BF2S Forums global warming

jarhedch wrote:

not a threat, a boat load of media hype, look at the temperature records, warming and cooling is a NATURAL trend that has happened for millions of years, and climate change has yet to be proven in response to global warming. and that "great" institution known as the UN has become less accurate with their figures the more studies they have done. Sound like progress huh?

Kudos to you man...you are right on the money...Our world is not in danger of global warming. Temperature patterns are in direct correlation with previous trends or  patterns. The globalists would have you believe many of their "Artificial" problems by creating '"problems", in turn getting a reaction, (There are literally hundreds of Organizations formed as a result) and of course, solution,( legislation against, will call it, crimes against our earth.) In short, Gov'ts are masters of Problem, reaction, Solution scenarios. Just be aware of your resources, do your own research. Don't beleive everything you are hearing through mainstream media (This is controlled by the Corporations, Big Banks, etc.)

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

The Dr obviously suggests that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change".

Well, Dr Cosmic Hippo (Me) concludes that his findings are inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity (Large volcanoes can inject huge quantities of dust and other gaseous pollution into the air. The most explosive volcanic eruptions are able to send material many miles up into the atmosphere, above the level of most rain clouds. Here the pollution remains for up to two years, blown around the globe by winds.This volcanic pollution blocks out some of the sunlight. At the Earth's surface this causes a cooling of the climate. If the pollution spreads all around the Earth, a global cooling of as much as 0.3°C is possible which can last for 2 years. An example of this happened in 1991 when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted.
Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

Last edited by cosmichippo (2006-07-26 04:40:44)

It's harder to breakdance on the concrete - it's too hot.

Weather in Norway has been unusual the last years. Rather than rather normal summers and winters, we have hot summers and cold winters (this is coming from Norway). The temperature extremes have been rising.

Denying global warming is ignorance. It is a fact; it's whether it's caused by humans, geological patterns, or a combination thereof is the cause is the only argument.

kr@cker, type the words 'Climate' and 'define' into google.

Last edited by .:XDR:.PureFodder (2006-08-29 07:37:32)

Janysc wrote:

Weather in Norway has been unusual the last years. Rather than rather normal summers and winters, we have hot summers and cold winters (this is coming from Norway). The temperature extremes have been rising.

In Belgium we have like the opposite: Winters were milder, summers more extreme - or warmer then usual or more rain....

Janysc wrote:

Denying global warming is ignorance. It is a fact; it's whether it's caused by humans, geological patterns, or a combination thereof is the cause is the only argument.

QFT

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

kr@cker, type the words 'Climate' and 'define' into google.

ummm.............


ok






why?

Janysc wrote:

Weather in Norway has been unusual the last years. Rather than rather normal summers and winters, we have hot summers and cold winters (this is coming from Norway). The temperature extremes have been rising.

Denying global warming is ignorance. It is a fact; it's whether it's caused by humans, geological patterns, or a combination thereof is the cause is the only argument.

Exactly - Global warming is a fact.

I am no environmentalist, but I do believe unnecessary energy wastage is a bad thing. Global warming has been shown to be caused by humans - fact, hands down. I am not one of these people who always turns a light off when I leave a room, or doesn't leave the tap running while I brush my teeth, but I do recycle things (and believe countries with no recycling policies and energy conservation plans are backwards) and I do try to use as little energy as I can - without significantly impacting my day to day life (I run lots of electrical devices a lot).

Nuclear power is the way forwards. Lots of lovely nuclear power - if it's down properly there is no risk - Chernobyl was a result of dodgy cheap Soviet nuclear power. No global warming, just nice containable nuclear waste - fuck all the environmentalists who moan about the dangers of nuclear power, use it. It is the only viable solution to global warming which is real.

Global warming does occur naturally. Carbon emissions are increasing the rate at which global warming occurs ludicrously. I know a few people who work closely on subjects closely related to global warming (Some scientists who work on associated topics, some of the instigators of the carbon trading program and a number of my friends who have studied environmental sciences in some depth (postgraduate work)) they all have varying opinions on what should be done about global warming, but are unanimous in their absolute conviction that global warming is a very real and serious problem. Some say fuck it, we're past the point of no return anyway - it won't affect us but near-future generations, some promote damage limitation and some believe the earth will be able to recover and get back into a normal climate change cycle.

A lot of the people on this thread claiming that global warming being caused by people make a lot of claims that are totally untrue. Global warming is a fact and is getting significantly worse due to carbon emissions. Human impact is a massive contributary factor. People denying it happens is just down to their own ignorance.

jonsimon wrote:

Global warming hasn't been proven to be caused by humans. It hasn't even been proven that humans accelerate the process significantly. It has been proven that we contribute, and that it exists.

this is all I've ever tried to say on the subject, to think that we, in roughly a century since the industrial evolution, are massively contrubuting to a cycle caused by a star that is millions of years old is ridiculous considering that in our history we haven't yet produced a total of pollutants/greenhouse gases equivalent to the output of Mt. Pinatubo's 1990's eruption. It seems more and more that "environmentalism" has become the refuge of the modern day communist, using it as a bully pulpit from which to legislate human behavior, if you want to pay out the ass for an ugly, underpowered, limited range electric car, you go right ahead. Just don't tell me what I can and can't drive. Now obviously I'm not about to go dumping anti-freeze into the local water supply, but considering that plants are responsible for somewhere upwards of 90% of all greenhouse gases produced (I'll try to double check that when I get home to my broadband), we should think carefully about legislating it out of existance. No one here is trying to say it isn't happening, I'm just saying it's a natural mechanism occurring on a cosmic scale, and to think that we can have any meaningful impact is a rather haughty assumption.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Janysc wrote:

Weather in Norway has been unusual the last years. Rather than rather normal summers and winters, we have hot summers and cold winters (this is coming from Norway). The temperature extremes have been rising.

Denying global warming is ignorance. It is a fact; it's whether it's caused by humans, geological patterns, or a combination thereof is the cause is the only argument.

Exactly - Global warming is a fact.

I am no environmentalist, but I do believe unnecessary energy wastage is a bad thing. Global warming has been shown to be caused by humans - fact, hands down. I am not one of these people who always turns a light off when I leave a room, or doesn't leave the tap running while I brush my teeth, but I do recycle things (and believe countries with no recycling policies and energy conservation plans are backwards) and I do try to use as little energy as I can - without significantly impacting my day to day life (I run lots of electrical devices a lot).

Nuclear power is the way forwards. Lots of lovely nuclear power - if it's down properly there is no risk - Chernobyl was a result of dodgy cheap Soviet nuclear power. No global warming, just nice containable nuclear waste - fuck all the environmentalists who moan about the dangers of nuclear power, use it. It is the only viable solution to global warming which is real.

Global warming does occur naturally. Carbon emissions are increasing the rate at which global warming occurs ludicrously. I know a few people who work closely on subjects closely related to global warming (Some scientists who work on associated topics, some of the instigators of the carbon trading program and a number of my friends who have studied environmental sciences in some depth (postgraduate work)) they all have varying opinions on what should be done about global warming, but are unanimous in their absolute conviction that global warming is a very real and serious problem. Some say fuck it, we're past the point of no return anyway - it won't affect us but near-future generations, some promote damage limitation and some believe the earth will be able to recover and get back into a normal climate change cycle.

A lot of the people on this thread claiming that global warming being caused by people make a lot of claims that are totally untrue. Global warming is a fact and is getting significantly worse due to carbon emissions. Human impact is a massive contributary factor. People denying it happens is just down to their own ignorance.

I really don't think that you know what you are talking about. It is also apparent that you haven't taken the time to read through many pages of this post and taken a look at the evidence presented to make such wild claims. I suggest that you go back and reread the entire thread and then argue the case with more than just hearsay evidence.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I know several people who are very closely involved in global warming research in the UK. Including Martin Parry (IPCC) who I have had dinner with and dicussed the issues - he believes strongly that global warming is a major problem and has been significantly impacted by carbon emmissions. Two of my friends are writing research papers for their Phds on the problems caused by climate change, I talk to them about it regularly. Someone else I know also got invited to Buckingham palace for dinner twice due to his work in the field of climate change and the carbon trading programme. I trust them far more than anyone on this forum.

Read the reports of the Royal Society, probably the most trustworthy unbiased scientific group on the planet. You might learn a little more than reading the ludicrous nonsense most people seem to be spouting on this thread.

Royal Society Report on misconceptions about global warming

I think you are chatting a lot of rubbish, as a lot of people with a lot of spurious 'evidence' have been doing over the course of this thread.

Global warming is REAL. Global warming IS caused by carbon emissions, mostly from using coal power, car emissions are not the big problem here, it is power generation - which I why I back using nuclear power totally.

The papers that people should be reading, but they are not, because I doubt any of those who do not believe in global warming have any scientific background whatsoever, are the reports from the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) all available here, the Royal Society papers, available here. Or the combined reports of all of the global academies of science which concur that global warming is real and caused by carbon emissions. That includes the National Academy of Sciences in the US (who have published their own report which states global warming is a real and serious threat), which are supposed to advise congress on scientific matters - although when the White House doesn't like what it hears, it ignores it and comissions reports from other sources that will be less economically restictive. The Joint Academies of Sciences report can be found here.

These are reports from all of the foremost authorities in science, which unambiguously conclude that global warming is real and caused by carbon emissions. The IPCC are the real experts and have global support from the international scientific community (well, these countries; Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK) who issued this statement in 2001 : “We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving consensus.”.

The report conducted by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has been widely discredited. Most other research papers on the topic that discount global warming are conducted by research groups funded by the US oil industry and all have been discredited by the international scientific community.

Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming and the dangers it presents is just ignorant of it and probably an idiot.


Nobel laureates who believe global warming is a serious risk caused by carbon emissions (and brought about the signing of the Kyoto agreement):

* Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

CRAFOORD LAUREATES
* Vladimir I. Arnold, France. Mathematics 1982
* Paul R. Ehrlich, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
* Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990

SELECTED OFFICERS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
* Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
* Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology
* Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American Academy of Sciences
* Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of Sciences
* Johanna Dobereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of Canada
* Fran?ois Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of Sciences
* Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
* Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian National Academy of Sciences
* Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of Canada
* Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
* M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International Council of Scientific Unions
* G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International Council of Scientific Unions
* Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada
* Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of Sciences
* Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of Sciences
* Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy of Sciences
* R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian National Academy of Sciences
* Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
* Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters
* Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
* Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of Sciences

ill b fine if it happens i live in my computer world LOL

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I know several people who are very closely involved in global warming research in the UK. Including Martin Parry (IPCC) who I have had dinner with and dicussed the issues - he believes strongly that global warming is a major problem and has been significantly impacted by carbon emmissions. Two of my friends are writing research papers for their Phds on the problems caused by climate change, I talk to them about it regularly. Someone else I know also got invited to Buckingham palace for dinner twice due to his work in the field of climate change and the carbon trading programme. I trust them far more than anyone on this forum.

Read the reports of the Royal Society, probably the most trustworthy unbiased scientific group on the planet. You might learn a little more than reading the ludicrous nonsense most people seem to be spouting on this thread.

Royal Society Report on misconceptions about global warming

I think you are chatting a lot of rubbish, as a lot of people with a lot of spurious 'evidence' have been doing over the course of this thread.

Trotting out names of people you may or may not know does is no way refute any of the evidence that I have presented. I have presented this evidence to people in education that already HAVE their PhD's and have yet to hear a significant rebuttal. Since you appear to be too lazy to reread the thread I will bring out some of the more relevant points.

On your Royal Society report.

#4 wrote:

Based on direct analysis of gases found trapped in cores of polar ice, it is known that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide for several thousands of years before 1750 was about 280 parts per million. Between 1750 and 2000, during which industrialisation has occurred, the concentration rose by about 31% to 368 parts per million. The IPCC report noted that the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and that “the rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years”.

Why are we only looking at the last 420,000 years? Why that number? Because you can make a dramtic  statement out of it.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/46/g … co21uu.gif
Please ask your distinguished "friends":

1. As to the veracity of the chart.
2. Why we are looking at such a small window of geologic time.
3. Why there were two cool periods with significantly higher CO2 levels than are present today.
4. Why was life just fine when temperatures were significantly higher than they are today?


Also...please show me a link to where the OISM study was discredited...a scientific presentation if you please.

Don't you find it strange that the evidence is so overwhelming that the even the US government line on the issue has changed over the last year and they now acknowledge the fact that global warming is occuring due to carbon emissions? Don't you find it the slightest bit odd that every single international recognised scientific authority has stated unequivocally that global warming is FACT. Every major government in the world acknowledges global warming is caused by carbon emissions, I do not see how anyone can question such strong evidence.

If you can find a report on global warming dated 2005 or later that does not recognise the full extent of the issue I would be shocked. That is because all reputable scientific establishments have agreed that it is FACT. The Joint Academies of Sciences are the foremost scientific authority in the world. The IPCC are the foremost experts in the field of climate change and they both agree, along with every European university, that global warming is very real and caused by carbon emissions.

Links discrediting the OISM report - there are lots:

http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

The National Academy of Sciences (the foremost scientific body in the US) refused to have anything to do with the petition with this statement:
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal"

Here is a link so you can examine the signatories for yourself and see that there are in fact numerous duplicate signatories:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

(Also my friends are not distinguished - many of my associates and family members colleagues (who I have met several times - I would not claim to 'know' them) are, but certainly not my friends who are studying anything related to climate change)

*edit*
Sorry I haven't addressed the issue of your chart. I am from an engineering and physics background not meterological, so I don't know myself - I'll look into it and get back to you soon - it's late over here now.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-31 17:06:08)

The chart speaks for itself.