Global warming

Quote from man:

i find it a very interesting phenomenon that the "sceptics" start by
saying it is uncertain, whether GW is manmade, but end up with
being certain it is not. i am aware that they do not say that loud,
but it boils down to it.

though i must admit i find it confusing that this french prof
converted ...

(in any case this discussion as well as several others prove that
the reference of nonScientists to the world of science as an example
for rationale, clear cut discussion, is obsolete).
More...

the fact the french prof changed his mind should ring huge alarm bells. the guy probably theorized about man made GW and was convinced 'a priori'. when he did the necessary research to confirm his fears he found contradicting data and not any where near enough solid material to support the man made view. the actual GW propaganda is very well orchestrated, politicians fabricate and distort data to support agendas, we have multitude of examples, the bush push for the noah's grand canyon for instance, and no shortage of opportunistic scientists willing to compromise for political and financial gains. and if there's an agenda in place with politicians in full control of it, u are not gonna hear much from the other side, no matter how sound their research, GW critics will be shunned upon and ridiculed for speaking the truth if the truth hurts.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

wtf are u talking about, it was a study throughout time to seek evidence of a pattern or the existence of an inverse relationship between temperatures and sun activity. these climate-scientists are amongst the best in the world and you have the balls to say they are idiots and liars? what they stated is backed by research. leading climate-paleontologists after analyzing millions of years of data from ice cores discovered that CO2 is not leading temperatures but the other way around. infact there's a whopping 10 to 100 years lag; CO2 increases never begin with a lead. this has been confirmed beyond doubt after several ice cores surveys and these cycles coincide exactly to increasing sun activity and gore knows about it. infact he states that the relation between CO2 and temperatures is very complicated, but not only he doesn't mention this particular chart, he fabricates a complete opposite conclusion to back up his agenda. what exactly are u trying to criticize here...be clear because the shallow and empty post u made just doesn't cut it....infact it is u that seem to be talking exactly like a fundamentalist.
More...

I realize that my post may be a little hard for you to understand. So I'll explain it in simpler terms.

It is well known that the earth's surface temperature had very large swings, on both hot and cold ends, as recent as 10000 years ago. Early earth was so hot, that no living things could have existed. During the ice ages, the population of many species dropped dramatically, and many species went extinct. The global temperature stablized to a relatively narrow range in the past 10000 years. It's only a matter of time that the temperature would swing out of this range.

Do you think that it's a coincidence that agriculture started approximately the same time when the global temperature stablized to the current range? What do you think would happen to agriculture (and human population) when the temperature swings out of this range?

There is nothing wrong with the science (about the wild swings in the temperature). The idiots were using the science to argue that because the earth was much cooler or hotter before so we don't need to worry about it. It's like building a house on a floodplain, then argue that because there had been floods here before the house was built, so there is no reason to worry about future floods.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I realize that my post may be a little hard for you to understand. So I'll explain it in simpler terms.

It is well known that the earth's surface temperature had very large swings, on both hot and cold ends, as recent as 10000 years ago. Early earth was so hot, that no living things could have existed. During the ice ages, the population of many species dropped dramatically, and many species went extinct. The global temperature stablized to a relatively narrow range in the past 10000 years. It's only a matter of time that the temperature would swing out of this range.

Do you think that it's a coincidence that agriculture started approximately the same time when the global temperature stablized to the current range? What do you think would happen to agriculture (and human population) when the temperature swings out of this range?

There is nothing wrong with the science (about the wild swings in the temperature). The idiots were using the science to argue that because the earth was much cooler or hotter before so we don't need to worry about it. It's like building a house on a floodplain, then argue that because there had been floods here before the house was built, so there is no reason to worry about future floods.
More...


no i understood exactly what u were saying and it is totally moronic; u are undermining the whole research by focusing on historic temps and taking them out of contest. the argument is not on wether past periods of warmer weather in itself form the basis for natural GW. it is the fundamental relation between the greenhouse gases, specifically the CO2 and temperatures in past cycles, the sun hot spots, the magnetic field and it's effect on temperatures. we are talking not only about recent past presence of much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it's effective lagging behind temperatures, but that is actually lagging by 100s of years, and for a long period even inversely proportional to warming. if CO2 lags by such long periods it cant be the cause of GW but a byproduct, a fallout. infact only the solar activity follows closely with the temperatures chart, the CO2 fractal not always does. and CO2 is not just created by fossil fuel and certainly not a recent phenomena. infact man made CO2 constitutes a tiny percentage of all the CO2 emissions from nature: volcanos, plants, us human as bodies, animal life, decomposing matter but above all the oceans make up for most of the total CO2 in our atmosphere...even if man made GW is real, which is not, reducing CO2 emissions would have a minimal effect on temperatures where oscillation from volcanic eruptions alone create more emissions than more of all our factories combined can produce.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

...even if man made GW is real, which is not, reducing CO2 emissions would have a minimal effect on temperatures where oscillation from volcanic eruptions alone create more emissions than more of all our factories combined can produce.
More...

In other words, we just watch helplessly ourselves become pressure-cooked meat. We can do nothing about it.
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

In other words, we just watch helplessly ourselves become pressure-cooked meat. We can do nothing about it.
More...

if you are so worried about co2's then stop farting and kill a bunch of squirrels. from 1940 till 1980 they were scaring you nellies with global cooling.... NY was gonna be a sheet of ice.

just another hoax for you sheeple to open your wallets and scream save me mommie. wait, let me grab my birkensocks and eat some rice cakes.
 
Quote from Jayford:

Look it up.
More...
where? i am curious, since i thought the warming is
agreed upon fact and discussion is on reasons not the
facts by themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top