Ever since we landed one of these on Mars, the temperatures there have skyrocketed. Coincidence?
Posted on 03/01/2007 8:43:13 AM PST by AT7Saluki
...Regardless, the earth-shattering piece began ...
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
The article marvelously continued:
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Mars is melting, too, ping
Al Gore and other greens try to convince the public that SUV's have increased the greenhouse gases (specifically CO2).
Countering their argument is childishly simple.
Ask them to lock themselves in a garage in a SUV with the engine running. Tell them that after they are dead, we will have an autopsy done and see if they died of CO2 poisoning.
If they did, then they are right.
Since we all know they would actually die of CO poisoning (carbon monoxide), we then know they are wrong to begin with.
A secondary argument can be put forth from the knowledge that CO2 is not one of the primary greenhouse gases and does not have a major influence on the weather.
Just go to a Satellite weather website and see if they have a Sat. image of CO2. They don't. Because it's not valid in interpreting weather.
The most important greenhouse 'gas' is WATER VAPOR.
Now, the more CO2 put in the atmosphere, the better plants and trees grow. The more they grow, the more Oxygen they put in the atmosphere. Which we breathe.
So, to cutdown on CO2 (which we give off by exhaling) we must kill humans, not SUV's.
The less CO2, the less O2. The less O2, the less breathing life forms, less plant life forms. Eventually, no life.
So, the current attempt to curb CO2 emissions is an attempt to eliminate life on Earth.
P.S.
Al Gore mentioned that he buys CARBON CREDITS.
What he didn't mention is that they are buying them with MONOPOLY MONEY.
Parker Brothers is very happy, though.
Ever since we landed one of these on Mars, the temperatures there have skyrocketed. Coincidence?
As I recall from charts I've seen online, C02 accounts for about 1% of the earth's greenhouse gases while water vapor accounts for about 70% or so. Is that correct?
Global warming IS happening. That is a fact.
What is not a fact is that this phenomenon is caused by man...as posited by Al Gore et al.
Somg devices have drastically reduced CO emissions. My last smog check revealed almost no CO emissions whatsoever.
With todays auto engines it is extremely difficult to get enough CO in a garage to kill yourself anymore. You'd do a lot better by just running your one cylinder lawnmower than a big V-12 SUV.
Somg = SMOG
If he "went over" to the side of the Consensus, then he probably wouldn't have a very long interview with Rush Limbaugh, I hazard. There are currently three basic levels of global warming skepticism:
High: complete denial of significant human influence, importance of atmospheric greenhouse gases, even denial of an actual observed warming and attribution of CO2 increase to human activity. Prefer business-as-usual scenarios but will occasionally admit reasonability of conservation and technology investment.
Medium: admission of observed warming, attribution to natural variability with minimal human influence, questioning of model accuracy and predictions, adherence to low-impact predictions, do not perceive necessity for alteration of activities now until more data is available.
Low: admission of observed warming, human involvement, and potential problems; remain uncertain about model predictions, preference for low-impact scenarios to high-impact or catastrophic scenarios, prefer market force solutions to mandated regulations*
So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?
Answer to first question: Incontrovertibly. Which is a "yes".
This from National Geographic??? The wheels must be coming off the bandwagon if NG is jumping off.
I would venture that would definitely be a hazard on your part. Mr. Limbaugh puts liberals to the front of the line on telephone calls. He's not afraid, nor unwilling, to discuss issues with anyone who is willing to debate. Perhaps you should call him sometime? BTW, Dr. Spencer phoned Limbaugh the day prior to the interview. After stating some of his opinion, Limbaugh set up the phone interview for the following day. It's not as though Limbaugh set this up himself.
Answer to first question: Incontrovertibly.
So you say (and no, this isn't being sarcastic; just that I'm not going to accept your word for it). I'll continue to reserve judgment until I know I've seen definite proof coming from the scientific community that I deem incontrovertible, based on methodology that has been universally accepted.
Can't waste the time trying to get through. If he would guarantee me 10 minutes, I'd be glad to inform him of the top five environmental things he's wrong about. He has problems in a lot of areas. It'd be nice to tell him so that he stopped misleading the flock so egregiously.
I'll continue to reserve judgment until I know I've seen definite proof coming from the scientific community that I deem incontrovertible, based on methodology that has been universally accepted.
For sake of conversation... such as? (And perhaps you will be doing a complete read-through of the full IPCC science working group report when it is available?)
But is it as much as the "experts" say? I think not, Urban heat Islands skew the readings.
Lots of data on this site
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/index.htm
Incidentally, the more areas that take advantage of Green Roofs show a marked difference is temperature reduction and energy consumption.
Such as? Such as definitive proof. You seem totally acceptable to the man-made GW argument. I'm not acceptible to it. Let's leave it at that; okay?
Thanks for your input.
We can leave it where it is, and I'm not trying to pester you. But I am always curious what consitutes "definitive proof" for different people that are skeptical.
When there is even the possibility that science is incapable of developing a model that takes into consideration all the variables that exist in the earth's climate, in order to perform their evaluations, then I am skeptical. And that is one large issue in today's debate.
And when I come upon an individual who is so 'certain' of one side or the other when others of repute remain skeptical, I say 'ya, sure'.
So, as you say, 'let's leave it where it is'.
St Paul, MN: Snowing 29 degrees, 8" on the ground another 12 to 16" expected.....MORE PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING! Thanks AL!
I would say what you recalled is correct, and much more informative than what I said.
Thanks....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
