Global Warming VS Global Cooling and Greenpeace

[Criticize]

Originally Posted by Ziki

I am glad it will be over with.Life sux anyways.You know who god is?You pray for something everyday.He is the one who ignores it

You need to get on the right track buddy I am not going to get all opinionated here, but get on the right track. Life is better on the other side

[smacklan]

Originally Posted by Criticize

You need to get on the right track buddy I am not going to get all opinionated here, but get on the right track. Life is better on the other side

very true!

[Tim Skellett]

Originally Posted by smacklan

actually you have to dig harder to find those who do believe in this nonsense..

I guess you missed my post above. It wasn't so hard to find out that those specifically acknowledging that global warming is happening include the USA National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

.unless you are at the UN

Read just above, will you? I put certain words in bolding to help out.

Finally I will say that practically all learned climatologists will tell you that any warming occurring of any significance is related to changes in the sun...

First you claim it's all nonsense, now you claim it's because of "changes in the sun".
You are contradicting yourself.
Next: The amount that is due to natural Earth cycles, that due to human activities, and that due to solar cycles is debated, but what is quite generally accepted by climatologists is that human activities certainly add to what's happening.

[Shelley_c]

The earth has been going through extreme climate changes for billions of years. Human contribution doesn't help neither does a thousand other factors which haven't been mentioned in this thread.

The earth was signifcantly warmer 100-200 million years ago. Who do we blame for this? The dinosaurs?

[carpefile]

Originally Posted by Thomas Sowell

If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves.


The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.


Remember how the unusually large number of hurricanes a couple of years ago was hyped in the media as being a result of global warming, with more such hurricanes being predicted to return the following year and the years thereafter?


But, when not one hurricane struck the United States all last year, the media had little or nothing to say about the false predictions they had hyped. It's heads I win and tails you lose.


Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates? Yes, there are.


There is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled "Hot Talk, Cold Science." More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."


There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries ? and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.


Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen.


His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically.


Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats ? as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.


You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having "misstatements and errors" that he calls "egregious."


A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being "often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it." It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet.


Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.


The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags.

Obviously there is climatic change, there always has been, always will be.
To say man has a significant impact on it shows a lot of arrogance on man's part.
A single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man does in an entire year.

[Tim Skellett]

Originally Posted by Shelley_c

The earth has been going through extreme climate changes for billions of years.

You could also say that at one point the Earth was a molten sphere, and one day it will be engulfed by solar breakdown, and one day it will be a frozen sphere.
None of that really tackles the point, does it? The point is that global climate change is affecting us now, and will do so much more soon, and most of the ways it affects us are and/or wil be negative.

You don't try shrugging off disasterous droughts by saying droughts have happened before.

You don't ignore hurricane warnings because much worse hurricanes happened 100 million years ago, do you?

It really makes no sense at all to shrug off global warming simply because say for example the Earth was hotter 200 million years ago, just as you don't shrug off a mugger in a dark alley threatening you just because the crime rates in Rio 10 years ago were far worse.

Human contribution doesn't help

Most scientists working in climatology would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by carpefile

Obviously there is climatic change, there always has been, always will be.

Obviously there have always been hurricanes and always will be. That does not excuse ignoring hurricane warnings; nor does it excuse you from looking at anything you do that exacerbates hurricane damage.

To say man has a significant impact on it shows a lot of arrogance on man's part.

Not true. It can be simple, sober, scientific analysis.

A single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man does in an entire year.

Not true; the volcanic eruption has to be above a certain size to do that.

Into addition, we simply don't have such large volcanic eruptions happening every year (thank heavens), and if we pump greenhouse gases into the atmoshere in high enough quantities to have a significant effect, then we are adding to the problem.

Adding to a problem is never a good idea.

[carpefile]

Your arguments just don't hold water, most of them are blatantly incorrect.
There are volcanic eruptions of sufficient magnitude to carry particulate into the troposphere EVERY YEAR, in many years multiple occurrences.

Investigating climate conditions from the past does indeed have bearing on the present, and you don't have to look back 200 million years for examples.
The last major global warming was during the 1600's, when the mean temp of the earth was a full 4 degrees Celcius warmer than it is today. This era is commonly called "The Golden Age of the Renaissance". Economic and agricultural prosperity abounded at the time, greatly attributable to the effect of the warmer temperatures on crops, international commerce and exploration, and milder living conditions for the populations.

This is not speculation, it is fact.

The allegories you use as comparisons are ridiculous. You can't stop droughts, hurricanes, or climate change. The most you can do is prepare to survive them.
You could stop a mugger of course, but that hardly has global impact.

The very papers submitted by the organizations you reference as the authority on global warming have been refuted by the same scientists who supposedly endorse them.
In fact these same scientists point out that they didn't even see these findings they supposedly endorse until after they were published.

A recent study shows that if mankind gave up all industry and parked every car in the world, today, it would take more than three hundred years for there to be an observable variance in greenhouse gases. That's because mankind contributes less than 3% to greenhouse gas accumulation.

Stop the fear mongering.

[Tim Skellett]

Originally Posted by carpefile

Stop the fear mongering.

Don't be silly. There is a scientific debate going on on the subject; there is a real problem to be tackled. Just what that problem is comprised of is open to debate; the fact that the problem exists is a fact. Acknowledging that a problem exists is not "fear mongering"; that's just name-calling.

Your arguments just don't hold water, most of them are blatantly incorrect.
There are volcanic eruptions of sufficient magnitude to carry particulate into the troposphere EVERY YEAR, in many years multiple occurrences.

That still does NOT mean they outweigh every year the effects of greenhouse gases pumped by manmade activities into the atmosphere. That is the point. Nor does it obviate the need not to add to the problem.

Investigating climate conditions from the past does indeed have bearing on the present,

Of course it does. That's how scientists determined that global warming was happening in the first place. But it's no excuse for evading the problem, which was the point I made.

The last major global warming was during the 1600's, when the mean temp of the earth was a full 4 degrees Celcius warmer than it is today. This era is commonly called "The Golden Age of the Renaissance".

Actually, the climate change at that time was far more varied than you think. I'll be happy to dig out a full description of changes during that time, including negative ones.

The allegories you use as comparisons are ridiculous. You can't stop droughts, hurricanes, or climate change. The most you can do is prepare to survive them.
You could stop a mugger of course, but that hardly has global impact.

You're not getting the point I made.
The point was, if you have a problem, you deal with it. And you don't make the problem worse.

The very papers submitted by the organizations you reference as the authority on global warming have been refuted by the same scientists who supposedly endorse them.

Really? Please give me the exact scientific paper citations to back up that claim of yours. Because I don't buy that one at all.

[Shelley_c]

Originally Posted by Tim Skellet

You're not getting the point I made.
The point was, if you have a problem, you deal with it. And you don't make the problem worse.

Exactly how many household appliances have you got switched on including your computer and all the extra gadgets that's contributing to this "If you have a problem, you deal with it (which I get so far) And you don't make the problem worse (which I don't quite get).

Is that making iit better?

[carpefile]

The point you are trying to make (Tim), is the error itself. A problem does not exist, climate change is a natural phenomena, with man's impact accounting for slightly over 1/4 of 1%.

That is why I say stop the fear mongering. Trumpeting over and over that the sky is falling, doesn't make it so. Constantly referencing an alleged consensus of scientists, when in fact none exists, does not prove your point.