Live Earth

[+Typhoid 231]

oh it certainly happens naturally, thats unavoidable. But you'd be a fool to believe we can pump out all the smog and chemicals we want into the air and not screw things up as well.

 

The idea is to strike a balance between economic growth and keeping the environment in check.

 

mankind's contribution is about point one percent.

[eraser_tr 29]

Maybe one country on any given day. A hundred and fifty years of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels adds up to alot more than .1%

 

Check the sources of the researce that says that. Find out who they get their funding from, I'd confidently bet that it comes from highly polluting energy companies.

 

Ever see the intro for "Thank You For Smoking"?

 

Show me something published in Nature, THE premier and most respected scientific journal showing human actions have had no significant effect on global warming. Then I won't give a s**t about CO2 emissions or the polar ice caps melting.

[+Typhoid 231]

Maybe one country on any given day. A hundred and fifty years of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels adds up to alot more than .1%

 

Check the sources of the researce that says that. Find out who they get their funding from, I'd confidently bet that it comes from highly polluting energy companies.

 

Ever see the intro for "Thank You For Smoking"?

 

Show me something published in Nature, THE premier and most respected scientific journal showing human actions have had no significant effect on global warming. Then I won't give a s**t about CO2 emissions or the polar ice caps melting.

 

Nature is just one source (which currently has an article questioning the accuracy of the models used by the IPCC - not exactly proving your case!). Earlier, I posted close to a half dozen links - none of which are funded by oil companies (a standard, phony canard) that provide a lot of ACTUAL SCIENCE on climate change and history. Just look at the climate history including the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. Its not Global Warming - its Global Conning.

[JediMaster 451]

Show me something published in Nature, THE premier and most respected scientific journal showing human actions have had no significant effect on global warming. Then I won't give a s**t about CO2 emissions or the polar ice caps melting.

 

 

You can't prove a negative. You can either show a direct link or an indirect link between human activity and warming, or you can't. If you can't, it doesn't mean there aren't any, or isn't one, it just means that you can't prove it.

 

That's like saying "prove that my daily ritual of garlic gargling doesn't prevent attack by vampires."

Fact: you gargle garlic.

Fact: you've not been attacked by vampires.

Doesn't prove garlic prevents vampire attack.

[+Typhoid 231]

Nature is just one source (which currently has an article questioning the accuracy of the models used by the IPCC - not exactly proving your case!). Earlier, I posted close to a half dozen links - none of which are funded by oil companies (a standard, phony canard) that provide a lot of ACTUAL SCIENCE on climate change and history. Just look at the climate history including the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. Its not Global Warming - its Global Conning.

 

 

its also very evident that the editor is an Anthropogenic Global Warming Advocate of the First Order. So to emphasize my point, it is just one source and a biased one at that.

 

I have pointed out several links to other sources. What is absolutely clear from those other links is that there is a very definite scientific DEBATE on the issue. The science is not settled, no where even close.

 

and by the by, the global temperatures as measured by NOAA satellites indicate that no net warming since 1998 has occured and we have already leveled off in the temperature. And how many devastating hurricanes have hit the US half way through this hurricane season? none.....

 

here's another link

 

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/may_19b_05.htm

 

and a graph of global temperature over time. Of note - the graph shows ups and downs inconsistent with CO2 forced warming and distinct, recent decline. hmmm.....................

Edited July 17, 2007 by Typhoid

[eraser_tr 29]

I'd still rather see something peer-reviewed for credibility. I just finished a course on psuedoscientific claims, and distinguishing amatuer science, from real science.

[+Typhoid 231]

I'd still rather see something peer-reviewed for credibility. I just finished a course on psuedoscientific claims, and distinguishing amatuer science, from real science.

 

I provided you several links already, all of it peer-reviewed. If you want a case study of discredited pseudoscientific claims, just look at all of this CO2 hysteria in about 10 years. If you just finished a course (for college credit?!!) try applying those lessons to this subject from the other side of the on-going debate and see if Anthropogenic Global Warming holds up. In all too many cases, it does not because generally the self-selected studies and peer reviewers are too inbred for real review. Most of the time, the study will be on a single factor without historical correlation, taken over a limited time frame to provide a pre-ordained result, etc. Your "pre-eminent" Science magazine is wholly one-sided and does not cover any opposing views - hardly a scientific approach, rather a purely political agenda driven approach.

 

But for the truly intellectually enabled researcher;

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

http://www.icecap.us/

http://friendsofscience.org/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...=&Issue_id=

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

 

sort of a level two of sites which reference scientific studies;

 

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/

http://www.climatepolice.com/

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

http://www.agu.org/history/SV.shtml

 

what is absolutely clear from all of this is that there IS NOT a "consensus" on the issue and the science IS NOT settled in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is, more accurately, Global Conning in support of a political agenda and to make big bucks through phony carbon trading companies. That is all it is. With the continuing decline of solar activity going into what may be a signficant solar minimum - these frauds will be thoroughly discredited within a decade.

 

this link is a scientific rebuttal of Dr Hansen's (and Algore's) testimony to Congress;

 

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...onyCritique.pdf

 

and - if you don't like "oil company financed" studies then you shouldn't be listening to Al Gore either;

 

http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-gene...se-08-11-04.pdf

Edited July 17, 2007 by Typhoid

[tw7222 0]

You can't prove a negative. You can either show a direct link or an indirect link between human activity and warming, or you can't. If you can't, it doesn't mean there aren't any, or isn't one, it just means that you can't prove it.

 

That's like saying "prove that my daily ritual of garlic gargling doesn't prevent attack by vampires."

Fact: you gargle garlic.

Fact: you've not been attacked by vampires.

Doesn't prove garlic prevents vampire attack.

 

 

 

There are vampires? Where? What kind?

Edited July 17, 2007 by tw7222

[+Typhoid 231]

There are vampires? Where? What kind?

 

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/vampire.html

 

 

[eraser_tr 29]

that was too good!

[Caveman 1]

hehe quick get the garlic gargle :)