Global Warming is Not real

JeffersonDavis

JeffersonDavis

Active member
According to over 31,000 scientists.

There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that in -

creases in hu man hydrocarbon use or in at mospheric carbon di oxide

and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause

unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.

There is no reason to limit hu man pro duction of CO2, CH4, and other

minor green house gases as has been pro posed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about en vironmental ca lamities even if

the current nat ural warming trend con tinues. The Earth has been

much warmer dur ing the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -

fects. Warmer weather ex tends growing sea sons and generally improves

the hab itability of colder re gions.

As coal, oil, and nat ural gas are used to feed and lift from pov erty

vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased

into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the

health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other coun tries need to produce more en -

ergy, not less. The most practi cal, econom ical, and environmentally

sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed

the Earth, and the ex trapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will

not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, how -

ever, ac celerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to

grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also

flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the at -

mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and nat ural gas

from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -

version into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush en vironment

of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our

children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and an imal

life than that with which we now are blessed.

source- http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
 
somewhat of an argument, but it's completely unrealistic to say our kids are going to have a more lush environment than we did, or our parents, we currently have between 15-25% depending on where you are, of intial animal species and plant species left on the planet from when man started to develop land. hawaii has less than 18% of their original species of plants and animals which is a clear observational statement, seeing as it's islands in the middle of nowhere, and those numbers are not going to grow as rapidly as you'd expect them to bounce back. -- but beyond the fact that we live in a dynamic environment recoiling from the ice ages 5 mill years ago. we should be more concerned with the 1000+ nuclear and hydrogen bombs that our USA govt has tested in the last 60 years underwater testing, and high atmospheric testing that surely have done some damage to our underwater ecosystems and atmosphere. but hey america would never take credit for the state of our global environment to that extent based on what they did 60 years ago. its all history now. we suck.
 
You're missing the point. there's no way of knowing what the world will be like in 50 years. The point is don't be destructive.
FACTS:
We share this planet with other living things and we have to be gentle with nature.
Driving gas guzzling SUV's is bad for the environment especially the ozone.
Pollution in general is bad for the environment.
Clear cutting forests destroys natural habitats, and causes erosion of topsoil.

I could go on all day. The point is, it doesn't matter if the planet is warming or not. The point is that the things that cause "global warming" negatively affect our planet in other ways too.
 
smoking cigarettes cure cancer!

unprotected butt sex is the best way to prevent HIV/AIDS!

You're intelligent!

i think i understand... it's not opposite day.
 
It's true there is no data linking greenhouse gases directly to global warming but, the trends of our emissions and rise in temp is more than just a coincidence.
 
In 50 years or so, perhaps longer, people will look back at global warming as the single greatest scam ever created.

This entire notion that humanity is in control of the planet is bullshit. The earth has its own climatic cycles and the sun controls a lot about the temperature of the earth.

Global warming is definitely environmentalists best excuse to try to stop oil and all that shit.

I agree we should care about the environment, and polluting sucks, but this global warming shit has gone too far.
 
the rise in the earth's temp is more directly correlated(along with there being empirical evidence ) to solar cycles opposed to Co2 emissions. Natural forces emit greater CO2, sulphur dioxide, and other NATURAL pollutants (such as trees, volcanos, sea vents) than the combustion engine.
 
i think reasonable conversation is good, but throwing around silly statistics and rhetoric is bad - on both sides of the debate.

if you think it's untrue that humans can have an impact on the planet overall (I'm not only talking about global warming), I suggest you try reading "The Future of Life" by Edward Wilson. It isn't a radical book, it's a realistic book that (for part of it at least) tries to dispell the myth that the views of the human-first pragmatists and the environmentalists aren't mutually exclusive. it's about the loss of biodiversity and other natural resources and cycles, how these things came about, why everyone (even people who are very much not environmentalists) should care, and what realistic things can be done by world governments to correct our course.

for what it's worth, i'm very much an "environmentalist".

 
No one can predict the future and no one can statistically put together some sort of model to plot the future of our carbon wastes. The notion that we should continue along our path of fossil fuel burning at a rate much higher than what we have now is absurd to put it lightly. This article is focused among the concern for humans and not so much the species that we are directly decimating. Sure we'll have longer growing seasons but what about the organisms that are used to the conditions that they're grown acclimatized to? As humans we need to stop focusing along a singular path of thought and instead look at our impact as a whole.
 
I'm not a meteorologist, so whether you want to say global warming is real or not is debatable to me. I THINK that this passage is incorrect and grossly underestimates the negative effects of climate change in the future, while at the same time over emphasizing the possible positive outcomes, however I take special offense to the last sentence, "We are living in an in creasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed" is undeniably false. I mean give me a break, thats the biggest load of bull shit i've ever heard, -and by extension, weakens the credibility of everything mentioned prior to that sentence. I think its appropriate to say in respone, "What planet do you live on?" because it is certainly not this one.
 
And Elvis is chillin in the somewhere in the midwest with Santa and the Easter Bunny! Laughing about how we all believe in "Evolution" ppfffttt what a joke.

Seriously though, get your head out of the sand dude.
 
the title to this thread makes whoever made it sound like an idiot.

it has been proven, yes, by experiments and records and scientists and all that professional stuff, that the earth is warmer than before. like, its a fact. its real. find multiple sources, genius.

i think maybe the title should have been 'global warming isnt as big a threat as people think'. cause thats basically what the article is saying.

 
we need global warming, this winter was cold as fuck!!!! im gonna go buy the biggest suv i can find and leave it running 24/7!!!
 
I just want to talk about that model part of your post and elaborate on computer models. A lot of scientists putting out information on global warming basically rely on computer models, instead of actual data from the field. You can make a computer model about anything. So next time you see a report that just references a computer model and no data, while what is being said, might be right, it has no data to back it up and is most likely wrong. What you said is pretty much correct though. A model can be made and prob. has been, but there's no true way to know if it's right.

Btw, a lot of scientists produce essays and statements about human caused global warming to get funding from the government, even if they believe something different. The government gives tons of funding about evidence for human caused global warming. If everybody believes in human caused global warming, the government can slap on extra green taxes and stuff like that.
 
its not a complete global warming some areas are getting way colder too and ive been saying since day 1 that it was bullshit

 
Here is my take on the global warming situation. Climate change is happening, there is no disputing that fact. The cause, however, is debatable. There is an interesting documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle...you can watch it in around 8 parts on YouTube i would suggest giving it a look. It brings up a number of valid points. The basis of the global warming theory- that an increase in atmospheric CO2, caused by humans, is resulting in a global rise in temperatures is simply not valid. The entire theory rests on a single piece of evidence that was, in all likelihood, incorrectly interpreted. The IPCC (the world's 'official' body on climate change) put out a report that confirmed global warming with the names of the world's top 1500 climatologists. The report declined to mention that a significant number of climatologists had disagreements with the contents of the report, and that the report omitted a number of relevant details that suggested the evidence was not conclusive. A number of the scientists requested to have their names removed from the document; the ICPP ignored this request.

I am not saying that since global warming is not scientifically proven that our current lifestyle is in any way sustainable, or right. I am an avid environmentalist and I believe in the importance of sustainable energy- the geopolitical mess that oil dependence has created must, and will only be solved when people take their heads out of their asses and realize that oil is a finite resource, and realize that there is money in developing new and sustainable forms of energy.

'Global warming' provides the world's richest countries with a chance to stop the world's poorest countries from developing, by restricting access to affordable energy. What I think needs to happen is that the West needs to develop sustainable energy, since oil will run out in a relatively short period of time no matter what we do, and design our society around sustainable forms so that when developing countries are in a better situation, cheap renewable energy will be at their disposal.

Hopefully you guys see this as a rational argument. I used to be a hardcore stop-climate-change activist but after doing my research I think I have my head around the issue, at least somewhat. So I am not some Texas oil junkie looking to drive my Hummer guilt-free, I just think it is important to know the facts.
 
you're right
.....unfortunately none of the liberal teenage/20 something bastards will believe you...so just stick to your guns

i'm wit you....but it is not worth arguing with these guys
 
r u being sarcastic? because hes not in the office is he.......

im not a bush fan at all but there isnt like some scam that they set up so bush won

ur watching to much tv man
 
What if those 31000 scientists are wrong and we listen to them? We'd get fucked. But if we listen to Al Gore and he's wrong, nothing happens, except for good things ex. cleaner air.
Better to be safe than sorry.
 
well i already know i'm going to get negative karma for this, but QFT. i've said it in another thread already, and i'll say it again: The average temperature of Earth has increased by 10 degrees over the last 100 years, but has decreased by 6 degrees over the last 10 years. If it goes back up again I MAY start caring, but as we all know the Earth has been at least 25 degrees warmer than this many times before, and not because of humans. Therefore there is no valid argument on the issue, because there is nothing to argue about and there is no issue.
 
i actually have looked into it and the republicans always earn a shit load of money, i would really like u to link me to a reliable source about this plz?

and by the way im into anarchy, and im not one of the ignorant ones i actually look into that kind of shit
 
i do listen to to much punk,

and y kill my self?

and i dont go and scream im anarchy in the streets, im actually for the kind where everyone gets along and its a safe rule free environment

but there is no way that would work in today's society
 
Dude, JeffersonDavis has always posted shit to provoke conversation whether its politically correct or not. He says all this shocking shit on purpose. He's a joke.
 
Thank you .. please remember that this environmental debate is nearly 40 years old. It only gets heated when oil prices spike. Every decade it becomes more and more stupid. It is alarmist muck raking at its best.

YES renewable clean energy is the best thing and smartest thing for the air we breathe.. Cheap fuel is also smart in that it stimulates the economy and allows us to prosper. Think ski resorts will get built if you can afford the fuel to run them? Alternative energies other than oil will happen when, the average consumer can no longer afford oil. Simple laws of supply and demand. Until that time, figure out away to stop the pipeline from Alberta to the coast for Chinese oil consumption. Wanna worry about something? The earth needs to worry about the Chinese government and the monster they are building.

Are you aware that in the 70's they preached that we would be OUT OF OIL BY 2010 given the rates of consumption? Now they say if we try and burn all the oil that we have, we will kill ourselves?

Are you aware that in the 70's during the era of super-sized V8s that we were in a supposed global cooling? Here read this article from 1974! Here is an excerpt

June 24th 1974

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and

thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward

migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the

Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other

convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia

University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena

analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found

that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12%

in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin

Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of

any snow in summer; now they are covered



understand the point? Expand your thinking and study the subject of these environmental alarmists over the last 40 years and you will see the pattern.

 
oh god... most of your post was good. This point is so wrong. Trust me, we are supposed to be out of oil now! thats what they said when I was in school. Also, we are supposed to be out of oxygen too, since at the rate we were clearing rain forests then, would kill us now.
 
Exactly... Although I don't totally agree. There will be a new crop of impressionable young people for the old beaurucrats to shove their rhetoric at 50 years from now as there was 30 years ago.

There are tons of very smart people who choose not to say anything about this debate. They just shake thier heads because they remember (as I do) this same debate 30 years ago. They were wrong then, they suspect that they are wrong now.

Most of the scientific community does not buy into and is very well aware, that while there might be a small climatic changes, that it is nothing compared to what will eventually happen that is beyond our control.

 
BULLSHIT! STOP please.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past

700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of

glaciers spreading over much of the planet.

Keep in mind that intelligent human life has only been on this earth for a couple of thousand years. We have nothing to worry about in saving the earth, a huge natural event will take care of the humans pesky little CO2 farts, don't worry.
 
Did you know that 'The Great Global Warming Conspiracy' was recently subject to a ruling by Ofcom (British communications regulator)? It concluded that many of the people involved in the documentary (IPCC and some independant researchers) were misrepresented. Though in the eyes of many people the ruling didn't go far enough as Channel 4 were cleared of "materially misleading the audience so as to cause harm or offence". Channel 4 also admitted that some of the data and graphs used had 'errors' (ie they were made up).

Basically Channel 4 got a slap on the wrist but got away with broadcasting this rubbish because of the wording of the Ofcom rules. If this had been a news program they would have been screwed.

My own personal take on Global warming is that whilst the current evidence doesn't conclusively prove anything, there are historically very strong correlations between increases in CO2 and increases in temperature. There are also strong correlations between human produced CO2 emissions and warming, there are other factors involved, but from what I've seen and read, I'm pretty sure that global warming isn't just some sort of conspiracy.

As for the global cooling theory from the Seventies, that may have been wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean global warming is wrong as well. Science has got a lot of other stuff right in the last 30 years.

In my mind, it's simple logic that pumping loads of gas into the atmosphere is going to do it some damage.
 
Did you know that wearing compression shorts lowers your sperm count, and is a more effective form of birth control than condoms and the pill combined? I BET YOU DIDN"T!!
 
Here is a fact.. I was a green wheat germ eating, pot smoking, long haired environmental zealot at one time in my life too. I grew up and reflected back on all the crap they fed me in school. Now, I know how easy it is to lie with numbers. I propose they did it then and they are doing it now. I do not trust anything now, other than my own observations when it comes to this subject.

In all my posts about this subject certain points get lost.

First and foremost, cheap clean fuel technology is a good thing and is very important to our quality of life and longevity as a human race.

Second, I think that cheap energy is more important to the quality of life in regards to sustaining a vibrant economy, which here again, will affect our quality of life.

Third, I think that our focus should be on the large scale polluters of the world. I am telling you that China scares the shit out of me for my children and their children's sake.

Fourth, In the grand scheme of selfishness, no matter what we do, it will not matter in the long run. Because the deeply ingrained instinct of survival will solve the problems, all of them, until something out of our control happens.

So with all of that, using the Oil sands as an example. Stop the proposed pipeline to the west coast and pipe it straight to the states. When that runs out, mine the mountains of the shale. when that runs out, drill in the ocean, when that runs out, build some solar farms, when that clouds over, split some atoms, when all our skin is falling off, harness the wind, when the storms stop.. oh shit! LOOK out! a fucking super volcano just put us into the next ice age....

Crazy? talk to me in a hundred years from now when the population is at 15 billion or more. okay?
 
Oh boy.. Ok I'll bite.

Motivation? To get paid.

Baffle them with bullshit. Get the gullible s money! Scientists have families to feed and quite frankly what are they selling? They aren't going to setlle for minimum wage when they spent a decade in school, are they?

I am not saying that scientists are unscrupulous.

Think. Who pays scientists for their research and hopefully, development? Venture Capital or the fat of large companies looking to diverisfy. My father is a research PHD chemist with another doctorate in Psychology and was with DuPont for 45 years. A lot of the insight I have comes from him. He is now retired and he is talking and at 80 years old, boy is he talking! He couldn't say what he is saying when he was getting paid. Make sense?

Scientists get paid (which is why most of them exist in the first place) OK, in order to get paid, you have to have a problem that needs solved or you need a new better product.. Correct? Take something like the environment which people are madly passionate about, and kaboom. You now have an industry perpetuated by speculative fear based on hypotheses that constantly needs to be solved because it is always changing. Make sense?

The numbers may or may not be lies. This is what fuels the debate and funds the speculative R&D.

Now.. take a poor economy, guess what happens to industry and R&D. It gets slashed when it is needed the most. Ironic huh. Well thats the way it is. If profits are down there is no money to fund that stuff. That and customer service are the first to go.

 
dude instead of finding ways for it not to be real, why dont you just accept it just in case? your a skier and it effects you the most
 
Did you ever notice Al Gore owns tons of stock in tons of solar, wind, and other renewable energy companies. He is making bank because of all this shit he's started. He's also a hypocrite cause his huge house takes up much more energy than a bunch of traditional households together. Oh, and ever wonder that it's convenient that all of his predictions of global warming stuff would only be confirmed after he's dead. If he's wrong, he will receive no consequences. Also, global warming hasn't been scientifically proven. There are tons of scientists that hate all this bullshit and know that it is wrong.

also scientists say stuff about global warming to get grant money. Some dont even believe what they say so that they can get it. A lot of them just use computer models and not real data to prove things.

 
Rob, I get you. Environmentalists needed a tangible horse to ride in on and say "Look what you assholes did by polluting and destroying mother Earth!", and that horse was Global Warming. And people jumped on the bandwagon. And now nobody can ever take this shit seriously again.

The way I see it, Earth is still a delicate and controlled system. It goes through periodic warming and cooling cycles, but it still remains in balance because these cycles have natural feedback mechanisms that usually restore the climate to 'normal' after a while. Its my worry that human activity has so rapidly changed the surface of this world that we've outpaced the feedback systems and thrown the system out of wack. Do I have any proof to substantiate my point? No, aside from seeing firsthand how much we can level a landscape and destroy countless ecosystems. But Earth is a planet ruled and dictated by cycles, and never so fast has its ecosystem been radically sculpted, save by apocolyptic meteor collisions.

Progress is important, sure, but at what cost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top