Global Warming - Fake or Real

[Localizer]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

no its just CO2 doesn't affect temperature.

eh? it does affect temp. CO2 traps the solar rays that rebound off the earth, hence keeping certain areas of the earth warmer. It's a quilt over cities bro. There's enough scientific evidence to show that.

[runningman]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

I was talking about the man made co2 accounts for less then 1%of the gases in the atmosphere..

[fletcher]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

I was talking about the man made co2 accounts for less then 1%of the gases in the atmosphere..

But 1% is a hell of a lot of gas in our atmosphere...

I believe we are accelerating the effects of a natural cycle, so yes I do believe in global warming but we are not the sole cause.

We can certainly do a lot to clean up our act, and it wouldnt take much if we all chipped in.

UK sorting themselves out will be the good first step - we contribute very little in global terms, but other governments should take note and learn from the way that smaller countries (not just UK) are starting to control their outputs. Developing countries like China and India are the main concern, and the USA (plus other "developed" countries) should definitely be thinking about whats going on if we are going to make any real difference.


(By the way, i work in a test/research house for building services)

[fletcher]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

And i just see Gordon Brown has announced that road tax for heavy polluting vehicles (4x4's mainly) is set to double - should have gone up more in my opinion, especially if you live in a city... why the hell do you need them??!!

[Localizer]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

I was talking about the man made co2 accounts for less then 1%of the gases in the atmosphere..

It doesn't matter how much it accounts for - smog is manmade, and smog is what's helping increase metropolitan temperatures.

[thesightless]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

hey, who cares? it isnt going to hurt us, let our kids worry about re-terra-forming the place while billions die. aint gonna bother me. (sarcasm clearly)

everyone with time tonight should hit up CSPAN< i watched gore's testimony today and goddamn, the more he speaks, the more i look west at NYC's skyline and say "fuck......."

[Shpira]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

god damn chelsea farmers!!! Blocking up my streets!

[Jia]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

I'm not sure how anyone could invoke a Noam Chomsky quote as evidence that Global Warming is propaganda, but here's the man himself on climate change (the quote is taken from a commentary on intelligent design, but it is still very relevant to the issue we're discussing):

"Intelligent Design raises the question whether it is intelligent to disregard scientific evidence about matters of supreme importance to the nation and world — like global warming.

An old-fashioned conservative would believe in the value of Enlightenment ideals — rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry — and would try to adapt them to a modern society. The Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, championed those ideals and took pains to create a Constitution that espoused religious freedom yet separated church and state. The United States, despite the occasional messianism of its leaders, isn’t a theocracy.

In our time, the Bush administration’s hostility to scientific inquiry puts the world at risk. Environmental catastrophe, whether you think the world has been developing only since Genesis or for eons, is far too serious to ignore. In preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies of all G8 nations (including the US National Academy of Sciences), joined by those of China, India and Brazil, called on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off global warming.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify prompt action," their statement said. "It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

In its lead editorial, The Financial Times endorsed this "clarion call," while observing: "There is, however, one holdout, and unfortunately it is to be found in the White House where George W. Bush insists we still do not know enough about this literally world-changing phenomenon."

Dismissal of scientific evidence on matters of survival, in keeping with Bush’s scientific judgment, is routine. A few months earlier, at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, leading US climate researchers released "the most compelling evidence yet" that human activities are responsible for global warming, according to The Financial Times. They predicted major climatic effects, including severe reductions in water supplies in regions that rely on rivers fed by melting snow and glaciers.

Other prominent researchers at the same session reported evidence that the melting of Arctic and Greenland ice sheets is causing changes in the sea’s salinity balance that threaten "to shut down the Ocean Conveyor Belt, which transfers heat from the tropics toward the polar regions through currents such as the Gulf Stream." Such changes might bring significant temperature reduction to northern Europe.

Like the statement of the National Academies for the G8 summit, the release of "the most compelling evidence yet" received scant notice in the United States, despite the attention given in the same days to the implementation of the Kyoto protocols, with the most important government refusing to take part.
It is important to stress "government." The standard report that the United States stands almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only if the phrase "United States" excludes its population, which strongly favours the Kyoto pact (73 per cent, according to a July poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes).

Perhaps only the word "malignant" could describe a failure to acknowledge, much less address, the all-too-scientific issue of climate change. Thus the "moral clarity" of the Bush administration extends to its cavalier attitude toward the fate of our grandchildren."

[|Thrax|]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Totally Fake. The only thing real thing about it is Al Gore invented Global Warming.

ty.

[asdf_admin]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

you are very welcome.

[chrissy1687]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

is this thread for real or fake?

[asdf_admin]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

fake. I all ready made my stake.

[cosmo]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

Plus ?a (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.

BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."


Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.


While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.


Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control."

International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

[day_for_night]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^
|
I'm willing to bet money the guy who wrote this doesn't have a doctorate in atmospheric sciences. Infact, since he isn't listed as "Dr. du Pont", i'm fairly certain he doesn't.

Its like this guy (along with some people in this thread) is trying to argue with the vast majority of highly educated atmospheric scientists on this subject...its hilarious. These guys who are all saying that global warming is happening went to school for 8-12 years just on this subject. Would you go argue heart conditions with a cardiologist, or quantum theory with a particle physicist?? i don't think so...

[cosmo]

Re: Global Warming - Fake or Real

^
|
I'm willing to bet money the guy who wrote this doesn't have a doctorate in atmospheric sciences. Infact, since he isn't listed as "Dr. du Pont", i'm fairly certain he doesn't.

Its like this guy (along with some people in this thread) is trying to argue with the vast majority of highly educated atmospheric scientists on this subject...its hilarious. These guys who are all saying that global warming is happening went to school for 8-12 years just on this subject. Would you go argue heart conditions with a cardiologist, or quantum theory with a particle physicist?? i don't think so...

He is citing studies from scientists. I find it amuzing that all of the Global Warming backers cite an 'overwhelming consensus' that has supposedly concluded that Global Warming exists, yet I've never seen a list of those scientists. In fact, the majority of the scientists that were on the list cited by Congress here in the US a few years ago, came out swinging, saying that they had no idea why their names were even on that list.

One of those scientists is well respected Richard Lindzen from MIT, and he has stated continuously: "the climate is always changing. Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many of these factors, such as the changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings."