Global Warming, not man made!
- Thread starter Sand Rat
- Start date
Increasing melting of polar ice would also reduce surface salinity, so whilst I\'m not saying they are wrong that its a natural cycle, it could still be due to warming.
Herein lies the real problem with global climatic change \'science\', its impossible to apply the falsificationist approach, to do so I would need a few replicate earths and then I could manipulate the human population on replicate groups, THEN I could scientifically tell you what was going on.
We can\'t do this, so we are dealing with a phenomonally complex system, which any number of models may explain what we are seeing, and we have no way of testing which is true.
This also highlights another problem, just because something is natural doesn\'t mean it is either good or that we shouldn\'t do something about it. Katrina was natural, would you have stopped that if you could?
This one worried me:
A climate change timebomb may be just 10 years away from detonating, according to the latest global warming evidence.
New data from a deep ice core drilled out of the Antarctic permafrost reveal a shocking rate of change in carbon dioxide concentrations.
The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contains tiny bubbles of ancient air that can be analysed.
Scientists who studied the samples found they left no doubt as to the extent of the build-up of greenhouse gases.
For the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels had remained at between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now they are at 380ppm.
Dr Eric Wolff, from the British Antarctic Survey, who presented the findings at the BA Festival of Science in Norwich, said: \"The rate of change is the most scary thing. We really are in a situation where something\'s happening that we don\'t have any analogue for in our records. It\'s an experiment we don\'t know the result of.\"
Many experts recognise a \"tipping point\" of 440ppm of carbon dioxide, after which climate change starts to run out of control.
The ice core also showed a doubling in concentration of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, in the last 200 years.
Professor Peter Smith, from the University of Nottingham, said there was an \"urgent need\" to find new technologies to reduce the impact of human activity on climate.
\"Governments may have only 10 years in which to determine the destiny of our planet - giving only five years in which to develop feasibility and design studies,\" he said.
As far as I\'m concerned, anyone who doesn\'t recognise that something bad is happening has their head stuck in the sand.
Aye, and it sure is funny that those wealthy few are the very ones in the position to fix many problems that we give them money to fix, yet go unfixed.
Whether it\'s man-made or not, do you trust the politicians to fix it?
Do our world\'s governments have a really good track record at actually fixing any real problems? Does the UN?
If it\'s real and a threat to humanity, who do you trust to actually fix it? The scientists? Which ones? The ones that predicted Global cooling in the Seventies? The Environmentalists, who often put their misguided goals before human lives?
Al Gore?
Sand Rat
New member
Originally posted by Avelorn
Cheers!They probably aren\'t but I\'m not sure there are any unbiased pages about anything if you mean that the pages are without an agenda. However... there are levels of everything.
Junkscience that you linked to for example is (if you don\'t know it) run by Steven J. Milloy. I wouldn\'t consider what he writes as serious works, there are always grains of truths in everything but he seem to have a pretty firm political agenda with what he writes and thus doesn\'t care if he mixes truths with halftruths and outright lies. Something you might expect from a former tobacco company lobbyist.
Hmm - because he was a tobacco company lobbyist, I\'m not supposed to trust him? So what does that mean about the level of trust I\'m supposed to engender in the words of a former tobacco grower?
Edit -
Checked your source on Milloy - an interesting read, but not without bias itself -
farseerlum
New member
Originally posted by Avelorn
EDIT: Debate over? Hm. this is my thoughts on the subject:
The debate will never be over in anything that concerns future events. We must always work by the best theories at hand and I can\'t see that there are any better ones. The only thing I am fearing is that if Global warming is proven to be natural effect that science will loose credibility. I feel that in the heat of winning the argument people seem to need to claim things that are at best guesses... Because if everyone aren\'t entirely convinced that we are heading for our doom... why would we do anything about it?
last words time?
i agree with everyone who thinks we need to consume less. it\'s just a no-brainer.
i dispise with a passion people taking that sentiment and turning into a money grabbing oppourtunity and make up \"solutions\" that don\'t actually help but brainwash poeple into thinkng they are helping. :flame:
hardly any \"green\" solutions help. and a nasty percentage are worse than what they replace.
