Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

100 reasons why GW is natural


Moon Monkey
 Share

Recommended Posts

The report, by the European Foundation, demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Edited by Moon Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moon Monkey

    19

  • ninjadude

    3

  • Mattshark

    16

  • MichaelW

    3

Many of these don't make sense (i.e. they don't support the thesis in the title). For example, to say the warming is natural implies an acceptance of warming. Yet this one takes exactly the opposite tack (referring to evidence of warming period--temperature data--and not the question of "naturalness"):

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Or things like this:

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

The current period of warming (it's important to distinguish between now and different periods of geologic history, something several of those points fail to do) has no anthropogenic origins because wind farms don't reduce CO2 emissions? Huh? In fact, there's another one about wind power being an effective energy source--were they just stretching to hit the magic 100 mark? It looks like most of those have nothing to do with the title at all (e.g. "Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.")

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are 100 opinions not reasons. There is no source at all for any of them. You could just as well say GW is natural because the earth is made of green cheese and it would have as much validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are 100 opinions not reasons. There is no source at all for any of them. You could just as well say GW is natural because the earth is made of green cheese and it would have as much validity.

I think most of the points has been used and sourced in the daily debates....its just not often you see a coherent list in one place.

This link has a bit more meat on the bones of each reason.

http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/jim_mcconalogue/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the points has been used and sourced in the daily debates....its just not often you see a coherent list in one place.

This link has a bit more meat on the bones of each reason.

http://europeanjourn...im_mcconalogue/

nope. more of the same. Wild ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope. more of the same. Wild ignorance.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. That is ,of course, unless you can proove why they are all wildly ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. That is ,of course, unless you can proove why they are all wildly ignorant.

Seriously? every single one of them is an opinion without justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so go on then prove them to be ignorant. dont be a seagull debater, you know one that swoops down, ****s all over, and then flys away>LMAO come on thats funny... :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of these don't make sense (i.e. they don't support the thesis in the title). For example, to say the warming is natural implies an acceptance of warming. Yet this one takes exactly the opposite tack (referring to evidence of warming period--temperature data--and not the question of "naturalness"):

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Or things like this:

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

The current period of warming (it's important to distinguish between now and different periods of geologic history, something several of those points fail to do) has no anthropogenic origins because wind farms don't reduce CO2 emissions? Huh? In fact, there's another one about wind power being an effective energy source--were they just stretching to hit the magic 100 mark? It looks like most of those have nothing to do with the title at all (e.g. "Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.")

come on think dude. science has proven that 22 year old brains are in fact still in the pruning stage so i guess a little logic escapes you.

heres why the wind farm statement is relavent: wind farms are "alternative" energy sources that are meant to make electricity so coal and other dirty types of power generation can become less popular, but wind generation is not growing as fast as coal powered plants in developing nations, so relying on wind generation will produce very little results in reducing CO2 emmisions. get it?

so that one at least does support the thesis, it is like a point made in a thesis that is not explained in the supporting paragraphs of a paper so they are deamed irrelevant to the thesis all because no explanation was offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? every single one of them is an opinion without justification.

Yep, you are right. And Star is right, some are just laughable.

heres why the wind farm statement is relavent: wind farms are "alternative" energy sources that are meant to make electricity so coal and other dirty types of power generation can become less popular, but wind generation is not growing as fast as coal powered plants in developing nations, so relying on wind generation will produce very little results in reducing CO2 emmisions. get it?

How does that point to climate change not being man made exactly?

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? every single one of them is an opinion without justification.

Whereas your counter opinion is justified somehow and the debate is closed ? I agree that he could have chosen a better title to the article when looking at some of his reasons but that doesn't make the points invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come on think dude. science has proven that 22 year old brains are in fact still in the pruning stage so i guess a little logic escapes you.

Ouch. You wound me.

so that one at least does support the thesis, it is like a point made in a thesis that is not explained in the supporting paragraphs of a paper so they are deamed irrelevant to the thesis all because no explanation was offered.

"100 reasons why GW is natural." That's included in the list. Ergo it is a reason that climate change has no anthropogenic component. Except it's not. Get it?

Well, I guess probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, there is a lot in there that is to do with what the title has stated. The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. Scientists know this friom ice cores dug in Antartica. The slight global increases in temperature do appear normal, but in countries where global warming is said to have a massive impact, there is evidence to suggest that temperatures have been cooler. New Zealand has had recent summers which have not been plagued by record termperatures but rather by cold weather and storms which flood. Temperatures in summer are colder than they were thirty years ago, and yet, car ownership in New Zealand had increased dramatically. In one year after the tariffs on imported cars were lifted, 200,000 new vehicles were registered in NZ and this has continued at these levels since. And yet, temperatures keep getting cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so, there is a lot in there that is to do with what the title has stated. The Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years. Scientists know this friom ice cores dug in Antartica. The slight global increases in temperature do appear normal, but in countries where global warming is said to have a massive impact, there is evidence to suggest that temperatures have been cooler. New Zealand has had recent summers which have not been plagued by record termperatures but rather by cold weather and storms which flood. Temperatures in summer are colder than they were thirty years ago, and yet, car ownership in New Zealand had increased dramatically. In one year after the tariffs on imported cars were lifted, 200,000 new vehicles were registered in NZ and this has continued at these levels since. And yet, temperatures keep getting cooler.

Yes, but NZ is one small part of the world, which is as a whole, getting warmer. NZ's climate is also affected by other factors too remember, such as currents, winds and the big hole in the ozone layer.

Just saying climate has change historically is not an argument, it is merely a statement and in no way addresses the underlying issues behind those changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I didn't know humans and our cars/plants/CO2-emitters have been around for billions of years, cooling and warming the planet at our wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying climate has change historically is not an argument, it is merely a statement and in no way addresses the underlying issues behind those changes.

Just saying there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature is also not an argument, it is merely a statement and in no way addresses the underlying analytical issues behind that relationship. Still waiting on that mathematical equation. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saying there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature is also not an argument, it is merely a statement and in no way addresses the underlying analytical issues behind that relationship. Still waiting on that mathematical equation. :yes:

Nor is showing a graph and saying "my science is better than every papers cos it doesn't look identical on a plain graph and I don't know how to show a relationship".

But hey, if thing think showing a meaningless graph is good well done on the GCSE level maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I didn't know humans and our cars/plants/CO2-emitters have been around for billions of years, cooling and warming the planet at our wish.

Well done on the ignorant argument. Good to see your more than living up to your name.

Good to know you ignore everything else, like say rate of change, geographical location of continents and the effects they have on currents etc. How about saying snow proves that there is no global warming too! Its about that level.

Global warming is a fact because it's very cold out there with severe snow storms :rolleyes:

Actually, psuedo, some one beat you too the ignorance award here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor is showing a graph and saying "my science is better than every papers cos it doesn't look identical on a plain graph and I don't know how to show a relationship".

But hey, if thing think showing a meaningless graph is good well done on the GCSE level maths.

All I did was plot the ice core data, all I am asking you to do is post the mathematical relationship you claim exists.

It is time to put up or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I did was plot the ice core data, all I am asking you to do is post the mathematical relationship you claim exists.

It is time to put up or shut up.

Yes a pointless plot because there it is just raw data, useless on it's own.

I gave you a paper saying so, sorry boy, but in science that is acceptable evidence. If you can't read the whole paper that is your problem, not mine.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a pointless plot because there it is just raw data, useless on it's own.

I gave you a paper saying so, sorry boy, but in science that is acceptable evidence. If you can't read the whole paper that is your problem, not mine.

I don't understand....you have neither put up or shut up.

You didn't give a paper you gave a link to an abstract for a paper on an only slightly related topic. You have read the paper, post the pertinent equation.

Your claim, you need to prove it...if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand....you have neither put up or shut up.

You didn't give a paper you gave a link to an abstract for a paper on an only slightly related topic. You have read the paper, post the pertinent equation.

Your claim, you need to prove it...if you can.

I gave you a paper, that is putting up. Get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave you a paper, that is putting up. Get over it.

You linked me to an abstract that contained no details at all and was only slightly related to the topic of your claim of a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature trends.

Why will you not just post the relationship ? You have spent days and hundreds of posts avoiding it, surely it would be simpler just to back up your claim with a quick copy/paste.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.