Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Evil dead, isn't global warming a heat age? correct me if I'm wrong.
A heat age? Did you make that term up?
Look, I'm not going to debate the science of global warming. Because I am unfortunately not a scientist. But all the science to which I've been exposed supports the facts. According to paleoclimatology, out of the last 10 years, all 10 rank in the top 15 hottest years on record, and the other five are spread out and non-consecutive.
Let's for a moment go with the natural aspect of it. Why would any rational person ignore the indesputible fact that greenhouse gases and human pollution are only going to increase the speed with which nature wipes us out? And it's not just us. It's animals and plants too. Big Evil, if you dismiss the science that says that humans are the major source of this issue, you can't denounce the science that says we are speeding up the process. That's like realizing your brakes are out while you're heading towards a brick wall and hitting the gas because the brakes don't work.
Global warming itself as we define it isnt natural, but there are massive climate shifts that occur naturally as others have mentioned.
The thing is, in natural events, things always go back to normal at some point. Humid>ice age/whatever>humid climate....etc... But the problem is, with the way we do things now, things might not go BACK to normal, thats the bad thing.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Because of it's use, it destroys the ozone layer, which could contribute to global warming.
Haarp is used for long range communication, it creates an ion bubble which is reflective and allows high frequency waves to travel long distances. This ion bubble is created by heating up the ionsphere.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Global warming itself as we define it isnt natural, but there are massive climate shifts that occur naturally as others have mentioned.The thing is, in natural events, things always go back to normal at some point. Humid>ice age/whatever>humid climate....etc... But the problem is, with the way we do things now, things might not go BACK to normal, thats the bad thing.
✅
Originally posted by Blue nocturneYes, and from what I've read on it (got the book btw), everytime they use it, it damages the ionsphere.
Haarp is used for long range communication, it creates an ion bubble which is reflective and allows high frequency waves to travel long distances. This ion bubble is created by heating up the ionsphere.
Global warming not mans fault?
Some scientist have explicity chosen to debate the nature of global warming and have even pointed out that Global warming is not even man made. Some scientist speculate that Global warming is a natural process andd C02 is not the real reason behind it. It is believed that in the year 2100, we can have double the C02 in the atmosphere and it would not have a significant impact on the enviroment.
Links for the source:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
Some snippets from both:
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
This article is pretty damn important to
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
Quote of Importance
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.
I'm not completely convinced that Global Warming is all man made but I do think we contribute. We've basically only had reliable satellites for the last 30-40 years and I'm not sure that is enough time to come to a definite conclusion. That being said, I'm all for cleaning the air, water and land from soot, chemicals, garbage and any other pollutants. We've been using coal fired electric plants and gasoline (petroleum) powered engines for over 100 years. There has to be cleaner, safer and more efficient ways to power our cities and transports.