Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[Tidewater]

And then there's this:
Scientists predict significant drop in solar activity will cause a Little Ice Age in about 15 years.

Now, I remember from history class that the Little Ice Age generally was from 1350 to 1850. That is five centuries. This article talks about seven decades. Maybe the Little Ice Age was a collection of cooling events that got lumped together.
Interesting fact, the Norse quit Greenland some time after 1408. It just got too cold to grown their crops.

[Tide1986]

And then there's this:
Scientists predict significant drop in solar activity will cause a Little Ice Age in about 15 years.

Now, I remember from history class that the Little Ice Age generally was from 1350 to 1850. That is five centuries. This article talks about seven decades. Maybe the Little Ice Age was a collection of cooling events that got lumped together.
Interesting fact, the Norse quit Greenland some time after 1408. It just got too cold to grown their crops.

Sounds like we need a natural way to stay warm...maybe burn a few more fossil fuels in advance.

[Bama Reb]

It's not just artic ice that's retreating. I've see first hand the Columbia glacier in Canada. Also in Patagonia the glaciers are retreating as they are in Glacier National Park.

I can't imagine why there would or could be a global conspiracy. It would be to complicated to co-ordinate.

Consider this: Earth has existed for hundreds of billions of years and it's land and sea masses are ever changing. Man has been industrialized for less than 200 years. Yet man is being blamed for the changing of the Earth.
Earth's glaciers have increased and decreased for longer than man has been around. The question is not whether it' happening. The question is whether man is to blame. Considering the evidence, I say no, because those changes are going to take place regardless of mankind's presence. Mankind doesn't have the power (nor have we ever) to effect the climates of this planet. If we did, we wouldn't be worrying about California not having enough water or other areas having too much. We'd have already changed the rain patterns to accommodate those respective ares. Nor would we be worrying about too much snow in the winter, heat in the summer, approaching hurricanes or tornadoes during the other seasons. We'd be controlling them to our own needs or possibly even military advantage.
To the crux: I don't care to continue to hear the hoaxers blame man for those things which we obviously have absolute zero control. It's your privilege to disagree. But if you want to show that I'm wrong, then show me that man can control the climates. Show me how we can make Alaska warm in the winter and Florida cool in the summer. If you can do that I'll be impressed.

[Gr8hope]

Genesis 8:21-22
21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

[Go Bama]

Consider this: Earth has existed for hundreds of billions of years and it's land and sea masses are ever changing. Man has been industrialized for less than 200 years. Yet man is being blamed for the changing of the Earth.
Earth's glaciers have increased and decreased for longer than man has been around. The question is not whether it' happening. The question is whether man is to blame. Considering the evidence, I say no, because those changes are going to take place regardless of mankind's presence. Mankind doesn't have the power (nor have we ever) to effect the climates of this planet. If we did, we wouldn't be worrying about California not having enough water or other areas having too much. We'd have already changed the rain patterns to accommodate those respective ares. Nor would we be worrying about too much snow in the winter, heat in the summer, approaching hurricanes or tornadoes during the other seasons. We'd be controlling them to our own needs or possibly even military advantage.
To the crux: I don't care to continue to hear the hoaxers blame man for those things which we obviously have absolute zero control. It's your privilege to disagree. But if you want to show that I'm wrong, then show me that man can control the climates. Show me how we can make Alaska warm in the winter and Florida cool in the summer. If you can do that I'll be impressed.

It's hard for me to comprehend how much oil we've burned or how much is left. I drove back and forth on I-40 and I-65 this week and their seemed to be a million cars on the road. You can see smog in LA or even Nashville on a regular basis. When I was in Beijing, smog was horrible. Because we can't make the problem go away doesn't mean we can't create a problem.

My understanding is that carbon dioxide emission is the main cause of the greenhouse effect. The major contributors of carbon dioxide emission in the US are burning fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, and industry. The scientists are right, wrong, or making this up for grant money. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the U of A biology department does also.

Truth be told, I'm not smart enough to prove or disprove global warming. My stance is purely anecdotal and trying to make something out of what I've read about the subject. The ice cores seem compelling evidence but that could be a fabrication for all I know. Again, I don't see how it would be possible to co-ordinate a global conspiracy.

I'm a guy that buys into the Bible lock, stock, and barrel. I believe that miracles occurred even though I've never seen anyone walk on water or raise the dead. Just because man hasn't been able influence (not control) the weather in the past doesn't mean it will never occur.

I very much appreciate and respect your argument.

[2003TIDE]

Consider this: Earth has existed for hundreds of billions of years and it's land and sea masses are ever changing. Man has been industrialized for less than 200 years. Yet man is being blamed for the changing of the Earth.
Earth's glaciers have increased and decreased for longer than man has been around. The question is not whether it' happening. The question is whether man is to blame. Considering the evidence, I say no, because those changes are going to take place regardless of mankind's presence. Mankind doesn't have the power (nor have we ever) to effect the climates of this planet. If we did, we wouldn't be worrying about California not having enough water or other areas having too much. We'd have already changed the rain patterns to accommodate those respective ares. Nor would we be worrying about too much snow in the winter, heat in the summer, approaching hurricanes or tornadoes during the other seasons. We'd be controlling them to our own needs or possibly even military advantage.
To the crux: I don't care to continue to hear the hoaxers blame man for those things which we obviously have absolute zero control. It's your privilege to disagree. But if you want to show that I'm wrong, then show me that man can control the climates. Show me how we can make Alaska warm in the winter and Florida cool in the summer. If you can do that I'll be impressed.

Pretty much the dumbest thing I've read on here about global warming. Your argument is we can't affect the climate and proof is because we can't control the weather? There is nothing natural about releasing the amount CO2 in a few hundred years it took the planet millions to store up.

[Tide1986]

Pretty much the dumbest thing I've read on here about global warming. Your argument is we can't affect the climate and proof is because we can't control the weather? There is nothing natural about releasing the amount CO2 in a few hundred years it took the planet millions to store up.

Are you saying that CO2 levels have never been higher and that you have scientific proof?

[Bama Reb]

Pretty much the dumbest thing I've read on here about global warming. Your argument is we can't affect the climate and proof is because we can't control the weather? There is nothing natural about releasing the amount CO2 in a few hundred years it took the planet millions to store up.

And the dumbest thing I've ever read is that mankind is responsible for global warming.

[AUDub]

Are you saying that CO2 levels have never been higher and that you have scientific proof?

CO2 levels have been higher, but that was a long, long time ago.

[Bama Reb]

CO2 levels have been higher, but that was a long, long time ago.

CO2 levels are inconsequential. Animal life inhales oxygen and exhales CO2. Plant life uses that same CO2 for it's own collective purpose and in turn emits oxygen back into the atmosphere. Both are dependent upon the other for their own existence. If there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so much the better for plant life, and thus the better for us as well.
Mankind being responsible for global warming or cooling, climate change or whatever you want to call it it a hoax, and one of monumental proportion.

[dayhiker]

Consider this: Earth has existed for hundreds of billions of years and it's land and sea masses are ever changing. Man has been industrialized for less than 200 years. Yet man is being blamed for the changing of the Earth.
Earth's glaciers have increased and decreased for longer than man has been around. The question is not whether it' happening. The question is whether man is to blame. Considering the evidence, I say no, because those changes are going to take place regardless of mankind's presence. Mankind doesn't have the power (nor have we ever) to effect the climates of this planet. If we did, we wouldn't be worrying about California not having enough water or other areas having too much. We'd have already changed the rain patterns to accommodate those respective ares. Nor would we be worrying about too much snow in the winter, heat in the summer, approaching hurricanes or tornadoes during the other seasons. We'd be controlling them to our own needs or possibly even military advantage.
To the crux: I don't care to continue to hear the hoaxers blame man for those things which we obviously have absolute zero control. It's your privilege to disagree. But if you want to show that I'm wrong, then show me that man can control the climates. Show me how we can make Alaska warm in the winter and Florida cool in the summer. If you can do that I'll be impressed.

Scientist estimate the age of the universe at a little under 14 billions years. Not important to your point, but just an fyi.

[CajunCrimson]

Since temperature seems to fluctuate over the centuries....how do we know what normal is supposed to be for a planet this old, this distance from the sun, etc? We don't know what "normal" is supposed to be, we are just assuming that 30 years ago was normal, and so any fluctuation of that is abnormal.

Second - we can fit every human being on the planet, shoulder to shoulder on the island of Maui......that is the equivalent of owning an 8 acre ranch and having ONE ant pile on it. Would you replace all of the grass on your 8 acre ranch and spending millions of dollars to try to get rid of one ant pile? Do you believe that the one ant pile can destroy your entire 8 acre ranch if it's not debated, analyzed and used to deter everything from having children, using plastic, putting gas in your tractor, watering your plants, and eating cows?

Third - We are spinning, rotating around a huge ball of fire that is also spinning and rotating within a galaxy that is spinning and rotating within our universe.....is it at all possible that a 1000 mile jog either way in any direction could effect the temperature on our planet by 1 tenth of 1 degree?

No one has yet shown me any proof that: 1 - that it is caused by man. 2 - that even if it is, that we can stop/control it. 3 - if we could control it/stop it - how long would it take and how much would it cost. 4 - why anyone on this planet would care about what happens on this planet 200 years from now (people are inherently selfish -- and seldom (if ever) do anything for the future -- see our savings rate as a country).....

It's all a relatively complex scheme to control our capitalistic society, control world population, and curb the development of the undeveloped world

[AUDub]

CO2 levels are inconsequential. Animal life inhales oxygen and exhales CO2. Plant life uses that same CO2 for it's own collective purpose and in turn emits oxygen back into the atmosphere. Both are dependent upon the other for their own existence. If there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so much the better for plant life, and thus the better for us as well.

Horse hockey. The CO2 that was already here was accounted for in the carbon cycle. It's like saying, because whole blood is vital to your survival, you shouldn't mind having a few extra gallons pumped in with a rapid infuser.

Excess CO2 causes a whole host of ecological issues. For instance, did you know the pH of the ocean is dropping? Excess CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, forming carbonic acid. Current ocean life evolved with a relatively stable pH over the last 50 million years. Do you have any idea what kind of chaos more acidic oceans could create?

Mankind being responsible for global warming or cooling, climate change or whatever you want to call it it a hoax, and one of monumental proportion.

Ridiculous.

If that's your position, this argument is pointless.