by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
One volcano going of each year pollutes this planet many times more than anything we ever produce.
That is not true, volcanic activity produces on average about 250 million tons of carbon a year, while human activity produced almost 10 billion tons of carbon last year.
Wow Gill - I'm truly stunned at the progress we are making on this thread. Not only have you alerted scientists to include the effect of the sun in their climate models but now in addition it seems that mankind is irrelevant as a factor. The poor scientists may as well start again.
I find your view grossly disrespectful to the work of thousands of scientists over many decades who have no axe to grind here - they follow the scientific method of observing the evidence, developing hypotheses etc. Finally they may publish a paper that can be reviewed by all their peers and gradually a global consensus develops. By the nature of their methos the consensus tends toward caution, so if anything are understating the problem. Amongst more valid reasons for caution, they don't want idiots like Witness007 accusing them of being over-dramatic.
Scientists are still observing the evidence, developing hypotheses, etc causing them to have disagreements over global warming. If you choose to sit on the side of the scientists who belive in global warming even though data is still being collected, good for you. But, since a final agreement has not been made, I hardly think you have the right to talk down to those who do not believe it
Lets hear your review of a scientific paper that you so effortlessly disparage. Perhaps we could publish your opinion and get that reviewed. Not.
Why don't we hear YOUR review? Let me know when your opinions get published.
I knew global warming was total bull shit when I first heard about it
I would argue your education, basic though it was, was still a waste of money, if all you learned was to write off new ideas as soon as you hear them. So you instantly made your mind up and subsequently sought confirming 'evidence'? Oh dear.
If you are interested in the funding of science in the UK there is House of Commons paper here. Shame it is written by a part of the global cabal determined to separate you from your wealth and freedom.....
http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Seminars/FundingScienceandTechnology.asp
Every proper scientist, unlike the uneducated peasant that I am, who has tried to over turn global warming gravey train has had their funding cut.
Maybe some evidence to back up your fledgling assertion?
I don't really give a flying fart!
Those of us with an interest in the welfare of future generations have a different attitude.
Churchill said the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with an average voter. His principle can equally be applied to Internet access.
Besty - I meant 'I don't give a flying fart what you think of what I think. It's just my opinion and I'm not trying to separate anyone from their hard earned money with my humble opinion.
I am sorry to see that you appear to believe that the internet is da tool of da debil just because you can find opinions that overturn your own.
In the long run, Besty, with the greatest and most serious respect here, what we 'think or even choose to believe' is neither here nor there. In time, all will become clearer.....but that takes time. I don't intend to waste that time arguing simply because it is fruitless. But I am certain that you are a fair enough man not to attack my character or intelligence simply because you do not like my opinion.
That would be the actions of a desperate man and I consider that you are intelligent and therefore I will not attack your character or intelligence simply because you don't like what I choose to believe.
Good luck and best wishes to you and please keep and open mind, just as I will be willing to say......'eey by gum, it is a bit hot! Perhaps those global warming peeps were right after all', should it ever happen. ( Not holding my breath though!)
@ Gill - your last post is welcome - thank you - just one final note - I haven't found an opinion on the Internet yet that overturns my own.
Indeed I don't have an opinion - I accept the global scientific consensus based on three concepts:
1 - My belief in the veracity and accountability of the scientific method
2 - Occams razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one
3 - I don't have enought time to become enough of an expert on every subject - do I need a Professorship in neo-Assyrian archaeology to decide whether Babylon was destroyed in 587 or 607? Do I need a Doctorate in ancient Greek grammar to make my mind up on the correct translation on John 1:1? Same applies to climate change.
I'm going to repsond to Robdar separately.
SacrificialLoon - I would have to challenge the Human CO 2 emissions because of the source of the clculations and will look into it. But let's not forget that one volcano going off means that the dust, put simply, can stay in the atmosphere for several years affecting the climate. Krakatoa explosion affected the Earth's climate for many years
a question I would ask....why are we all parroting the phrases "credit crunch" and "climate change" at the same time?....could it even be minutely possible we are being socially engineered?
for anyone interested the book "the first global revolution" by the club of rome in 1991 said there had been a vacuum left when the cold war ended.....that vacuum need to be eliminated
they stated in that book that they would have to find a new common adversary to motivate people in a common goal....the goal that they said in their own words "would fit the bill"????
"Global warming,water shortages and global famine"
QUOTES from that think tank called "the club of rome".....
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
>>>In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would FIT THE BILL<<<. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
for the pdf of the book to read for yourself ...
http://ia360927.us.archive.org/2/items/TheFirstGlobalRevolution/TheFirstGlobalRevolution.pdf
I'm going to repsond to Robdar separately.
Cant wait to see your scientific, published opinion.
Some thoughts to consider, there ninja. If the human mind doesn't have some @#^t to deal w, it makes some. It can't sit there quietly in a vacuum.
S
Scientists are still observing the evidence, developing hypotheses, etc causing them to have disagreements over global warming. If you choose to sit on the side of the scientists who belive in global warming even though data is still being collected, good for you. But, since a final agreement has not been made, I hardly think you have the right to talk down to those who do not believe it
These three sentences demonstrate a fundamental lack in your understanding of the scientific method.
Your comments are also factually incorrect.
Science never stops when an agreement has been made - it's a continuous process with progress in understanding as a goal that will never result in 'final agreement' in the way you allude to.
Let me fill in your colander of a response with some facts:
The most recent United Nations sponsored report on climate change was issued in February 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report told us that the broadest consensus of climate experts in the world drawing on some tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies, concluded that the reality of global warming is 'unequivocal' and that there is strong evidence that this increase in global temperature since 1950 is directly attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
The IPCC also concluded that without a massive reduction in human-created CO2 emmissions climate change may bring "abrupt or irreversible" effects on air, oceans, glaciers, land, coastlines and species. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri told reporters "if there's no action before 2012, thats too late. What we do in the next two or three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
If you want more consensus then research Sigma Xi "Confronting Climate Change", or you could put your head back in the sand.
