Skip to comments.There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
click here to read article
Its all true. All anyone has to do is watch "The day after tomorrow" to know whats coming. Were all doomed. Yeah right!
I'm sure we have some level of impact on the environment, I just think it's far from what the enviro-freaks would like us all to believe.
"Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
Even though you say you 'think' there may be human activities that 'could' influence our climate, you also admit that there isn't any real 'proof' of this.
Speculation is exactly what these 'scientist' base their 'assumptions' on.
So. The question remains.
Since the late 19th century (certainly the mid-1800's), the northern hemisphere has gotten warmer. The Thames used to freeze solid. Snow would get dozens of feet deep regularly in some places.
This warming trend is a result of finally breaking out fo the Little Ice Age.
The only factors the politicos see is capitalism and the US economy. There is NOTHING man can do to alter in any meaningful way, what mother nature will. If this enviro-freaks really cared about the environment they would be rapidly promoting capitalism and property rights to species in the oceans and elsewhere. They enviro nuts only care about one thing -- destroying capitalism.
Yes, but nothing new, as with all political issues.
yes the question does remain.
NOx, SOx, other VOCs, Carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter (especially black carbon or soot), fluorinated compounds, and ozone to name a few. Not saying they need to be eliminated but at least used cautiously. Personally I believe the particlate matter to be the biggest issue.
A good scientist doesn't speculate or publish assumptions. It is largely the media and activist groups that have interpreted the results of research to suit their agenda. Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. Much like any debate, you cannot prove something does not exist by failing to prove that it does.
"While I do not agree with the gloom and doomsayers regarding anthropogenic warming trends these statements seem particularily inappropriate to prove the point of the article."
I think the point of the article is that any actions to restrict human activity to "curb" glbal warming, especially dire actions, are unwarranted.
"It is nearly impossible to 'positively' attribute global warming to man-made cause/greenhouse gases. There are just to many factors involved further reiterated by the author pointing out the weaknesses in our models."
That's what THEY said.
"While we not be able to attribute a direct correlation between warming trends and our activities, the indirect effects are immeasurable."
It is irresponsible to advocate taking action to curtail that which is "immeasurable".
"The synergistic effect goes unnoticed."
Synergistic effect? Where I went to engineering school, they taught us that "synergy" was pretty much like alchemy. In real science, you get out what you put in, period.
"It's is impossible to attribute a causal relationship when multiple variables like this are involved in an open system."
Again, without causation, there's no basis for action.
"I think, both the people who think we are killing the planet and those that think we are doing no harm, are both missing the boat. Right now the burden of proof is on the scientists and we currently cannot cannot prove we are contributing to the warming trend, though that does not mean we aren't. Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
I cannot prove you are breaking into my house at night and hassling my pets, though that doesn't mean you aren't. Does that give me carte blanche to come over to your house and shoot you to "eliminate unnecessary potential factors"? I think not.
It doesn't make any sense to wreck our surroundings for no reason whatsoever, any more than it makes sense to take unnecessary measures in a misguided effort to "save" something that doesn't need saving. There is no current, scientifically credible evidence to establish that human activity has any significant impact on global climate. The only motivation to believe "global warming" at this stage is either to grab political power or to make ourselves feel better.
>"I agree with the author 100% Global Warming is NOT caused by humans."
Ditto, I'd have to agree with you also.
"Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. "
And there you go again.
'Rule out the damage we MAY be doing'.
You make this statement based on what?
"We might be causing problems, even tho there is no proof, so we should be careful."
I might have chicken for lunch, but, then again, I might not!
You can't base your assumptions on a possible 'negative' influence that has yet to be proved!
The climate is changing, though, regardless of the cause. Temperatures at high latitudes have increased by several degrees; glaciers world-wide are in retreat. Glacier National Park is going to be poorly-named in several decades if this continues. Mt. Kilimanjaro is losing its glacier as well: by 2020 if trends continue, it will be gone. This glacier is 12,000 years old. (However, a drop in precipitation rather than an increase in temperature seems to be the reason for this.)
'Global warming' is an agenda.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days."
It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history.
"It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history."
I think that is what the author was trying to point out.
But, I could be wrong!
Kilimanjaro is a volcano that is beleived to be about one million years old. That means the current glacier covered Kilimanjaro for 12,000 years, or about 0.012% of its lifetime. Kilimanjaro has been without a glacier before, and chances are it will be without a glacier again.
"I don't know why everyone likes to pick at me when I am essentially agreeing with most of you."
Not picking at you, just your arguments. You agree that there's no science to support action, yet you advocate action. That's a logical inconsistency, which doesn't sit well.
"When did I ever say we need to take radical steps to change our ways based on something we cannot prove? I haven't."
Not to start a "who struck John first", but I didn't say anything about "radical steps", either.
"The fact is we have multiple compunds coming into the system from multiple sources, and their synergistic effect is relatively unknown."
No no no no no no no. There is no such thing as a "synergistic" effect. If what you mean is that there may be unpredictable reactions in certain combinations of compounds, fine. If you suspect such a combination contributes to climate change, toss it out there and test it. Basing action on the mere possibility of the existence of such an effect is silly.
" it seems a big part of the arguements come from a capitalist perspective. Isn't one of the goals of capitalism (though often indirect) efficiency? All I am saying is that we should strive to do things in the most efficent manner possible. After all the vast majority of these compounds are byproducts. Why not strive to reduce the wanton discharge of such compounds?"
Efficiency is not a goal of capitalism unless efficiency is economically desirable. We can design an internal combustion-powered automobile that attains in excess of 100 MPG. It would unquestionably be the most "efficient" vehicle on the market. However, the cost of manufacture, safety, and comfort of such a vehicle make it economically undesirable. The reduction of the "byproducts" you reference costs money. If I gain little or no demonstrable economic or environmental benefit from such reduction, what is the incentive to spend the money?
I was talking to a person about how much my family enjoys Glacier National Park, and she expressed how much she was alarmed that the glaciers are melting, and how we have to do something about it RIGHT NOW! She absolutely would not believe me when I pointed out that they've been melting for over 10,000 years. You can't argue with people who refuse to recognize facts.
The Kyoto protocol and every other chicken little proposal is 100% politically driven. It makes no more sense to assert that people affect world climate in any significant way than to say people affect tectonic movements and volcanc activity, or sunspots.
By my estimate, there are around 146,099,000 days in 400,000 years so... sure, we can make life miserable for 6 billion people based on one hot summer or two.
Makes sense to me!
< /sarcasm >
Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and "let on" to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Geology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor "development of species," either! Glacial epochs are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe:--
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, Chapter XVII (Pg 209)
Not unless they are all rocketted into outer space.
Every single atom that was ever on earth (since it cooled, of course) is still here, and as I undestand it, we pick up a little additional mass each year.
So, "wasteful" in what way, exactly?
I have three dogs, twice a week I pick up two gallons of dog hair and four pounds of particulate matter that has obediently settled on every surface within the confines of my abode.
The article is correct based on the existing data.
Wasteful in that you are using compound 'ABC' combined with compound 'DEF' to get product ABDE. Compounds C and F are byproducts that are not used by said manufactuer. Essentially the company is paying for C and F as parts of each original compound. The discharge of those 'unused' compounds is wasteful in production efficiency sense and the economic sense. It's kinda like buying a whole pig and only 'using' the ribs. mmmm ribs! Would it not be in everyone's best interest to be able to use coumpounds C and F? I'm not infering that this can be done in every case but it is something we should strive for. A smart business model would at least explore the option.
Absolutely - the only thing she did not foresee was that the politicos would hide behind environmentalism to accomplish their socialistic goals. But her premises were dead nuts on.
The reason is because the Global Warming crowd is out to destroy our very existence. Their goal is nothing short of brining down the U.S. You need to understand that their position is totally without scientific merit. Therefore, to show ANY position that can be twisted by "them" to indicate support cannot be promulgated. Their goals are as evil as the terrorists and socialist everywhere. I don't care one bit about climate change because any cursory reading on the topic shows the Earth goes through many such changes (long before man was around) At it's core the Global Warming crowd is totally political. Therefore, it would be wise to repudiate them at every turn. That is why you are seemingly attacked somewhat passionately. You just don't seem to understand how dangerous their positions are to our future.
The "global warming" hoax is being used as a political device designed to stampede governments into making unwise, precipitous, and pernicious policy changes they would otherwise not make. The "principle of prudence" or whatever they're calling it these days says: "Don't do anything; something might happen." So you are paralyzed into zero progress--something the 'greens' have devotely wished for since the word was coined.
Thanks for posting this gem. Even Twain was onto the environuts, back before they even existed.
Oh no. It is much more than that. They wish to return humanity to living in mud huts and scratching in the soil for grubs. Not only the U.S. Humanity.
As I like to put it: "They are not pro-nature; they are anti-human."
One of their spokespersons (I forget the name) actually said he wished for a global virus to wipe out humanity, for the sake of "Gaia".
Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind.
For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.
I fully believe there is no significant man-made global warming. There certainly is some but only on a butterfly effect scale. It's just not what the Godless liberals say. But, windpower is a good idea on it's own merrit.
Global Warming is caused by the Sun, it happens every year in the spring. It escalates in the summer and it goes away every Fall.
Global warming is reversed in the Winter, when we have Global cooling.
It is called Seasons and weather.
YW: "The article is correct based on the existing data.
Thanks. I for one intend to check the contents of the site out in detail. I have grossly avoided reading about global warming issues for a number of years. Call it being lazy.
Perhaps others will find some interesting things at this site.
Growing Glaciers anyone? See the article at this site titled:
Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States (Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Shasta, among others)
You may find it rather interesting.
You can only make sweaters out of long haired dog fur. The short haired varieties have to be used to stuff pillows. Of course they have to be labeled as an animal product and then Peta would be all over you. Then there is the hypoallergenic coalition.
Thanks. I recommend you read the book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice." What we really are talking about is ocean warming, not global warming. It is part of the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Man has very little to do with it. We are due for another Ice Age, which occurs with almost clockwork reliability for millions of years. All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent.
I put lamb meat in my Peta.
"All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent."
Thanks. I buy the idea about ocean warming, it fits in with ocean climatolical changes we have seen on the west coast in recent times etc.. Of course we cannot expect shows on PBS such as Nova, whatever, to show us documentaries on the expanding glacier systems, increase on pack ice in Antartica, recent trends of colder winters in north/south America etc..
Must keep the masses stupid, so they think GWB is against saving the planet! I keep wondering about where McCains's brains are. Perhaps it is time to send him some emails on this issue with associated reference sites.
Again thanks for the nice site, I am reading articles from it as I pop back the freepers site.