Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
NeoSavant

Human-caused Global Warming is Hogwash

119 posts in this topic

I love the argument that Global-warming and CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change on Earth. Seems they totally avoid the facts of Solar cycles and the output of solar energy's effect on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth has been through gamma rays, massive earthquakes, plate separation, hit with thousands of meteors, solar flares, massive volcanoes and we're still here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're still a Type 0 civilization and belong to the same civilization cavemen belong to. In about 100 years we will be a Type 1 civilization and will have harnessed the power of our planet, meaning we'll have complete dominion over it. What is or may be a problem at the present time will not be a problem forever. When we are a Type 1 civilization we can regulate the atmosphere, restoring and undoing much of what the Type 0 civilization cavemen did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I have found a solution for both sides of this argument.

Everyone who believes man made climate change is a farce, move to the U.S.A. That place is screwed either way.

The rest, well, the 1000 of us left, we'll just have to do the best we can. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, I think I have found a solution for both sides of this argument.

Everyone who believes man made climate change is a farce, move to the U.S.A. That place is screwed either way.

The rest, well, the 1000 of us left, we'll just have to do the best we can. :w00t:

The damage done by the current Type 0 civilization cavemen in the dystopian Piscean Age will be undone in about 100 years when we are a Type 1 civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

That's if we make it, we may destroy our planet before we make the transition. If our planet is still here and there are scientists left alive in about 100 years, all the damage done will be undone. All the problems we face now will not last forever.

The person speaking in that video is Dr. Michio Kaku, co-founder of unified string field theory and theoretical physicist.

Edited by Fernand0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the argument that Global-warming and CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change on Earth. Seems they totally avoid the facts of Solar cycles and the output of solar energy's effect on Earth.

The solar output has not changed in any significant way. The 11 year solar cycle is of sunspot activity. Our weather does not oscillate in 11 year cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The solar output has not changed in any significant way. The 11 year solar cycle is of sunspot activity. Our weather does not oscillate in 11 year cycles.

Perhaps you should do research on the changes in solar output. The variations it causes and effects can be seen here.

"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA's lead representative on the panel. "The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."

To say that the solar cyle is limited to only sunspot activity shows how little you have studied the subject. Perhaps this will link or this link will help.

The solar cycle, or the solar magnetic activity cycle, is the main source of periodic solar variation (changing the level of irradiation experienced on Earth) which drives variations in space weather and to some degree weather on the ground and possibly climate change.[1] The cycle is observed by counting the frequency and placement of sunspots visible on the Sun. Powered by a hydromagnetic dynamo process driven by the inductive action of internal solar flows, the solar cycle:

Structures the Sun's atmosphere, corona and wind;

Modulates the solar irradiance;

Modulates the flux of short-wavelength solar radiation, from ultraviolet to X-ray;

Modulates the occurrence frequency of flares, coronal mass ejections, and other geoeffective solar eruptive phenomena;

Indirectly modulates the flux of high-energy galactic cosmic rays entering the solar system.

By 1976, that began to change when Jack Eddy, a solar astronomer from Boulder, Colo., examined historical records of sunspots and published a seminal paper that showed some century-long variations in solar activity are connected with major climatic shifts. Eddy helped show that an extended lull in solar activity during the 17th Century --called the Maunder Minimum -- was likely connected to a decades-long cold period on Earth called the "Little Ice Age."

Two years after Eddy published his paper, NASA launched the first in a series of satellite instruments called radiometers, which measure the amount of sunlight striking the top of Earth's atmosphere, or total solar irradiance. Radiometers have provided unparalleled details about how the sun's irradiance has varied in the decades since. Such measurements have helped validate and expand upon Eddy's findings. And they've led to a number of other discoveries—and questions—about the sun.

Link Edited by NeoSavant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is a global warming denier has failed to pass their school science class, but the sun has always been the #1 factor in influence over the Earth's climatic cycles in its' ancient history. The warmest periods in earth's recent history recorded in world weather records was in two parts of the 20th century: from 1900-1945 and again since 1980 continuing into the present time. The earth's temperature fluctuates every 10-12 years, but it seems to peaked at every 33 years: 1902, 1936, 1971 and 2006, which was the warmest year in average global temperature: 62 degrees fahrenheit (that is 3 degrees above the average 59F) on record. Solar flare cycles had alot to do with the warming-cooler-average-all over again periods. But it is up to humanity not to alter the earth's natural ability to keep the climate not from becoming inhospitable to all life on this planet, including humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is a global warming denier has failed to pass their school science class, but the sun has always been the #1 factor in influence over the Earth's climatic cycles in its' ancient history. The warmest periods in earth's recent history recorded in world weather records was in two parts of the 20th century: from 1900-1945 and again since 1980 continuing into the present time. The earth's temperature fluctuates every 10-12 years, but it seems to peaked at every 33 years: 1902, 1936, 1971 and 2006, which was the warmest year in average global temperature: 62 degrees fahrenheit (that is 3 degrees above the average 59F) on record. Solar flare cycles had alot to do with the warming-cooler-average-all over again periods. But it is up to humanity not to alter the earth's natural ability to keep the climate not from becoming inhospitable to all life on this planet, including humans.

You realize there are thousands of AGW skeptics that are college educated scientists don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is a global warming denier has failed to pass their school science class, but the sun has always been the #1 factor in influence over the Earth's climatic cycles in its' ancient history. The warmest periods in earth's recent history recorded in world weather records was in two parts of the 20th century: from 1900-1945 and again since 1980 continuing into the present time. The earth's temperature fluctuates every 10-12 years, but it seems to peaked at every 33 years: 1902, 1936, 1971 and 2006, which was the warmest year in average global temperature: 62 degrees fahrenheit (that is 3 degrees above the average 59F) on record. Solar flare cycles had alot to do with the warming-cooler-average-all over again periods. But it is up to humanity not to alter the earth's natural ability to keep the climate not from becoming inhospitable to all life on this planet, including humans.

Funny here is a list of scientists and educated people, who I'm sure passed science class.

You realize there are thousands of AGW skeptics that are college educated scientists don't you?

Thanks. The list I provided above is just a short example of educated people who dispute AGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Funny here is a list of scientists and educated people, who I'm sure passed science class.

Thanks. The list I provided above is just a short example of educated people who dispute AGW.

If you actually read that list you will realise;

a ) it is very small

b ) most of them accept AGW but dispute its overall significance to the aggregate effect

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you actually read that list you will realise;

a ) it is very small

b ) most of them accept AGW but dispute its overall significance to the aggregate effect

Br Cornelius

I guess you missed the SHORT example part? They dont accept AGW it clearly says that if you read article, if three people (15%) out of the list are classified as disputing its overall significance instead of outright disputing it even occuring or being caused by humans how does that equal most?

Here is another signed petition/list by 31,000 US scientists and counting.

Edited by NeoSavant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I guess you missed the SHORT example part? They dont accept AGW it clearly says that if you read article, if three people (15%) out of the list are classified as disputing it overall significance instead of outright disputing it even occuring or being caused by humans to the aggregate effect how does that equal most?

Here is another signed petition/list by 31,000 US scientists and counting.

I wonder if 99.9% of the signatures are actually giving an opinion that is completely outside of their area of expertise? Then it becomes JUST an opinion.wacko.gif

NeoSavant: You do realise that there is thread covering this EXACT proposition? Just use the "search" function, so unless you are offering a new insight it seems a little pointless

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if 99.9% of the signatures are actually giving an opinion that is completely outside of their area of expertise? Then it becomes JUST an opinion.wacko.gif

NeoSavant: You do realise that there is thread covering this EXACT proposition? Just use the "search" function, so unless you are offering a new insight it seems a little pointless

I must have missed the thread, and isn't that what Moderators are for anyways.

How about you Google a few of the people who signed it instead of throwing around useless statistics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if 99.9% of the signatures are actually giving an opinion that is completely outside of their area of expertise? Then it becomes JUST an opinion.wacko.gif

NeoSavant: You do realise that there is thread covering this EXACT proposition? Just use the "search" function, so unless you are offering a new insight it seems a little pointless

Isn't the head of IPCC a mechanical engineer or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the head of IPCC a mechanical engineer or something?

Yes he is. But seems nowadays if you get some fancy title that confers you know something it makes your opinion worth more than other scientists with credentials equal to or exceeding them mute. The IPCC is a UN funded organization with a vested interest in controlling world affairs. Also funny this is same guy who told skeptics to "rub their faces with asbestos", what a great scientist and human being. Most of the members of the touted mainstay for human caused climate change (ie IPCC) have less credentials than those that signed posted petition.

Rajendra Pachauri, the besieged head of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that he is the victim of a “carefully orchestrated” campaign to block climate change legislation. “I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods,” he told the paper, swatting away allegations that his India-based climate institute, TERI, has benefited from decisions made by the IPCC, which he also chairs. Climate change skeptics “are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder,” he said. “I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day.”
Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India. [citation needed]. He began his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[5] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[6] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[7]

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

His point is that the same business funded "scientists" and lobby groups which prevented meaningful action on smoking and asbestos for 40yrs, are the self same people who are behind the well financed campaign to discredit climate science.

This is a fact and can be verified. Follow the money to find out where the dodgy science of climate skeptism is coming from. It seems perfectly reasonable to point out this if you happen to be the recipient of their smear campaign.

Wiki also has a good analysis of that 31,000 signature petition - and it doesn't come out very well, a great example of a totally misleading piece of propaganda. There are better lists of climate skeptics if you care to go beyond the obvious ones.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

His point is that the same business funded "scientists" and lobby groups which prevented meaningful action on smoking and asbestos for 40yrs, are the self same people who are behind the well financed campaign to discredit climate science.

This is a fact and can be verified. Follow the money to find out where the dodgy science of climate skeptism is coming from. It seems perfectly reasonable to point out this if you happen to be the recipient of their smear campaign.

Br Cornelius

I guess all 31k scientist that signed the petition in the US are simply part of this "conspiracy" campaign to discredit AGW. Thats like when people say you disagree with War on Terror and calling them unpatriotic. While I'm sure there are vested interests on both sides, mainstream science acts like its some fringe group that disputes AGW, when in actuality its more independent scientists who refute AGW than support it. There are more organizations and lobbies that have vested interest financially (due to grants and funding for research on AGW) in the touted IPCC who represent where the real corruption lies. With the head of the IPCC being a non-specialist in the area of climate it shows you its a joke and what the true motive and intention is behind the panel.

Edited by NeoSavant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess all 31k scientist that signed the petition in the US are simply part of this "conspiracy" campaign to discredit AGW. Thats like when people say you disagree with War on Terror and calling them unpatriotic. While I'm sure there are vested interests on both sides, mainstream science acts like its some fringe group that disputes AGW, when in actuality its more independent scientists who refute AGW than support it. There are more organizations and lobbies that have vested interest financially (due to grants and funding for research on AGW) in the touted IPCC who represent where the real corruption lies. With the head of the IPCC being a non-specialist in the area of climate it shows you its a joke and what the true motive and intention is behind the panel.

Put simply there was no need to verify your credentials to sign that petition, and almost none of them have any experience relevant to the field of climatology. On top of that a representative sampling was unable to verify a significant proportion of the signitaries authenticity. That maybe good enough for you, but it doesn't pass muster with real scientists.

You know what, I really don't care what you "BELIEVE" about climate change. Go ahead and destroy you support system - it won't ultimately make a shred of difference to the outcome of the universe. I just hope it wont be to painful for my children.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Global warming is not a problem science can't fix in the foreseeable future.

*snip irrelevant stuff - that isn't the topic here*

Edited by Paranormalcy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Put simply there was no need to verify your credentials to sign that petition, and almost none of them have any experience relevant to the field of climatology. On top of that a representative sampling was unable to verify a significant proportion of the signitaries authenticity. That maybe good enough for you, but it doesn't pass muster with real scientists.

You know what, I really don't care what you "BELIEVE" about climate change. Go ahead and destroy you support system - it won't ultimately make a shred of difference to the outcome of the universe. I just hope it wont be to painful for my children.

Br Cornelius

If you can be a mechanical engineer and head IPCC then what credentials do you need to refute the evidence? To verify who they are and if they signed it is quite easy, Google is your friend and I'm sure if they were added without their consent their would have been a huge backlash of names removed when its widely available.

You know what, I really dont care what you "BELIEVE" about climate change until you show me this proof you seem to keep avoiding the issue and my posts with simple rejection while posting no sources and just opinion like you can will someone into believing it just because you do. Go ahead and destroy life as we know it and become a green-slave behind an unproven, unrealistic, and unsupported theory. The sun and its cycles has a vastly higher effect on the climate of Earth and is the real factor behind what is going on not anything we are doing to Earth with carbon emmissions. Deforestation, release of chemicals, etc not carbon emissions is the real threat to our planet and children.

Slide1.png

Slide2.png

Slide3.png

Rest of the useful diagrams and source here.

Edited by NeoSavant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I love the argument that Global-warming and CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change on Earth. Seems they totally avoid the facts of Solar cycles and the output of solar energy's effect on Earth.

It doesn't, it completely incorporates that. Never mind eh.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

Repeating the same fallacious arguments.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you can be a mechanical engineer and head IPCC then what credentials do you need to refute the evidence? To verify who they are and if they signed it is quite easy, Google is your friend and I'm sure if they were added without their consent their would have been a huge backlash of names removed when its widely available.

You know what, I really dont care what you "BELIEVE" about climate change until you show me this proof you seem to keep avoiding the issue and my posts with simple rejection while posting no sources and just opinion like you can will someone into believing it just because you do. Go ahead and destroy life as we know it and become a green-slave behind an unproven, unrealistic, and unsupported theory. The sun and its cycles has a vastly higher effect on the climate of Earth and is the real factor behind what is going on not anything we are doing to Earth with carbon emmissions. Deforestation, release of chemicals, etc not carbon emissions is the real threat to our planet and children.

Slide1.png

Slide2.png

Slide3.png

Rest of the useful diagrams and source here.

Your graphs are deliberate misinterpretations of evidence, they do not match those coming out of real studies on climatology, never mind eh.

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Notice how numerous studies say you are wrong.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solar output has not changed in any significant way. The 11 year solar cycle is of sunspot activity. Our weather does not oscillate in 11 year cycles.

http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html

this cycle may have something to do with climate change.

by the way the 11 year cycle is an increase of sunspots, sunspots are areas of the sun where more radiation is getting to the surface, but it is also an increase in the mass ejection thing. ie more material is thrown into space and if that hits the earth then it would change our weather. which means that in the long 22 year cycle there wouldnt be much change in the output of radiation from the sun, but these mass ejections are carry a lot of radiation that wouldnt normally be leaving the sun. and we know when those hit the earth because it messes with our electronics. in fact, i think it was, in 2000 half of canada went dark because of one of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't, it completely incorporates that. Never mind eh.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf

Repeating the same fallacious arguments.

from your link)))

We have no direct measure of TSI variations on century time scales,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.