100 reasons why global warming is natural

• derek bomar

  

  jmog wrote: Out of curiousity, what kind of car do you drive Derek?
  
  I believe AGW is a hoax while natural GW is true, and I'm still a conservationist, aka don't polute the air as much as you can, use less resources, etc. I have CFL lightbulbs all around my house, I drive a Ford Focus manual that gets 35+ MPG.
  
  I hardly use the A/C in the summer and keep the thermostat in the low to mid 60s in the winter while we are home and 50 while we aren't home.
  
  I'm just curious if you are a hypocrit like Al Gore, a vehement believer in this hoax but still don't conserve jack crap, or if you actually do as I do and be as conservative resource wise as you can be?
  
  I bet you never expected that from someone who is so against the belief in AGW, but I just understand the science of combustion emissions while most do not. But I happen to also believe in not using up more resources than you have to.

  I drive an F-150. Why? Because I never claimed I cared about stopping global warming, I'm just not blind to the fact that what I am driving might be somehow contributing to it. Caring / actually doing something to stop it vs being aware of it are two different things.
• FatHobbit

  

  cbus4life wrote: I think we have to get away from this idea that ALL scientists who believe in global warming and man's role in it are somehow profiting from it, in bed with the liberals, etc., etc.
  
  I refuse to believe that all scientists who are drawing conclusions about man contributing greatly to global warming are using "fuzzy" data, not telling the whole story, etc.
  
  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

  It's not the scientists, so much as the politicians. Those are the people I distrust the most in this argument.
• majorspark

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: ^^^Jmog, you can answer this...why does it seem like all these scientists are buying GW???? Obviously there's something there that is driving them. What is it???

  Money.
  
  A seat at the table of power.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  FatHobbit wrote:

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: ^^^Jmog, you can answer this...why does it seem like all these scientists are buying GW???? Obviously there's something there that is driving them. What is it???

  There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the issue. The GW people would have you believe that all of the scientists are behind them but they are not.

  Of course not all believe humanity's role in global warming, but from everything I've read it seems like the majority did at one point, and even though there are more questions now, many still do believe it.
  
  What are they seeing or not seeing that our scientific community of huddlers are??? I mean, are the ones who believe they see evidence just bad scientists??? Fake scientists???? What's going on here???
• FatHobbit

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: Of course not all believe humanity's role in global warming, but from everything I've read it seems like the majority did at one point, and even though there are more questions now, many still do believe it.
  
  What are they seeing or not seeing that our scientific community of huddlers are??? I mean, are the ones who believe they see evidence just bad scientists??? Fake scientists???? What's going on here???

  From the article
  
  19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
  
  It's not just "huddle" scientists.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  4,000 signatures in two decades. If it's so simple to see that this is not the case, what is compelling many scientists to take seriously what evidence is present???
  
  Are they just shitty scientists???
• derek bomar

  

  Are people really trying to say that what we're putting into the environment has absolutely zero impact on the environment? Is that what we're saying? Because it seems like I have said multiple times that it's a combination of "all of the above" where the temp is impacted by not only man-made factors but also natural occurring phenomenon....but I don't see how you can get around the fact that we have an impact...from the Heidelberg Appeal: The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity. Ignorance in this respect would be not conceding to the fact that we do have some impact on the earth's ecosystem and it is within our powers to better it. The rub is the cost-benefit of doing so...
• jmog

  All I've been saying the whole time is that the "man caused" "portion" of the temperature rise is so insignificant is hilarious.
  
  Think about it this way. If you have a bath full of cold water, and you put 1 drop of 200 degree water in it. Technically that drop raised the temperature of the whole bath, but for all intents and purposes it really did zero.
  
  That "drop" is the man made portion of GW, the bath as a whole is the natural factors.
  
  We could stop all CO2 production tomorrow, and if the sun is still sending out higher radiation levels than it did in the past, the Earth will still be warming at basically the same trend.
• bigmanbt

  (addressing derek)^^^ Wrong. The ignorance in this case is of the people's, for not actually requiring the scientific eveidence of man-made global warming and just blindly believing people who want to OPPRESS us. Make sense now?
  
  By the way, you use the polar ice caps as evidence, have you seen the recent polar ice cap pics? In 2006 it appeared to have shrunk (but NASA even said that was normal), but now the ice caps are as large as they were 15 years ago. One set of pictures and the last 10 years of evidence is not enough. The Medieval Warming Period had temperatures much higher than ours now. The fact that temps were well below that hundreds of years after is only further proof that ANY global warming/cooling is done strictly by the sun.
  
  It is almost arrogant of us to think we could do something to this Earth. This Earth can kill us a lot faster than we can kill it.
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  Here's what I wanto know. Obviously every scientist involved knows that these temps were present 20 mya. And they must understand the amount of CO2, the deforestation, etc. Why are many convinced that our acTions are contributing to GW??
  
  Are they just idiots, have fake PhDs, what??? Or are our huddle scientists just so far advanced that they understand things other scientists do not???
  
  This is a serious question, as I don't know anything more about global warming than the next guy. I understand that climate change is natural, but does it mean that this climate change will not continue in an unnatural way???
  
  Could the combination of human action coupled with natural climate cycles causes a change that is dangerous???
• derek bomar

  

  bigmanbt wrote: (addressing derek)^^^ Wrong. The ignorance in this case is of the people's, for not actually requiring the scientific eveidence of man-made global warming and just blindly believing people who want to OPPRESS us. Make sense now?

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't scientists looking into the causes of this every day? So how are we not requiring them to provide evidence? And who's trying to oppress you? Wow, you feel oppressed? Lol...
  
  Look, you don't think we can harm the earth at all...that's cool. You're wrong, but hey, it's a "free" country
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I don't recall ANYONE claiming we can't harm the Earth with pollutants. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of us have made clear statements in support of overall environmental responsibility.
  
  Please don't turn this into an argument that doesn't exist to make some point that isn't.
  
  What many of us ARE saying is we don't believe mankind's contribution of co2 is anywhere close to being enough to create a dangerous, catastrophic effect. In other words: we don't believe the fear mongering that is asking us to spend trillions of dollars and gut entire economic systems.
  
  If we're to make that kind of commitment, then the evidence needs to be a helluva lot more precise and conclusive than it is now. In fact, I'd say right now, the evidence comes nowhere close to rising to that level.
• derek bomar

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I don't recall ANYONE claiming we can't harm the Earth with pollutants.

  the dude who I quoted said we couldn't harm the earth
  

  bigmanbt wrote: (addressing derek)
  It is almost arrogant of us to think we could do something to this Earth. This Earth can kill us a lot faster than we can kill it.

• bigmanbt

  I didn't say we couldn't harm it necssarily, as we obviously can, but not when it comes to the warming/cooling of the planet as it involves CO2. Man-made global warming is based upon our CO2 levels and how they destroy the Earth, which is what I was refering to. The actual human involvement in CO2 level is minute in an already minute % of actual CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if CO2 was as destructive as some theorize, we couldn't produce enough CO2 to effect the Earth. That's the long explanation.
  
  The reason we see scientists advocating global warming is because it pays. These scientists are told by the governments what results they want them to find and they find them. Especially in the case of climate. Since no one can even definitively predict the weather months in advance, how can anyone truely prove they are wrong? Then they withhold their "scientific data"when other scientists ask them for it, and try and keep other scientists who claim it is natural from getting published. Hell, just 20-30 years ago they were warning us we were headed for another ice age (which I would be more worried about than heating up). It's all just governments wanting to control (or oppress) the masses. If you can convince people that global warming is true, you can convince the people to give up control of their everyday lives. Once that happens liberty will fail, it will be the beginning of a global union, and be the end of the United States as we know it. That's what the European countries want. They do not want us to be the way we are (free, capitalist), they want us to be like most of them (socialist, oppressed).
• majorspark

  

  Derek, didn't your mom read you Chicken Little when you were a kid? Chicken little gets hit in the head with an acorn and makes the conclusion from this isolated event that the sky is falling (imminent global disaster). Chicken little's conclusion creates mass hysteria among the other animals. The Sly Fox (Government) manipulates this hysteria for his own benefit ending in the Fox eating the hysterical animals that let their guard down to follow the Fox's answers.
  
  So simple a child could understand.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cbus4life wrote: I think we have to get away from this idea that ALL scientists who believe in global warming and man's role in it are somehow profiting from it, in bed with the liberals, etc., etc.
  I refuse to believe that all scientists who are drawing conclusions about man contributing greatly to global warming are using "fuzzy" data, not telling the whole story, etc.
  There are legitimate arguments on both sides.
  But, as always, good to see we have so many eminent scientists on the huddle who can make, absolutely, claims for and against global warming. We're incredibly blessed here.

  Hey whaddya want for nothing?
  Continuous "I don't know" statements?
  LOL
• ttae8286

  The primary problem is that "melting glaciers", "dead polar bears", and "massive flooding" make better headlines than mundane facts, i.e., the earth has experienced thousands of increases / decreases in both temperature and CO2 - it is a well documented, natural occurrence. The media and government scientists have run with this "consensus" while burying any non-conforming views. Fortunately, more information seems to be slowly finding its way to the public.
  
  Both the Ohio Section of the American Institute of Professional Geologists ( http://www.aipg-ohio.org/OH%20Section%20Position%20HR2454.pdf ) and
  the Ohio Geological Society ( http://www.ohgeosoc.org/Cap_Trade_OGS_revised.pdf ) have published position papers criticizing the lack of scientific evidence behind this movement.
• gut

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: Here's what I wanto know. Obviously every scientist involved knows that these temps were present 20 mya. And they must understand the amount of CO2, the deforestation, etc. Why are many convinced that our acTions are contributing to GW??

  I think the more cynical answer (which may not be far off truth, actually) - and this isn't about global warming but in general - is that scientists and doctors have abandoned objectivity and adopted a position where if something is inconclusive, they throw their weight behind it if they believe it has positive externalities. They've abandoned the scientific method in favor of "better safe than sorry". The problem is many seem to do this in a vacuum without considering the costs and impacts of alternatives.
  
  Not saying all of them, but I'd lay money a good number of scientists supporting global warming do so because they see it as a means to promote clean air and alternative fuels. Many academics trend liberal, often very liberal, and it's perhaps unsurprising many have allowed politics to compromise their views.
• I Wear Pants

  FatHobbit wrote:
  I think littering is bad for the environment, but I don't think that it will cause the world to end UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW!!! It's not as clear as you would like to make it sound. There are people on both sides, and when people (especially people who will somehow profit from it) start to scream about how important it is we do something right away or the world is going to end I get suspicious.

  Why is the "they (environmentalists, scientists, whomever) are profiting from environmental reforms" only pulled out against reform and caps on pollution and other things? Do the business owners not profit from not having reform and caps/harder restrictions and penalties for polluting placed on them?
• FatHobbit

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  FatHobbit wrote:
  I think littering is bad for the environment, but I don't think that it will cause the world to end UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW!!! It's not as clear as you would like to make it sound. There are people on both sides, and when people (especially people who will somehow profit from it) start to scream about how important it is we do something right away or the world is going to end I get suspicious.

  Why is the "they (environmentalists, scientists, whomever) are profiting from environmental reforms" only pulled out against reform and caps on pollution and other things? Do the business owners not profit from not having reform and caps/harder restrictions and penalties for polluting placed on them?

  If carbon is not a pollutant, why should it be restricted?
• bigmanbt

  Here's a great article that I found that has to do with the state of the scientific community. Truly sad what science has become. It started as way to figure out the world, and now is being used for money making purposes.
  
  Suppression of Science Within Science
  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
  
  I believe the government needs to re-evaluate how they hand out grant money for scientific purposes. I don't know a proper solution just yet, but the process we have now only leads to exclusion of non "mainstream" science.
• FatHobbit

  

  Here's an article from today's dispatch about "experts" on climate debate.
  
  http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/12/17/climate_experts.ART_ART_12-17-09_A1_ABG17UI.html?sid=101