FileFront Forums

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)
-   The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)
-   -   Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/304531-greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html)

Chemix2 March 6th, 2007 01:41 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Towards Appy & Warhawk

You see, it's not the difference of opinion that's the offense, it's the reasoning used to back it up and it's relation to others. If I just believe in God, then it doesn't really have any real effect on those on this board, but if I believe just believe that Global Warming is a natural, unstoppable, event, I stand as one more in the polls that polliticians use to "focus" (give a few million - billion dollar grants here and there and a speech maybe) or "ignore" (if it doesn't matter to the campaign, why bother, they're better things to waste time on, like kissing baby's on the forhead or making speeches about how much worse other canidates are). And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, debates can't really go on when sides don't care, and for that reason I don't debate God's existence, atleast not seriously anymore, as I won't listen to anything that says otherwise, I debate supposed contradictions in the Bible and other issues, where I'm probaly going to be stubborn and not change, but I'll atleast pay a little heed to people's posts, though I sometimes simply get tired or pissed and skip through anyway.

As far as we can see, the global temperature is rising or atleast shifting, and that the ice caps are melting. Lets forget about the claims and arguments of the past for a bit and just think about the past couple of years, as we have no real detailed records prior to the 20th century except for freak weather incidents. We've seen CO2 levels jump and temperatures jump, does this mean that the one causes the other, by itself no. However we do know that CO2 traps heat more than oxygen, for example, if you are in a burning building, the CO2 will cause the heat to escelate, even if it may eventually put out the flames causing the fire in the first place, in this you'll start to feel heat exhaustion alot more easily from just being near the area, not even in the smoke, and once in the smoke it feels like being in a fire. Now, to see what it's like in oxygen sit next to a bonfire or camp fire, you'll feel not nearly as tired from heat exhaustion if at all. This is simply an easily imagined test, lab tests have been preformed and show that CO2 traps heat.

Now if you can accept that CO2 traps heat, what effect do you think 14 gigatons of CO2 have on the Earth, versus the normal 2 gigatons released by nature. Furthermore, this doesn't dissapate by the time it's reached another 14/16 gigatons, meaning that the CO2 level is building up, or rising. Now towards global temperatures, the global temperatures have been on the rise aswell, almost at exponetial rates. It doesn't matter whether or not this is the hottest time in all history, it simply matters that the world is getting warmer now. It's a matter of putting the CO2 and the rising temperatures together given what we know about both.

AlDaja March 6th, 2007 02:24 PM

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
The proverbial cat is out of the bag. I guess thugs exist even in the so-called enlighten scientific realm. I came across this article and it is a shame that scientists who disagree are ignored, removed or threatened. Is it any wonder why so much controversy surrounds this global situation and why many are reluctant, when we can’t even trust the “experts” to be non-basis and provide evidence even if it does not support a cause. Whatever happened to: “just the facts ma’am…”

Spoiler:


Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
By JULIE WHELDON - the Daily Mail


Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.


A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.


In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.


Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.


Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.


The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists.


But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.


Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."


Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

"The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said.


Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.


"It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c."


The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.


A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: "We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

"But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions."

AlDaja March 6th, 2007 03:00 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by masked_marsoe (Post 3570706)
http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?t=304448

Same title, a couple of lines down.

Sorry – didn’t realize some one already posted this as a topic…File Front is notorious for not loading properly…just delete this then and merge my comment – thanks.

AlDaja March 6th, 2007 05:05 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
The proverbial cat is out of the bag. I guess thugs exist even in the so-called enlighten scientific realm. It’s a shame that scientists who disagree with methodologies applied to this problem are ignored, removed from lists, etc. or threatened in some way. Is it any wonder why so much controversy surrounds this global situation and why many are reluctant, when we can’t even trust the “experts” to be non-basis and provide evidence even if it does not support a cause. Whatever happened to: “just the facts ma’am…”

(note reposted here – started a second thread on accident:uhh: )

WarHawk109 March 6th, 2007 05:06 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by VOP2288 (Post 3569637)
Warhawk...I'm seriously thinking that you might not even know you're own point here. You keep asking everyone else what their point is and telling them that what they're saying is not what you're talking about. So what is your point!?

I have already made it clear. People are either misreading what I am saying, or are deliberately sidetracking things.

I know that global warming, or rather climate change exists. I know that CO2 levels have increased at relatively the same rate recently (but not always *cough1940scough*). My argument is that this is not the proof that links human economic activity to change in the climate. Like I have said numerous times, this may prove a correlation between the two, but does not prove that one causes the other.

In fact as I have discussed before on these forums, their is evidence that CO2 levels increase because of warming and not the other way around. It's called the carbon cycle.

I have yet to have seen any evidence that is conclusive that links CO2 levels with increased temperature. None.

I'd love to see some though.

Quote:

An imbalance in CO2 levels causes temperatures to rise and plunge...it's a cycle of life and what the world does naturally is a kind of homestatis (to apply a biological term here)
Just what exactly is an "imbalance" in CO2 levels? I want to see some hard numbers, not vague descriptions with nothing to back it up.

Quote:

- meaning that the earth will change itself to make sure it stays stable...and this results in the warming and eventual fall in temperature over thousands of years. If you want proof open any science text book b/c to the non-ignorant this is all common knowlage.
Again, I urge you to read about and learn the carbon cycle.


Quote:

what I stated has ALOT to do with it. If there was something we were doing that was actually causing the earth to head straight for an ice age (thus destroying man) wouldnt you think that everyone would agree to try and stop it? But no, unfortunately our world is filled with the greedy and the ignorant who dont care b/c they say to themselves "well, I'll be dead and gone by then so I'll just buy that hot convertible now and live in my huge house with all that oil money" and from there is where we get government issued statements fighting the idea of global warming etc...not to mention that for some the idea of saving the earth by basically crashing America's and other nations in the world's economies doesnt seem like a fair trade.
This is both ad hominem and straw-man argumentation. You are deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments, and using petty personal attacks. I wish people would avoid using these tactics.


Quote:

Yet - if you want some hard facts just look at the amount of records set in the high temperature category all over the world...many have been broken by growing highs over the past few years...not mention the record setting Tsunami and Hurraine 2005 season...unless you live underground and away from the rest of the world you should see that the world is changing...and changing pretty fast.
Yes, temperatures have been high, I acknowledge this. But this in itself is not proof that we have anything to do with it. All it suggests is a change in climate, but what causes this? I don't know. And that is why I am not prepared to make the same leap of faith as you or Al Gore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.F. Pierce (Post 3569932)
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.

I wish you wouldn't attribute the scientists belief to me. All I did was quote an article that I thought brought to light an important issue; that the debate is not over, far from it, and that the UN is resorting to questionable tactics.

What the claims that the sun is to blame for the changes in climate bring to light is that there is just as much proof as attributing it to CO2. When there is more than one correlation involved, it doesn't seem right to just completely lay blame on just one of them.

Quote:

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.
I'm not totally sure but I believe we are still at a peak of solar activity, namely the number of sunspots. I've heard that we are in a 1000 year high.

It makes more sense to me that this would be the leading cause than CO2, since Mars is going through some very similar changes. But don't mistake me, I don't claim to have all the answers, as I am not a scientist.

Quote:

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?
That is an excellent point that I am glad you brought up. Why indeed? And why then would the UN call this a consensus? More questionable actions on the part of the UN.

AlDaja March 6th, 2007 05:13 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
I get you WarHawk – Yes we need to do something about pollution, yes the planet upon itself will evolve, change, etc. without our intrusion (i.e. Mt. Saint Helen did more to pollute the planet in 1980 then we have since its eruption), and yes we should have facts that are nonbiased in an effort to fix or correct a problem not to bend or support specific organizations, theologies or personal philosophies…some people are very loyal to an idea or “party”.

Quote:

Yes, temperatures have been high
Been stable where I live for several decades - in fact this is the first winter since 1913 that we've returned to a normalized winter - how you figure that if temp. have been on the rise? Earth does what it does - we humans can get very anal about our perceived control over this planet.

WarHawk109 March 6th, 2007 05:27 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
It actually has been colder than usual around here. My point was just that I can acknowledge that temperatures have been higher in some places, and that I am not some unflinching partisan George Bush neoconservative. I am actually quite moderate on this issue. I want the environment to prosper, I just think we can accomplish this in another way. A way that does not involve carbon taxes, or carbon trading (ie sending money to China).

Apparently anyone who does not agree with these particular methods of "protecting" the environment is a neoconservative.

AlDaja March 6th, 2007 05:40 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Well one solution some political organizations/activists have managed to do over the past twenty years to clean up the US is sending our manufacturing plants elsewhere (i.e. China, Mexico, India) guess that is called genius as it has reduced our production of greenhouse gasses…gotta love these guys, pass it on to someone else and call the pollution reduction a success – we screwed our economy and compound the pollution problem by handing off to often non-regulatory companies within countries who produce more waste than ever before.:lol:

Mr. Pedantic March 6th, 2007 06:45 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Quote:

Well one solution some political organizations/activists have managed to do over the past twenty years to clean up the US is sending our manufacturing plants elsewhere (i.e. China, Mexico, India) guess that is called genius as it has reduced our production of greenhouse gasses…gotta love these guys, pass it on to someone else and call the pollution reduction a success – we screwed our economy and compound the pollution problem by handing off to often non-regulatory companies within countries who produce more waste than ever before.:lol:

Looking at it in hindsight, I have to say, the world as a whole are a complete bunch of idiots.

Quote:

It actually has been colder than usual around here. My point was just that I can acknowledge that temperatures have been higher in some places, and that I am not some unflinching partisan George Bush neoconservative. I am actually quite moderate on this issue. I want the environment to prosper, I just think we can accomplish this in another way. A way that does not involve carbon taxes, or carbon trading (ie sending money to China).


Carbon trading is bullshit. Thats just like asking somebody to stop punching some kid at school, so somebody else can do it instead. And what's more, you set a schedule for it too.
And we in NZ have just had one of the coldest summers on record by the way. And I really think George Bush is an ***hole.

Sedistix March 6th, 2007 10:38 PM

Re: Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlDaja (Post 3570931)
I get you WarHawk – Yes we need to do something about pollution, yes the planet upon itself will evolve, change, etc. without our intrusion (i.e. Mt. Saint Helen did more to pollute the planet in 1980 then we have since its eruption), and yes we should have facts that are nonbiased in an effort to fix or correct a problem not to bend or support specific organizations, theologies or personal philosophies…some people are very loyal to an idea or “party”.

Incorrect. The amount of pollution mankind spills into the world every day from it’s various machines, and factories are equivalent to a severe volcanic eruption every day.

Volcanic eruption are a naturally occurring process and cannot be technically regarded as a polluting agent.

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), HCl, HF, HBr, NOx, SF6, COS, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include methyl mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals.

Lets put this into perspective once.

The total estimated global releases of volcanic activity amounts too 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr, and this is a conservative estimate that includes average sized eruptions. Even though volcanos emit a substantial amount of CO2, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm the volcanic average median estimate by at least 150 times. Think about that once.

An example of this would be in 2004 where the United States alone, produced 87.2 million tons of CO, making it the most abundant air pollutant by mass.

Every day that goes by, we have a constant continuous volcano spilling into the air. Its called the human race.


All times are GMT -7.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.