Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Global Warming: not true?


Recommended Posts

[center][color="#C0C0C0"][color="#2F4F4F"][img]http://www.topnews.in/files/Global-Warming-5987.jpg[/img]
[url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/31/pruden-when-the-earth-refuses-to-warm/"]http://www.washingto...efuses-to-warm/[/url][/color][/color]
[b]
[color="#000000"]Ok, so it's quite a lot of text, but read it.[/color][/b]

[/center] [center][color="#C0C0C0"][color="#2F4F4F"]"[/color][/color][color="#2F4F4F"]Global warming: Been there, done that. Forward-looking folks are adjusting their fretting machinery now to something called Cycle 25. Button up your overcoats. Ice is on the way.[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]Global warming, which was mostly a scam invented by researchers looking for government grants, is over. The great warming phenomenon, which was supposed to have sent polar bears to vacation in Miami Beach by now, ended in 1997.[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"][url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/britains-met-office/"]Britain's Met Office[/url], which tracks weather and makes forecasts, and the University of [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/east-anglia-climatic-research-unit/"]East Anglia Climatic Research Unit[/url], the source of much global warming research (some of it faked, some of it not), agree, according to the London Daily Mail, that Planet Earth could even be heading for an icy patch “to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the [frozen-over] Thames in the 17th century.” They call this Cycle 25.[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]The report of the findings in Old Blighty follows an op-ed essay in the [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/the-wall-street-journal/"]Wall Street Journal[/url], signed by 16 eminent scientists, including both physicists and other climate researchers, that the panic promoted over global warming is not now, and never has been, shared by “large numbers of scientists, many very prominent.”[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]The number of these “heretics” is growing, and “the reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.” The chief among these “stubborn scientific facts” is that the global warming scare was bunk from the beginning, promoted by high priests of the great god Science, not actual scientists in pursuit of secular knowledge. (Think [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/al-gore/"]Al Gore[/url].)[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]“Why is there so much passion about global warming,” these 16 eminent scientists asked, “and why has the issue become so vexing that the [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/american-physical-society/"]American Physical Society[/url] … refused the seemingly reasonable request by so many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question of ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, ‘follow the money.’ “[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]The rising temperatures which led some researchers to panic, like frightened teenage girls fretting over prom dates, actually began to subside when sunspot activity began to subside. According to this new research, sunspot numbers are less than half of those recorded during the cycle peaks when scientific hysteria was at its wildest at the end of the 20th century. The sun is moving now toward a “grand minimum” of sunspot activity, which would threaten cooler summers, colder winters and shorter growing seasons. It’s all part of the natural cycle of something the rest of us call “nature.”[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]Sunspots appear to be the villains. Since the sun is beyond the control of scientists, this makes their hair hurt and teeth itch. Scientists at the Met Office, which concedes that global warming has subsided, nevertheless argue still that the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide (or cow-made, since bovine flatulence has been cited as contributing to climate change). “Our findings,” says the Met Office, “suggest [that] a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.”[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]This frustrates cooler heads in the Church of Science. Says Henrik Svensmark, director of Denmark’s sun-climate research: “It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.”[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]The Met Office, like most of the global-warmist strongholds, relies on computer models for emanations of the penumbras of doom. These models did not foresee the pause in global warming, but the Met insists the models are still valid. Judith Curryy of Georgia Tech, regarded as one of the most eminent American climate scholars, finds the prediction of a “negligible” impact of sunspot activity on climate difficult to understand.[/color]

[color="#2F4F4F"]“The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,” she told the Mail. She thinks it more likely that the rising and falling of the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have more influence on climate than man-made carbon dioxide.[/color]

[color="#808080"][color="#2F4F4F"]“If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015,” says Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “it will start to become clear that the models are bunk.” Heavy-breathing humans and flatulent cows will be off the hook, and a lot of scam artists will be pushed away from the public trough and on the street looking for work."[/color][/color]





[/center]
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am learning about this now in my Enviromental Sceince class in Uni. My Proffessor basically said it exists, but not to the extent that people are freKing out about it. There much worse problems going on. When I come home I can copy some of things he said from his power points.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I only read some of that information that you posted. And I believe in global warming, because our science teacher in high school taught us about it and showed as a couple of videos as well. I can't remember much from global warming, but I do believe that it will have a huge impact on this world and later in the future as well. We need to be more careful with what we do and how we do things in general, as it will affect our world. Sorry if I'm rambling on and on, but I am a bit worried about global warming and the extinct of nature (such as wild animals, forests, and tropical forests as well). But I am sure that if we are careful in the future, we will be able to avoid global warming. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Arie' timestamp='1328041841' post='185708']
I am learning about this now in my Enviromental Sceince class in Uni. My Proffessor basically said it exists, but not to the extent that people are freKing out about it. There much worse problems going on. When I come home I can copy some of things he said from his power points.
[/quote]

You do Environmental Science? that's cool, we should talk more rofl. I look forward to the power point copying
Link to post
Share on other sites
Global warming or not, the fact is that humans continue to polute our planet at an alarming rate. That is fairly "incontrovertable" I would think...even in the scientific community. As far as the article posted is concerned, while the overall point may have a strong degree of validity, parts of it was poorly written and therefore it's hard to give the writer's assertions too much credence.

Some scientists "nevertheless argue still that the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide (or cow-made, since bovine flatulence has been cited as contributing to climate change)."

The fact that the writer did not indicate that bovine flatulence is actually methane gas and not carbon dioxide leaves the general interpritation of the sentence to potentially suggest that bovine flatulence is in fact carbone dioxide. So while the sentence as it is constructed is not wrong per se, it fails, by virtue of it's potential to lead the reader to an inaccurate assumption, IMO.

I guess time will tell the tale. I'm thinking the idea of cutting down on greenhouse gasses has other potential benefits outside the world of Global Warming though, and those benefits are where our attention should be focused.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My take on this is: The climate of the Earth has always been changing throughout its history, forcing species into extinction and permitting the rise of others. There can be little doubt that humanity has influenced the recent development of the climate on a global scale. How significant this influence actually is, however, is still hard to assess. Nature is just such a vastly complex thing with a myriad of factors all contributing to the whole. Will everything be okay even if we continue what we do? Maybe. Will natural environmental changes make us all starve and drown and suffocate in a matter of generations, whether we cut back on pollution or not? Maybe. All we know for sure is that we're currently seeing some dramatic climate changes. Whatever their cause is, this is the only planet we've got. Our only home, our only chance. And because of that, because of what is at stake, taking chances and relying on "maybe it's not our fault after all" just seems like a very risky game to play.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Antares' timestamp='1328049969' post='185745']
My take on this is: The climate of the Earth has always been changing throughout its history, forcing species into extinction and permitting the rise of others. There can be little doubt that humanity has influenced the recent development of the climate on a global scale. How significant this influence actually is, however, is still hard to assess. Nature ist just such a vastly complex thing with a myriad of factors all contributing to the whole. Will everything be okay even if we continue what we do? Maybe. Will natural environmental changes make us all starve and drown and suffocate in a matter of generations, whether we cut back on pollution or not? Maybe. All we know for sure is that we're currently seeing some dramatic climate changes. Whatever their cause is, this is the only planet we've got. Our only home, our only chance. And because of that, because of what is at stake, taking chances and relying on "maybe it's not our fault after all" just seems like a very risky game to play.
[/quote]

Good Point! And what happens if 20 years from now the majority of scientists change their mind and say... "oh.. you know what??? those FEW scientists were right and we were wrong!" Great good it does us all once we reach a point of no return. I assume the world will regulate itself no matter what humans do. I've heard too, (and I'm no expert on any of this) that IF the world is getting warmer and the oceans most specifically are getting warmer, that the melting of the polar icecaps (which IS happening) will actually change the water temperature and effect the flow of currents around the world's oceans and create more severe weather. So why can't we try to decrease things that MIGHT be harming?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Apart from these theroretical musings, it may be worth pointing out that the discussion on whether or not global warming is real and human-made takes place almost exclusively in popular media. In the scientific community, controversy on the topic is minimal. To date, there is not a single scientific body which disagrees that global warming is real and mostly caused by human activity [1]. Concerning individual scientists, a recent study [2] found that 97% to 98% of scientists active in the field agree with this view. Another study [3] surveyed scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those, 84% agreed that greenhouse warming is "human-induced", 5% disagreed.

[1] In 2006, Julie Brigham-Grette noted in "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" that "The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." The AAPG (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) revised their statement in 2007 to accept human-made global warming as a reality.

[2] William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change". In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.

[3] Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter. "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". In: International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2011.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Harris Hawk' timestamp='1328043078' post='185712']
You do Environmental Science? that's cool, we should talk more rofl. I look forward to the power point copying
[/quote]

Not as my major. Just for a Science Requirement!
Link to post
Share on other sites
So which is it? Those would seem to be two VERY conflicting reports. Tom... in your article.. are the 16 "eminent" scientists willing to lend their names to their claims?

[quote name='Arie' timestamp='1328056292' post='185758']
Not as my major. Just for a Science Requirement!
[/quote]

haha... it's amazing how much we relie on our teachers though. They could feed us a total line of B.S. and most of us would probably go right along with it. I'm NOT saying that is the case with your teachers btw Arie. Just interesting side thought on the power that teachers potentially have over our line of thinking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Antares' timestamp='1328056167' post='185757']
Apart from these theroretical musings, it may be worth pointing out that the discussion on whether or not global warming is real and human-made takes place almost exclusively in popular media. In the scientific community, controversy on the topic is minimal. To date, there is not a single scientific body which disagrees that global warming is real and mostly caused by human activity [1]. Concerning individual scientists, a recent study [2] found that 97% to 98% of scientists active in the field agree with this view. Another study [3] surveyed scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those, 84% agreed that greenhouse warming is "human-induced", 5% disagreed.

[1] In 2006, Julie Brigham-Grette noted in "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" that "The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." The AAPG (the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) revised their statement in 2007 to accept human-made global warming as a reality.

[2] William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change". In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010.

[3] Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter. "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". In: International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2011.
[/quote]

[quote name='Slash' timestamp='1328260680' post='186334']
well with the amount of girls in bikinis, the global warming might just happen soon enough
[/quote]

Wow, there are both great posts. Both are very true. Scientifically justified post for the win!
But yeah, global warming may have existed without our interference, but first of all, that is counterfactual thinking and quite useless for our current situation and secondly, we have certainly caused the strong rise of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere through industry and transport. I honestly don't know how bad it is, but that's okay, I trust the overwhelming majority of experts on that. Edited by Majestic122
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

[b][url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130184/Forget-global-warming-Scientists-discover-glaciers-Asia-getting-BIGGER.html"]New question mark over global warming: Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER[/url][/b]
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

I honestly do not believe in it. Bottom line it is just the earth has been changing climates ever since it has been around. That is my thought. However i do like hearing what other people have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to science.time.com, "2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. — and it wasn’t even close. Last year beat the previous record holder — 1998, the summer of which I spent broiling to death as a New York intern — by a full 1ºF (0.56ºC). That’s a landslide, by meteorological standards." So, in other words, going by those statistics, global warming is obvious.

Reference: http://science.time.com/2013/01/08/2012-was-the-hottest-year-in-u-s-history-and-yes-its-climate-change/ Edited by Sgt Harbinger
Link to post
Share on other sites
hi gize, greetings from the darkest and one of the longest winters in Germany's recorded history (well, weather history ;) ).

The scientific side notwithstanding, the public global warming debate with its inevitable fear-mongering and populism annoys me to no end. But that's politics.

On the scientific side, when I tried to look into the matter like 2 years ago, it indeed seemed like skepticism about global warming was mostly not advocated by scientific "bodies" as Antares said, but by individual scientists (some of which had very high credentials). However, the matter of human influence on Earth's climate seems a very specific issue, and I'm not sure how much consolidated controversy can be expected there. For instance, I'll go out on a limp by guessing that there aren't many scientific "bodies" (contrary to individuals) that actively oppose, say, string theory. And that's not even considering the conformism enforced in matters of great public interest, even in academia.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...