| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2009 : 09:35:57
|
If Al Gore wasn't making a dime from this, he's a shitty businessman.
- Brian
[/quote]
Good, i'm glad you view him as a business man. As that is what he is. Unfortunately, people are only now realizing that he has a huge invested interest into how this whole thing plays out. He is not a climate scientist or a noble humanitarian. He is not doing this for free, and his motivation becomes pretty clear when you examine how much his net worth has increased since being a defeated presidential candidate.
Here is another example-
Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.
These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’
You don't think that these people wouldn't mind bending science in order to fortify their fortunes? This is the whole point of the "deniers" argument, these people who are supposed to be "impartial" are clearly not. The science has become totally politicized, and as a result we have our suspicions on their claims of doom.
No, it would be a mistake to pursue these drastic measures under false pretenses. It leads to policies that as a public we do not want, leads to government waste and corruption, and is totally undemocratic. So far that has been demonstrated in the 7 billion stolen so far in that trading scheme in Europe.
If you are going to do something good, then make a plan which is actually achievable, give good reasons why (not climate models which predict that sometime we might be fucked maybe if your understand of climate is complete which it isn't)and let the public decide.
Did it take a UN panel to put tougher restrictions on car emissions? To ban smoking indoors? To bring better fuel efficiency in cars? Did it take massive government intervention to pursue alternative fuels and technology? Of course not, as a progressive society we don't say "fuck it we have an unlimited gas supply who needs improvements in technology." It just so happens that those alternatives are not useful. I personally think hydrogen fuel cells are the best bet.
We are moving in that direction anyway, we don't need a collective gun to the head of our economies to get off fossil fuels. The public are demanding a lessoning of fossil fuels, and Governments keen on being re-elected will no doubt fund these initiatives. How does sending money to war lords in Africa to fight wars reduce Co2? Has the money sent to any nation in turmoil ever got to the people who need it? It always gets diverted to some horrible cause. This will be no different.
|
 |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 09:41:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
Learning basic english and grammar would certainly go in your favour if you wish to convince me of your arguments.
I could point out many of your grammatical mistakes and mispunctuations (such as numerous questions that end with a period), but I will freely admit that I often drop words and don't take the time to proof-read my responses. But, as you so persuasively said earlier let's not distract the debate.
Let's see your evidence that global warming is not caused by humans.
This signature moderated courtesy Cult of Frank. |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 10:23:17
|
Pot,
It IS important that people have jobs. Jobs lead to many things, including the ability to have food, shelter and medicine, all of which are essential to modern life. Not to mention the self worth that one feels for a job well done. I'm not sympathetic at all to your viewpoint - a job does not equal being a slave to the system. Tell my wife, who has been searching for work for 3 years now that a job isn't important. When we sweat every single month that our bills won't be able to be paid, or watch her be dejected after the economy's ills shut down more potential employers, or when we remember that we've never been able to take or afford a honeymoon, we don't say "thank goodness we're not part of the banker's wet dream that is a two-income household!" I know you think you have all this shit figured out, but you don't.
- Brian |
|
|
|
treetime
- FB Fan -
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 10:27:33
|
| Even if CO2 emission levels had no effect on global warming, one thing writers on this subject are doing is getting people more in tune with nature. Which is a positive result pragmatically in my opinion, even if it didn't correspond with facts, which I assume it does. By the wasy this seems like a strange approach to making your million. The money to me seems somewhat incidental. Happy Winter Solstice! |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 10:28:53
|
| What do you think I do to survive, do you think I live like a caveman foraging for food every day? |
|
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 11:05:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
What do you think I do to survive, do you think I live like a caveman foraging for food every day?
From the way you call jobs "a banker's dream," i didn't know.
Don't use bullshit rhetoric and then get pissed when people call you out on it.
- Brian |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 11:18:05
|
Happy winter solstice.
quote:
Originally posted by treetime
Even if CO2 emission levels had no effect on global warming, one thing writers on this subject are doing is getting people more in tune with nature. Which is a positive result pragmatically in my opinion, even if it didn't correspond with facts, which I assume it does. By the wasy this seems like a strange approach to making your million. The money to me seems somewhat incidental. Happy Winter Solstice!
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 11:18:55
|
Oh wake up and smell the coffee!
I actually expected a little more open mindedness from this place... |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 11:25:40
|
Tony Robinson is currently doing a documentary on how man throughout history adapated and survived or died out from sudden local climate change. It has happened many times, and in this documentary that just on he mentions the little ice age in the middle of the second millenium, and it apparently came about for reasons that, I quote 'scientists still don't fully understand'
That's from the BBC, and Tony Robinson is no mug when it comes to archaeology and climate history I can tell you.
So where the fuck the IPCC get so much certainty with their computer models these days is really beyond me, as is the myth that there is a general consensus on the future of the climate and that it's all to do with CO2.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 11:26:24 |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 12:01:28
|
"scientists still don't fully understand" doesn't mean they don't have a clue. I think I said on p 1 or 2 of this thread that overall global temperature during the little ice age was increased, it was a northern hemisphere effect.
That programme should tell you that the upshot of climate change, whether anthropogenic or not, will result in population shifts, migration, probably war and certainly many many deaths. Sounds like the perfect set of circumstances for the introduction of a new world order.
IPCC have never said they're certain about the computer models, I think they maybe said 90% confidence, but I can't recall exactly. Again, IMO, they are understating the amount of warming we're likely to suffer without drastic changes in emissions. There is no unanimous consensus, but the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. So,the choices are that they are mostly wrong or there's a conspiracy or they are right.
Conspiracy - the fact they can't even agree how to fuck us over in Copenhagen suggests that's maybe not the case
Wrong - a minority of scientists disagree with the current thinking. I think darwin asked for proof that there is no anthropogenic climate change, and that would be good to see.
Right - the balance of evidence points to this. The scientists mostly agree; how much the world will warm up by is in debate. If methane gets released, it'll be a damn sight worse. I've given some pointers to read up on, so has darwin. If people aren't convinced, so be it.
I actually think a lot of this comes down to trust. If you don't trust people then whatever they say or show, you won't believe. Many people think governments are out to screw them over, and by extension, scientists. It's the way it is and recent research shows that people who have that mindset refuse to change regardless of evidence. (which is what tisawath was getting at earlier)
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 12:46:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
IPCC have never said they're certain about the computer models, I think they maybe said 90% confidence, but I can't recall exactly. Again, IMO, they are understating the amount of warming we're likely to suffer without drastic changes in emissions. There is no unanimous consensus, but the majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. So,the choices are that they are mostly wrong or there's a conspiracy or they are right.
If they have some doubts then why are they so closed to discussing other theories, and why is there no open debate about alternative theories at the summit? There was no debate, the whole charade was based around the assumption that CO2 is causing global warming, that the world is warming (even though it currently isn't!) and that is that. There was no room whatsoever for any other opinion, or a willingness to discuss the scandal that emerged from the hacked emails in an openly transparent way, even though that is what people wanted and that is what would ultimately have persuaded people of their cause, if indeed there was no foul play. Does that not strike you as a bit odd?
Why is this happening is anyones guess. I don't really know, but I think what we are seeing is the blind leading the blind. People underestimate just how wrong science can get it, and in todays scientific climate there's a hell of a lot of crazy theories that just don't stack up.
quote:
I think darwin asked for proof that there is no anthropogenic climate change, and that would be good to see.
You're asking for proof that a slight change in CO2 could never be enough to push us over a tipping point. There is no way no to prove that, whatsoever. Whilst there are patterns that emerge in the climate, evolution is still based on chaotic patterns which unfold in a seemingly random way. Patterns emerge from that, but what is important to understand is that the evolution of the planet and everything is also evolving, so it's just impossible to tell what's next. It might happen, but as far as I can see there is really very little evidence that has been uncovered that indicates such a scenario is likely to happen anthropogenically, and that climate change- when it eventually happens -is most likely going to be caused by natural forces. Man is having an impact on the earth and the climate, but the evidence to me suggests that this is so small it is probably negligible.
quote:
I actually think a lot of this comes down to trust. If you don't trust people then whatever they say or show, you won't believe. Many people think governments are out to screw them over, and by extension, scientists. It's the way it is and recent research shows that people who have that mindset refuse to change regardless of evidence. (which is what tisawath was getting at earlier)
I think the government are out to screw me. They want to put me in prison for things that are my right to do. They want to control every aspect of my life to the point where it is destructive to my health.So yes, I am very much of 'that mindset', however sorry to debunk your theory but I am also very much open minded about all of this. I used to buy into this crap they tell you every day on the news, but now I am not so sure.
I think what maybe is going is the scientists are being paid to research into the effects of CO2 in the climate, and they are going away and running computer models that are preprogrammed with the greenhouse effect of CO2 and they tend to neglect many other factors. They are looking for a specific result and taking a leap of judgement on the outcome, because that is the result they want. These computer models must take into account other factors which should mean that every possible outcome for the climate is possible, from a sudden rise in temperature to a sudden drop, but I guess they don't want to mention the latter.
You cannot use computer models to prove that without a shadow of a doubt CO2 emissions will cause a rise in temperature, but that is what they are trying to say. |
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 12:50:20 |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 13:00:21
|
From the IPCC
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Yes this is an issue of trust. There is no way I can come close to educating myself on this issue fully. Therefore I trust Richard Lindzen myself who has been studying the atmosphere his whole life, and not Michael Mann, certainly not after that hockey stick debacle and the email releases, which apparently were not stolen at all. Or people who are leading the IPCC who also have major economic investments in the outcome. |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 14:04:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
This is still the best argument for doing something about climate change: it will fundamentally improve our lives. Even if the science is faulty (which i don't believe because i trust the larger scientific community), it will still make our world a much, much better place.
- Brian
Let me ask you which scenario is preferable?
1. The scientists are right but through concerted action we avert disaster.
2. The scientists are wrong and we can carry on as we are.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
Edited by - trobrianders on 12/22/2009 00:24:30 |
|
|
|
danjersey
> Teenager of the Year <
USA
2792 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 20:34:27
|
Global Warming is just the latest wave in the age old tradition of faith and commerce.
It's no coincidence that the Catholic church has been using (hoarding) gold as it's choice material when celebrating the glory of god on earth. Or take a walk through your local diamond district to get up close and personal with the Old Testament.
Carbon tax good!
|
|
|
|
Ziggy
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
2462 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 21:43:46
|
"5)The same people who tell me that the world is going to collapse if we don't curb our emissions also tell me that cannabis is bad for my health and that we live in a democratic society."
It's still not too late to ask Santa for a nice tinfoil hat, mate!
|
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 21:52:16
|
What's that supposed to mean.
A quick google search enlightens me.
Well if I'm paranoid, then you are seriously deluded if really believe those three things they tell us, re. 5). Maybe santa will bring you a nice woolly jumper this year... oh no wait you already have one... |
Edited by - pot on 12/21/2009 22:04:38 |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2009 : 23:21:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by danjersey
Global Warming is just the latest wave in the age old tradition of faith and commerce.
Yeah that's some coup - "The End Is Nigh (test-based)".
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 02:26:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by pot
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
They are looking for a specific result and taking a leap of judgement on the outcome, because that is the result they want. These computer models must take into account other factors which should mean that every possible outcome for the climate is possible, from a sudden rise in temperature to a sudden drop, but I guess they don't want to mention the latter.
You cannot use computer models to prove that without a shadow of a doubt CO2 emissions will cause a rise in temperature, but that is what they are trying to say.
I think the IPCC, Darwin and I have said there are no absolutes, just probabilities. It so happens we think the balance of evidence strongly supports anthropogenic climate change.
Again, the problem with all this is that you don't trust the evidence provided by the majority of scientists, preferring to think they are seriously flawed or conspiring against you.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 03:28:39
|
Why would I think the IPCC were conspiring against me? That's a bit of a ridiculous claim. I do think their evidence is seriously flawed though. But hey, most people seem to agree with you, I guess you can't fool all of the people all of the time...
|
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 05:11:28
|
I didn't say the IPCC were conspiring against you and I'm not sure I even inferred it. However, let's run with it.
You do come across as a conspiracy theorist pot (hence Ziggy's comment above) - so, who is conspiring against you and is there a climate change conspiracy? (either you or Champ mentioned a Carbon Tax conspiracy by the governments at Copenhagen and I know you mentioned 'new world order' in one post)
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 06:15:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
I didn't say the IPCC were conspiring against you and I'm not sure I even inferred it. However, let's run with it.
Well, if you look back to your previous post, you said this.
quote:
Again, the problem with all this is that you don't trust the evidence provided by the majority of scientists, preferring to think they are seriously flawed or conspiring against you.
quote:
You do come across as a conspiracy theorist pot (hence Ziggy's comment above) - so, who is conspiring against you and is there a climate change conspiracy? (either you or Champ mentioned a Carbon Tax conspiracy by the governments at Copenhagen and I know you mentioned 'new world order' in one post)
This isn't about me, it's about the climate and proper science. I think this is a cheap trick you are pulling there when you say that. You are attempting to belittle my argument by drawing a general comparison with my opinions on this with ALL conspiracy theories, as though all conspiracy theorists tend to find a conspiracy in everything and that most of it total nonsense. It isn't going to wash with me, so you can just drop it..
The current opinion that I hold, and it's very open for criticism and change, is also held by a number of scientists around the world, strangely enough none of whom seem to be part of the IPCC. Now that's not really very open and transparent is it, and says a lot about the IPCC and their science.
'90% certain that climate is going to warm over the next hundred years'... or so is just a stat that has been pulled out of someone's ass. There is no way we can be that certain. It's impossible. There is no way any computer model could possibly come close to predicting the climate of the planet as accurately as that.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/22/2009 06:18:06 |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 06:50:07
|
I'm trying to clarify where you're coming from - ie if you are a conspiracy theorist then do you think climate change is a conspiracy theory? If so, by who? You brought it up in this thread. It's not an attempt to belittle you, unless you think yourself that being a conspiracy theorist is daft. It's a fair question I think, seeing as you don't believe what thousands of scientists are finding in their research.
I guess the 90% thing came from here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11088-blame-for-global-warming-placed-firmly-on-humankind.html
I paraphrased.
If you read that article, they give ranges because the rate of burning of fossil fuels is an unknown.
I do agree that maybe if the IPCC had a climate change denier as part of it then it would have more credence with people like you, but then, maybe the deniers' science isn't very good.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
Edited by - Llamadance on 12/22/2009 06:50:50 |
|
|
|
trobrianders
> Teenager of the Year <
Papua New Guinea
3302 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 06:57:59
|
It's not so nutty to assume people discuss bending or breaking laws where big money is involved. The IPCC's findings change matters, they create opportunities. And the science becomes politicized. The findings are the findings. They are constant and maybe even correct. What others say and do about them after they become politically charged is another matter. It's as mindless to toe a line as it is crazy to see conspiracies in your soup.
For most of us who don't understand the science the IPCC's reports confirm what we suspected all along; that we can't keep living this way. We may not have good mechanisms for preventing resulting corruption and even undemocratic power accumulations, but we'll swallow it so long as the fundamental changes occur. It's only natural that some will drag their feet while others will want to steam ahead - vested interests differ. Some will keep arguing this, and some that. And that's the way things get done. I don't see a problem in any of it, for those of us who are free to participate. What else is there? Actually, thinking about it, corruption will be our biggest problem but we never seem to want to try and stem it. It offers too much promise I guess.
Llama and darwin. Do you have any criticisms of the IPCC at all? The Champ's post about Dr Pachauri for example.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
Edited by - trobrianders on 12/22/2009 07:35:48 |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 07:04:15
|
| Climate change is something we must learn to adapt to. I believe that the theories being bandied around that we are definately entering a warming period and that it is going to cause problems are baseless. The reason I think there are more climate disasters around to day is because there are simply more people in the world, it's reported more and people are less able to migrate. Other than that I think a warmer period should be beneficial to life on the planet, it's the possibilty of a mini ice that should worry us. I think the mechanisms that regulate the temperature of the planet are outwith our control and man-made CO2 is having a negligible effect. The only evidence that I have seen for this is the hockey stick graph, and in my view this is really quite far from conclusive proof, and also based on manipulated data. I think a lot of the reasons why there are no people in the IPCC that share the skeptical view is also that any scientist who holds this view has left them, I suspect because of their limited and narrow minded approach to science. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 07:43:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
The findings are the findings. They are constant and maybe even correct.
In the 1970's it was global cooling, 50 years before that is was global warming again. 50 years before that it was probably electricity is going to destroy the world. It is always something. The findings about climate change are far from being constant. They are all over the place, and I think you could probably draw just about any conclusion out of it that you wanted.
|
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 08:07:53
|
I believe it was Michael Mann who omitted the medieval warm period and the mini ice age, so as to make the current trend in warming look unusual and allow them to say things like, 'fastest increase in global temperature for 1,000 years'.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
quote:
It has now been removed from the latest 2007 IPCC report for policymakers because it has become to much of an embarrassment for the IPCC to include it.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/22/2009 08:09:07 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 08:26:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
Llama and darwin. Do you have any criticisms of the IPCC at all? The Champ's post about Dr Pachauri for example.
I don't know anything about Dr. Pachauri.
My main criticism is that science should be as transparent as possible. Scientist have to protect their data because for their careers they need to publish (and thus have to avoid getting scooped), but once papers are published I think data should be posted on the web in a form that is unadjusted (the raw data). From what I gather, many climate scientists haven't been doing this.
Other than that I think the IPCC scientists were just talking in a way that has been misinterpreted as cooking the data. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 08:32:52
|
| I'm sitting on the fence with the hacked emails, but certainly things like 'we have to get rid of the medieval warm period' are noteworthy. |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 09:35:04
|
oh, I missed that question Tro. Hard to say - I guess I'd like them to have been stronger with their message, but they have to work with the science they're given. Like darwin, I think there should be greater transparency and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the current funding systems give the best possible framework for rigorous science.
Easy Easy Easy!! MicknPhil Marathon Lads Sign this petition |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 11:16:41
|
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations. |
|
|
|
pot
> Teenager of the Year <
Iceland
3910 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 11:23:41
|
Got any nice graphs to go with that?
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
quote:
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
|
Edited by - pot on 12/22/2009 11:32:02 |
|
|
|
Llamadance
> Teenager of the Year <
United Kingdom
2543 Posts |
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 12:31:45
|
I guess you need to buy the PDF so we can't look at the study or see the graphs.
I think that this study is interesting as it sort of relates to the sun spot cosmic ray theory of climate change in which cosmic rays interact with I think aerosols in the atmosphere and create cloud cover which cools the earth, a theory I was made aware of about 3 years ago, which was only demonstrated in a lab in 2006? Of course this goes in the opposite direction. It also makes me think of the statements "the science is in", "debate is over" and how ludicrous they are. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
things to talk about - climate change
