Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 5 of 71

Global warming is occurring. This is not speculation, - Page 5 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 26th Apr, 2006 - 1:49am

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  ...Latest (71) »
Posts: 564 - Views: 75732
global warming Global warming has been in and out as the "latest" hot topic for many years. It is, according to modern scientists, the result of man-made industrial pollutants, clearing forested areas, agriculture, etc. But now they are thinking it started way before the Industrial Revolution...
8th Mar, 2006 - 2:51am / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 5

JB: Global warming is not as big a threat as the media and certain other concerns would have us believe. There is plenty of documentation, studies, scientific surveys, etc., to prove that we don't have enough data to know what will happen over a long period of time. As a for instance, we can't even forecast the weather accurately day after day. The furthest into the future most forecasts will go is 10 days, and those are not generally 100% accurate. How in the world can "they" forecast what will happen 10 or 20 or 100 years from now? It's impossible.

Offtopic but,
I'm actually currently reading a book with a central theme of debunking the theory of global warming. There are lots of footnotes with references to studies, etc. I'll see if I can find any that are on the web, and if so I will post them here.

International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 ActivistPoliticianAmbassador 59.5%

Sponsored Links:
16th Mar, 2006 - 1:19am / Post ID: #

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Here is a little news item. I know this is going to upset a whole lot of people who are anti-capitalism, anti-technology, but it certainly bears further study.
Greenhouse Theory Smashed By Biggest Stone; Is Global-warming Down To Humanity? Or Are Other Factors At Work?

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908. 


However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

As I have often said - "Global Warming" is only a theory, with as many "facts" to discredit it as there are to prove it. Blaming humanity for "global warming" is just as tenuous, since a single volcanic eruption (Pinatubo) put far more "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than all of mankind for the last 200 years.

I think that the points this Russian scientist brings up are very valid. And they certainly need to be explored thoroughly.

International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%

Post Date: 19th Apr, 2006 - 2:15pm / Post ID: #

NOTE: News [?]

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

Scientists condemn US as emissions of greenhouse gases hit record level

The United States emitted more greenhouse gases in 2004 than at any time in history, confirming its status as the world's biggest polluter. Latest figures on the US contribution to global warming show that its carbon emissions have risen sharply despite international concerns over climate change.

Post Date: 25th Apr, 2006 - 12:56am / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?
A Friend

Page 5 Man-made Natural Warming Global

First off, I am really getting tired of the "right wing" attitude towards the earth and global warming. Its all nice and good to roll your eyes everytime someone mentions it, but we are not talking about gay marriage here, we are talking about the ONLY PLANET we have to live on! And you can't characterize every person who cares about the air I breathe and the water I drink as anti-capitalist and anti-freedom and anti this or that! And you can't say that I or anyone else is "far left anti-america" because I care about where I live!

As a matter of fact you can throw all the evidence against global warming out the window because certain facts are absolute and undeniable. In 1932 Glacier National Park opened with 150 naturally occurring glaciers. There are 26 now! It took only 74 years for glaciers that happened over millions of years to melt and you think you aren't sure about humanitys part? One generation to melt 125 glaciers and maybe its completely natural? We hit record high emissions this year and maybe global warming is all hogwash?!

People who are environmentalists are trying desperately to pass legislation that will force use of cleaner burning fuels, hybrid cares, and stricter emissions, yet people consistently call us anti-technology! Are you not listening? It is better technology that will lead us to a cleaner society but no one seems to listen. People are too busy saying its hogwash or we just don't know, or environmentalists are using scare tactics. Believe what ever you want now. Because when its is absolute, and we know a hundred percent for sure, do you think there will be time to change? Of course not. But of course as I have already read, some are willing to risk it since they won't be here, or because they think god will come back in the last days so that may be the cause. In the mean time, I will pretend like its our job to care about our planet and do my part to stop global warming. But I will take to arms to anyone who will call me the like of an anti anything when you don't know what you are even referring to. But if I must be anti-something, try anti-polluting and destroy the planet for my children!

25th Apr, 2006 - 4:24am / Post ID: #

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Whoa, Konq! Nobody is accusing you personally of any of those things. And no one here is saying that pollution, emissions, and noxious gases shouldn't be controlled and abated wherever possible.

We also care about where we live and about the health of our planet. What we're against is bad legislation based on worthless studies, and false information being force fed to the public to put us all into a constant state of fear.

The earth has been around for hundreds thousands of years ~ maybe thousands of thousands. I don't believe that us puny humans could put such bad mojo on the earth in a couple of hundred years of industrialization to completely change the global climate.

Where's the real proof? The fact is, we can't possibly know for sure. We don't have enough data. Many (if not most) of the "studies" performed are based on computer models. You should understand that concept very well, being involved with computers yourself. Where does the data come from to plug into these computer models? From the pitiful little handful of data we have collected from a couple of hundred years, compared to hundreds of thousands of years for which we have absolutely NO data.

The glaciers in Glacier National Park today are all geologically new having formed in the last few thousand years. Presently, all the glaciers in the park are shrinking. More snow melts each summer than accumulates each winter. As the climate changed over the last two million years, glaciers formed and melted away several times.
Obviously, the glaciers there go through cycles of warming and cooling, and this is just a natural part of the warming cycle for that particular area. Don't blame industrialization for something that has been occurring naturally for tens of thousands of years! But this is the typical kind of "scare tactics" used by environmentalists to get people to be sympathetic to their cause.

Yes, we should be concerned, and we should do what we can to prevent pollution. Just don't believe everything spun by people with an agenda.

International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 ActivistPoliticianAmbassador 59.5%

Post Date: 25th Apr, 2006 - 9:20am / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?
A Friend

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Farseer said:


Where's the real proof? The fact is, we can't possibly know for sure. We don't have enough data. Many (if not most) of the "studies" performed are based on computer models. You should understand that concept very well, being involved with computers yourself. Where does the data come from to plug into these computer models? From the pitiful little handful of data we have collected from a couple of hundred years, compared to hundreds of thousands of years for which we have absolutely NO data.

Because of the large amounts of pollution we put in the air, its safe to say that taking the time to collect data to be "positive" would make it to late. Is it all humanitys fault? Of course not, volcanoes and such also cause the problem. The question is are we causing premature global warming? If we wait for conclusive evidence, it will be to late. Scare tactics are only thus if they have nothing to back it up. Sure we go in cycles, that isn't the question, but we are moving it along faster than normal.

If I sounded rough earlier it was because I was reading through and even some of the latest posts talk about people who care about this stuff like they are un-american, or anti-technology (that was my favorite) and it goes to show the lack of caring or understanding in the country about the only place we have to live. Its so frustrating to try and talk about this in an open minded fashion and get comments like that and have people role their eyes, it shows a complete lack of dis-respect for the person and the subject. So I do take it very personally if someone makes those kinds of comments. They weren't necessarily by you Farseer, but they were made.

Make sure to SUBSCRIBE for FREE to JB's Youtube Channel!
25th Apr, 2006 - 2:29pm / Post ID: #

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 5

What I find interesting is how many people want to LEGISLATE cleaner burning fuels, hybrid vehicles, etc. Not many of these people are actually putting forth the effort to CREATE these things, are they?

No, they wish to use the power of legislature to decide how, when, and why innovation will occur. If 10% of the highly intelligent lawyers (yea, right) who spend so much of their time trying to tell everyone else how to live were to actually learn how to be productive members of society, maybe all the problems of the world would actually be solved. Instead of telling GM that we have to create a certain type of hybrid car, why don't they go back to school, learn an engineering discipline, and MAKE that type of car. After all, it already exists in their imaginations.

Unfortunately, imagination meets the real world. We can't make an efficient, portable fuel cell. Hybrids are not worth the money being poured into them, as the increased costs can never be recouped, either by the consumer or by the manufacturer. We have alternative energy sources, some even are worth something. Yet the horrendous regulatory environment precludes their implementation.

You hate the way the "right wing" claims exception to the evidence. Yet the evidence that YOU present, is ONLY correlation. A cause-effect relationship is assumed, not proven.

That is not to say that there ISN'T a cause-effect relationship. But the "answers" that have been presented so far (the Kyoto treaty, etc) are most definitely anti-US, anti-business, anti-liberty.

I still don't see how everyone can support the claims that we (humans) are the whole cause of the whole problem, when ONE volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) ejected more "greenhouse gasses" than humankind could produce in over 200 years!

Do we contribute? Perhaps. Is it proven? Not at all. Is the earth actually even warming? Who knows? There is evidence now that the earth has been cooling for the last few years. Are we the cause of it? I don't know, neither does anyone else.

Basically, the "Global Warming" debate is an attack on technology. In my opinion.

So, give us real solutions. Stop telling everyone that we need to go back to the 14th Century (you know, no factories, no electricity, no automobiles, etc.) Don't legislate how we have to live, what kinds of cars we can buy, what kinds of food we can grow or eat. Stop destroying family farms in the name of "saving the salmon" (Klamath River Valley in Oregon).

Did you know that New Zealand tried to enact a "methane tax" on cows? How is that for an attack on property and business?

Did you know that GM has been building E85 capable vehicles for the last 15 years? (That includes Bill Clinton's glory years.) Yet E85 is not readily available, anywhere. I think there are about 85 filling stations in the ENTIRE US. Why? Partly because the governmental regulations that make business very difficult.

I'll go back to one of my favorite sayings. I think this REALLY applies to this discussion.

There is no problem so bad that government interference can't make it much worse.

International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%

26th Apr, 2006 - 1:49am / Post ID: #

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 5

Global warming is occurring. This is not speculation, IT IS FACT. I challenge anyone on this forum to provide evidence it is not occurring.

The debate isn't about whether warming is occurring, it's more about why it is occurring and what can be done about it.

When the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, a man that has more interest than most to avoid addressing the problem, concedes that gas emissions are leading to a disaster, that sends me a very stern warning. Oxburgh is not a stupid man, he has made billions of dollars out of refining a natural resource that causes significant pollution.

There was a meeting early last year with about 200 LEADING scientists in Exter, England.

The message was plain and clear for all to understand. Global warming is occurring at alarming rates, it is partly caused by human activity, and if we don't do something about it now, the damage could be irreversible.

Leading scientists send stern warning

Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth,
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent

We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.

We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.

Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine life.

President Bush warned by Pentagon
Pentagon secretly warns Bush about Global Warming
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris
The Observer

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-
based Global Business Network.

This is just some of the evidence that PROVES global warming is taking place. It's not very hard to find. All those who would rather global warming didn't exist for the benefit of industry need only open their eyes. Evidence of global warming and its impact has been mapped with pollution levels. This trend is not some creative computer model to please the left or environmentalists. It is concrete evidence that the world is being destroyed through global warming. What more proof do you need?

And if you look at very basic scientific fundamentals - the ability to hypothesise, test and draw conclusions from evidence - it is proven, not assumed, that human activity is CONTRIBUTING to global warming. This whole nonsense about it being impossible to know how humans could make an impact is about as stupid as saying that dinosaurs never existed because we weren't there to see them, despite fossils and other evidence to the contrary.

I have noticed climate change where I live. Weather patterns are more extreme each year in Australia. Large parts of Eastern Australia are in the midst of one of the worst droughts in living memory. Most major cities in Australia have a major water supply problems for the first time.

As for a solution. Technology is absolutely crucial to solving this problem so I cannot fathom why anyone would think that people concerned about global warming are against technology.

Hybrid vehicles have merit, but as Nighthawk has suggested could be improved. Alternative fuel sources, including things like ethanol, are a must. Even Bush peculiarly admits this. But I doubt there will be any action on alternative fuel from the current US administration, because most of the key players have major vested interests in large oil companies.

One of the other solutions being talked about is for people to change their lifestyle. This simple measure seems to meet the most protests in energy guzzling, creature comfort homes in the West. It is so easy to stop wasting energy by not running 3 heaters at once, not having all your lights switched on to light up one room, not leaving you"re a/c on when you don't need it etc. Simple education and common sense can not only save a lot of energy, but also a lot of money.

But a major solution to this problem that has even been endorsed by several leading scientists is Nuclear energy. In my opinion this must become a reality until we can find better alternatives. Forget about Chernobyl, a terribly mis-managed disaster at a poorly maintained plant - nuclear is not that dangerous when you look at the benefits.

The problem I have with those who deny global warming is that they are driven purely by economic reasons. Money for the rich is NOT more important than our environment. If this planet is destroyed, money is useless. The pro-pollution lobbyists rely on so-called "experts" who are linked to industry and are more interested in disproving a theory instead of finding a reasonable explanation as to why global warming is happening.

I cannot buy this rubbish about Kyoto and other measures being anti-American. How self-important do Americans feel they are that they honestly believe the rest of the world's concerns about the environment has anything to do with US interests. Wake up people, the US is not the centre of the universe. We care about the environment because we live in it too, not because we want to hatch a devious plan to bring down America. I take offecnce to such suggestions. It is also NOT the world's fault America is by far the biggest polluter in the world in total and on a per capita basis. That is why people look to the US for leadership.

Attached Image Edited: arvhic on 26th Apr, 2006 - 1:51am

International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 ActivistPoliticianNegotiator 45.3%

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  ...Latest (71) »

Comment Add Comment As A Guest
Important Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

# Characters:
# Words:
# Sentences:
# Paragraphs:
Reading Time:

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

> TOPIC: Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2024
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,