The earth is flat and it's the center of the universe. That fact was proven by a consensus of scientists long ago, the debate is over.
Truth in science isn't determined by a consensus of the politically correct, but rather by testing hypotheses with empirical data and repeatable experiments, and it's done openly.
Five tests of the hypothesis that human generated CO2 causes global warming are presented at these links.
Everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs. If you believe the tests are inaccurate then let's see the empirical data to support your beliefs.
The only thing that's been proven about AGW so far is that it's more like a religion than a science.
Exactly what I thought when I read the original statement.
There is no weight whatsoever in " My idea is right because I have declared it is and you have to prove it wrong", the onus of proof is equal and shared for either side of the argument. If anything, there is more emphasis on proving something exists in the first place, especially when you want to take money from people to fix the problem you allege.
In that case, then the argument should be supported with overwhelming proof and agreement amongst those in the position to make educated conclusions and the Climate change proponents aren't even close in that department yet.
I appreciate your comments on the end of my post. I began that part of my post with "I think". Fine with me for you to disagree.
Any comments on the first part of the post? These are facts, no?
Do you disagree with these statements?
If so, how do you support your position?
Your conjecture is refuted by the information in the links provided. Ignoring that is the same as conceding that you have nothing to counter those data. QED
If you would like to state, in your own words, why you think the gasses do not raise the temp. I'd like to see it. Or, perhaps quote from the postings, the part that convinces you. I am interested in your ideas, not the ideas of the other authors.
And, just as an experiment, how about drop the antagonistic attitude?
No thanks, the data speaks for itself and I couldn't present it any better as my opinion. Read this discussion from Page 1.
In summary, yes, human activities contribute to the warming of the planet. So far there's no conclusive evidence that human activities have caused the warming that's been gradually increasing since the last ice age. There's no evidence that halting human generated CO2 will reduce or halt the warming. Extreme warming and cooling cycles have been occurring for the past 3 million years since the isthmus of Panama was created by the drifting of the continents. Since the last ice age, within human history there have been warming trends in Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval times. In every case the evidence [presented in this discussion] shows it was much warmer than today. Given the choice of the other climates we could be experiencing I'll take the warming over the cooling any day; we're lucky to be living in these times. It's unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people are distracted by CO2\AGW red herrings, when we should be focused on reducing the ever growing toxic pollution in our environment. CO2\AGW obsessions only support those who profit from pollution. The ongoing CO2\AGW distraction is funded by the polluters like AG and his Billionaire cronies. Don't be duped by their rhetoric.
Can you refute any of the five tests of the CO2 hypothesis with links to your supporting evidence? Personal beliefs and opinions are irrelevant.This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,
Test one... The first few charts displayed are temperature anomaly data and have nothing to do with overall temps. I can't read the legend on the second chart comparing the hemispheres so it could be burger sales at McDonalds for all I or anyone else would know.
Then back to anomolies.
Test Two....Is again mostly anomolies except for the last chart which seems to be ice core data from Greenland but there is no way of knowing what they measured, maybe CO2 maybe methane it could have been pollen for all the viewer knows.
Test Three.... Comparing CO2 output to temperature change over such short timescales is misleading. Most accept that their is a lag of between 50 and 100 years. Data from the Greenland ice cores mentioned in test two show a very close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the longer term. The chart used in Test 4 contradicts this test.
Test Four.... Is true and correct.
Test Five... Is true, but just because some scientists predicted that the troposphere would warm and it didn't is neither here nor there.
The Australian coal industry looks after this bloke.
At the very beginning he quotes the CSIRO, that is who you should believe.
From a different perspective Sir David Attenborough
Your opinions and the irrelevant ad homenim argument duly noted.
Got any evidence to support your opinions?
If you agree with that statement, then you and I agree. If you read my post, I pointed out that the interesting question was how much.
In summary, we agree that human activity contributes to the warming of the planet.
Therefore, this is not a discussion of if, but of how much. That is, IMO, a different discussion.
As Sinbad points out, if one chooses to dig around, one can often find that the (IMO few) researchers who deny a causal relationship between humans and rising temps, are funded by the big fossil fuel burners.
Besides, is it that hard to accept that humans would have an impact on climate? We have already eaten most of the world's big fish, have plastic islands the size of states floating in the ocean, and continue to deforest the planet at an alarming rate. To me it would seem odd if we were not having an effect on climate, given how much effect we are having on everything else.
Again, the question is how much, not if.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Andrew M,
Evidence, can't you see that one chart says no link between between CO2 and temp and then another says there is a link.
First the fact that this guy is funded by the coal industry is not an opinion it is a fact. He was exposed by the media here years ago. He does consulting for many mining companies.
As for believing a well respected scientific organization over a single geologist, well I would call that common sense.
Exactly, and is it significant? The only way we can evaluate that is if all evidence is on the table. The sort of amateur shenanigans we've seen exposed with the leaked e-mails can't be tolerated with scientific professionals.
Meanwhile, lets get started significantly reducing ozone and carbon particulates. In the case of the particulates, biodiesel can have a major role to play. That's where the energy should be focused, not on meaningless climate debates and silly schemes like carbon trading.
Climate and humans: the long view
By Professor Clive Finlayson
Director, Gibraltar Museum
We seem preoccupied today by looming predictions of imminent climate change.
Outlooks have been shifting in response to a global phenomenon
This is understandable as our lifestyles and lives appear to be coming under threat from this global phenomenon of unprecedented scale.
But if we were to use the deep history of this planet as our yardstick, the unusual thing would be for our climate to remain immutable.
Earth's climate has always been in flux and the last 10,000 years, which in relative terms have been fairly stable, are not the rule.
In those 10,000 years we have gone from hunter-gatherers to farmers, industrialists and travellers in cyberspace, seemingly safe within the cocooned illusion that climatic stability was the way of the world.
And all the time, the deadline for the next climatic downturn, leading to the next Ice Age, was getting closer. It gets closer every day that goes by and our science cannot predict when this will happen. But happen it will.
The industrial revolution would change our world in ways we could not imagine
We became increasingly uneasy as we began to realise that the effects of the industrial revolution had, over the last two centuries, generated new variables that were complicating an already complex multivariate, multi-scale, melee.
The debate then centred on how we could distinguish our own imprint on the Earth's climate from the background gamut of natural factors that generated climatic variability.
And we came to the conclusion, after a long-drawn debate, that our mark could be picked up, appearing like a curved hockey stick on a graph of temperature against time.
The "hockey stick" spoke of warming not cooling. Perhaps a new Ice Age would come, but in a remote future that was not worth considering.
Our own history, and that of our Neanderthal cousins and our predecessors, has been shaped by climate change and luck
Perhaps our own brand of global warming would counteract it. But the imminent danger would be the warming of the planet.
We should be under no illusion as to the effects of global warming, natural or man-made. It will change the face of the planet even though we don't really know where, when or how, in any kind of detail.
But natural climate change has altered the face of the planet many times before, and in far more dramatic ways. Even the rate of change expected today is not outside the limits of natural change.
The 40-odd thousand years leading up to the last Ice Age included countless wild and sharp climatic oscillations that would have provided the most sensational of world headlines had our Neanderthal cousins had satellite television, mobile phones or internet.
The regularity of drastic climate change would soon have offered little by way of breaking news.
So, in terms of the well-being of our planet, little of what is coming will scare it. It has seen extreme global warming, as when tropical forests covered the poles, and extreme deep freezes, as when icebergs reached the latitude of Lisbon, Portugal - with strays drifting into the Mediterranean.
The difference with this one, and we should be open and honest about it, is that it will affect millions of people. Our own history, and that of our Neanderthal cousins and our predecessors, has been shaped by climate change and luck.
Our population was so small that being in the right place at the right time, or the wrong place at the wrong time, really mattered.
The Neanderthals, who had been so successful in Europe for much longer than we have been around, vanished because of too much global cooling.
Many of our own stock - and this may surprise people - also went extinct because they couldn't handle the climate and its effects.
Several small populations, in Africa, Australia and on the plains of central Asia, scraped through and we are all descended from them.
No living human has experienced the kind of climate change that they had to go through. Most perished but a few survived.
Clive Finlayson is director of the Gibraltar Museum and author of the book "The Humans Who Went Extinct. Why Neanderthals died out and we survived", in which the theme of this article is expanded.
Interesting essay. He provided no footnotes. The one item which I have serious questions about is this:
Love to see the data that supports that claim.
see fig 11
Those who doubt the validity of the video presentation links in previous messages, will find the full research paper with the footnotes and references for all the data at this link.
If you disagree then provide equally valid sources for your beliefs, not just your opinions.This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,
John I tend to agree with Clive, we have been through this before even the ancient Egyptians were just another tribe in the scrub until the Nile was created by a warm spell. They prospered for a long time but eventually the increasing heat turned most of Egypt into desert.
I sometimes think that the argument over man made climate change is a bit pointless. Emissions will not be reduced voluntarily by meaningful amounts, man is just to greedy. It is probably already to late if it is man made and if its not there isn't much we can do anyway.
The tropics have grown by 300 to 500 kilometres in 25 years and there is no sign this is going to stop. ABC
Obviously we disagree. There's a lot we can do to force the reduction of toxic pollution. We had a good start on it before this AGW distraction. We're causing 99.9% of the toxic pollution, it's killing us and many of the other creatures on the planet. Unlike the case with AGW, who can argue that humans aren't causing pollution, or that pollution is unhealthy, or that destroying ecosystems is beneficial? It's really unfortunate that the polluters were so much smarter than the environmentals and that they've effectively hamstrung the opposition by distracting it with a debate over who causes the weather. If it wasn't so pathetic the irony alone would be hilarious.
The environmentalists are never satisfied, you can't build a hydro electric plant here to reduce coal emissions because a valley will be destroyed.
Solar cells are the only acceptable technology to them, because they are to dumb to realize how much CO2 and other pollutants are released making solar cells. Most are well intentioned but just don't understand the bigger picture.
Electric cars are the current fad, when the hippies work out how much toxic materials are in the batteries they will change their minds like they did with bio. People still think ethanol is environmentally better than fossils. People are such suckers.
PV cells can be manufactured without releasing toxic pollutants into the environment. It might cost more, but Germany does it and they're selling as many as they can make. The same goes for batteries. Mines can operate without producing toxic pollutants, we do it here in Canada. An environmental review of operating plans to ensure that pollutants are contained is part of any new mine-site and mill in Canada. In the same way an environmental review determines which hydro developments should proceed and which shouldn't. In many cases the newer hydro technology doesn't require the huge lakes of traditional dams. In other cases the creation of lakes are a benefit. This is all part of the permitting and review process. The federal govt sets the standards for the northern territories and the provinces each set their own standards, which can vary.
Electric cars are appropriate in areas with hydroelectricity and CNG vehicle fuel can be promoted in coal-electric areas. Coal fired power plants can scrub the toxins out of the stack gas. This doesn't require complex technology. We've had most of the technology to solve our energy and pollution problems since the end of WW2. If some countries continue to release toxic pollution then a 'pollution tax' is added to their products when imported. If the dirty products aren't cheaper people won't buy them. All of this is possible if people focus on stopping pollution.
In Canada the people who develop and maintain the environmental standards and regulations are scientists and professionals, not "hippies", "environmentalists", or "tree-hugging bed-wetters" as we've been told is the case in Australia. I've never lived there so I'll take their word for it. No doubt some countries face greater challenges than others based on cultural attitudes and values.
Do you true believers think "Big Climate Change" is more altruistic, ethical, or pure at heart than "Big Oil" or " Big Coal".
"Big Climate Change" is in bed with, and funded by "Big Government" witch stand to reap billions and billions of dollars. If you want to discredit researchers by pointing out their funding source you should point out that "Big Climate Change" has even more to lose than "Big Oil" if hoax and change is exposed. Their very existence depends on only one outcome. Do you see a conflict at all? That is not how science should work
Faith is very important to me. When it comes to GW I want to see decisions taken base on science, not blind faith.This message has been edited. Last edited by: fuelfarmer,
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 184|