GLOBAL WARMING: A MYTH?

[gedo_gurl]

So you think it was the neoliberals wot dunnit? Im gonna do a little research...this could be interesting....thats why Im serious...!

[Galol]

PG

The supposed Ozone hole is shrinking is it not? that is why you dont hear so much about it these days. Perhaps you attribute this unversal success to not using more of the spray things that ladies use?

The whole concept that we humans have a major impact on the universe is actually an extremely arrogant concept perpetrated by the elites of Western Europe and to lesser extent of America. In fact we cannot make any difference at all to the Universe because we are so insignificant.

[musika man]

galol

the scientists who are leading the global warmning sceptics are the same scientists who refused there were any links between smoking and lung diseases. they worked for the tobacco industry, now they work for the fossil fuel industry. i don't care if the sky falls tomorrow, i need cheaper fuel than oil to make money in my trade.

http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml

Scientist Who Spearheaded Attacks on Global Warming Science Also Directed $45 Million Tobacco Industry Effort to Hide Health Impacts of Smoking
Former National Academy of Sciences President Admits Being Paid $585,000 by Tobacco Companies

http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml

[Galol]

Musika

"the scientists who are leading the global warmning sceptics are the same scientists who refused there were any links between smoking and lung diseases."

No they are not. The Science of so-called Global Warming is simply wrong. Go look into the Science and I dont mean watching the Al Gore film although it actually tells you, without meaning to of course, just how wrong it all is. For example he makes a link between temperature rises throughout history with the rise of Co2 levels. He is of course correct: whenever the temperature rises the amount of Co2 released by the oceans and seas and trees increases! The Al Gore film depicts it the other way round! Co2 has nothing to do with Global warming it is a byproduct of the process.

And anway how much of the atmosphere, as we speak, consists of Co2? Go find.

[PragmaticGal]

Galol, I'm guessing you're not contesting that there has been an appreciable increase in global mean temperatures over the past century. You're simply questioning whether human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels is to blame. Okay, even if global warming is happening for some OTHER reason, it's consequences are still potentially deadly for fragile ecosystems and some human communities living in vulnerable conditions. Do you disagree?

[musika man]

^^^^

i have no time for global warming, and if these scientists have an ounce of humanity, they will develop cheap anti malaria prevention drugs for africans and poor asian countries. what can happen? will we burn? draughts? al ninio or el ninio? screw the environment.

[PragmaticGal]

musika man, do you know that changes in weather patterns and precipitation can increase the range of the mosquito which carries the malaria parasite?

You see, it's all connected.

[musika man]

[quote="PragmaticGal"]musika man, do you know that changes in weather patterns and precipitation can increase the range of the mosquito which carries the malaria parasite?

You see, it's all connected.[/quote]

^^^

my grandmom used to scary the shit out me when i was growing up. when she sees something she cant understand she used to say it is signs the end of the world. now scientists replaced old people and became doomsdayers.

[PragmaticGal]

LOL. I like you.

[Galol]

PG

The temperature is rising and only slightly so. But it has nothing to do with human activity and most certainly not with Co2. And I suspect you know it. How much is the Co2 content in the atmosphere today? And how much was it 50 years ago?

[RIIGHAYE]

Interesting topic. Has the whole global warming subject blown out of proportion. I would still give the documentary the benefit of the doubt, but the world has experienced climatic changes and we still know far too little of the impact of CO2 and aerosols--causing warmer and cooler temperatures respectively.. I am not an expert in this field but through diverse analysis, I have come to know that this global warming thing is still hypothesis with very little scant scientific knowledge to uphold its premises whether it is reality or myth.

I haven't watched the program yet. I would definately like to see it.

[Osman]

[quote="Galol"]In previous life I studied Chemistry. And then I watched a TV programme last nite. I combined the two and I can say without any doubt that CO2 does NOT cause global warming. It is all a hoax. What do you think?[/quote]

Global warming, could be true according to some scientific studies , However, I do not think of it highly.

[Padishah]

Anyone noticed an increase in Solar flare activity over the last 40 years?

[PragmaticGal]

Padishah, now that you mention it...

Galol, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are higher than they were pre-industrial revolution. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a net increase of which--either from burning fossil fuels or clearing land of trees (which take up CO2)--can be expected to increase the Earth's atmospheric temperature. That's the scientific consensus. You're doubting the human capacity to make such catastrophic changes, yet you must realize that a couple of billion years ago, the oxygen produced by tiny bacteria as a waste by-product of their metabolism increased atmospheric oxygen from negligible to the 20% or so it's today. Which is what makes it possible for us to be here. It's healthy to question our tendency to attribute great significance to our actions, but I think in this case even a sceptic will find there's at least a modest link between rising CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

[Grant]

The evidence for global warming is extraordinarily well mixed. I have always thought, that if you released carbon into the atmosphere to the levels it existed during the Cretaceous period, that you would recreate the climate of that period. But check this:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... hiesen.jsp

"Anyone suffering from the notion that Earth's climate was always stable and benign in the past would do well to study ancient global temperatures and their variations over the past millennium.

The environmentalist movement and advocacy groups along with the IPCC have convinced the public and politicians that Earth's temperature is on the rise, which is entirely correct if 1860 is chosen as the starting point. The trend since 1300 AD, and more so since 3000 BC, is one of declining temperature. Climate changes all the time. Adapting to a slow rise in temperature is a more attractive alternative than having to deal with a cooling trend, stability not being an option. Misconceptions of past conditions have influenced environmental language; terms such as 'sustainability', 'balance' and 'optimum' all refer to a biogeographical situation in equilibrium. As no such equilibrium has ever existed, terms such as 'adaption', 'opportunism', 'flexibility' and 'resilience' would be more useful in describing human activities in an ever-changing environment. Attempts to preserve an assumed equilibrium are by definition doomed to fail.

Three particularly illuminating time windows are presented to provide a perspective on the IPCC's climate predictions; the past 150,000, 10,000 and 1,000 years. The longest period indicates that the planet is soon due for a substantial temperature drop with a return to near-current temperatures likely to occur more than 100,000 years into the future. The shorter time windows presented provide evidence of a frequent series of temperature maxima and minima of smaller amplitude, with a substantial peak roughly 4000 - 3000 BC, a smaller one 1000 to1300 AD and a significant minimum around 1700 AD from which the planet has been recovering since the middle of the 19th century, to produce yet another natural temperature maximum, slightly lower than the last, 700 years ago. The global warming scaremongers disagree, however, asserting that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas contribute to the natural warming to an extent that overpowers natural climate drivers.

A unique temperature record from a lowland location in central England dating back to 1659 clearly shows the planet's slow recovery from the Little Ice Age, which culminated some 30 years after measurements began, plus the continuous slow warming that visibly accelerated very slightly in the second half of the 19th century. The record illustrates the effect of natural drivers, for fossil energy emissions were woefully small during the 19th century and did not really begin accelerating significantly until after World War II, during a 30-year period that saw a moderate global temperature decline of 0.15°C. This record, kept where the Industrial Revolution began, seems not to show any discernible impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

The rate and magnitude of the present warming has been described as unique and unprecedented. However, isotope studies [18O] based on polar ice cores clearly indicate prior trends and patterns similar to those observed by direct measurement over the past 140 years, a period too short to be statistically significant and yet one that the IPCC claims to have 'matched' its models to. The climate change since 1860 is neither unique nor unusual in a historical perspective of natural variation, and fully to be expected after a preceding natural cold spell.

The IPCC models would be far more convincing if they could be 'matched to' climate changes in the more distant past, including both cooling and warming periods. However, they cannot. The short term climate changes occurring over decades to millennia prior to the Industrial Revolution were caused by solar irradiation variations with ensuing changes in the planet's albedo (surface snow cover and atmospheric moisture, dust and cloud cover) and ocean circulation. Such changes brought about the recovery from the Little Ice Age. CO2 emissions have occurred on a serious scale for only about half a century, and any possible effects of these additions to the atmosphere must be seen in the context of ongoing natural changes that seem to have overwhelmed any effects the emissions may have had."