Skip to comments.There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
click here to read article
Its all true. All anyone has to do is watch "The day after tomorrow" to know whats coming. Were all doomed. Yeah right!
I'm sure we have some level of impact on the environment, I just think it's far from what the enviro-freaks would like us all to believe.
"Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
Even though you say you 'think' there may be human activities that 'could' influence our climate, you also admit that there isn't any real 'proof' of this.
Speculation is exactly what these 'scientist' base their 'assumptions' on.
So. The question remains.
Since the late 19th century (certainly the mid-1800's), the northern hemisphere has gotten warmer. The Thames used to freeze solid. Snow would get dozens of feet deep regularly in some places.
This warming trend is a result of finally breaking out fo the Little Ice Age.
The only factors the politicos see is capitalism and the US economy. There is NOTHING man can do to alter in any meaningful way, what mother nature will. If this enviro-freaks really cared about the environment they would be rapidly promoting capitalism and property rights to species in the oceans and elsewhere. They enviro nuts only care about one thing -- destroying capitalism.
Yes, but nothing new, as with all political issues.
yes the question does remain.
NOx, SOx, other VOCs, Carbon dioxide, methane, particulate matter (especially black carbon or soot), fluorinated compounds, and ozone to name a few. Not saying they need to be eliminated but at least used cautiously. Personally I believe the particlate matter to be the biggest issue.
A good scientist doesn't speculate or publish assumptions. It is largely the media and activist groups that have interpreted the results of research to suit their agenda. Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. Much like any debate, you cannot prove something does not exist by failing to prove that it does.
"While I do not agree with the gloom and doomsayers regarding anthropogenic warming trends these statements seem particularily inappropriate to prove the point of the article."
I think the point of the article is that any actions to restrict human activity to "curb" glbal warming, especially dire actions, are unwarranted.
"It is nearly impossible to 'positively' attribute global warming to man-made cause/greenhouse gases. There are just to many factors involved further reiterated by the author pointing out the weaknesses in our models."
That's what THEY said.
"While we not be able to attribute a direct correlation between warming trends and our activities, the indirect effects are immeasurable."
It is irresponsible to advocate taking action to curtail that which is "immeasurable".
"The synergistic effect goes unnoticed."
Synergistic effect? Where I went to engineering school, they taught us that "synergy" was pretty much like alchemy. In real science, you get out what you put in, period.
"It's is impossible to attribute a causal relationship when multiple variables like this are involved in an open system."
Again, without causation, there's no basis for action.
"I think, both the people who think we are killing the planet and those that think we are doing no harm, are both missing the boat. Right now the burden of proof is on the scientists and we currently cannot cannot prove we are contributing to the warming trend, though that does not mean we aren't. Regardles of the hype we still need to carefully look at our activities and eliminate unnecessary potential factors."
I cannot prove you are breaking into my house at night and hassling my pets, though that doesn't mean you aren't. Does that give me carte blanche to come over to your house and shoot you to "eliminate unnecessary potential factors"? I think not.
It doesn't make any sense to wreck our surroundings for no reason whatsoever, any more than it makes sense to take unnecessary measures in a misguided effort to "save" something that doesn't need saving. There is no current, scientifically credible evidence to establish that human activity has any significant impact on global climate. The only motivation to believe "global warming" at this stage is either to grab political power or to make ourselves feel better.
>"I agree with the author 100% Global Warming is NOT caused by humans."
Ditto, I'd have to agree with you also.
"Your correct we don't have an answer to the question but I still think its rather ignorant to rule out the damage we may be doing. "
And there you go again.
'Rule out the damage we MAY be doing'.
You make this statement based on what?
"We might be causing problems, even tho there is no proof, so we should be careful."
I might have chicken for lunch, but, then again, I might not!
You can't base your assumptions on a possible 'negative' influence that has yet to be proved!
The climate is changing, though, regardless of the cause. Temperatures at high latitudes have increased by several degrees; glaciers world-wide are in retreat. Glacier National Park is going to be poorly-named in several decades if this continues. Mt. Kilimanjaro is losing its glacier as well: by 2020 if trends continue, it will be gone. This glacier is 12,000 years old. (However, a drop in precipitation rather than an increase in temperature seems to be the reason for this.)
'Global warming' is an agenda.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bears this out. For example, in 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992, there was only one day over 90 degrees and, in 1997, only five days."
It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history.
"It just proves that 100 years of data (in some cases less) is not sufficient to show a trend in 4.5 billion years of earth's climate history."
I think that is what the author was trying to point out.
But, I could be wrong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.