More proof the debate is not over on global warming:
Quote:
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."
What's going on here? Why are so many having their names tacked on to a document that they do not agree with, against their will? They call this a "consensus"?
“It is a paradoxical truth, that… the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.” -- John F. Kennedy
Sure do pick your article from the "republician section" don't you?, since it's been proven with the help of carbon gas that has been found trapped in Antarctic ice, that carbon levels have picked up hundreds of times over in the last one hundred years, then it did in the last 400,000? Yes, well I hope stupidity makes for sterile genetics.
Sure do pick your article from the "republician section"
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?
Please.
Quote:
don't you?, since it's been proven with the help of carbon gas that has been found trapped in Antarctic ice, that carbon levels have picked up hundreds of times over in the last one hundred years, then it did in the last 400,000? Yes, well I hope stupidity makes for sterile genetics.
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.
“It is a paradoxical truth, that… the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.” -- John F. Kennedy
I'm sorry, but have you ever taken a science class in you life? I would have expected the oil wealth of Alberta and the rest of Western Canda to have paid for such an education, or is that too socialist for you? Its a matter of fact (by way of science, if that isnt heresy by your standards) that the atmosphere surrounding this once-fine planet we call Earth can shield within the dangerous emissions known as "greenhouse gases" that can be generated by our many industries (wasn't that part of the evidence behind the recent UN findings about global warming?). I'm sorry to have to say it, but you're one of Harper's neoconservatives, thoroughly wrapped in anti-Kyoto, anti-environmentalist BS. I'm not some Liberal "nut", I dislike all Canadian parties almost equally and I'm pro-seal hunt (I despise those hippie bastards), but you're coming off as though you buy into every single shred of the most partisan BS availible to the Conservate Party of Canada.
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.
try reading the articles from the main page.
Quote:
Are you going to mention George Bush too?
Why, what has he fucked up now? Silly question, I already know.
Quote:
I don't see how that is proof of man-made global warming
yes of 400,000 years of recordable history perserved in ice, the 8,000 years of what man has lived, has showed a fastening pace of which mans technology grew, but hell, I'm sure it's just a quinkydink. yes, carbon is good, trees, bad.
Wow Warhawk...i mean...just...I'm stunned by your ignorance here.
CO2 comes from all industry, all cars, and anything else that uses any sort of fossil fuel. And so science shows us that C02 levels have sky rocketed within the last century and a little more...funny how within that last century there was this thing called the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Truthfully, I'm not surprised is maybe there was some lying going on as far as who agreed with what...you need to actually think here and ask yourself: what does anyone have to lose from driving less, saving energy, and being overall conservative when it comes to the Earth and nature? Well, there's really no great sacrifice here...yeah the little stuff like "oh I dont want to ride the bus" and "well now it's gonna take alot longer to get here" or "well now we need to find a new source of renewable energy" but when you think about it all these things are minor.
Yet - what do more conservative minded political figures and economic figures have to lose? Well if people stop driving cars, buying gasoline, and using less electricity and energy...all those electric companies, car dealerships, oil companies, etc will lose ALOT of money - funny how that works doesnt it?
Yes - it's true that every so many years an Ice Age happens on Earth when the world will heat up and then cool down etc...but what's happening is that humans are speeding up that process...not causing it..it'll happen no matter what - we're just easing the process a little.
I'm sorry, but have you ever taken a science class in you life? I would have expected the oil wealth of Alberta and the rest of Western Canda to have paid for such an education, or is that too socialist for you? Its a matter of fact (by way of science, if that isnt heresy by your standards) that the atmosphere surrounding this once-fine planet we call Earth can shield within the dangerous emissions known as "greenhouse gases" that can be generated by our many industries (wasn't that part of the evidence behind the recent UN findings about global warming?). I'm sorry to have to say it, but you're one of Harper's neoconservatives, thoroughly wrapped in anti-Kyoto, anti-environmentalist BS. I'm not some Liberal "nut", I dislike all Canadian parties almost equally and I'm pro-seal hunt (I despise those hippie bastards), but you're coming off as though you buy into every single shred of the most partisan BS availible to the Conservate Party of Canada.
I have taken science classes before, as have the numerous scientists that oppose the UN's findings. But that isn't the issue. Maybe you should try addressing the main point in the article, the fact that scientists are having their names attached to a document they do not agree with against their will. Please provide me an argument of substance instead of resorting to petty personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihail
try reading the articles from the main page.
I saw nothing in relation to the Republican party. Moot point.
Quote:
yes of 400,000 years of recordable history perserved in ice, the 8,000 years of what man has lived, has showed a fastening pace of which mans technology grew, but hell, I'm sure it's just a quinkydink.
How do you account for times in history where CO2 was up but temperatures down?
Quote:
yes, carbon is good, trees, bad.
I find this amusing since trees intake CO2
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOP2288
Wow Warhawk...i mean...just...I'm stunned by your ignorance here.
CO2 comes from all industry, all cars, and anything else that uses any sort of fossil fuel. And so science shows us that C02 levels have sky rocketed within the last century and a little more...funny how within that last century there was this thing called the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
That is something I am already aware of. CO2 does come from industry, we are a carbon based economy. I freely admit this. But what is your point? There is no proof that the CO2 contributed by man is doing anything. All I have seen is a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, but that is not proof positive, because, as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.
Quote:
Truthfully, I'm not surprised is maybe there was some lying going on as far as who agreed with what...you need to actually think here and ask yourself: what does anyone have to lose from driving less, saving energy, and being overall conservative when it comes to the Earth and nature? Well, there's really no great sacrifice here...yeah the little stuff like "oh I dont want to ride the bus" and "well now it's gonna take alot longer to get here" or "well now we need to find a new source of renewable energy" but when you think about it all these things are minor.
Yet - what do more conservative minded political figures and economic figures have to lose? Well if people stop driving cars, buying gasoline, and using less electricity and energy...all those electric companies, car dealerships, oil companies, etc will lose ALOT of money - funny how that works doesnt it?
Okay, so maybe there is a vested interest, so what? This is arguing ad homiem.
Not to mention the other side is chalk full of vested interest themselves.
Quote:
Yes - it's true that every so many years an Ice Age happens on Earth when the world will heat up and then cool down etc...but what's happening is that humans are speeding up that process...not causing it..it'll happen no matter what - we're just easing the process a little.
I would love to see some proof. But alas, I will see none other than the tauted hockey stick graph, which is flawed and only demonstrates correlation but not causation.
“It is a paradoxical truth, that… the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.” -- John F. Kennedy
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.
“It is a paradoxical truth, that… the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates.” -- John F. Kennedy
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!?
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) - 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.
Quote:
Okay, so maybe there is a vested interest, so what? This is arguing ad homiem.
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.
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.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists 
Linear Mode
