Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Global warming has been in and out as the "Latest" hot topic for many years. It is, according to modern scientists, the result of man-made industrial pollutants, clearing forested areas, agriculture, etc. But now they are thinking it started way before the Industrial Revolution:

Roz.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Ok, lemme see if I understand the article correctly. So they are saying the it dated all the way back to the prehistoric age. Then wouldn't the changes they found be attributed to the asteroid that crashed into the Earth that wiped out the dinosaurs? I may be mistaken in this thought, but I read somewhere (of course this was years ago when I was in school) that there was also alot of volcano activity back then as well.

I just think it sorta bites that still humans test weapons in the atmosphere and continue to pollute. Earth was created for us, if I am correct in this line of thinking and yet, humans still continue to abuse it.

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

Here's the other half of my post that I somehow neglected to include...

This is another school of thought that global warming is actually a result of increased output from the sun. Here's a link to a Stanford research paper:

Stanford Research

At the very top is a graph of solar activity versus climate changes.

So, is global warming man-made? I'm thinking our pitiful activities don't have that much of an effect on it. It may contribute some -- and certainly other activities cause significant pollution and adverse effects -- but on this particular issue of global warming, I'm not so sure humans are so much at fault.

Roz

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Global warming is most controversial because it is a pet project of the liberal Left. There are just as many scientists who claim that there isn't any global warming as there are who claim there is. The liberal Left use it as a means to attack technology and seek to implement socialist programs such as the Kyoto treaty.

That doesn't mean that it isn't happening, just that the evidence isn't really clear in a lot of different ways.

When Mt. Pinatubo blew out in the Philipines, it put more "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than all human activity in the last 200 years! We have volcanos around the world erupting all the time, yet it is only human activity that is blamed for the theoretical global warming. Actually, I should take that back. Recently the far leftist New Zealand government tried to put a special tax on cattle farmers because their cows are blamed for "greenhouse gasses" (methane).

The biggest problem with global warming theories is that they are based on computer models. I work with computers a lot. I have even worked with real-life simulation a bit, trying to simulate a simple machining cell. A simple system, such as a machine cell with six machines in it, all of which are running set programs with accurately measured cycle times, is only modeled in the gross sense. That is, we can only model it over a long period of time. Although it is in a controlled environment, and we know all the major variables that affect the results we seek to understand, we can't get good simulations on the short time span results of the system.

The point is, that the composition of the atmosphere, the strength of the magnetosphere, the albedo of the atmosphere, the activity of the sun, the activity of the earth's core, volcanic activity, and even a stray asteroid are all examples of major variables that can contribute to the global temperature. That doesn't even begin to look at the effects of ocean currents, or the theoretical effect (from chaos theory) of a butterfly that flaps its wings in the heart of the Amazon.

In other words, the earth's overall system is far, far too complex to even consider making decisions based on a computer simulation. Any analyst is bound to have overlooked hundreds, thousands, or even millions of vital variables in the creation of the model.

Only God has the knowledge, analytical ability, and computing power to create and understand such a model.

I am sure that man adds to the variation in the global environment. But to blame mankind for all of it, or to attempt to punish some of mankind for changes is totally unreasonable. After all, if the gaseous emissions of bovine quadrapeds is a possible blame, shouldn't we be also blaming the hot-air emissions of the environmentalist extremist neo-Luddites, and taking them to task?

BTW, there is just as much evidence for global cooling as for global warming. IOW, the evidence doesn't support any type of blame.

NightHawk

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Gosh, Nighthawk, tell us how you *really* feel

Excellent point! And for every "study" on a particular subject that finds an answer to a question, there is another study that finds the exact opposite answer to the same question. It just depends on who is running the show, who is paying for it, and what they have already determined that they *want* the study to reveal.

Personally, I've always thought that the idea of thousands of fluorocarbon-containing-hairspray users causing holes in the ozone was kind of ridiculous. It seems to be a much bigger issue than that.

Did you visit the link posted? I do think the chart there is very interesting.

At any rate, thank you for a well-thought-out, informative reply. Much to ponder there.

Roz

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

Gosh, Nighthawk, tell us how you *really* feel

Nah. I would get banned from the forums

The biggest problem that I see with the "global warming" movement isn't that people are concerned that the environment may be changing, that the world climate may increase in temperature, or that mankind might be contributing (or causing) these changes.

It is the poor science that is touted by the neo-Luddites in an attempt to force everyone else to accept their poorly thought out ideas.

I am all for serious research into what is happening. If there is true global warming, or cooling happening, then we need to address it and see if we can make rational, effective changes.

Things like the Kyoto treaty are simply political ploys to implement socialist agendas and bludgeon the West into giving more money to the Third World. This is obvious by the fact that the US and Britain, both of whom have made tremendous strides in reducing air and water pollution, would have born the brunt of the sanctions and fines of the Kyoto treaty. At the same time, China and Russia both of whom are horrendous polluters (and not improving either) would have received special considerations - not for improving, but just for BEING!

Essentially, the Kyoto treaty was another attempt to subject the US and Britain to the tender administrations of the UN and other multi-national bodies. It was, and is, a direct attack against our sovereignity.

If you carefully look at all the articles, websites, and speeches about global warming, you will notice this thread running through them all. They all blame the US. They all urge that the UN or some other "world" body take charge and force the US to clean up its act. Most of them urge that the US donate more money to the UN or to individual countries, either in reparation or to "help them" improve.

It is purely political. You will notice that many of the biggest proponents of global warming (Barbra Streisand, etc.) are the biggest hypocrites (look at her house, the damage she does to coastland, and what she drives and flies in).

NightHawk

Global Warming Natural Man-made

And it's one of many little "card up the sleeve" tricks that other countries will use from time to time against the U.S. For instance, this article from 2001:

Bush Defends Rejection of Kyoto Treaty
EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom told reporters the administration's position was "very worrying." She said she would go to Washington next week with officials of the Swedish EU presidency and the upcoming Belgian presidency for talks.

"I think we also have to make it absolutely clear to the United States that this is not an issue which can be regarded as some kind of marginal environmental issue that can be ignored, or played down," she said.

Wallstrom said that the United States was one of the major culprits in global pollution. "We don't see that it's such a good idea to sort of let the Americans off the hook, those who are among the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases."

According to estimates, the United States produces about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases but has only 4 percent of its population. "We have to make it absolutely clear to the United States that we have the eyes of the world upon us," she said.

Wallstrom questioned whether the United States would come to July's Kyoto implementation talks in Bonn. A previous round last November in The Hague broke down when the United States and Europe could not agree over the right to trade "pollution credits" if a nation did not pledge to cut its pollution.

Wallstrom said that EU trade sanctions against the United States in retaliation for backing out of the Kyoto treaty were premature but that there are broad implications stemming from the U.S. decision.

"This has to do with international relations. This has to do with trade and economics," Wallstrom said. "We will continue to put pressure on the Americans."

Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
=============end clippage ===================

Roz

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History

This is what I was talking about. There are absolutely NO specifics on anything in the discussions on "global warming." It is all "estimates" of this and that. And the rhetoric is always designed to inflame the emotions, and hide any possible "facts" that might be involved in the matter.

One example I would like to give.

There has been a lot of discussion about how Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice pack and glacier was being destroyed by global warming. It seems that in something like 1998, the glacier was particularly small, so lots of people were saying how this was such great evidence, and would cause a severe disaster in the nearby countryside.

However, when people NOT involved in the global warming movement started researching it, trying to track what had happened, they found that the glacier and/or snow pack had actually been smaller a few years before, then had grown very large, then shrunk again. It seems that Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow pack varies by a very large amount from year to year, with some years where it is almost nonexistent.

That is just like the big fuss about how the polar ice cap around the North Pole was so thin. It was reported in the New York Times as absolute evidence. Then, a few days later, everyone else reported that this was normal, and in fact, the polar ice cap was at least as thick as usual.

NightHawk