Posted on 12/15/2009 10:03:03 AM PST by ezfindit
Here are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
(Excerpt) Read more at orthodoxytoday.org ...
Don’t confuse the Gaia worshippers with facts. “We don’t need no stinkin’ facts”.
Yep, it only puts out the energy of 100 BILLION Hydrogen Bombs every second.
This is comprehensively irrelevant.
The concentrations of CO2 are indeed rising significantly as a result of human activity. This is an unchallengeable scientific fact.
There is lots of room for debate about how, if at all, this will affect the earth's climate, but the fact itself is not in question.
I look forward to a longer growing season in the Midwest so we can feed all those bitching 3rd world countries.
Old news to me. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
And your proof for this would be.....?
Tell us what the percentage content of our atmosphere is which is carbon dioxide. It is minuscule.
Define "significantly". That word has no real meaning outside of a framework of definition vis a vis the subject.
I suggest you define, and offer proof instead of just posting the AGW or ACC talking points.
bm
Man will never control Mother Nature. When she sees something she disapproves of, she either begins a forest fire, a hurricane, or a big wind. She either bakes natures, fries it, or washes it. She also does a lot of rearranging when the mood strikes her. Man in his arrogance thinks he can change Mother Nature, he can’t.
Concentrations have increased by about 1/3 over the last 200 years, mostly in the last few decades. This is about 1/3 higher than it's been in the last 500,000 years or more.
Significant, in my post, was used to refer to "statistically significant," not to imply causation of any particular phenomena. Here's a discussion of statistical significance. http.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance A 35% increase is most definitely significant by these criteria.
Those of us who question the warmists are not well advised to question the basic scientific facts. Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, 385 or so parts per million, as compared to about 210,000 parts per million of oxygen.
But small amounts can have big effects. A tiny amount of many poisons can kill you before you hit the ground.
Pointing to the small amounts involved or poo-pooing the actual as opposed to faked science are not good strategies for resisting the warmists. They just make us look like anti-scientific yahoos.
Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).
How much of that is from human activity?
Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.
OK, let's look at the numbers. 0.03% is 3 one-hundreths of one percent. Now, what is 14% of that? 0.0042%. That's 4.2 thousandths, or 42 ten-thousandths of one percent, which is, as I said, minuscule.
For perspective, the volume of the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be a little over 17 and a quarter trillion cubic kilometers.
H2O (water vapor) is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas, at about 1% to 4% of the atmosphere at the surface, on average. Nearly all life on earth is carbon based, and yet we are being told that a form of carbon which we all exhale every day, is a pollutant. One doesn't need a science degree, just a little common sense to see right through this blatant grab for power and control by politicians of every stripe.
Significant, in my post, was used to refer to "statistically significant," not to imply causation of any particular phenomena. Here's a discussion of statistical significance. http.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance A 35% increase is most definitely significant by these criteria.
Statistics can be manipulated in so many ways, that statistics by themselves, prove nothing. Again, appealing to Wikipedia as a source does not lend credence.
Those of us who question the warmists are not well advised to question the basic scientific facts. Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, 385 or so parts per million, as compared to about 210,000 parts per million of oxygen.
Questioning every part of this subject is well-advised. As has been shown by the recent debacle with the e-mails coming to light about manipulating and even falsifying the "data", even that which you wish to shield from scrutiny should be questioned. To the extent that it is not, to that extent, any conclusions which may be reached may be erroneous.
But small amounts can have big effects. A tiny amount of many poisons can kill you before you hit the ground.
Ah, but we're not talking about poisons. Injecting that particular concept into the discussion is for the purpose of "poisoning the well", as it were. Carbon, especially carbon dioxide, is not a poison. If plants could communicate, I'm quite sure they would object to the characterization of an essential element to their existence as a poison.
Pointing to the small amounts involved or poo-pooing the actual as opposed to faked science are not good strategies for resisting the warmists. They just make us look like anti-scientific yahoos.
Testing, questioning, and examining hypotheses is the very essence of the scientific method. Global warming is an hypothesis, nothing more. The very fact that its proponents object to any questioning or challenge to their hypothesis is actually a damning indictment of the untenable nature of it. They don't want it examined, because they know that it won't hold up to unbiased scientific scrutiny. Hence the rush to codify and set into place economically crippling treaties, laws, and their associated penalties whereby they can deflect and dissuade opposition, to obtain, maintain, and contain control over the masses.
GlobalWarming/Climate Change is political, not scientific.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
In other words, the statement that man has contributed greatly to CO2 content in the atmosphere shown on Wikipedia comes from the same IPCC report which we now know was based on tampered raw data.
Other sources quote on the Wiki page come from NOAA, one of the entities which refuses to release their raw data to FOIA requests.
Until the raw data used to compile the IPCC report are released from all three major sources which compiled and adjusted the data so they may be examined by scientists who do not receive millions in grants from leftwing sources, the so-called “facts” are not in and debate is not over.
Next time, try citing a scientific journal without roots in the Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, Heinz Foundation, and other suspect sources of funding.
Let me put on my editor hat: This guy did a crappy job picking a title for this post and the text wanders a bit, but overall an outstanding job collecting various points of evidence.
And we are now cooling cuz it’s solar activity has dropped WAY off.
Warming better anyday. Shorter growing seasons everywhere and the einsteins in Congress have decided to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline by 50%.
Oh, and let me add number 101 to his excellent list:
101. Mars is getting warmer. Unless there are Martians and they have a lot of SUVs and coal fired power plants, that would seem to argue against temperature rises on Earth being caused solely by human activity.
In other words, before the Industrial Revolution, carbon in the atmosphere was 2.9% as common as Argon, and now it's 4.1% as common as Argon. Whoop-dee-doodly-doo.
Excellent point about Mars!
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.
