14 Dec 04
Originally posted by AaroniousJust read the National Geographic...can't remember which month...not too distant past...but the temperature is supposed to rise from 4 to 9 degrees on average..polar ice will melt, coastal cities will be flooded, drough and famine...unprecedented cataclysms..scary and sobering...read it....
Or is it just a political conspiracy? What does the scientific consensus say about global warming? Why do some people who are not climate researchers adamantly oppose global warming?
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by chancremechanicI seem to recall reading that the average temperature in the
Just read the National Geographic...can't remember which month...not too distant past...but the temperature is supposed to rise from 4 to 9 degrees on average..polar ice will melt, coastal cities will be flooded, drough and famine...unprecedented cataclysms..scary and sobering...read it....
mid 12th century went up. I can't remember the details or
how they know this, but we can conclude that the reason for
this is not global warming.
Assuming my memory is correct and the source was solid
(neither of which is a guarantee).
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by AaroniousSame way for years respected doctors were saying there was no link between smoking and cancer. If I have a business that pollutes a tad to much and I can't be bothered investing a little of my profit into research that will lessen the pollution, then I sure as hell aren't going to go round believing in global warming.
Or is it just a political conspiracy? What does the scientific consensus say about global warming? Why do some people who are not climate researchers adamantly oppose global warming?
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by builderThis is an interesting read:
Same way for years respected doctors were saying there was no link between smoking and cancer. If I have a business that pollutes a tad to much and I can't be bothered investing a little of my profit into research that will lessen the pollution, then I sure as hell aren't going to go round believing in global warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
For a more detailed account:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
Nemesio
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by AaroniousFirstly, global warming is a fact that has been observed and verified. No reputable scientists still disputes that.
Or is it just a political conspiracy? What does the scientific consensus say about global warming? Why do some people who are not climate researchers adamantly oppose global warming?
But secondly, not all scientists agree with the predicted effects.
For example, the American Coal Association, with whom I was in close contact until about six years ago, published a documentary film that accepted GW but went on to describe the results as highly beneficial!
For example, we all know that plants "breathe" CO2. GW is caused mainly by the products of combustion, which is mainly CO2. GW is caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. (Other gases, such as Methane CH4 also play a role, but to a lesser degree.)
The ACA predicts that arid areas will receive more rainfall and that the growth per hectare of agriculture will increase. They further believe that the melting of the polar ice caps has been overstated and that ocean levels will only rise minimally, etc etc. They quote many eminent scientists to support their statements.
Since the ACA is in the business of promoting coal, the combustion of which is the main culprit for GW, all I can say is that I would feel more relaxed if the same results had been published by the National Science Foundation!
In peace
CJ
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by CalJustThere are some scientists who believe that the industrial by-products
Since the ACA is in the business of promoting coal, the combustion of which is the main culprit for GW, all I can say is that I would feel more relaxed if the same results had been published by the National Science Foundation!
have little if anything to do with global warming.
That is, not all scientists believe that there is a 'culprit,' much less
what that culprit is.
Nemesio
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioThere have been some massive changes in climate within the last few thousands of years. North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets - you can see glacier carved valleys and moraines in many temperate places.
I seem to recall reading that the average temperature in the
mid 12th century went up. I can't remember the details or
how they know this, but we can conclude that the reason for
this is [b]not global warming.
Assuming my memory is correct and the source was solid
(neither of which is a guarantee).[/b]
Since we don´t yet know what triggers such changes - don´t you think it would be wise to be cautious in conducting in what amounts to a massive global experiment in raising greenhouse gas levels?
I just hope any impact falls mainly on countries who ignorethe Kyoto protocol!
14 Dec 04
Originally posted by steerpikeThe fact that there have been massive changes within the last
There have been some massive changes in climate within the last few thousands of years. North America and Europe were covered in ice sheets - you can see glacier carved valleys and moraines in many temperate places.
Since we don´t yet know what triggers such changes - don´t you think it would be wise to be cautious in conducting in what amounts to a mas ...[text shortened]... gas levels?
I just hope any impact falls mainly on countries who ignorethe Kyoto protocol!
few 1000 years seems to suggest that such changes were made
irrespective of 'greenhouse gas,' which have only been produced
by us for the last 100-150 or so.
There are two questions: 1) Does greenhouse gas accelerate these
changes (no consensus on the matter)?; and 2) are the changes bad
(again, no consensus)?
I'm not saying I am pro-polution! I'm not. But I don't think that
the 'global warming' issue is the strongest argument that can be
used against polution.
Nemesio
14 Dec 04
1 edit
Greenhouse gases have always been produced and have fluctuated - volcanic eruptions being one cause. We are just raising levels higher in a shorter time than in any other known time - an uncontrolled experiment.
The point is - how can we be sure we are not triggering a climate change which could divert the Gulf Stream? Even if the chance is low, the consequences could be enormous.
15 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioEven more interesting when you track down the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which employs the authors and certainly sounds an impressive place.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Nemesio
Actually, total faculty members are seven with one paid and it is based on a farm. It also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
Junk science all right!
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html
15 Dec 04
Originally posted by steerpikeLOL!
It also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
So they are a bunch of nutjobs. That's fine. Are their conclusions
nutty? The evidence does not conclusively indicate that the
greenhouse gases are having any impact on the temperature,
or that proposed polution changes would have an appreciable
effect.
It's not just them, of course. There are a lot of independent
scientists who hold this view; I just picked the first one with
a coherent argument from google. Those scientists do get
poo-pooed when they make their politically incorrect opinions
about hot-button issues. There are a lot of politics in science,
any one of them will tell you.
Nemesio
P.S., They have a Nobel Prize winner amongst their 'faculty,'
you'll notice. That's not too shabby!
15 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesioA Nobel prize is not too shabby and if they were talking biochemistry cures, may be they were on to something.
LOL!
So they are a bunch of nutjobs. That's fine. Are their conclusions
nutty? The evidence does not conclusively indicate that the
greenhouse gases are having any impact on the temperature,
or that proposed polution changes would have an appreciable
effect.
It's not just them, of course. There are a lot of independent
scientists who hold t ...[text shortened]... y have a Nobel Prize winner amongst their 'faculty,'
you'll notice. That's not too shabby!
But climate science is really not their area - just like you would not look to a climate scientist to discuss cancer cures. These guys are not in the mainstream at all - and I would not rely on their opinion on this issue.