Why do all these Scientists think Global Warming is a crock?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well now, river pollution isn't related to global warming- no-one is saying all environmentalism is bull; environmentalism is a good idea.

But as for no snow- the point is that it is in dispute as to whether anything Man is doing is actually causing anything like that.

Also, frankly, we DO still get snow.

So the case isn't against environmentalism, only against parts of it that might not be true.

Sorry I picked the wrong topic about rivers.. I ment to say they keep flooding... Never use to happen really!

I can look back at my childhood pics and at christmas we always got snow... enough for me to go sledging.. Now we get none around me..

Seems like water pollution is in topic right now.
but whats this about "The ice caps melting, and the seas rising"!?!?!?

WTF!?

When water is Frozen, it expands by 10%.

Only 10% of all Frozen water is visible above water, everything underwater is already contributing to the rise of the seas.

Ounce the Ice melts... it will "shrink" 10% and just not affext sea level.

Then one might say "But what about the ice thats not floating?"

....

😐

Shut up.

It just won't be as much of a crisis as they make it out to be. and anyways, tehre is NO WAY near enough water on earth, or "hidden inside the crust" For us to see a "WaterWorld" or Mythical "Great Flood"

th earth is over 70% water. how is that not enough to drown most of the planet?

One of two reasons. They are in the pocket of large corporations or they are religious crackpots. The vast majority of scientists acknowledge global warming is very real.

If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth

And we are not making it worst?

I find that hard to beleive.

Then again, I find it hard to beleive that several thousand malfunctioning Refridgirators caused a Hole in the Ozone Layer.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
While there is plenty of debate about global warming (in Australia people are scratching their head, heat waves where there hasn't been heat waves before, storms at odd times of year, droughts that never end - Global Warming or Not? Both sides have valid points) I would like to see pollution, all pollution, reduced just for the sake of reducing pollution - in order to live in a healthier world.

There may be uncertainty about whether our polluting is destroying the ozone layer and leading to global warming - but we know the things polluting does do - the smog, the acid rains and so forth. And we know the sources of dirty power - coal, oil and the like are not infinite. Eventually, at our rate of consumption, they will run out - and when the oil industry dies alot of people will be out of a job, and a lot of people will be out of pocket. Logically it seems to me it would be wiser to take steps now to make changes, in order to prepare for the future - a cleaner and more secure future.

And if such preparation happens to reduce the theorised risk of global warming it would be a benefit. I mean, drawing parallels in an unsuitable fashion - George W. Bush's administration preached the practice of preempting. Going to war on shaky evidence against a nation that may or may not have been a threat - something that many people supported. Now then we have a theory that has a lot of support from the scientific community, we've found a hole in the ozone layer, we are seeing odd things happening with the weather, they are recording the decline in the ice caps and predicting what that increase of water will do to the worlds oceans. I'll admit I'm not certain, but there seems to be enough evidence to argue rationally that maybe, just maybe, it might be wise to consider the alternatives. To consider erring on the side of caution.

You can't start tanking economies on the precautionary principle. It's not even vaguely moral to do that without convincing proof.

This will become especially relevant once the developing nations start becoming mass emitters of carbon, as I say. Starting with China, and carrying on throughout the rest of the world; as they struggle to lift their nations out of poverty and stop having their citizens die of cold, hunger and disease, all this babble about the world maybe being in trouble but we can't actually prove it... is going to look pretty abstract. They will just see jealous Western nations trying to keep them down. Hence... it is imperative that the case for the man-made nature of global warming be beyond any reasonable doubt if there is ever going to be a global approach.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to many to suggest that we may as well try. The money being blown trying on something that a. might not be true and b., might not be stoppable could be MUCH better spent on preparing to adapt to climate change. In my 'Dangerous Ideas' thread, we see a submission from an editor of Nature saying that the idea that global warming will be a mass calamity for all of us is very wrong indeed- but it WILL be a disaster for some of the poorest people in the world, and no-one is spending any money to protect them for it. Hysteria about unproven global warming issues is preventing money from going where it should.

Also, people keep muddying the waters by talking about the o-zone layer, which is a seperate issue again.

one thing that has to be taken into consideration when thinking about global warming is that about 400-500 years ago there were vineyards in scandanavian countries so it was obviously hotter then than it is now...

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
One of two reasons. They are in the pocket of large corporations or they are religious crackpots. The vast majority of scientists acknowledge global warming is very real.

Actually no they don't read the start of this thread, in case you can't be bothered A short sample of high-caliber scientists who have criticized the hoax of 'global warming', demonstrates by itself how media-engendered is the myth of consensus on 'global warming':

Robert White (former head of the US Weather Bureau)

Richard Lindzen (Prof. of Meteorology at the MIT)

Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Robert Balling Jr. (Director of the Office of Climatology, Prof. of Geography at Arizona State University)

Fred Singer (President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project)

Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair of the Scientific council of the Warsaw Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, CLOR)

Eric S. Posmentier (Department of Physics and Mathematics at Long Island University, Brooklyn)

Michael Jorgensen (Paleoclimatologist)

Theodor Landscheidt (Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia)

Frederick Seitz (Former president of the National Academy of Sciences)

Robert E. Stevenson (Oceanographer, previously with the ONR and Secretary General of The International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans)

Craig Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona)

David Legates (Center for Climactic Research, Delaware)

Chauncey Starr (Former Dean of Engineering at UCLA and founder of EPRI)

Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize, Molecular Biologist)

Add to this scientists who have reversed their originally pro-'global-warming' views, such as:

Roger Revelle (Prof. of Ocean Science at Scripps Institute of Oceanography)

Michael McElroy (Head of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard)

But for those who have any doubts about the dissenting views of a majority of scientists with respect to the fad of 'global warming' just consult the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (19,000 signatures, of which 2,500 by scientists in Earth Sciences), at www.oism.org/pproject/s33p403.htm

If there is a scientific consensus about 'global warming', it is that it is junk science, pseudo-science, humbug.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
If you look at a graph of the earths average temperature during its existence, you will see that it is always changing. This is what makes it so hard to tell if global warming is actually occuring, or if the average temperature is merely changing again, as it has been known to do.

Granted, it seems highly likely that global warming is occuring, but htere is the possibility that most of the temperature change is being caused naturally by the earth

and things like UBI's muddy the picture further.

Originally posted by jaden101
one thing that has to be taken into consideration when thinking about global warming is that about 400-500 years ago there were vineyards in scandanavian countries so it was obviously hotter then than it is now...

So true Kent even had wild grapes growing!!

Isn't it also true that another theory thats been talked about in regards to "global" climate changes is that the poles North and South could switch places change in the future.

whirly... Please answer this questiong I've asked it twice now... Do you think we are distroying the enviroment?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
whirly... Please answer this questiong I've asked it twice now... Do you think we are distroying the enviroment?

It depends what you mean by this, do I think Global warming has been proven scientifically to my satisfaction, No! Do I think as most Environmentalists argue Nuclear power is a safer alternative - I look at 3 mile Island and Chernobyl and I say.... No!!!
Do I think we are destroying some Environments, Yes!!! Do I think we are affecting the Biosphere to a point where life becomes unsustainable...... No!!
The question you are asking is to general. It's like one of AC's tabloid questions!

apparently some scientists were told to prove that there is no global warming..just so someone could keep on burning fuels... or something like that

Originally posted by joeykangaroo
apparently some scientists were told to prove that there is no global warming..just so someone could keep on burning fuels... or something like that

😂 A conspiracy theory ❌ do you know Deano?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
😂 A conspiracy theory ❌ do you know Deano?

Lets get rid of fossil fuels I mean why not just get engines that can run off of buffalo chips🙂 No no Hydrogen cuz nothing would be a safer fuel for the enviroment then splitting atoms of hydrogen for fuel and refuel centers like a mile from your house🙂

There needs to be a sensible approach to growth and the enviroment however Green Peace screamers are just more visible and they whine and sink ships to make their point 😆

Originally posted by soleran30
Lets get rid of fossil fuels I mean why not just get engines that can run off of buffalo chips🙂 No no Hydrogen cuz nothing would be a safer fuel for the enviroment then splitting atoms of hydrogen for fuel and refuel centers like a mile from your house🙂

There needs to be a sensible approach to growth and the enviroment however Green Peace screamers are just more visible and they whine and sink ships to make their point 😆

😂
what are buffalo chips 😕

it would be a big flying saucer sized piece of dried dung!

Originally posted by jaden101
a simple way to think of global warming is the experiment you do in high school with pond weed

put it in water...shine a light on it...and it makes bubbles...the brighter the light, the faster the reaction...the hotter it is, the faster the reaction

the pond weed is using carbon dioxide and producing oxygen

the same happens to the earth as a whole

the more it warms up...the faster the trees etc, convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and thus help to restore the balance

the only problem is that something like 70% of the forests of 200 years ago have been cut down

Missed this excellent post ties in perfectly with my comment about sinks earlier. I would expect it from a fellow scientist though Jaden 😉

haven't they found fossil fuels under Antarctica