Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 15

Vincenzo and Farseer,

Nigel Calder's obsession with Svensmark's theory on cosmic rays is simply flawed. Obviously, having written a book about the Dane's quest for scientific recognition, Calder has become too involved without considering the scientific facts of Sevnsmark's experiment. The link below explains five faults which make his experiment flawed.

Svenmark's experiment

One thing that Calder did say, which I agree with, is that we should keep exploring alternative theories to what is accepted as the norm. The greenhouse gases theory is as correct as science can explain today, but that doesn't mean it is faultless. Science, by its very nature, must continue to evolve and explore new explanations.

As the IPCC report clearly indicates, the overwhelming majority of science points to greenhouse gas emissions as the major driver for unnatural climate change. We must act fast. We can't afford to twiddle our thumbs and try to disprove this theory to appease big business in one economy (even though there is little evidence it would do that much damage).

A lot of the rhetoric against human-contributed climate change on this forum I believe is misguided. There is the assumption that humans are the only reason for climate change at all. Nobody is saying that climate change isn't at all natural. We all know there are natural cycles which change over time. What the greenhouse gas theory explains is that our ecosystem is very delicate and it's the unnatural amounts of these human generated gases, largely caused by our activity, which is tipping the climate off the scale.

If you look at graphs that plot climate patterns over the past 2000 years you will carefully note that temperatures have risen to unnatural levels SINCE about the time industrialisation began. That is either an amazing coincidence or it suggests human activity is playing a role.

Climate Change graphs 1000-2000

Regardless of this, science has actually worked out why these greenhouse gases cause a rise in temperature. I have illustrated this in an earlier post and will not go back into it.

Mousetrails, I invite you to read one of my earlier posts about volcanoes. In fact I think it was when you last raised this point. It clearly shows that volcanoes are not more dangerous than humans. Please refer to:

Arvhic's earlier post about the volcano myth

One final note I will add is another swipe at Calder's closing remark which Farseer has also mentioned. I simply don't buy this "we are too insignificant" to affect the climate idea.

Has anyone here been to India, Africa or other third-world over-polluted countries? Visit it and then see exactly what human's can so to the environment. Has anyone here been in acid rain? I have, you generally only get it in heavily polluted countries. If we are too small to affect weather patterns why does acid rain occur? Is this another natural phenomenon, even in parts of the world that have never seen volcanic activity?

The people who are most affected by changes in climate are often the poorest. They don't drive two or three pick-up trucks, have the air-conditioner and heaters running at home at the same time, leave every light on in the house when they go out, or ship their waste to other countries for tiny amounts of money. Visit the third-world and then tell me humans are insignificant and cannot affect the environment or our climate.

I"m not at all stupid enough to believe we are the only factor, but I do believe we make a difference. I also believe if we made some very simple sacrifices to our ridiculously high standard of living/consumerism, we could make a difference to the climate in the long run. Our climate and environment are linked. We should not treat them as separate agenda-driven pursuits by tree-hugging hippies.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

I guess I simply don't understand the train of thought. The whole world agrees with the over whelming evidence, yet we Americans all side with the minority of scientists that are being paid by people with a benefit towards global warming not being our fault. Then to cover up our obvious lack of desire to A. Understand human impact on our planet and B. Take responsiblity for that we simply say its a political band wagon. Whose political band wagon? Its not popular to be on the "band wagon" in the US. In fact, the majority of the world is looking at us like we are being ridiculous as the largest grouping of scientists ever conclude that global warming is happening and its our fault. Yet we still cling to tiny pieces of unproven theories that we aren't the cause.

This isn't a band wagon, and this is happening people. I'm glad you entertain other trains of thought, but there comes a time when you have to go where the evidence takes you, not look for loop holes by some unknown person who wants to make a name for himself. Really, there is nothing that really stacks up to the evidence now being presented, its 99% fact at this point, not something just being theorized now.

People, you cannot just pretend there is no elephant in the room any more. You can taste it, touch it, hear it, and see it, yet you still deny that its happening. There is more evidence for global warming than there is for god. You don't need faith to know that global warming is happening and is humanities fault, you have the evidence that shows you the way.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

There is a documentary to review some differing theories set to air.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=C...ims_documentary

https://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

Looks like you will have to be in the UK to see it, but I am sure that it will find its way around the globe should there be anything of interest. However, there does still seem to be some differences of opinion for all the "supposed" facts.

Page 15 Man-made Natural Warming Global

Thanks for the links, Vincenzo. Should be quite interesting - I look forward to finding transcripts (if not the whole program) on the 'net in the days following

I disagree with that statement, Konq. It's not 99% fact, the data used are from computer models which are based on *estimates*, not actual facts. And *it is* a political band wagon! It's very un-politically correct to be in the opposing camp, these days, as evidenced by our discussion here and hundreds of other websites/blogs/news outlets. Government money in mass quantities is being handed out, and will be handed out for decades to come, for those who spout the global warming party line.

The battle rages on, and in the meantime, the climate will do what it does - heedless of our miniscule human activity.

(emphasis added)

Pollution is one thing; *global* climate change is something completely different. The local climate may be affected by local pollution, but does the acid rain cross the ocean from India or Africa to South America or Australia? No.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

French scientist Claude Allegre, who was a huge proponent and one of the initial scientist to send out a call to arms, has changed his stance on global warming. Allegre was one of the 1500 scientist to sign the "World Scientists Warning to Humanity" about 15 years ago. A pioneer for over 20 years in the fight to inform the world of global warming...has changed his mind.

https://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...05-fc28f14da388

Evidence that the Antartic is gaining ice along with other pieces of information has resulted in a changing of opinion in that the global climate changes we see are naturally occurring. He has done this at great personal expense, since it is not in your best interest to take this point of view and has certainly hurt his standing in France's (and worldly) scientific standing.

Read the other articles in the series. They are not the most informative, but do give some different theories that you can research further.

Yes, the grey bands that you see on the average historical temperature plots are showing the error margin within the computer generated number and they are quite large. It has only been within the last 20 plus years that the error band has really gone to small proportions. Since this is the basis for the argument is an estimate, there will always be some question to how factual any of the theory is...

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Farseer, when I used the example of acid rain I was simply trying to illustrate how human activity can influence the climate. Pollution causes acid rain, not some natural cycle.

I saw the abovementioned documentary.

It made some very interesting points and is well worth viewing. The point that this documentary makes which has most credibility is about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is strange body made up of scientists, politicians and a few other professions. It claims to be the authority on climate change and plays a leading role in promoting the theory. However, the IPCC appears to be a bit shady in the way it promotes its own work as being that of all the leading scientists on climate, when this clearly isn't the case. This documentary reveals that the IPCC has been trying to use signatories who had previously left the body because they claim that their views were not heard.

Another interesting point this documentary makes is about the industry of climate change and how valuable it is to certain groups. It's a valid point.

Where this documentary fails is on several fronts.

Firstly, it interviews people, who in my opinion, lack credibility, eg Nigel Calder the former editor of New Scientist and very well known opponent of climate change. It also interviews a Thatcher politician who is obviously opposed to climate change. Margaret Thatcher's government was very conservative. What would he know about climate change anyway? Using such talent shows that the filmmaker could not find enough legitimate people to interview.

More importantly, the documentary doesn't adequately disprove climate change with science. For starters, it mis-leads the viewer into believing that the climate change theory is about human activity solely controlling the climate. I have stated several times on this forum that this is not the case at all. We all know that the climate is controlled by the sun and other natural factors. What is under debate is how much difference human activity makes.

The scientific proof used in this documentary is rather sketchy at best. Sources for the information are never always revealed and the theories to explain why global warming is occurring are never properly explained in the right amount of scientific detail. Nor are they proved. The animations and diagrams used look like high school assignments gone wrong. At times you get the impression the documentary is designed to confuse rather than inform.

It is also completely biased, much like Gore's effort. This breaks one of the most important rules of good journalism. If you are going to accuse bodies or discredit theories you have to allow a right of reply. If you are going to present alternative theories you have to allow scientists to critique them.

Furthermore, the documentary completely loses the plot at the end by insisting that climate change was created by and for environmental extremists. This is completely untrue. Are Angela Merkel and Tony Blair environmental extremists?

What is even worse is the ludicrous accusation that green groups are trying to prevent third world African countries from obtaining fossil fuel power. I have never heard of such nonsense. And the use of a poor, rundown African medical centre that relies on a solar power cell generator is in poor taste at best, exploitation to prove a lie at worst. If the film maker was intending to insult my intelligence he/she succeeded. Perhaps the film maker could have touched on how farming subsidies in the West have also contributed to the lack of development in Africa? Or maybe how large western pharmaceutical companies prevent simple medicines from being affordable to the Africans who have to use the medical centre. Or how Africans are used by pharmaceutical companies as guinea pigs for medicine trials.

View this documentary to get some information about the forces behind climate change, but don't expect to become enlightened about the issue this documentary was allegedly designed to tackle.

Edited: arvhic on 12th Mar, 2007 - 11:20am

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 15

MAKE BIG BUSINESS PAY FOR GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, DION SAYS

The federal Liberals have proposed a market-based plan to cut carbon emissions by targeting industries that emit the most greenhouse gases, capping total emissions by company and charging those that exceed them.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...greenhouse.html

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 15

GORE TAKES GREEN MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

Environmental crusader Al Gore, former U.S. vice-president and possible presidential candidate, returned to some familiar territory Wednesday, warning the U.S. Congress of a "true planetary emergency" if it doesn't take action on global warming.
Ref. www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2007/03/21/gore-congress.html