Serious Question about Global Warming

That was even better than the Cats That Look Like Hitler Website:

www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com

 

:grin:

 

Some time ago I posted a thread about this. I had been to a presentation by the official archeologist of Boston and was given a handout that covered this very subject. It was the product of good science, and contained only measured, historical data. 20,000 years ago the oceans were 110 meters lower then they are today. The obvious reason was that a huge amount of water was tied up in the giant ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere. Then the ice started to melt. Why? The Earth's temperature started to rise. By 10,000 years ago the oceans had risen 100 meters, and the Earth's temperature was only a little colder then it is today. Since then, the oceans have been rising at a pretty steady rate and the Earth's temperature has risen only slightly. There have been a couple of "spikes" in the planet's temperature - from about 7,000 to about 6,000 years ago, the Earth's temperature rose and stayed a degree or so hotter then it is today. There were other brief peaks in temperature about 1,500 and again about 600 years ago (I don't have the handout in front of me right now, so the last two numbers may be off by a century or so). Obviously, none of these high-temperature periods could have been caused by humans. It does appear that we are in another spike right now. It may be reasonable to conclude that we have something to do with the latest spike, but the planet has been here before, and it will survive. As the late George Carlan commented - "We may be fu---d, but the planet will be fine".

 

One would think that the climate change alarmists would be happy to hear the data used to predict the level of warming may have been manipulated to make things out to be worse than they are, or will be.

Intellectual honesty and zealotry rarely go hand in hand.


:Comp:

 

2. While opinions varied, no one started acting like a 6 year old who wants his toy..


a thread on a contentious subject that *i* participated in which did NOT devolve to the level 6 year olds?

inconceivable.

:bglasses:

 

Yes, you would think that hearing that the world *may* not be coming to an end after all, would be good news to some people :laugh:

Of course, that has never been the point.

 

Here is a pretty comprehensive list of those in science, government and industry from around the world that agree the concept of global warming is valid and of great concern to the world.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Compare this list to those on the other side of the issue. Let's see Fox News ..etc

 

Look at the forecasts those in "the consensus" have made in the last three decades and compare them to reality. That should tell you how trustworthy those people are. Show me ONE climate model from 1998 that predicted the 1999-2010 temperature decline. Just one.

Back when Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for his heliocentric ideas, there was a strong consensus that the earth was the center of the universe. A consensus is nothing more than popularity contest. Throw trillions of dollars and untold political power into the mix and it will get very ugly.

 

Compare this list


how bout we compare lists of enviro scientists that WE KNOW have been lying about the data? up to and including the IPCC reports?

have you been on a news blackout for the last three months?

 

According to the mainstream media, nothing has happened. Recent record snow storms are a clear result of warming weather. Nothing to see here, move along....

 

But "those in science, government and industry from around the world" based their conclusions on the work of Alex Jones and he has all but admitted it was all a hoaxou:

That the earth has cooled steadly since 1995.

That ''they'' hid the decline.

That most of his ''scientific'' data really came from grad students.

That when real scientists disproved his findings ''those in science, government and industry from around the world'' would step in to silence them.

That there was in reality 3 warming and cooling periods in the 20th century and the one in the '90s wasnt the biggest spike of the three.

That he lied about the Mideval Warm Period. It was infact MUCH warmer than today. But that would have wrecked algore's powerpoint show now wouldnt it.




This isnt just some guy, Dr. Alex Jones was the guy that ALL the enviro-climatoligists sent their data too compile for the last 20 or so years.

If he lied, then THE WHOLE THING IS A LIE!!!

If where ever you get your news failed to mention this.......

What ever their peddlin aint news:Smarty:

 

Going back to my original question, can you list the scientitific groups with credentials that support your position?

We all know your personal feelings.

 

This is a good thread for such a discussion because it is in it's second year and we can track how things are changing. I might jump around a bit and most of my info is off the top of my head.

A recent report indicates the hole in the ozone is closing up possibly from our actions but scientists fear that will cause an increase in global warming because it will affect the density of the clouds. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html

Me personally, I get inquisitive and skeptical when EVERYBODY agrees and acts hastily. I've done a fair amount of my own research and have found many interesting things one of which was that the north pole has moved over 700 miles since the mid 1800's. This is due to the shifting of the earths core, eventually the pole will flip to the south and vice versa. This will happen when the core which is lopsided goes over center. First, I would think that a shifting that we have seen already has to factor in somewhere. Secondly, I would have to think that when the core completely flops, the earth as we know it will be changed for ever. I can assume a few earthquakes and volcanoes.

Though we do contribute to the air quality, volcanic activity and livestock emmisions greatly out weigh what we produce. One of our sister planets is desolate from volcanic gasses, not life forms. I saw a pro vegitarian pamphlet that touted meat eaters are the cause of global warming because of the number of livestock that we maintain for food, that if we grew more fruits and veggies the air would be cleaner, etc. Well if you do one thing too much you have different problems, for instance if we all were vegetarians, I am sure the soil would soon be unable to maintain good crops due to lack of nutrients.

At one time the earth was uninhabitable because of several hundred mile an hour winds and heat. The Incas or Myans along with dinosaurs are believed to be victims of global cooling which was caused by a large volcano or meteor that put debris in the air and blocked the sun. The Bering Strait used to be a dry land mass, but long before humans were a factor the seas rose enough to flood it.

Why did mankind begin and flourish in what is now one of the most uninhabitable places on earth? I would venture that at that time it was a much more moderate climate. Did the warming cause early humans to wander for better climate and eventually populate the entire earth?

I grew up in upstate central NY and have seen some healthy winters, but they never compared to the winters of the 1940's that I was always told about. Guess what, the 1940's were a very warm decade, why did they have all that snow then? Lake effect, the Great Lakes did not freeze over, cold air moves across, picks up the moisture and you have snow. I think in 1899 there was a severe cold snap that had freezing temps that went all the way down to Miami setting record lows throughout the entire country. All those records except a few have been broken since and most during out generation.

There is a whole nother group thinking that we are in for some major cooling trends that will cause many more problems, i.e. staying warm. Imagine what resources we will be using if everyone had to heat their homes and businesses year round? Better get on those new nuclear reactors pretty quick. Not all of us should be working on one scenario, others should be aware of the other scenarios!

Pretty much I think the earth's climate will always be changing with or without our input. We will just have to adapt, and when we fail to do so, game over. Of course we should all do what we can to reduce wasting energy and blatant polution, because it is obvious that it is not good.

 

I didnt post my personal feelings

I posted what Phil Jones said about his own work. sorry his name is Phil not Alexou:

 

I thought this was setled after the discovery of those emails. These elitest intllectuals don't know nothing. If the world is warming, why is is snowing so much!

 

I have the will to recycle, I have the will to not pollute the environment with my trash and I have the will to dream of a country that wil act on real science. If you tell me that no one should be operating a gasoline engine then fly around the world in a private jet I have the nerve to ask HUH? When you r "scientist" admits to changing temps that do nt fit his model I say HUH? When you say we must givbe away BILLION so dollars to underdeveloped countries because of what our emissions have caused them I say WHAAT?
This country for sure has had its run with the 19th and 20th century mechanization and manufacturing. But now that we have the most stringent rules governing businesses ( have you still got chrome shop near you? ) We are making the environment a better place than in the past. Add that to the multiple BILLIONS we give away every year to disadvanyaged countries I ask why is it that its all on us? Spend some time doing actual research where you don't have a theory and then try to make the numbers match your theory. I know thats how many scientists work. Its like the cops, when a crime is committed they often decide whom to go after and then only see the evidence that fits their theory.
Besides the world is coming top an end on 12/12/2012 anyway right?

 

If so, I assume you have some scientific group(s) that now agree with your position. Name them if you would.

 

Sure you did. You just do not want to admit it.

Come on now, step up to the plate and name a scientific group that supports your position.

 

Going back to my original question, can you list the scientitific groups with credentials that support your position?


still with the appeals to authority? do they not bother teaching logic at law school? on second thought, i suppose logic serves little purpose in swaying juries....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

as long as you refuse to acknowledge that your scientific groups have been lying there is no point in discussing anything with you.

in case you couldn't be bothered to read it, my previous link was to the information on the IPCC lying about glacial melt rates in the Himalayas.

James Hansen and NASA got caught falsifying data at the end of 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

at the time, everyone just assumed that it was typically shoddy environmentalist "science". given the revelations of the EAU-CRU emails, i no longer see any reason to give them even that much benefit of the doubt.


nor is this the first time that Hansen has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/hottest-october-on-record-was-really-a-september/



That the earth has cooled steadly since 1995.


actually, i believe the statement was "no statistically significant warming since 1995".

and such scientific neophytes as MIT atmospheric science professors agree with that statement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/...lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

the problem that this presents to the warmists is rather significant. they claim that carbon dioxide concentrations are the forcing factor in global temperatures. CO2 concentrations have continued to rise over the last 15 years. and yet, global temps have gone flat or even dropped.

according to their "hypothesis" ( if we grant that they are even attempting science ) this is not possible.

and this is before one starts asking more significant questions such as "is it even possible for carbon concentrations to overpower the normal climate feedback loops which normalize temperatures on the planet"?



I posted what Phil Jones said about his own work.

and why should we trust the word of a witness who impeaches his own testimony? :laugh:



According to the mainstream media

portions of this have actually started to make the mainstream news media. see above.



If the world is warming, why is is snowing so much!

because warmer air will evaporate more water and hold it in suspension much better than colder air. this results in more cloud cover and precipitation ( rain, sleet, snow ).

you might think that all that extra water vapor, being a far more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, would begin a runaway temperature spike which would quickly "burn" the planet.

unfortunately for warmists, more cloud cover and greater snowfalls both act to greatly increase the planetary albedo. "albedo" is the factor of Earth's reflectivity. and the more solar radiation that is reflected back into space the cooler the planet gets.... ou: