explain the cooling cycle of the 40's and 80's as well as the 'little ice age'?[/quote]

Anomaly, would you be able to really answer my question regarding why absolutely no evidence to dispute Global Warming has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years? I think it's a pretty important issue throughout this debate.

Anomaly, your argument is extremely, extremely weak. You are trying to argue that the sheer numbers of scientists that agree with AGW but differ on the very fine points [whether it will warm the earth by 2 degrees, or 3.5 degrees?] somehow discredits the argument. Then you go on to claim that I've only posted sources from the IPCC. Check again and you'll see that you are incorrect, I've posted sources from NASA and many others. Yet how many peer reviewed scientific reports have you cited Anomaly? Not a single one. You are only able to continue arguing this by politicizing the issue or ignoring my hard hitting questions.

I'll assume that you didn't read any of the articles that I posted, written by Climatologists, who were picking apart Svensmarks theory. Maybe he had trouble getting a grant because he has yet to publish anything in a peer reviewed scientific journal, that's a pretty important thing to do in the scientific community - you have to let your work stand up to the criticism. His work simply does not stand up to the criticism.

You said that there was one anomalous year...both ignoring what I said, and ignoring what was in the sources that I provided to back up my argument [I'm still waiting for a valid source Anomaly...you've been very slow coming on this]. I explained that for a little over 5 years the Sun had a decreased Solar output because of it's cycle. Not one year, 5 years. Surely we should have experienced some feedback from this. Surely if man isn't the primary cause of Global Warming, and GCR's are...then the temperature would have gone down. But it didn't, it kept rising in correlation with the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. 5 years which he simply cannot explain can do a lot of damage to his argument.

You cannot claim that the theory of AGW doesn't have enough evidence, meanwhile citing a theory that actually contradicts the evidence for 5 straight years. That's intellectually bankrupt.

You continue to ignore the IPCC because you claim that it's bankrupt...of the 2500+ scientists involved in the study, the largest scientific collaboration in human history, only a handful really disagree...and they do not disagree with its scientific findings! Those very finding from the IPCC are peer reviewed and are up for criticism. You come back to this debate, Anomaly, when you or anyone as published a critique of those findings in a peer reviewed scientific evidence.

Until then, you are starting to politicize the issue and resort to misunderstanding rather than fact.

So now, if you please, a question that you should have to answer objectively - without politicizing anything:

Why has there been no evidence published in a peer reviewed scientific journal in the last 10 years that disputes the theory of AGW.

If you disagree with the IPCC itself, fine...but surely you cannot disagree with it's findings...it's facts...which are objective and submitted to the community for criticism.

You keep asking me to state what I believe, and which exact document I base it off of. I already told you what I believe but I will make it clear again so you can stop trying to use your dogmatism as some sort of argument.

I agree with the scientific consensus that Global Warming is about 75-80% man made at this time, and that if trends continue, it threatens to warm the Globe by about 2-3 degrees in the next 50-100 years. And increase of Global temperature of about 0.68 degrees has been shown to have a huge impact on climate, has already been the most likely cause of hurricane Catarina in the South Atlantic [that rarely, rarely happens], that it has already caused the extinction of many species in sensitive climate regions in rain forests at the top of mountains [The Golden Toad], that it threatens Polar Bears, and that the latest Canadian seal hunt was called off due to low numbers because of their melting habitat, that the homeland of the Inuit is melting and that they've already taken action in international courts to have their culture's destruction due to industrialism recognized. If trends continue, many more people will be displaced or killed by flooding as the Ocean levels rise.

Which single article to I put all of this on? I don't! That would be foolish, unscientific, and very narrow minded. I base my acceptance of AGW off many, many different sources...because there are an overwhelming amount of them. I've cited more than enough sources, both related to the IPCC and not related to them, which shouldn't matter anyway because the IPCC findings are scientific facts, measurements, etc...submitted for cross examination.

So I pledge to you, if you want anyone to take the denial of the AGW theory seriously? Get together with your buddies, do some good science, and publish one, just ONE study or report in a peer reviewed scientific article - let your findings be criticized and replicated, if they are true then you have nothing to worry about, they'll stand up in the fray - the scientific method is skepticism at it's best, and it will get to the bottom of things. That's not faith in the scientific method, thats trust in something that as proven itself time and time again.

The ball is in your court.

-Tom

Edited April 12, 2007 by ThomasDM

[Anomaly]

I thought you'd learn to question more instead of just accepting propaganda from one side. I didn't really think you believed the c.rap that dissenting views of [i]your version [/i]of Global Warming was dissenting from the 'gospel'. Even Wikipedia provides links that challenges the extreme alarmists and the extreme deniers. Do you live in California? j/k

I went ahead and spent 5 minutes. The following articles and abstracts from PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS challenge some of the hysterical claims of the alarmists. Kinda kicks you claim that they don't exist right in the teeth, doesn't it?
[quote][b]The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth's rotation and atmospheric circulation connection [/b]
Author: Mazzarella, A.
Source: Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 88, Numbers 3-4, March 2007, pp. 193-199(7)
Publisher: Springer
Abstract:
[b]Spectral analysis of geomagnetic activity, global air temperature, Earth's rotation rate and zonal circulation, when smoothed from secular trend and periods shorter than 23 years, shows a concentration of energy around the 60-year period explaining more than 80% of the entire variance. [/b]This information has enabled the set-up of a cascade physical model that integrates the Sun-atmosphere-Earth system as a single unit and ties solar corpuscular radiation to global warming through Earth's rotation and atmospheric circulation. Our results suggest that changes in geomagnetic activity, and in the Earth's rotation, could be used as long- and short-term indicators, respectively, of future changes in global air temperature.

[b]Greenhouse gas emissions from a constructed wetland in southern Sweden Authors: Ström, Lena1; Lamppa, Andreas; [/b]Christensen, Torben
Source: Wetlands Ecology and Management, Volume 15, Number 1, February 2007, pp. 43-50(8)
Publisher: Springer
Abstract:
[b]This paper investigates the greenhouse gas emissions from a Swedish wetland[/b], constructed to decrease nutrient content in sewage treatment water. To evaluate the effect of the construction in terms of greenhouse gas emissions we carried out ecosystem-atmosphere flux measurements of CO2, CH4 and N2O using a closed chamber technique. To evaluate the importance of vascular plant species composition to gas emissions we distributed the measurement plots over the three dominating plant species at the field site, i.e., Typha latifolia, Phragmites australis and Juncus effusus. The fluxes of CO2 (total respiration), CH4 and N2O from vegetated plots ranged from 1.39 to 77.5 (g m−2 day−1), −377 to 1387 and −13.9 to 31.5 (mg m−2 day−1) for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Presence of vascular plants lead as expected to significantly higher total respiration rates compared with un-vegetated control plots. Furthermore, we found that the emission rates of N2O and CH4 was affected by presence of vascular plants and tended to be species-specific. We assessed the integrated greenhouse warming effect of the emissions using a Global Warming Potential over a 100-year horizon (GWP100) and it corresponded to 431 kg CO2 equivalents m−2 day−1. Assuming a 7-month season with conditions similar to the study period this is equal to 90 tonnes of CO2 equivalents annually. N2O emissions were responsible for one third of the estimated total greenhouse forcing. Furthermore, we estimated that the emission from the forested bog that was the precursor land to Magle constructed wetland amounted to 18.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalents annually. Hence, the constructed wetland has increased annual greenhouse gas emissions by 71.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalents for the whole area. Our findings indicate that management processes in relation to wetland construction projects must consider the primary function of the wetland in decreasing eutrophication, in relation to other positive aspects on for instance plant and animal life and recreation as well as possible negative climatic aspects of increased emissions of CH4 and N2O.
[b]Dangerous global warming remains unproven [/b]
Author: Carter, R.M.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, January 2007, pp. 167-169(3)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd

[b]Simulation of long-term future climate changes with the green McGill paleoclimate model: the next glacial inception [/b]Authors: Cochelin, Anne-Sophie; Mysak, Lawrence1; Wang, Zhaomin
Source: Climatic Change, Volume 79, Numbers 3-4, December 2006, pp. 381-401(21)
Publisher: Springer
Abstract:
The multi-component “green” McGill Paleoclimate Model (MPM), which includes interactive vegetation, is used to simulate the next glacial inception under orbital and prescribed atmospheric CO2 forcing. This intermediate complexity model is first run for short-term periods with an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration; the model's response is in general agreement with the results of GCMs for CO2 doubling. The green MPM is then used to derive projections of the climate for the next 100 kyr. Under a constant CO2 level, the model produces three types of evolution for the ice volume: an imminent glacial inception (low CO2 levels), a glacial inception in 50 kyr (CO2 levels of 280 or 290 ppm), or no glacial inception during the next 100 kyr (CO2 levels of 300 ppm and higher). This high sensitivity to the CO2 level is due to the exceptionally weak future variations of the summer insolation at high northern latitudes. The changes in vegetation re-inforce the buildup of ice sheets after glacial inception. Finally, if an initial global warming episode of finite duration is included, after which the atmospheric CO2 level is assumed to stabilize at 280, 290 or 300 ppm, the impact of this warming is seen only in the first 5 kyr of the run; after this time the response is insensitive to the early warming perturbation.
[b]Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources [/b]Authors: Ogurtsov, Maxim; Lindholm, Markus
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, September 2006, pp. 685-706(22)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Abstract:
We have reanalyzed the available data on the terrestrial temperature in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1000 years using both direct observations and various proxy records. It is shown that the only plausible conclusion, which can be drawn from these data is that global temperature has been increasing since the end of the 19th century. [b]However, due to discrepancies between different large-scale temperature proxies, it is impossible to determine whether this warming is anomalous or a result of natural climatic cycles. Furthermore, the amplitude of the temperature rise cannot be estimated correctly because of considerable disagreement between thermometer records, proxy data and satellite measurements over the last 20-30 years. Thus, the origin of the rise of global temperature should be considered to be unknown due to a lack of adequate knowledge about any of the factors that may be responsible for this phenomenon (the greenhouse effect, the rise of solar activity, natural climatic variability, regional anthropogenic impact etc.). A few probable scenarios of climatic changes in the first part of the 21st century are discussed. [/b]

[b]Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere [/b]
Author: Gray, Vincent
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, September 2006, pp. 707-714(8)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Abstract:
A new publication by NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) claims to have removed the previously evident discrepancies between mean global temperature anomalies measured on the surface and those measured in the lower troposphere. It claims that a combination of attention to inaccuracies and the use of linear regression equations on selected climate sequences have removed these discrepancies.
This paper shows that these claims are untrue. The apparent agreement of the two sets of records for the chosen sequences is dependent on the enhanced influence of volcanoes and El Niño events in the lower troposphere, compared with an additional warming factor on the surface. If a temperature sequence comparatively free from these influences, (1979-1997) is chosen, there is no significant warming in the lower atmosphere for six of the seven records, and for the seventh, no significant warming between 1988 and 1997; whereas warming still prevails on the surface over these periods. The [b]supposed enhanced greenhouse effect is thus currently undetectable in the lower atmosphere, where it is supposed to be most prominent, for extended periods, so the warming on the surface over these periods must have some other cause. [/b]


[b]CLUMSY SOLUTIONS FOR A COMPLEX WORLD: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE [/b]
Authors: VERWEIJ, MARCO1; DOUGLAS, MARY2; ELLIS, RICHARD3; ENGEL, CHRISTOPH4; HENDRIKS, FRANK5; LOHMANN, SUSANNE6; NEY, STEVEN7; RAYNER, STEVE8; THOMPSON, MICHAEL9
Source: Public Administration, Volume 84, Number 4, December 2006, pp. 817-843(27)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
Abstract:
Successful solutions to pressing social ills tend to consist of innovative combinations of a limited set of alternative ways of perceiving and resolving the issues. These contending policy perspectives justify, represent and stem from four different ways of organizing social relations: hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism and fatalism. Each of these perspectives: (1) distils certain elements of experience and wisdom that are missed by the others; (2) provides a clear expression of the way in which a significant portion of the populace feels we should live with one another and with nature; and (3) needs all of the others in order to be sustainable. `Clumsy solutions'- policies that creatively combine all opposing perspectives on what the problems are and how they should be resolved - are therefore called for. We illustrate these claims for the issue of global warming.[/quote]

Skepticism. I'm a big believer in that. The above articles, that just took me 5 minutes to find, raises some serious questions. You thought they didn't exist, but they do. Scientists swimming against the grain and publishing these questions and correctins in peer reviewed scientific journals. How did you miss these? You need to apply a bit a skepticism to what the mass media is trumpeting in order to get you to watch commericals for low mortgages and Enzyte. The world science community has a long history of being lemmings. It's the way the pendulem swings. Only believe half of what either side is saying.

My current opinion. Is there Global Warming? Probably.
Is this Global Warming part of the natural cycle? Very possible
Is this Global Warming caused by man? Very possible
Is Global Warming an immenent crisis? Not likely
Should society and governments be seeking alternative energy sources and means of providing power to society? Yes
Efforts should be reasoned, rational, and well informed in order to properly balance potential damage from Global Warming with damage to society that will retard economies, especially in less developed countries that will be least able to adapt. Learn the lesson of the errors made with DDT. Sure, the US could afford to ban DDT because we could afford alternatives and had better living conditions. Poorer countries did not have effective affordable alternatives, but what political clout did they have? If you want to care about people, try to be fair.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Anomaly

[XIX]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1239331' date='Apr 11 2007, 09:33 PM']a peer reviewed scientific journal? because they're all either liberal or fully realize it would be a waste of time arguing over something this rediculous[/quote]
Yes, yes. Everybody who disagrees with the right is being brainwashed by the left. Ab-so-lutely.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]Efforts should be reasoned, rational, and well informed in order to properly balance potential damage from Global Warming with damage to society that will retard economies, especially in less developed countries that will be least able to adapt. Learn the lesson of the errors made with DDT. Sure, the US could afford to ban DDT because we could afford alternatives and had better living conditions. Poorer countries did not have effective affordable alternatives, but what political clout did they have? If you want to care about people, try to be fair.[/quote]

[Lounge Daddy]

[img]http://bureaucrash.com/system/files/images/algore.preview.gif[/img]

[Phoenix Reborn]

My family and I used to call Al Gore 'the Gremlin,' but I don't remember why...heh, that nickname is how I guessed him during Taboo once...I was like five years old...

Edited April 16, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[Guest T-Bone]

So you advice against feeding him after midnight?

[tate4242]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='870478' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:43 PM']There is no such thing as "global warming" in the sense that it will send us into an ice age or just keep getting hotter.

Why do I say this? Because when we look back in history we see that the earth's temperature cycles vary from 100 to 250 years. Much longer than any of us will live. The earth cools and warms in cycles. We are living in a warming phase and it will start to cool back down within the next ten years, possibly five years.

The world is so many millions of years old, one volcano puts out more pollutants than we do in 10,000 years... more CFC's and more "green house gases" than we could ever do. 30 volcanoes erupt every year. So, for humans to do as much "damage" as one year of "damage" that volcanoes do it will take us 300,000 years... Now, what we do is a drop in the bucket when looking at the big picture.

What happens in our atmosphere to the bad gases? When the sun's UV rays hit oxygen they create ozone which is a bond between 3 oxygen atoms. Ozone is highly reactive and seeks out various gases, reacts with them, and turns them into somthing harmless - it's also a great way to kill germs. That is why if you put a UV light near the litter box it will help destroy foul odors. It is also why many safety glasses cabinets in chemistry classes have uv lights in them.

It's all a cycle.

Just look at the temperatures throughout history... grab a farmers almanac.

The media are a bunch of chicken littles and are very selective in what they show you. The "Sky is falling" gets more ratings than "We have nothing to worry about.".

As Public Enemy said "Don't believe the hype".

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Media zombie free[/quote]

Shalom IronMonk:

I must admit that you make an exceptionally good point here:

[quote]The world is so many millions of years old, one volcano puts out more pollutants than we do in 10,000 years... more CFC's and more "green house gases" than we could ever do. 30 volcanoes erupt every year. So, for humans to do as much "damage" as one year of "damage" that volcanoes do it will take us 300,000 years... Now, what we do is a drop in the bucket when looking at the big picture.[/quote]

I wish to also invite you to debate this issue with me over on this thread:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=66816"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=66816[/url]
Are We Catholics Ready To Save The World - Stop Global Warming?, Baby it is all or nothin!

It is almost time for me to get ready to go to work but I shall certainly do some thinking on this point!....Humnnnnn!!!!