Evidence Against Climate Change!

[CoolBreeze15Y]

To put it most simply, CO2 has the ability to store more heat than, say, oxygen. In increase in atmospheric CO2 could theoretically cause a rise in temperature. However, I stress theoretically, as CO2 is merely one small component of the atmosphere, and could very well have its heat trapping capability canceled out by other elements, or simply isn't strong enough to do the job of causing a rise, etc, etc. Bottom line, the entire argument that rising CO2 levels are heating up the planets is entirely based on an assumption and not proven, scientifically, in any way. I could just as well go out and hypothesize that the Earth is warming up because of the rising number of women getting bigger boobs, and using the tactic of the eco-morons, say that you have to prove me wrong. And, if you can't, claim victory, which is what Gore and his ilk have done. Global Warming does not need to be proven wrong. In the realm of science, theories must be proven correct to be accepted, and Global Warming, CO2 causing it, and so on, never have been.

As for articles, I recommend you start with wiki, then read the sources there, then do some Googling. I could provide a bunch of links, but I did my own research whilst writing a term paper for a college course a while back, and don't care to go digging around again. It's all out there, though, for you to find.

Not trying to back you in a corner, just asking a question, but in your opinion and what you have said already. Could rise in CO2, have anything to do with the fact that the worlds population has risen to the numbers they have over the last 1000 years? 100 years??

 

[Friday on my mind]

Not trying to back you in a corner, just asking a question, but in your opinion and what you have said already. Could rise in CO2, have anything to do with the fact that the worlds population has risen to the numbers they have over the last 1000 years? 100 years??

Just so you know the population of the world had never been over ONE billion people before 1850.We are now at about 7 billion with it predicted to be 9 billion by 2050 at the current rate of growth,personally I doubt we ever acheive that as 7 billion is already more than the planet can sustain.It was technology and the use of energy that enabled that population explosion.People as early as the 19th century saw the possible adverse consequences (of the use of fossil fuels and Co2) but as in many such cases that side of it was just ignored and it was assumed that somehow technology would somehow solve that problem.

Bottom line is I think you have nailed the problem on it's head.It's not so much how dirty and impactfull humans are on the enviorment but how many humans their are having impacts.If the worlds population was still around a billion we would probably be fine.

 

[whoremaker]

Not trying to back you in a corner, just asking a question, but in your opinion and what you have said already. Could rise in CO2, have anything to do with the fact that the worlds population has risen to the numbers they have over the last 1000 years? 100 years??

Maybe. Maybe not. I have yet to see irrefutable, empirical data that CO2 actually has risen. There is even some evidence that CO2 may be lower today than a few million years ago, and that today's present "rise" in atmospheric CO2 is actually just a rebounding from a drop in CO2 several thousand years ago. So, once again, it comes down to admitting that we just don't know, and making judgment calls which affect economies and societies with such a poor understanding of the facts is foolhardy and dangerous.

 

[DreamSparrow]

New email uncovered from the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. I'm stunned. :eek: Perhaps the conspiracy is true after all... ?

From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.

 

[Mr Dean]

I'm amused by the media's presentation of all this.

I've seen TV vision of nuclear power station cooling towers blowing out water vapor while the voice over talks about CO2 emissions. I see concerned looking reporters standing waist-deep in water claiming that the sea levels have already risen over a metre on some tiny island - but the sea levels haven't increased anywhere else! I hear people talking about how there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that soon we wont have any room left for oxygen!

The fact is that CO2 makes up about 300 parts per million (or about 3% of 1%) of earth's atmosphere and of that 300 ppm, only about 3% of that (or 9 parts per million) is from human activities.

Meanwhile, far more serious pollution problems are being ignored while the CO2 monster grabs all the headlines and all the feelgood statements from politicians and greenie nutters.

 

[calpoon]

That's just it; we don't know.

You wouldn't happen to be a Creationist would you?

That argument sounds exactly like the "evidence" for Intelligent Design: We don't know how life was created, so therefor it must not have been the product of Evolution.

Should we call this the theory of Intelligent Climate Change? We don't know what causes climate change, so therefor we must not be contributing to it with CO2.

Thanks Red Spyder for actually doing what the OP asked and proving some links, instead of just speculation.

 

[on]

I'm amused by the media's presentation of all this.

I've seen TV vision of nuclear power station cooling towers blowing out water vapor while the voice over talks about CO2 emissions. I see concerned looking reporters standing waist-deep in water claiming that the sea levels have already risen over a metre on some tiny island - but the sea levels haven't increased anywhere else! I hear people talking about how there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that soon we wont have any room left for oxygen!

The fact is that CO2 makes up about 300 parts per million (or about 3% of 1%) of earth's atmosphere and of that 300 ppm, only about 3% of that (or 9 parts per million) is from human activities.

Meanwhile, far more serious pollution problems are being ignored while the CO2 monster grabs all the headlines and all the feelgood statements from politicians and greenie nutters.

Beef and milk prodution is one of these such problems!

Although it is related to the amount of mouths we have to feed!

 

[Mayhem]

Am I the only one who has read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? As with other authors (e.g. Tom Clancy), well researched fiction is sometimes easier to take than dry science. But there are plenty of sources and footnotes included, so you don't have to take it on faith. Is it pro or anti - global warming? I'll let you find out for yourself. But if you are going to weigh in about climate change, you should read this book.

I would like to say one other thing. We should always seek ways to cut down on pollution. Not because we are warming the planet, but because it's the right thing to do. Killing a river or a marsh may not be killing the planet, but it is still killing a river or a marsh (or a forest, or meadow, or whatever).

 

[whoremaker]

You wouldn't happen to be a Creationist would you?

That argument sounds exactly like the "evidence" for Intelligent Design: We don't know how life was created, so therefor it must not have been the product of Evolution.

Should we call this the theory of Intelligent Climate Change? We don't know what causes climate change, so therefor we must not be contributing to it with CO2.

Thanks Red Spyder for actually doing what the OP asked and proving some links, instead of just speculation.

Well that's the most asinine thing I'm likely to read today. No, I am not a "Creationist" at all, and admitting that there are areas in which science simply does not hold the necessary data to explain is simply being honest and nothing at all like faith based Creationist theories. You must not be too familiar with the scientific method, but theories and hypothesis must be proven, repeatedly, before they can be accepted as fact, and Global Warming (and CO2 causing it) have not been so proven. That's just the way it is, despite what snarky soundbyte-believing internet tools want to believe. Cling to your Newsweek articles and Al Gore if you like, however. Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Am I the only one who has read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? As with other authors (e.g. Tom Clancy), well researched fiction is sometimes easier to take than dry science. But there are plenty of sources and footnotes included, so you don't have to take it on faith. Is it pro or anti - global warming? I'll let you find out for yourself. But if you are going to weigh in about climate change, you should read this book.

I would like to say one other thing. We should always seek ways to cut down on pollution. Not because we are warming the planet, but because it's the right thing to do. Killing a river or a marsh may not be killing the planet, but it is still killing a river or a marsh (or a forest, or meadow, or whatever).

Excellent book. My research led me to that book, and I greatly enjoyed it. His bibliography and sources list is exceptional, and should be perused by anyone interested in climatology and the current eco-maniacal culture.

 

[jasonk282]

Here is my evidence
http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/local/USPA1290

22 degrees, 30 MPH winds, wind chill 7, snow showers.

When I wake up and see it 75-80 in December in Pittsburgh then I will be a beliver.

 

[calpoon]

Ignorance is bliss, they say.

How is it in scientific method to make assumptions about what is or is not the cause of an event based on the notion that we haven't proved what is or isn't the cause yet?

In fact you are correct and it's rarely reported that science hardly ever really proves anything, because there are too many variables to narrow it down to make an absolute statement. What it does do is make an educated guess on a likely scenario, which is called a theory. The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity have not been proven, because they are part of a vast interconnected system and not a specific set of circumstances that can be recreated in a lab.

I think that a degree of skepticism is healthy and is the heart of all science. I don't have any problem with someone saying "I haven't made up my mind about climate change because the evidence doesn't point to a clear answer." the problem is people that claim that they know the right answer and so they don't need to see any more evidence, or worse say that any such evidence is a lie, a hoax, or a conspiracy. That's what I call ignorance.

 

[JayJohn85]

Actually, climate change is very real. It's just that it has been occurring constantly since the beginning of time, and there is no indication that it is caused by humans. The climate of Earth is far too complex for us to understand completely, but the actual evidence of past history shows that Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, and we are currently (and have been for a hew thousand years) experiencing a natural, slow heating period. The problems with the environmentalists and their agenda arose when researchers began feeding limited data into poorly designed computer generated climate models and returned all sorts of results, none of which could be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint as they are all based on assumptions and incomplete data. But, the "findings" of these models were released anyhow, and the hysteria of Global Warming caught on like wildfire.

So yes, climate change = real. Humans causing it and destroying Earth = FAIL.

Ok we ascertain we arent to blame which seems like the big argument on the agenda globally. What do we actually do about the "Changes" I mean pointing the figure and saying "ha ha its a natural thing" yet get hit by a tsunami isnt my idea of a good time.

 

[JayJohn85]

You know they should actually try to capitalize on it in some way. More greener industries, Construction projects to shore up coastal places, I dunno some shit. Sounds like a plan to moi.

PS> Submersible cities well ones that float and can take a tidal wave. Dont have to actually be able to dive far underwater, pressure and such is nasty and I doubt we are capable of such feats of engineering

 

[whoremaker]

Ok we ascertain we arent to blame which seems like the big argument on the agenda globally. What do we actually do about the "Changes" I mean pointing the figure and saying "ha ha its a natural thing" yet get hit by a tsunami isnt my idea of a good time.

Even if Global Warming was real, it couldn't create tsunamis. Earthquakes and undersea landslides, both of which are entirely immune to climatic conditions, are responsible for those.

 

[JacknCoke]

Actually, climate change is very real. It's just that it has been occurring constantly since the beginning of time, and there is no indication that it is caused by humans. The climate of Earth is far too complex for us to understand completely, but the actual evidence of past history shows that Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, and we are currently (and have been for a hew thousand years) experiencing a natural, slow heating period. The problems with the environmentalists and their agenda arose when researchers began feeding limited data into poorly designed computer generated climate models and returned all sorts of results, none of which could be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint as they are all based on assumptions and incomplete data. But, the "findings" of these models were released anyhow, and the hysteria of Global Warming caught on like wildfire.

So yes, climate change = real. Humans causing it and destroying Earth = FAIL.

Well said...:thumbsup:

 

[JacknCoke]

What is causing global warming?

You do realize it's been happening for thousands of years? Long before humans made any kind of contribution to the ozone? If the earth isn't naturally cooling or warming then explain why we are still not in an Ice age? Its def from all the people in their pickups and SUV's they melted the world out of the ice age!:2 cents: