...I think it is on the skeptics to prove that the effects of human activity are negligible, if they want to make that claim. Not on the scientists who are measuring increases in temp. to prove that it is only or mainly caused by humans....
There is a very good reason that the skeptics should prove that human effect is negligible.
If they are right then it doesn't matter. If they are wrong then it does.
Exactly. Besides, it is easier to sit on the sidelines and poke holes in what others write. Harder to publish work which supports/proves your point.
03 Dodge 2500 B100 homebrew
79 Rabbit B100 homebrew
Human effects on the climate have always been negligible. It's up to the AGW aficionados to prove that it's changed and that the change is significant. So far they haven't and their methods have been shown to be quite suspect and not honoring the scientific method. There's also plenty of properly researched and documented studies to prove they're wrong. One has been posted here, and so far in this discussion the AGW aficionados have presented nothing but their personal opinions and are unable to present any research data refute any of the evidence that's been presented. That's pretty much how it is everywhere. The support for the AGW agenda is miles wide and millimeters deep.
Apparently, the evidence does not satisfy you. Luckily, your interpretation of the evidence is not important. Governments all over the world, along with many of the world's largest corps., using the best data, the best minds and the best analysis techniques available have reached a different conclusion. That the likely hood that human induced climate change is too great to ignore. Some are taking more serious actions than others.
IMO, it is important to distinguish between proof and likely hood. Proof is a concept for courts of law and arguments. Likely hood is how decisions are made. IMO, the likely hood is very high that human activity has had and is having an impact on climate. We have had huge impacts on almost every other aspect of the natural world. Air quality. Water quality. Soil. Fish. Trees. Invasive species. Extinctions. Etc.
Frankly, I hope that the temps don't rise, or at least rise much more slowly than the models show. Regardless of whether it is caused by humans or not.
All I have to add for a while.
Happy Holidays to all!
03 Dodge 2500 B100 homebrew
79 Rabbit B100 homebrew
Part of a scientist's duty is that of being skeptical — (consensus is not science).
The Milankovitch orbital variations indicate that we are coming out of a 100,000 year glacial period of warming, but that is nature, and we can do nothing about that. Then there is our human history. The Vikings many years before Columbus, while sailing west, found a beautiful lush green landscape as far as the eye could see in all directions. So they stopped there and built their farms, grew their crops, built homes and barns, grew their families and livestock. They called this new land Greenland.
Don't you wonder why this frozen white barren land was called Greenland? For 300 years they grew their crops and lived in the lush land called Greenland, that Al Gore on purpose left out of his Hockey Stick chart. It was many times warmer at that time than it is today and how many SUVs were running around in mall parking lots? It's called the medieval warming period about 1,000 years ago. There was almost no man-made CO2 at this time on this planet. This alone is enough to bring down the global warming house of cards.
We have just come through a short warming period that peaked in 1998. There are lots of other bad cards in the global warming house of cards that were well known long before "Climategate", but global warming has now become a religion, and religions want fervent believers that don't question the faith, not skeptics.
The nasty old universe has us puny pygmies beat all to hell and gone on the extinction thing.
The dinosaurs were probably feeling quite complacent just before the asteroids hit.
Talking up the clean factory and not mentioning the dirty materials is typical of the propaganda that prevents people from seeing the truth.
Silica is reduced through a reaction with carbon(coal) and heating to 1500-2000C in an arc furnace.
It is then reacted with anhydrous HCl at 300C in a fluidised bed reactor to form SiHCl3. Then SiHCl3 is reacted with hydrogen at 1100C for 200 – 300 hours to produce pure silicon.
No I don't wonder, I know, Erik the Red named it Greenland to trick people into moving there. Greenland has not grown a tree for half a million years.
Ice doesn't build up a mile thick in one thousand years.
We have the technology to capture all the toxic pollutants produced by the process, some factories already do. Once installed the PV cells pay back the embodied energy in about 3-4 years depending on location. From that point on it's sustainable energy with minimal maintenance.
Just like like AlGore's hockey stick graph?
Not aware of any claims that Greenland was ice free during that warming, though large parts of the southern coast were during the Medieval Warm Period (from about the 10th century to about the 14th century).
[graph from 1990 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report]
Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1°C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56°N), Newfoundland [ Vinland ] and southern England (ca. 51°N).This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,
John I am not quite sure if you are saying we are coming out of a glacial period or a warm period(interglacial)?
Ah you have worked out the holy grail of the coal industry, carbon capture. They will give you a Nobel for that and you will make billions of dollars.
When you are richer than Bill Gates don't forget your mates.
Atmospheric CO2 isn't a toxic pollutant. It's the sugar in the soda pop that's bad for you not the CO2 fizz. The CO2 in my beer is a pollutant? yeah right... whatever....
IRREFUTABLE PROOF OF HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING.
Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, Adam and Eve were born, and the dawn of humanity. Since they could walk to the nearby apple trees in the garden of Eden, they had no real need for a big SUV (which God certainly would have made had they requested it).
About 140,000 years ago, Fred and Wilma Flintstone were born!!!
As is obvious by the graph, Fred & Wilma took a few extra trips to the store in their overweight Flintstonemobile.
Global CO2 levels spiked up by about 100 PPM (about the same as blamed on the Industrial Revolution).
Global temperatures soared with a jump from being about 8 degrees lower than current temperatures up to about 2 degrees higher than current temperatures.
Glaciers were melting around the world.
Even the Glaciers covering the Great Lakes receded.
The Woolly Mammoths of the time were walking on thin ice, with many of them falling through the polar ice caps to drown in the frigid arctic waters.
Fearing the end of the world as they knew it, Pebbles Flintstone and Bamm Bamm Rubble (now married) decided to throw away the keys to the Flintstonemobile.
Slowly, by avoiding all use of the Flintstonemobile, they were able gradually return the temperatures to a more "normal" 4 to 6 degrees below current temperatures, as the polar ice caps started to regrow, and the Great Lakes were eventually frozen over again.
(Image edited from the following article:
Finally, someone posts research to support AGW that makes sense. How could I have missed the Flintstone Factor when it was right there in front of me? Well Done Sir. That should close the debate.
Now can we deal with the toxic pollution?
On december 9th 2009 in the lead up to the copenhagen conference 140+ of the world's leading climate scientists issued a challenge to Ban Ki Moon the UN Secretary-General to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.
True to form the world's major media players didn't report this, this is either a great oversight by the major media, (which if true obviously needs correcting) or a collaborative effort by them to cover up the truth! they just kept on spouting the political consensus/lies and a very one sided evangelical view of the subject and even call scientists, or anyone with an oposing view to anthropogenic global warming as sceptics, non-believers or doubters, so we are not even allowed to have another side to the argument anymore.
It's now more of a war against real science than climate change, where political consensus rules.
It's obvious that the world leaders don't even believe their own hype that global warming is man made, otherwise how come they only pledge 100 billion dollars between them by 2020 to stop the world facing a catastophe? If the planet was a failing bank it would get trillions of dollars to rescue it from catastrophe!
if you are interested in following the repeatable science look at
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Great links Chug!
Test your knowledge;
How come hardly anyone is voting??
Simple schematic for a pump and heater control with a high limit
Sensor for the biodiesel/glycerin layer
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 184|