Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[Mr. Pedantic]

It is not an issue of whether or not global warming exists or not, but what are its causes. I would have thought you of all people would have understood this since you seem like an intelligent person. Your resorting to blind hysteria does not bode well for my former assumption either

Really? Cause that's the past, and it has relevance only in allowing us to decide what to do in the future. The future, and how to reverse/halt global warming is the important issue, not the other way round.

[MrFancypants]

It's interesting that the people who are strongly opposed to the idea of climate-change use the same tactics as creationists to get their point across: they continue talking about the same weak spots (for example an outdated hockey-stick-study) all the time and think this is conclusive evidence that they are right even though they ignore all the other evidence.

[~LK~]

It's interesting that people who are strongly opposed to the idea of alternative views use the same tactics as evolutionists to get their point across: they continue talking about the same weak spots (for example, studies that link nothing) all the time and think this is conclusive evidence that they are right even though they ignore all other evidence.

ok, now that I spewed my nonsense to match other nonsense, I'll continue.

No, it has not been proven global warming has been caused, nor excelerated by any of man's actions. It has not been proven global warming was not caused, nor excelerated by man's actions. It can be proved that global warming has taken place, and is taking place now. I'm not sure if I'm with the man's fault crowd thats the in thing these days or not, just because they are the loudest shouters.

I will say though, Taking the argument and setting it aside, I think I like trees and I know I'm no fan of 100+ F degree temperatures as the norm. I also think I don't like breathing in polution at all, or finding layers of "dirt" every morning on my cars that were so nicely desposited from local mills/factory's every morning. Taking all these things in to account, I fail to see the relevence of the argument entirely. So... what? If we do everything we can to lessen man's output of polutiuon and/or CO2, and it turns out not to be man's fault.. I guess that leaves us with a terrible side effect of.. a cleaner environment?

The whole debate is academic, not practical by any means, except in the sense that maybe there are those still out there who do not care either way, and shifting blame to a global cause rather than a man cause, allows them to not have to alter their behavior in the slightest. In this case, that has nothing to do with the academic argument and more to do with being lazy and selfish.

[B.F. Pierce]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

I don't see how that is proof of man-made global warming. In fact I have seen no evidence to convince me that man has had any effect on the climate with relation to CO2, or any other so-called "greenhouse gas." I would love to see some. But you must remember that correlation does not equal causation.

Wait just a second here. You're willing to go out and say that C02 emissions aren't the leading cause because "correlation does not equal causation", but these scientists are using that exact same logic behind their claim that the suns increased activity is the reason for global warming.

However, is the sun at high activity? Pretty sure I read it hit it's peak in 04, but who knows. Regardless what these scientists are forgetting is it takes quite a considerable amount of output from the sun to make a large difference here on Earth. We receive but a fraction of the power output of the sun, the incident angle has a much larger effect on how much energy we get than distance or output to/from the sun changing.

The only good point you've made here is the fact that scientists that are against the claims are added as supporters. FURTHERMORE why the hell is an expert on malaria on the scientific committee to determine the causes of global warming? Do we actually care what his "opinion" is?

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

It is not an issue of whether or not global warming exists or not, but what are its causes. I would have thought you of all people would have understood this since you seem like an intelligent person. Your resorting to blind hysteria does not bode well for my former assumption either.

Blind Hysteria?



Humans...no appreciation for sarcasm.

[VOP2288]

As far as any argument involving the sun and it's part: The sun's increased activity is causing the warming? You dont say? Well you know why that is? It's b/c the ozone and the layer of atmosphere protecting the earth's surface from absorbing mass amounts of dangerous UV radiation is actually deteriorating with the massive amounts of CO2 we're producing and putting into the air...

It's quite simple: CO2 is naturally produced with or without humans. The earth keeps a fine balance of this CO2 by putting such things as trees and other plants to work intaking CO2 and producing O2. The ocean is the biggest producer of CO2 (b/c more than 75% or something of the world's mass is covered with water). Yet - by increasing the output of CO2 into the air and at the same time deforesting the land we're getting rid of the means to turn that CO2 into O2.

How do you account for times in history where CO2 was up but temperatures down?

Unless you're an idiot you should know that effects of something such as that dont happen the next day...an ice age and something like the effect on temperature of increased CO2 emissions takes hundreds if not millions of years.

It's interesting that the people who are strongly opposed to the idea of climate-change use the same tactics as creationists to get their point across: they continue talking about the same weak spots (for example an outdated hockey-stick-study) all the time and think this is conclusive evidence that they are right even though they ignore all the other evidence.

And yet people opposed to the idea of global warming say nothing but: "it just doesnt...err..exist...end of story I dont want to talk about this anymore" or better yet these produce some useless bit of information as Warhawk has done here saying something about how a malaria scientist's name got put on something he didnt agree with....so...that makes the anti-global warming argument better? I dont think so

[Reno]

Originally Posted by VOP2288

As far as any argument involving the sun and it's part: The sun's increased activity is causing the warming? You dont say? Well you know why that is? It's b/c the ozone and the layer of atmosphere protecting the earth's surface from absorbing mass amounts of dangerous UV radiation is actually deteriorating with the massive amounts of CO2 we're producing and putting into the air...

It's quite simple: CO2 is naturally produced with or without humans. The earth keeps a fine balance of this CO2 by putting such things as trees and other plants to work intaking CO2 and producing O2. The ocean is the biggest producer of CO2 (b/c more than 75% or something of the world's mass is covered with water). Yet - by increasing the output of CO2 into the air and at the same time deforesting the land we're getting rid of the means to turn that CO2 into O2.

Unless you're an idiot you should know that effects of something such as that dont happen the next day...an ice age and something like the effect on temperature of increased CO2 emissions takes hundreds if not millions of years.

Chill out man. Its just a different way of looking at things.

The ozone isn't deteriating because of CO2. CFCs and ODS are the two main contributors to the thinning ozone in the troposphere.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html

Mass deforestation only tends to occur in places like Central America, South America and the Africas where the poor farmers need to clear the forest land to plant new crops. The world government is trying to curb this by issuing grants and other forms of relief to governments who do what they can to conserve the rain forests. The majority of the rest of the world practices the replanting of forests that have been cleared. I can't speak for all countries but here in the states we have a massive amount of land under protection of the federal government.

And yet people opposed to the idea of global warming say nothing but: "it just doesnt...err..exist...end of story I dont want to talk about this anymore" or better yet these produce some useless bit of information as Warhawk has done here saying something about how a malaria scientist's name got put on something he didnt agree with....so...that makes the anti-global warming argument better? I dont think so

We have trouble predicting what next week's weather is going to be like much less next decade or next century. The planet goes through orbits where it gets closer and slightly farther away from the sun from time to time. This can cause massive climate changes and mass extinctions. There was a time in history when the entire planet was far more tropical than it is now. At one point Antarctica was a tropical paradise. When you look at what has happened and compare it to what is happening a person realizes that the more things change the more they stay the same. The world isn't going to end and the world government will do anything it can to keep the climate, ergo, the people in as good a shape as possible. They do this, because the second things change for the worse that's the second where corporations start to loose money. In the end money is what makes the world go round.

[Joe Bonham]

Hmmmm... looks like warhawk could use some help here. I would consider it an honor to be your comrade at arms in this battle.

First off, why be so insulting? Agree with them or not, all of his points are legitimate.

-Correlation does not equal causation,
-far greater warming has occured in the past that was natural,
-and opposition to the theory is growing.

Now Mr. Fancypants claims that an argument against the theory is only legitimate if it debunks the latest and newest global warming platforms. But that is incorrect. Its all about a track record. Let's take a look at their track record.

-Originally, it wasn't even "global warming" at all, it was global cooling. This was debunked.

-The Hockey stick has been debunked as misleading and slanted.

-The claim that it has never been this warm in human history before has been debunked.

-The claim that the icecap melting would be a disaster has also been debunked (1410 anyone?)

Of course the global warming scientists have trotted out a new set of great ideas, but please don't be offended if we take them with a grain of salt.

[Decebalus]

Yes, and the ozone layer gap is also NOT man made..... Its alien made, or oh wait, it was here long long long before industrialization. ...

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by WarHawk109

Nice attempt at ad hominem. Funny considering that this is a British publication, with no relation to the Republican party. Where did this stuff about the Republican party come from anyway? The article didn't mention it, and I sure didn't. Are you going to mention George Bush too?

I think the term he is looking for is either 'conservative' or 'right-wing', especially as the Republican movement in the UK has more to do with the dismantling of the monarch than anything else - something which your average right-winger in the UK tends to disagree with quite strongly. And the Daily Mail is indeed the single most right-wing newspaper in the United Kingdom to my knowledge, possibly tied with the Daily Express. Yes, people, we have very original names for our newspapers in the UK.



Regardless. Now, I don't think GW is the devastating mass-extinction catalyst that the doom sayers are proposing this time - that ain't a debate starter, by the way, it's an expression of opinion (and no, if qualified scientists haven't managed to change it, you don't stand a great chance either). And as global warming is almost like a religion these days, with its evangelical supporters almost fervent in their dedication to the cause, it doesn't particularly surprise me that they would fudge some signatures to get their point across either. Throw some corrupt politicians into the mix, and you've got yourself a sure-fire winner on that one. But it's fairly irrelevant anyway - neither side is likely to change their opinions, this far into the game.

But none of this really matters, as it doesn't change another rather serious problem along the same vein that we all face in the near future. All of the fuels we are actually burning to make nasty CO2 in the first place are running out rather quickly. Pretty soon it won't be economically viable to continue using them, even if there is any left. Heck, ask any delivery firm and they'll tell you that it's already too expensive to be economically viable. When that happens, the economy as we know it will come to a halt. No more goods will be moved, no more supermarkets will be stocked, no more plastic products will be made, many areas of the planet will go without power... you better sell your stocks and shares before that happens. Not that you'll be able to do much with the money by that point, short of burn it.

We're facing an economic and sociological crisis that requires a switch to renewable fuels quickly (dubious correlation charts drawn by has-been politicians notwithstanding), lest we drop like a boulder right back down into the dark age again*. And at present, there is no viable alternative fuel to replace it. Not a single one. Think of all the things we use oil for, and then try to imagine a world without it. Mud huts and dirt roads, horse drawn carriages and wooden dashboards, ladies and gentlemen! Make the most of your video games while you've still got them...

Seems to me, then, that we have two options available to us. Blow it all now and lose any chance we have of retaining the lifestyle we are all accustomed to, or, conserve it long enough for an alternative to be developed (hopefully).

* To be honest, the first time around wasn't so bad. People in those days were tougher, it wasn't a massive change, they could survive it. I don't see your average McDonalds junkie surviving it the next time around, though...