Five Reasons Against Global Warming

[rgrokelley]

First off, there are plenty of things human beings are capable of to change the world. The most notable of them would be splitting the atom, which everyone here knows led to the Cold War. While it is totally unrelated to CO2 pollution, I think it's quite opposite of your claim that there is nothing humans can do to change the world. Radioactive fallout kills everything.

Yes, but can it kill the earth or alter it? There are theories of what happens with a nuclear radiation and about how terrible it is. In the short term, yes, it kills. Kills lots and lots. But does it alter the earth? History shows us that it doesn't. Ground Zero for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have folks living there. Long term, destruction of the earth? Not yet.

I have lived through the biggest, baddest man made environmental disaster ever (at least this is what all the "experts" told me). Hundreds of oil wells spewing burning oil into the sky, or pouring oil into the ocean. Not one or two, but hundreds. They spewed forth their destructive power for months. The scientists and environmentalists all said it would not be cleaned up for hundreds of years and the damage would go on forever. However Red Adair and handful of well paid Americans cleaned it up in a few months. Capitalism works. Today, there is very little notice of the "environmental holocaust" that was the burning oil wells in Kuwait.

I have walked the beaches of Ocracoke Island, that had thousands and thousands of gallons of oil washed up on its beaches due to the sinking of the tankers in WWII. The description from an old lady who still lives there is that the oil would squish between your toes as you walked on the beach. She would play in the ocean until her and her friends got too oily, than go to a nearby store, wipe it all off, and then go out and play again. That beach today was voted as one of the most beautiful in the United States.

The problem is that humans have changed the LEVELS of CO2 to a point that the earth's atmosphere will start changing as well.

But it hasn't. All man has done, in all the year's he has been on this planet, has not changed it at all. The time we live in today is one of extreme cleanliness, compared to the past. In the past, before there were cars, thousands of tons of horse shit had to be removed from New York City streets each year. On top of that was thousands of gallons of piss from the same animals. The rivers were so polluted you could not touch it, and at times the rivers would catch on fire. Smoke from coal burning factories made a haze that was so thick you couldn't see, like a London fog. Smoke from trains wouldn't rise into the sky due to the thickness of the air and instead would roll over the train and hug the ground. If there was a time that we thought we could destroy the earth, it would have been then. Today's "pollution" is nothing compared to that age.

[rgrokelley]

It seems that Desert Storm is never really mentioned today, especially the point where Saddamn set all the wells on fire.

Check this picture out:



This was taken at noon, on March 5th in Kuwait City. Noon, in a land where the sun can almost make you go snow blind when it shines off the white sand. The sun is gone due to all the oil well fires. This was a day when the burning cloud covered the city. It didn't happen that often, only about once a week. Also note the oil spots on the hood of the DMV. It, us and everything was covered in a light coat of oil at all times due to the oil wells shooting that mist into the sky.

So I'm not a believer of the latest "end of the world" bullshit put out by any politician. Remember the whole thing about the Brazilian rain forest being totally gone by the year 2000, and the world will end because it produces "95% of the oxygen". Whatever happened to that nifty cause? You just have to follow the money to realize that whoever is saying the sky is falling, is most likely making millions of dollars and doesn't really give a shit one way or the other about whatever cause they are rambling on about. However, there are always someone who will believe their B.S. and make them seem legitimate.



Oh, and those aren't real skulls. They are plastic ones from the shooting gallery in the Kuwaiti Disneyland. We just thought it looked cool riding around with skulls on our vehicle.

[MarineRanger]

My liberal friend, you need to look at actual data, not grab talking points off a bias website.

Peer review? I agree, it is a joke. Especially when you are dealing with a very small group such as climatologists. There are just not that many peers.

Pine needle studies have shown that CO2 levels were over 400ppm between roughly 300 and 700 AD.

"Many scientists disagree that past atmospheric CO2 has been historically constantly low, as the IPCC states. The IPCC rejected all available historical measurements of CO2, except Antarctic ice cores, because the measurements did not match their preferred theory. An examination of the history of CO2 measurement is provided at http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reconstructions of past CO2 (prior to continuous measurements) have been made from various sources. The IPCC uses reconstruction from ice cores. Other reconstructions show different trends. The following figure shows CO2 reconstruction from pine needle stomatal density. [http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705- ... rected.pdf] "

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G ... historical" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if you have studied the raw vostok ice core data, then you know that it is smoothed over by roughly 1,000 year increments, and does not show CO2 spikes lasting several hundred years. It also shows that temperature rise precedes CO2, which AGWers still can not explain rationally. And you know that the IPCC eventually thru out Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph (after the damage was done) because he lied and cheated to get the results he desired.

And then there's Occidental Al who lives off the oil wealth he inherited, now makes a living selling UFO videos ... well, the equivalent of.
o
I hope you still don't believe the lie that the IPCC has 2500 climate scientists.

[rgrokelley]

Himalayan glaciers growing, not melting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... finds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Flesh Thorn]

Glaciers are growing in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Argentina, Russia, Switzerland, Colorado, and even Mount Shasta and Mount St. Helens . It looks like one has started forming out in my driveway. :D In seriousness, there are plenty that are melting, but why do the growing glaciers seem to not get much attention ? I am sure global warming is to blame.

[MarineRanger]

Ranger MarineRanger (should I keep addressing as that sir, or would you prefer just Marine Ranger?),

Again, I don't get my information from biased websites. For example, the main source I am using in this case I found while writing a paper last semester. The reason I say that is because writing research papers is not only a bitch because you have cite everything, but also because everything you cite has to be for certain an accredited source. That said, I get all my sources from University Databases, Scientific Journals, and government or academic resources. That might not mean much at first, but I have to emphasize the difference in integrity between a simple magazine or website compared to a scientific journal.

Tadpole ... Marineranger is fine with me. As long as it doesn't break any board rules (I'm new here).

I've studied the Peer review process. It is not sacrosanct. It reminds me of the Nobel Prize approval process, which I once thought was sacrosanct too. Now, the award has no meaning. For me, it carries the same weight as a cub scout patch.

So you are aware that the IPCC got caught lying about its "2500 climate scientists" panel?

I go around "opinion" and go straight for the raw data. I'm certainly not going to put my faith in a politician's opinion, that the science is final. If you want to talk about the actual data, and not someone's else's opinion of the data ... that would be a refreshing change.

So the pine needle data totally destroys the Left's CO2 claims. Is that why you are ignoring that data? ... as well as the Vostok evidence that shows temp drives Co2, not vice versa as the Left claims?

Can you address why the Left ignores this science? Please educate moi.

Can you address why the estimates for sea level in one hundred years from now, range from 2 inches up to 20 feet ... and why you think such a postulation is in any manner, considered to be "science"?

**********

My own studies have revealed that our dying plankton populations are the most likely cause for rising CO2. And secondly, a warmer planet is more normal. We are currently at an extreme cold point in the Phanerozoic era. The last time the planet was this cold, was 300 million years ago. A warmer planet will accelerate the evolutionary process, helping new life forms to evolve, and replace the vast number of species we've lost during the current mass extinction which began about 85,000 years ago.

*******

Polar Bears .... a species that began to evolve from brown bears 250,000 years ago, and completed its final evolution only 10,000 years ago. The point is that they are a brand new species, not a "time proven" one. And we know Al Gore got caught lying about the polar bear data.

[MarineRanger]

But at the same time I don't get my information from talking points.

EVERYTHING you have written has been a "talking point", i.e. someone else's interpretation (opinion) of the data. You sound like a fucking retarded parrot.

I've studied the topic. And I've personally debated the issue with a couple of the "top" scientists that attended the IPCC meetings, and proved them wrong on 6 or 7 major issues. So its not necessary to enlighten me on the "facts".

And your "answers" were insufficient, unconvincing, off-topic and unreasoned crap. And don't bother defending yourself, I don't want to hear your sorry excuses. If you can't talk about data and scientific methodology, maybe you shouldn't try to debate the topic. And maybe you shouldn't have a position on the topic at all with your lack of knowledge.

And kid ... most polls are pure crap. Few are respected. Now, do you have an opinion on the validity of using bristlecone pine tree rings or bubbles that contains 800 years worth of diffused air, Peruvian Glacial ice cores, or stalagmite data from Africa ... that would be a refreshing change.


********************

Science should not be a democracy ... yet, guess what?

PLUTO

Voting on the definition took place at the Assembly plenary session during the afternoon. Following a reversion to the previous rules on 15 August, as a planetary definition is a primarily scientific matter every individual member of the Union attending the Assembly was eligible to vote. The number having registered their attendance at the Assembly at the time of the vote stood at 2411,[35] but out of the over a thousand who attended the session only 424 members chose to vote or indicate their abstention on Resolution 6A"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess the "science" was wrong for 70 years.