Can I blame you for Global Warming?

[superheel]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

It's nonsense, and more IPCC hype. Antarctica has seen record ice levels for nearly 2 years. Ice shelves break off and fall into the ocean naturally due to gravity and the pressure of the ice further inland.

Do you know why the UN and IPCC keep pushing this nonsense? Because of money. The US alone is spending $29 billion dollars a year to fund "climate change" research. More than $1 trillion has been spent worldwide as a result of global warming nonsense. If people stop believing that it's happening the money will stop.

I love the nonsense the UN spreads about how sea ice has reached historic lows, especially when records of sea ice have only been kept for 30 years . They fail to mention that the northwest passage through the arctic was navigable by ship more than 100 years ago, something which is not possible today because it is now frozen over with sea ice.

And even with the the short record-keeping time span, sea ice has now returned to the 1979 to 2000 average.

How about dying polar bears? How many have died as a "result of global warming"? The number so far is 4. But the UN fails to mention that there are about 25,000 polar bears living in the arctic. In 1940 there were only 5000 polar bears. Using the UN's flawed logic, global warming should actually be increasing the number of polar bears, as their numbers have increased 800% as the world has "become warmer".

[sigh]First of all, Climate change doesnt happen in a split second. The fact that 4 polar bears had died already because of a so called climate change just proves that it really exist. Sure, it may just be 4 out of 25,000 but it still killed 4. Slowly, very slowly, there's something going on.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by superheel

[sigh]First of all, Climate change doesnt happen in a split second. The fact that 4 polar bears had died already because of a so called climate change just proves that it really exist. Sure, it may just be 4 out of 25,000 but it still killed 4. Slowly, very slowly, there's something going on.

No one disagrees that there is climate change, it changes every day. But man's effect in the climate is negligible.

Fact, there use to be Viking farms on Greenland, meaning that at one time it was not covered in ice as it now is. That means that the world is now cooler than it was 700 years ago.

Fact, 100 years ago ships were able to navigate the northwest passage. That is not possible now because the northwest passage is covered by sea ice year-round. Does this not mean that temperatures in the 19th century were warmer than the temperatures of today?

Climate change does occur, it always has, and always will, but man's influence upon it is almost immeasurably small.

As for polar bears, they have existed for 500,000 years. During several periods of that time, there was no arctic ice, yet they survived. What does that tell you? It tells you that, unlike what you are being told in the news by politically biased reporters and so-called scientists, polar bears can exist in an environment without sea ice.

But, thankfully for the polar bears, the sea ice is not decreasing.

Am I getting through?

[superheel]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

No one disagrees that there is climate change, it changes every day. But man's effect in the climate is negligible.

Fact, there use to be Viking farms on Greenland, meaning that at one time it was not covered in ice as it now is. That means that the world is now cooler than it was 700 years ago.

Fact, 100 years ago ships were able to navigate the northwest passage. That is not possible now because the northwest passage is covered by sea ice year-round. Does this not mean that temperatures in the 19th century were warmer than the temperatures of today?

Climate change does occur, it always has, and always will, but man's influence upon it is almost immeasurably small.

As for polar bears, they have existed for 500,000 years. During several periods of that time, there was no arctic ice, yet they survived. What does that tell you? It tells you that, unlike what you are being told in the news by politically biased reporters and so-called scientists, polar bears can exist in an environment without sea ice.

But, thankfully for the polar bears, the sea ice is not decreasing.

Am I getting through?

Well, I get you. You have some nice facts there.

Fact, the world has an ozone layer which is scientifically proven. It prevents too much heat from the sun to enter earth. I know that everybody knows this, but human pollutions from the last thousand years up to now have affected the so called ozone layer. That means that the heat temperature that enters the earth is much hotter than before, specially now that there's factories that directly dispose chemicals to the air.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by superheel

Well, I get you. You have some nice facts there.

Fact, the world has an ozone layer which is scientifically proven. It prevents too much heat from the sun to enter earth. I know that everybody knows this, but human pollutions from the last thousand years up to now have affected the so called ozone layer. That means that the heat temperature that enters the earth is much hotter than before, specially now that there's factories that directly dispose chemicals to the air.

Let's not even begin with the ozone layer, one argument is enough for now. But if you want know, research is now showing that the hole in the ozone layer is naturally occurring, and once again, is not affected by man made chemicals.

And, if in fact what you say is true, and ozone depletion is allowing more heat into the atmosphere, why have temperatures declined during the last 10 years? The only logical explanation is that either A, ozone has nothing to do with heat entering the atmosphere, or B, there is nothing wrong with the ozone layer. Which is it?

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Are you serious? For what its worth, I don't go to school, and when I did, it was only computing, math and English. I study in my own time, and to say I am quoting shit straight out of things like "An Inconveniant Truth" is absolute bull shit. Thanks for resorting to the level of trying to demean someone instead of actually debating. It really shows your character.

Actually, as far as I can tell, you've been quoting a bunch of "facts" you've picked up from some finnancially, politically, or religously motivated organization. They don't sound right to me, not at all. I think this because you are posting subjects in unconnecting paragraphs; your facts don't connect, you have no theory, and it seems from that you lack a base, which is what most of these people lack, also.

For what it's worth, education has value, otherwise who would bother with the time and expense of attending university?

As for financially or politically motivated, those words could be used to describe the UN. Since the global warming farce began, more than $1,000,000,000,000 has been spent by the world's governments to grapple with the problem. The US alone is spending $29 billion a year for climate change research. Who do you think is profiting from this money?

Since you asked for facts, theory, and a base, I'll provide them. Please have the courtesy to read, if you are capable of it.

First, a genuine record of earth's temperatures

World Climate Report

Second, a paper refuting the IPCC's claim that Co2 levels are climbing to historic levels, and that Co2 has any significant effect on the world's temperature

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf

Next, a real life chart of sea ice levels. The data only goes back as far as 1979, we do not know what the levels were in the 1930's, which was the period when world temperatures were recorded at their highest levels

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg

This article has to do with sea level rise, or the lack thereof. It is authored by arguably the world's leading authority on the subject

FAEC -

Since many people here seemed to have learned much of what they know about global warming from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", it should be noted that the British Supreme Court found and ruled on 9 inconsistencies in the movie. "An Inconvenient Truth" is no longer considered a documentary of fact by the United Kingdom, but a political/editorial film. Read excerpts here

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore

The UN and the IPCC have a vested interest in maintaining the global warming "myth". Prior to the publishing of the 1996 IPCC report, three important clauses were removed from the final draft, these were:

# "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] chang

es to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

# "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man- made] causes."

# "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

Here is a link the the article, written by S Fred Singer, who was the IPCC's lead author in the 1996 report

Letter to IPCC Scientists

I've posted my facts and my base, those who have contrary evidence, please feel free to present it.

[Bureda]

I don't see why people do not believe this.

If you had a box and inside that box you places 1 rat it would not make a different. If you places a few numbers of rats their body heat and emissions would effect the temperate, oxygen levels and all that.

Seriously, you hear some bull**** fake research about the weather rising up in 1905? Come on, who believe that crap. It's 2009 and we can't even predict the weather properly.

What's obvious is that emissions occur and there's a lot of mega cities. The world is a small place in comparison. Over time this would effect the climate.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by Bureda

I don't see why people do not believe this.

If you had a box and inside that box you places 1 rat it would not make a different. If you places a few numbers of rats their body heat and emissions would effect the temperate, oxygen levels and all that.

Seriously, you hear some bullshit fake research about the weather rising up in 1905? Come on, who believe that crap. It's 2009 and we can't even predict the weather properly.

What's obvious is that emissions occur and there's a lot of mega cities. The world is a small place in comparison. Over time this would effect the climate.

Don't criticize research until you look at it yourself, and compare it's merits and faults for yourself. We know what the temperatures were in 1905, we know what the Co2 levels were in 1905. The instruments used to measure those phenomena are the same now as they were then. Factually, 1905 was a cooler year than normal.

Human contribution to Co2 levels adds up to approximately .12 percent annually. That is not a significant amount. Current levels are about 480 parts per million by volume, which is about 1% of their historical high. And, even when Co2 was at that historic high, there was still ice in the world, and life thrived on land and in the sea.

As for other things like "mega cities", yes, they affect the environment, but only locally. Their effect is offset by other man-made things. Man is growing wheat, barley, and corn crops on vast amounts of farmland. These crops offset the temperature increases caused by city "hot-spot islands". Added to these farms are the vast lakes and reservoirs created by artificial dams.

Natural occurrences still outweigh man's contributions to the weather. The eruption of a single volcano can surpass decades of man-made air pollution.

Please try to come up with an intelligent question or statement, no more empty-headed comments.

[Bureda]

{I will not allow you to insult other users, if you have a personal grudge against someone take it to the PM's}
~KANJI

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Bureda

You don't know shit. you're trying to be indifferent from the obvious.
Attention seeking pricks to be honest.

Dude, obviously you're a much wiser person than us non believers, so use your wise head and tell yourself to move along and stop causing unneccesary heat!

[Aniki]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Don't speak about something you know nothing about. That is the problem with this entire debate, people repeat things they've heard about global warming, somehow thinking that because they've heard it on the news or read it in a book that it must be true.

Look at the numbers and charts yourself, but look at the newer ones. Global warming proponents are still showing graphs formulated before Nasa indicated the flaw in their temperature measuring system, which changed the hottest year on record from 2005 to 1936. You are being lied to by the global warming/climate change crowd, and don't realize it.

I don't give a damn on mostly what the media and others say. All I need is to go outside to see what's happening with the climate. I live in a geographical zone where all four seasons occur in the year. 15 years ago everything was normal the summers where hot and there was plenty of snow in the winter. But right now the summers are really hot and getting more hotter, while the winters are a rainy and there practically no snow now. And since I live by the sea the weather right now changes every week from freezing (-17C) to warm (+3C) and this is not normal here. Somehow I find it hard to believe that Global cooling has got anything to do with this.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

You aren't even educated enough to spell "break" properly, come back in a few years when you've learned enough to speak coherently about the subject.

If you'd pull that arrogant head of yours out of your *** and look at Zed's sig. you'll see that English is not his native language, so it's naturally that he makes mistakes. An intelligent person (especially a teacher) would understand that, it's obvious that you're not one of them.