|
|
|
|
Global warming
|
| |
|
| |
Global warming is a myth.
Global warming is a myth.
|
|
desmonde
3/15/09
|
There is no credible scientific evidence that the slight increase in the earht's temperature has anything to do with human activities.
The problem here is best illustrated by the latin phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (before and therefore because). A small group of scientists proposed the theory of global warming a few decades ago. We have seen an increase in the climate since the proposal -- BUT this does not mean the theory has merit.
Global temperatures fluctuate routinely. We should not give credence to the theory just because the temperature did, in fact, increase.
Reply
|
|
|
|
Vishie
10/22/09
|
Global Warming is not a myth I live in Indiana it's mid October and today the high was 55 Late August the high was only 68 that's NOT global Warming
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
BeWaterWise
9/24/09
|
Global warming is not a myth…Climate change has been taking place since millions of years and man’s activities have hastened the effects of global warming. We are all aware of the changing weather pattern around the globe. Water scarcity in many regions of the world has become fairly serious and it is time we began water conservation. To read tips on how to save water please visit BeWaterWise dot com
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
JJcool
8/27/09
|
I agree, shut-up and help out! Yes, I understand your point and maybe ten years ago you would be right but now you need to wake up and help the rest of us out. I think your just trying to comfort yourself, pretend like there is nothing to be scared about. Well, there is and I'm getting sick of people like you not taking it serious.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
stephenking1
5/14/09
|
I think you are stupid as heck if you think global warming is a myth. there is a fricken hole in our ozone for christs sakes. the temperatures are rising, the ice melting. How much more proof do you need?
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
ler06210
10/9/09
|
I'm gonna go ahead and say that you are "stupid as heck." Where are you getting your information that you think is superior to other people? The earth is cooling not warming. There is also no proof that CO2 relates to the earth "warming." The idea of global warming is that humans are polluting the earth so much that an imaginary cloud is forming how ever many thousand feet above us, blocking us from heat. HAHA ok. There is absolutely no proof of this. Do you also realize what people think will prevent this "warming?" Less people. Let's all have less babies, or just sterilize ourselves so we don't WARM the earth. Whatever. Oh here is another thing causing global warming- COW FARTS. GET REEEEEAL. Plus were you alive this year? It was freezing this year. Summer especially. Bye.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Korny
7/21/09
|
Global warming, and, cooling, have been going on since WAY BEFORE MAN!!! And it will continue to go on, regardless. That has been proven by real scientists, who have done the real research.
Yes, global warming is occurring, right on natures schedule. When it is over, there will be another global cooling- maybe another ice age.
Man is responsible for about 5% of the warming- OT all of it.
Algore, champion of the "environmental movement", oes NOT care about the environment. If he did, he would junk the Hummer, instead of saying, "I got a right to pollute, since, I cut down somewhere else." What about, be all you can be? Does it not apply to politicians, like Algore?
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
scbrow
7/22/09
|
Nobody disputes that the Earth's climate changes in cyclical patterns caused by natural phenomena.
The problem that we are facing is that the release of CO2 by human activity is radically accelerating the warming of the Earth. The evidence for this is overwhelming. We can't wait a few hundred thousand years for natural forces to undo the artifical warming that our reckless actions have caused.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
patsnsox
7/22/09
|
Can you respond without mentioning Gore? It really reduces your credibility. If something has happened before, what relevance does this have? If I broke my arm before naturally (without outside force, i.e., by myself by say, falling out of a tree as a kid), does that mean someone else ca NOT have broken my arm for me later on?
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
kcox
4/6/09
|
Depending on the sample one chooses from past climactic behavior, one can describe our present situation as one of warming or as one of cooling.
Looking at the whole picture, I think we stand on the edge of another Little Ice Age.
Regarding CO2, it appears from the evidence that climactic warming causes an increase in CO2 and not the other way around.
And further, and probably not finally, I find it sadly ironic that so many people have bought into the political propaganda that puts forth global warming as the latest danger from which only more government can save us.
If we play with the numbers we can prove anything we already believe or want to believe.
The real scientific evidence supports only normal climactic fluctuation.
The effect of man-released CO2 on the climate corresponds to the flea raping the elephant.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
patsnsox
4/6/09
|
Comparing it to any point in history is irrelevant, we compare it to what it was before we started altering our atmosphere (especially since there's no other culprit). Increasing the atmospheric CO2 by almost 40% isnt all weve done, were also cutting burning down forests for farms, roads, etc. The loss of polar ice will cause 90% of the sunlight hitting that area to be absorbed instead of reflected, and there is a huge amount of methane trapped in Arctic mud that is slowly being released more every year.
It really bugs me that people go so far out of their way to fight common sense.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
kcox
4/6/09
|
Patsnox assumes "that people go so far out of their way to fight common sense," possibly because the way he has learned to see it makes it so obvious to him that it comes under the heading of "common sense."
Although mankind has released CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount mankind has released falls well within the norm.
In fact, the earth's atmosphere has in the past supported 12 times the amount of CO2 it presently supports, and at today's average temperatures.
We know from the evidence that as the earth's temperature increases, the tundra melts and releases enormous amounts of methane and CO2.
In other words, warming itself causes an increase in CO2.
Looking at past patterns, which mimic today's patterns, even in the absence of man's activities, we can see that the present time corresponds to a slightly warm period within a cool period.
This time period seems warm (or it did until about eight years ago) compared to 100 years ago, but it falls within a larger period of cooler weather.
The earth's present temperature remains significantly below the earth's average temperature when one looks at the pattern over hundreds and even millions of years.
We also know that during these cool periods, such as this present cool period, that a slight warming precedes a dramatic drop, also known as a Little Ice Age.
Oh, and if I recall correctly, man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 100 years, from all causes, represents three ten-thousandths of the atmosphere.
In terms of greenhouse effect, these three ten-thousandths represent a tiny factor compared to naturally-occuring water vapor and methane.
=====
This forum has a terrible format.
I would really rather converse with everyone than with only one person.
Do we have any control over this?
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
patsnsox
4/2/09
|
Thanks I think Ill listen to the people educated in this field, and currently working in it if you dont mind.
http://realclimate.org/
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
mordinho
3/16/09
|
The evidence now overwhelmingly supports the link between global warming and human activity. All but the most closed minded people accept this.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Korny
7/21/09
|
That is the consensus of opinion of fifteen "scientists", who came to this conclusion, without regard fort the research. Then Algore jumped in and wrote a book- not to curb global warming, but, to make lots of money.
Recently, there was a document signed by 31,000 plus scientists who said the whole thing had been misrepresented.
Now, here you are, continuing to restate what has been stated, without proof.
No, it has NOT been proven that man is largely responsible for global warming. Instead, it has been proven that man's role in this is less than 5%.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
patsnsox
7/22/09
|
Yeah, 31,000 scientists including a spice girl.
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
?Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," he said.
?
In 2001, Scientific American reported:
?Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition ?- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers ? a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.?
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
"In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Signatories
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Thraxel
3/21/09
|
I wouldn't say that's the case at all. We can only say that temperature increases can be correlated with increased CO2 emmissions.
Correlation alone is not proof of causality.
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
patsnsox
7/23/09
|
Thrax - it's well established by lab tests that co2 acts as a greenhouse gas. The causality is fact.
Reply
|
|
|
| |
|
|
