Posted 8 months, 15 days ago in 
4 votes. Average 4/5
Loading ...
It took about 200 years of discussion before Louis Pasteur’s experiments finally put to rest the belief in spontaneous generation of life from decaying organic material, something that seemed to occur in days or weeks.
Amazingly, that was almost immediately replaced by an even more bizarre theory that all life arose spontaneously from an inorganic beginning, requiring millions and billions of years. Additionally, the new theory assumed the prior existence of all the elements of the atomic table, including the mysterious subatomic particles.
Despite the total absence of supporting evidence, this theory is taught as scientifically proven fact, and enthusiastically supported by our media. Alternative views are excluded from our public schools by the force of law. Is it any wonder that we are being led like sheep into a panic over man-made global warming?
RALPH PACINI
Grand Junction
73 Responses to “How can we believe in man-made global warming without evidence?”
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Pacini,
great letter. You touched on a key point, many of those believing in global warming being sheep. They act out of emotion and not based on facts. Since 2001 the earth has been cooling, scientific fact. The sheep continue to run towards the cliff in spite of the evidence. When they are frozen in their footsteps with their voices quivering from the cold they will continue to rant saying global warming is coming any day now, coming any day now, coming any day now, just wait and see. They will never let it go because the left and the media are pushing it as means of trying to tax us now or out of pure emotion trying to prove they are right. It is almost comical now watch the supporters of global warming. Some supporters are relenting however now saying green house gasses are somehow causing the cooling or this is an anomaly giving us a break for a few years. If this is true then it is simple to see Mother Nature in whatever form is driving global warming and global cooling. What humans are doing is not contributing anything. To put this in perspective they talk about Co2 in parts per million (ppm), right now about 365 ppm total Co2. The majority of that 365 ppm being from the ocean which is the largest contributor of Co2, roughly 80%. That leaves a very small ppm from humans. I will take about 40 blue marbles and throw them in a container with the rest of the million total being red marbles. I will mix them up and let someone dig out the 40 marbles out of the million and let’s see how long it takes to find those 40 blue marbles. This should hopefully be a god example to those to show what humans are contributing is nothing and we are not the cause of any type of global warming. Co2 gas is needed for our basic existence.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 8:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So many misunderstandings is such a short letter.
“It took about 200 years of discussion before Louis Pasteur’s experiments finally put to rest the belief in spontaneous generation of life from decaying organic material, something that seemed to occur in days or weeks.”
Of course, this referred to the idea of complex life such as maggots growing in meat. This is an important distinction that is generally ignored by the anti-science crowd.
“Amazingly, that was almost immediately replaced by an even more bizarre theory that all life arose spontaneously from an inorganic beginning, requiring millions and billions of years.”
Not so amazingly, this misrepresents the concept of abiogenesis, which refers to much simpler forms which blur the line between “life” and “non-life”.
“Additionally, the new theory assumed the prior existence of all the elements of the atomic table, including the mysterious subatomic particles.”
You mean the elements that we can see being made in stars throughout the universe? What assumptions are being referred to here? The answer is none. The process of fusion is well-understood by scientists and physicists.
“Despite the total absence of supporting evidence, this theory is taught as scientifically proven fact, and enthusiastically supported by our media.”
Perhaps because it is observed fact. If it wasn’t, all those nuclear reactors on all those Navy ships, submarines and power stations would be useless. Same principles.
“Alternative views are excluded from our public schools by the force of law. Is it any wonder that we are being led like sheep into a panic over man-made global warming?”
What laws would those be? Perhaps the ones mandating that religion be kept out of science class? For example, does Mr. Pacini endorse the teaching of all creation stories as science? Science is taught in science class, because that is what it is for.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “So many misunderstandings is such a short letter.”
There is no misunderstanding at all. There is only that some individuals believe something and the others do not want to. Most of us, being as we are not scientists, have to accept as authority, that source which we consider most reliable. And that, in our opinion, is not in those whom we might label the “perpetual deniers” who, it appears to some of us, “pick and choose” source after source, looking for whomever tells them what they want to believe. It doesn’t appear to matter if the one they listen to has any qualification to speak on the subject or not, or if what their source says is based upon expertise in any of the fields of bio-science, never mind understanding the complexity and relationship between all of the various scientific disciplines involved in reaching the conclusion that global warming is an occuring phenomenon.
What appears to be lacking is any coherent reason why they would deny it, except perhaps that they “want to.”
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, Ralph - I read headlines like this from the BBC today:
“The global sea level looks set to rise far higher than forecast because of changes in the polar ice-sheets. Scientists at a climate change summit in Copenhagen said earlier UN estimates were too low and that sea levels could rise by a metre or more by 2100. The implications for millions of people would be “severe”, they warned. Ten per cent of the world’s population - about 600 million people - live in low-lying areas.”
And, all I can think is that space-Gawd must really be upset about all those homosexuals. It’s all very confusing, like digital TV conversion and roundabouts. What we need is more data. If only we would have started teaching cretinism, sorry!, I mean creationism in school about 50 years ago, this little climate-weirdness problem would have never occurred.
Could you tell me that bible story again about the big-ass flood? Or about the humans hanging with the dinosaurs? Or that virgin-birth deal? Maybe sprinkle in some “supporting evidence” for grins.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Chancho: “And, all I can think is that space-Gawd must really be upset about all those homosexuals.”
Now we know why this is happening. It HAS to be because of the homosexuals. Now, why didn’t we see this sooner. Dumb us. And, Colorado just got rid of the one who could have led the charge against those “evil” homosexuals, Marilyn Musgrave.
Oh! The pain you will suffer for having rejected such an anointed. Woe unto the, Colorado! Thou shalt surely suffer the effects of all the thunderbolts to be thrown forth from every righteous pulpit in the nation for this most egregious offense.
Posted March 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As far as the flood goes… The Bible lies, the boat had to be bigger since not even 2 of every species of beatles would have fit on an arc that small…
As far as hanging with Dinos… Watch all the episodes of the Flintstones. It is the best documentary I have ever seen.
As far as the virgin birth goes, my ex-girlfriend got pregnant and she told me that she was still a virgin… … … If it could happen to her it could happen to anyone… … …:)
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Those who are convinced enough in man-made global warming (or is it man-made climate change) to be willing to put their money where their mouth is to relieve the problem are a small minority in this country. Most who go along with the concept are happy to do so as long as it doesn’t cost them any money. It’s easy to be green as long as it is free.
Now, for the first time, we are going to see just how dire the majority of this country truly believes this problem is. This cap and trade bill will be the first test.
We are already seeing Democrats in the Senate saying that the budget bill is in trouble if cap and trade is not altered. The burden will be with the president to sit down in front to a camera, and explain to the American people, in language they can understand, that unless they are willing to pay for the change, and pay heavily, the world is going to end.
I suspect that if he can convince folks that the problem is life or death, money will be no problem.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 8:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish it will be an easy sell for BO, just look at all the sheep that voted for him in the first place. All he has to do is start speaking and the sheep will be in awe of what he says. Don’t you know it’s all about style over substance these days? What ever BO says is gold whether it’s the right thing to do or not. People wonder why the country is in a mess? Change you can believe in!
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco, I’m not so sure that it’s going to be an easy sell. I belive most folks are happy to get Obama goodies, as long as the ugly wealthy get to pay for them. But if the goodie getters find out that they will have to bear the cost of those goodies themselves, their attitude may well change.
We will know in the fullness of time.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t have an opinion concerning Global Warming (Climate Change) that is based on any scientific knowledge. However, with 6.75 billion humans on this planet and more being added every second, it seems possible that the CO2 from that many people simply breathing could change our closed atmosphere. Give these 6.75 billion an automobile, homes with cooling and heating systems, computers, TVs, and every other modern appliance (goodies) and it’s likely our environment will suffer.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publuisco said:
“What humans are doing is not contributing anything. To put this in perspective they talk about Co2 in parts per million (ppm), right now about 365 ppm total Co2. The majority of that 365 ppm being from the ocean which is the largest contributor of Co2, roughly 80%. That leaves a very small ppm from humans. I will take about 40 blue marbles and throw them in a container with the rest of the million total being red marbles. I will mix them up and let someone dig out the 40 marbles out of the million and let’s see how long it takes to find those 40 blue marbles. This should hopefully be a god example to those to show what humans are contributing is nothing and we are not the cause of any type of global warming. Co2 gas is needed for our basic existence.”
What this ignores is that CO2 is only part of the equation. A small increase in CO2 causes an exponential increase in water vapor concentration which is a much bigger cause of warming than CO2. Its like saying a match can’t burn a forest because it’s too small. The match is, but what it causes isn’t.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No doubt there is such a thing as man-made global warming. How much and how much of an “emergency” it is - not at all clear. Nevertheless, we’re pouring our money and political capital down the green hole.
Besides, if BO’s lazafaire silver tongue doesn’t prove able to heal the psychoses of Iran’s fanatical leader, we won’t have to worry much about Gore’s Convenient Lie or flawed computer-generated models that predict the end of the world. Wanna see global warming? Think nuclear 9/11.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 8:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Okay let’s stick with your theory. Co2 in the past rose to 650 ppm due to natural phenomena, volcanos etc. long, long before humans were supposedly contributing. Low and behold humans survived, we are still here. So if Co2 was almost twice the level as now and at that time humans were not contributing it is pretty easy to conclude that nature is driving the Co2, not humans. So it is also sceintifically proven that water vapor increases exponentially as you stated, regardless of the source of the C02, human or natural. You see your theory doesn’t hold any “water”. Nature is driving Co2 levels, humans contribute less than 0.01% of Co2 to the total. We have no impact. Stop being a sheep and thinking emotionally and look at the bigger picture, past evidence and current evidence that shows the global temperature is cooling since 2001 in spite of the increased Co2 levels.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 8:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
by the way it is also scientifcally proven that tempurature drives Co2 levels to go up and down, Co2 lags behind tempurature and rises and falls after temperature increase and decrease, not the other way around. Humans are not causing a tempurature rise in any form since the earth is now in a cooling period in spite of some population theory you suggest.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 10:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco:
I could be mistaken, but I believe the last time CO2 levels were at 650 ppm, it was long before humans evolved, so to say that we survived is a bit…wrong. And you’re right the source of the CO2 doesn’t matter, so doesn’t it make sense to reduce what we’re putting out there regardless?
If earth is in a cooling period, then why has the northwest passage been open in the summer for the last two years for the first time is recorded history?
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 10:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
good point, “recorded history” What about before recorded history? As far as 650 ppm before humans evolved issue - then how did we get here? According to your statement the Co2 and global warming should have killed off all life forms including those that we evolved from.
My point is we as humans contribute so little it does not matter how much humans put out there since it has no effect on global warming or cooling, nature is doing it, not us. I agree that we can find cleaner forms of energy. It just so happens that right now cheaper energy technology exists which happens to be carbon forms that emit Co2. I am not at all concerned with the how much emission we are putting out due to fossil fuels since they have no effect on global warming.
My concern is rather fossil fuels are finite resources and will one day run out and not be cost effective to use or recover so I agree in getting away from them, but not for the sake of global warming. Global warming is a political made excuse to further tax us for our “carbon foot print” - what a joke! I am more concerned with the other by products of fossil fuels that may do environmental harm, but not Co2.
Posted March 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco: “My point is we as humans contribute so little it does not matter how much humans put out there since it has no effect on global warming or cooling, nature is doing it, not us.”
Now, that is a fairly definitive statement. Some of us would like to know as to how the gentleman arrived at that conclusion (scientific evidence please).
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 12:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres who is “us”? Scientific evidence in the geologic record et al. You are so smart you can research the rest on your own. The past speaks for itself even with Co2 levels almost twice as high as now as scientifically proven to exist in the geologic record. 650 ppm in the past was done without human industrialization. What caused it then to such a high level in the past without this? Volcanoes, the ocean, the sun, the tilt of the earth and distance from the sun or other natural phenomena are the only logical choices. RLaitres for such a smart guy I thought you would be able to deduce this but I explained it for you as best I could. But I am sure I will be demeaned by you in some way with your “it depends on what your definition of is is”.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 12:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco: “Scientific evidence in the geologic record et al. You are so smart you can research the rest on your own. The past speaks for itself even with Co2 levels almost twice as high as now as scientifically proven to exist in the geologic record. 650 ppm in the past was done without human industrialization.”
First, ignoring the sarcasm, we can move to the issue being discussed.
You go back to the geologic age and that is fine, but there were other things that caused CO2 at that time, as their are now. Such things as volcanic eruptions, etc. However, more current scientific information also indicates that, with the beginning of industrialization, there were changes in the composition in the polar ice caps illustrating the buildup of CO2, caused by human activity. And, at that time, we were nowhere near producing the amount of CO2 that we are today. Are those to be ignored? Some of us don’t believe we should.
It is true that volcanic eruptions of the past could re-occur, and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it. But, is that any reason to ignore what we are now doing, taking our “chances” that something major will occur that would dwarf our own, what could be considered negligence.
As far as studies to use as a basis, some of us would rather take the findings of thousands upon thousands of respected scientists worldwide, and with specialities in every scientific disciplines having to do with earth science, with all of them combined into one final report, one finding verified against another, than that of a single professor or non-scientist, who has not participated in the research, and comes to different conclusion.
There is the difference. Whose word is one to rely on, an why? That is the question.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 1:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres,
You are the type of individual that would have rejected two well known “single professors” named Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus. Just because you say there are thousands upon thousands of scientists (which is false by the way) who say man made global warming is real doesn’t mean it is so. The numbers of your thousands of scientists is dwindling by the day as the otehr side is gaining momentum to prove it is all a hoax driven by politics. Evidence on the other side from other well respected and noted scientists is strong if not stronger and proving this everyday. hoax. Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus were “single professors” at first against the whole world until they were time validated and the tide turned with the scientific facts just as is happening now with the global warming caused by Co2 hoax.
You are so caught up in your own world and trying to prove your point you missed my whole statement where I essentially agree with you indirectly on this point - “It is true that volcanic eruptions of the past could re-occur, and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it. But, is that any reason to ignore what we are now doing, taking our “chances” that something major will occur that would dwarf our own, what could be considered negligence.”
I said in post 16 - “My concern is rather fossil fuels are finite resources and will one day run out and not be cost effective to use or recover so I agree in getting away from them, but not for the sake of global warming. Global warming is a political made excuse to further tax us for our “carbon foot print” - what a joke! I am more concerned with the other by products of fossil fuels that may do environmental harm, but not Co2.”
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco:
“good point, “recorded history” What about before recorded history?”
Geologic evidence.
“As far as 650 ppm before humans evolved issue - then how did we get here? According to your statement the Co2 and global warming should have killed off all life forms including those that we evolved from.”
Who said all life would perish at that particular point? I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth.
“My point is we as humans contribute so little it does not matter how much humans put out there since it has no effect on global warming or cooling, nature is doing it, not us. I agree that we can find cleaner forms of energy. It just so happens that right now cheaper energy technology exists which happens to be carbon forms that emit Co2. I am not at all concerned with the how much emission we are putting out due to fossil fuels since they have no effect on global warming.”
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Not everyone agrees with you.
“My concern is rather fossil fuels are finite resources and will one day run out and not be cost effective to use or recover so I agree in getting away from them, but not for the sake of global warming. Global warming is a political made excuse to further tax us for our “carbon foot print” - what a joke! I am more concerned with the other by products of fossil fuels that may do environmental harm, but not Co2.”
See above.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Publiusco, the scientific method has come a long way since Galileo and the days when the church controlled all information.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ralph Pacini and publiusco would not have made good early settlers in the Grand Valley. I think the planning in the use of water - irrigation, paved the way for the oasis we enjoy here today. I imagine that there were individuals who simply did not care about the generation of valley life, and the conditions that human life requires in order to sustain itself. It is messy business, but without evidence that God will “provide”, we are left to sorting out the resource conservation the best we can, without leaving a dirty nest. Maybe the ditch diggers for this irrigation system were sheep, but I am grateful for their foresight and their sacrifice.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 8:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgadbc says, “the scientific method has come a long way since Galileo and the days when the church controlled all information.”
You’re right. Now we have the entertainment industry doing the spinning.
I’ve yet to hear a good defense for Gore’s 100% fictional imagery in what has become the new global textbook for indoctrinating innocent school children in the much-less-than-factual effects of “man-made climate”.
Anybody care to enlighten? Dr. Scott? Rev. RL?
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgadbc,
I really see no difference between now and the past. The media and the governmement are now the church that control all information. Global warming has become a religion. Any who challenges it is shunned by all the rest of sheet running to cliff edge. When you come to the edge and fall off and realize this all just a hoax you can look up one last time and see those of us who didn’t by into all the hoax laughing at you.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My other point got lost in all the hot air or should I say Co2 being produced here. I have heard no argument yet to contridict the scientifically proven fact that average global tempurature has been on the decline since 2001 in spite of Co2 greenhouse gases being at an all time high of around 365 parts per million. This means Co2 greenhouse gas production by humans has NOTHING to do with global warming since the tempurature is in decline despite a rise in Co2. Some one PLEASE answer that question as to why this is happening. Or could it be none of you globnal warming zealots can explain it?
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 9:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Could you please provide the source of this scientifically proven fact, that’s a new one to me.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 9:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If the earth has been cooling since 2001, then why was 2007 the warmest year on record? And why was the northwest passage open for the first time in recorded history for the last two summers, if it wasn’t warm enough in 2001, but was in 2008 and 2009?
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco, JMH,
March 12, 2009
This just in;
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/12/world/AP-EU-Denmark-Climate-Change.html?_r=1
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 11:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s the propaganda element in that story:
“The climate change panel predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee.”
Sounds awful, but THINK. The sea level rising over a period of 90 years will cause FLEEING masses? Hmmmmmmmm……
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
They’re not going to stand around with their feet wet all the time, are they? They are going to move to higher ground, right? Maybe fleeing isn’t the most appropriate word to use, but do you have anything to rebut the data or are you just going to nit-pick their grammer?
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, I’m not going to nitpick their grammar.
I’m going to nitpick their semantics…..
….to expose their propaganda, that uses loaded words like FLEE, that might make Millions start to panic, about all those poor people, and make Billions….. for the carbon-credit crowd.
Capiche?
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No, I’m not going to nitpick their grammar.
I’m going to nitpick their semantics…..”
Oh. That’s MUCH different.
I notice you still don’t present any argument against the findings.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And I still haven’t heard a good defense for Gore’s 100% fictional imagery in what has become the new global textbook for indoctrinating innocent school children in the much-less-than-factual effects of “man-made climate”.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“And I still haven’t heard a good defense for Gore’s 100% fictional imagery in what has become the new global textbook for indoctrinating innocent school children in the much-less-than-factual effects of “man-made climate”.”
Sounds like a lot of loaded words (i.e. “100% fictional”, “indoctrinating”, “much-less-than-factual”) to me. Pot, meet kettle.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
2007 warmest year on record compared to what? What is the record? Official recorded tempurature since the late 1895? If you are using the year of 2007 as the warmest year on record you need to check your facts. You want take a very very small piece of teh whole picture to make your point. In the big picture you 2007 year was only a .4 degree celcius rise average global tempurature since “recored” tempurature from 1895. By the way when we started recording tempurature in 1895 we started from a pretty low point of a global cooling where their was a mini iceage. Again we are talking about a .4 degree rise since then. Did you forget teh midievil warming period where the temurature at that time was much higher than now with out industrialization adding to that time. You are hanging your hat on this much of a tempurature increase to say we are doomed? Get some perspective. You need to look at the bigger picture and not focus on such a small period of time. In the geologic past the Northwest Passage has been open countless times, it will continue to open and continue to close long after you and I are gone. Earth’s average tempurature rises and falls in a cycle of about a 1/2 a degree all time. Politicians want to now say a 1/2 degree rise up untilk 2001 equates to global warming. SInce we are cooling off now they are seeing their excuse to tax us more go up in smke because people are not stupid and not buying in to this garbage. Unless you are still a sheep headed to the cliff believing in hoax. It’s not too late to stop or turn back ha ha. We are in a cooling trend right now overall.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here are some scientific facts some of you will ask for I am sure:
In 1998 these results were confirmed in the most accurate study of ancient temperatures ever conducted. As part of the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), research scientists from Denmark and the U.S. Geological Survey measured temperatures in two deep boreholes drilled near the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Although these temperatures were not necessarily representative of global conditions, the climatic history inferred from them was largely consistent with the global record obtained by the University of Michigan scientists. The results, published in Science in October 1998, were ignored by major media in the United States. The Greenland and the University of Michigan findings agree in several important respects. Both show that long before man was capable of influencing Earth’s climate, natural cooling and warming trends lasting hundreds and thousands of years were present. For instance:
The temperature rise seen in meteorological measurements of the last 140 years is a recovery from a cold period in the 19th century.
Even after the modest 1.0ºF global warming of the last 140 years, present-day global temperatures remain cooler by about 1.0ºF than they were when the Vikings settled Greenland in medieval times.
For more than 7,500 of the last 10,000 years, temperatures have been higher than today.
For at least 5,000 of the last 10,000 years, the mean planetary temperature was about 1.5ºF warmer than today.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
let’s open our eyes a little and look at the facts regarding your Northwest passage argument -
The Northwest passage may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 1000 and 1300 AD. A better candidate for the last previous opening was the period 5,000-7,000 years ago, when the Earth’s orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2-3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4-6 meters higher.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publuisco,
You grossly misunderstand what I am saying. I am simply pointing out that you and JMH’s personal incredulity does not “prove” that humans are not causing any global warming. You are right that it has been warmer in the past. So what? All that proves is that it was warmer in the past. It says nothing about what is happening now, or why it is happening. That is the issue, and while I do believe that we are having AN effect, the degree of that effect is still up in the air.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JHM,
You have an excellent point about the use of the word “flee”. The Associated Press writer should have said something like, ” the rising sea levels could force millions of people to leave low lying areas over the next 100 years. ” By the same token if some of the posters to this thread were to write the article it would read something like…
” Hundreds of scientists who are under the thrall of the world wide carbon cap cabal warned Thursday that global warming is accelerating. These dupes are leading the uninformed sheep of the world into a trap that will cost the civilized word trillions of dollars and ruin the economies of many major nations.”
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I don’t misunderstand what you said at all. You stated this - You are right that it has been warmer in the past. So what? All that proves is that it was warmer in the past. It says nothing about what is happening now, or why it is happening. What about from about 1949 until 1975 when we had the heaviest release of Co2 into the atmopshere and global temperature dropped. Manmade Co2 is not driving global warming. IF it is happeneing mother nature is doing it not man. It has been scientifically proven that Co2 lags behind tempurature when it goes up. First temperutature goes up, then Co2 follows, not the other way around. I have yet to find anyone on this forum disprove or even try to disprove that point. So if temperature is drivng Co2 what is causing your so called global warming if it’s not Co2. I contend and the evidence is stronger every day the sunspot cycles are showing a direct cooralation between warming and cooling periods on the earth. When sunspots are gone we have cooler temperatures, when they are present we have warmer temperatures.
Here is some information on the sunspot phenomena -
Past cool periods, identified with the late stages of the “Little Ice Age” and with the Maunder and Dalton climate minima, closely correlate with low sunspot numbers (astronomers have kept close tabs on sunspots since Galileo’s time). Some solar-physicists are now saying if the current cycle doesn’t begin to produce spots soon, we can expect a cool-down like the 19th-Century Dalton minimum - or worse. Decades-long cooling in the past brought crop failures to Europe from repeated summer frosts and restricted growing seasons.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco:
“I don’t misunderstand what you said at all.”
Yes, actually you have. I am not advocating or denying anthropogenic global warming. I do think we are affecting the climate, but the degree is open for discussion. You seem to keep trying to get me to defend a much more radical position that I do not hold.
“You stated this - You are right that it has been warmer in the past. So what? All that proves is that it was warmer in the past. It says nothing about what is happening now, or why it is happening. What about from about 1949 until 1975 when we had the heaviest release of Co2 into the atmopshere and global temperature dropped. Manmade Co2 is not driving global warming.”
This is your opinion. You are focusing on CO2. There are other factors involved.
“IF it is happeneing mother nature is doing it not man.”
So you dispute that glaciers are melting all over the world? You dispute that arctic ice is receding more and more each year? You dispute that the Antarctic ice is melting more and more? It is happening, publiusco. The only issue is what factors are responsible.
“It has been scientifically proven that Co2 lags behind tempurature when it goes up. First temperutature goes up, then Co2 follows, not the other way around.”
How about a source for your “scientific proof.” It is true that temperature increases can cause increases in CO2, but it is also true that CO2 increases can cause temperature increases. The one does not mean the other cannot happen.
“I have yet to find anyone on this forum disprove or even try to disprove that point. So if temperature is drivng Co2 what is causing your so called global warming if it’s not Co2.”
You have not proven it’s not CO2. You have merely asserted it. Forgive me for not accepting your personal incredulity as proof.
“I contend and the evidence is stronger every day the sunspot cycles are showing a direct cooralation between warming and cooling periods on the earth. When sunspots are gone we have cooler temperatures, when they are present we have warmer temperatures.”
Sure. No argument here. So what happens if we put just a bit more CO2 into the atmosphere, on top of sunspot cycles, on top of natural CO2 production. It all adds up and feeds off of itself.
“Here is some information on the sunspot phenomena -
Past cool periods, identified with the late stages of the “Little Ice Age” and with the Maunder and Dalton climate minima, closely correlate with low sunspot numbers (astronomers have kept close tabs on sunspots since Galileo’s time). Some solar-physicists are now saying if the current cycle doesn’t begin to produce spots soon, we can expect a cool-down like the 19th-Century Dalton minimum - or worse. Decades-long cooling in the past brought crop failures to Europe from repeated summer frosts and restricted growing seasons.”
Sure. Again, this is yet another of the many variables in the equation. CO2 is just one little piece.
Posted March 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott you are just a little behind the curve regarding retreating sea ice and glacial ice -
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago. Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC’s Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal’s numbers were increasing.
Also some of the sensors used to measure the ice were off causing people to believe there was less ice than their actually is.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 6:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
You do realize that from September onward it is WINTER! Of course ice recovers in the winter. The changing of the seasons has nothing to do with global warming. If you actually think that winter ice build-up means that global warming is wrong, then it is you who are behind the curve. Most people learn that it gets cold in winter before Kindergarten.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 7:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Since you want to go on a personal attack about being in kindergarten I will get down to your preschool educational level then. Here I thought you could infer something but alas I will go down to your preschool level to try and explain this all to you. I hope you learned in kindergarten that the polar ice caps stay frozen all year long and will gain or lose mass depending on how much they melt during the previous summer or accumulate snow from the previous winter. This is going to be tough to put into simple terms for you since you can’t infer anything about ice cap and glacial retreat and advance but I will do my best so you don’t get confused about the winter solstice again.
Of course the polar icecaps will gain more ice in the winter months when snow accumulates. What you fail to understand by my point is that since the globe is now cooling, the ice caps are gaining more ice mass each winter because the previous summer it was cool enough for them not melt more than they gained. It is a cumulative issue. Now do you understand what mean? One more time, the earth is in a cooling trend, snow accumulation from last winter did not melt as much over last summer and thus this winter added more to the total ice mass and they are not melting or retreating anymore. Easy as one, two, three I hope? Thus ends your lesson.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 7:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
The easiest way to tell you is that the snow is piling up faster than it is melting at the polar ice caps which means the tempurature is cooling down. Its like your ice maker in your freezer, the freezer is cold enought to keep producing ice unless you shut off your ice maker. The ice will accumulate and overflow, do you understand now? Before you go on a rant and personal attack it would be wise of you to stop, take a couple of deep breaths, clear your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 8:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Publiusco, I have found nothing on the University of Illinois’ climate website saying that sea ice has increased recently. Please cite. Also, When you look at the BIG picture, the globe is still warming. We’re in a small cooling period but the mean temperature is still up up up!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Also, did you know that during the last Ice Age the world was only 9 to 15 degrees F cooler than it is today? Puts into perspective the 1.6 degrees we’ve risen over the last 100 years, doesn’t it?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/
I also have one question for all those smart people out there who just KNOW that global warming is a lot of BS.
What difference does it make to you? I just want to know what’s harm it’s doing to you for other people to want to preserve the earth we live on. I’m not trying to shove info down your throat, but it drives me nuts to see people on here arguing with people who believe in global warming. We’re not doing anything immoral so what’s your problem?
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
I second TyDurden’s request for support on your claim that the sea ice is building up more than it is melting. Everything I have seen, including data for last year, indicates the opposite - that more melting is taking place in the summer than is re-freezing in the winter.
You do recognize the difference between the seasonal ice and the pack ice, right?
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 8:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ty: “What difference does it make to you? I just want to know what’s harm it’s doing to you for other people to want to preserve the earth we live on. I’m not trying to shove info down your throat, but it drives me nuts to see people on here arguing with people who believe in global warming. We’re not doing anything immoral so what’s your problem?”
This is what I was talking about. It’s easy to be green as long as it’s free.
What Ty does not seem to understand is that combating the release of CO2 is an enourmously costly proposition. We are going to see the first significant impact on the pocket books of Americans if cap and trade passes in its present form.
Americans are not sufficiently convinced that global warming is the life and death proposition that global warming alarmists represent. They are not yet willing to give up a substantial portion of their income to combat it.
What is needed is an open debate, on television, with boths sides represented, so that the American people, who are not going to be reading a hundred scientific papers, can understand which side they believe.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 8:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
I’m not intending to attack you personally, but when you make the argument that the ice has come back in last few months, it appears that you are not considering the difference between long term trends, which is how global warming works, and short-term events, such as seasons.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I never said I wasn’t willing to pay for it. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m also not a global warming alarmist. I believe in global warming and I support going green even if it costs me money. It’s worth it to have the planet inhabitable some time down the road.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 9:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let me assure you Ty, that unless the folks become super alarmed about the dire consequences of global warming they are not going to go along with paying 50% more for their electricty. And that is just a small portion of the price they will be asked to bear.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 9:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No of course they won’t because that has short-term affects. I rather doubt that even if people knew and believed the dire consequences that they’d do anything about it because they’d rather leave that up to future generations to take care of. People don’t want to fork over the cash if they could just pass on the responsibility to someone else.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Personally, I’m of the opinion that we are going to have to live with the effects of global warming, whatever they are. Either because we can’t do enough to change things, or because we won’t change them until it’s too late. I think Bullishfrog has a good point that people won’t pay for the changes until they’re convinced the changes are necessary, but I will take that a step further and predict that they won’t be convinced until Florida is mostly under water.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
TyDurden,
first, since I have never seen you posting here you obviously have not seen my comments in the past nor taken the time to read them regarding my thoughts on getting away from fossil fuels. I agree we should do that for other reasons than global warming because it does not exist. Other reasons mainly being our dependance on terrorists nations or those who bring us ill will have us at their mercy. Also fossil fules are a finite resource and will be cost prohibitive to get one day. So I am all in favor of stepping away from them but keep the government and the global warming excuse/hoax out of it. It is nothing more than political issue and an excuse to tax us further. I don’t want the government involved in this at all and shoving it down our throats. They suck at doing anything other than protecting us with our military
I don’t get this comment - “Also, did you know that during the last Ice Age the world was only 9 to 15 degrees F cooler than it is today? Puts into perspective the 1.6 degrees we’ve risen over the last 100 years, doesn’t it?” I can turn this right back around on you. That is a large tempurature swing, thus showing mother nature is in control, not humans. If you want to argue mean tempurature it up ok go ahead. How much is it up from the mean in degrees? Again I will point to the past records from from the years of about 1949 to 1975 during the heaviest industrailization where about as much Co2 was dumped into the atmosphere as now, and global tempuratures dropped in spite of the Co2. No one has addressed that one here. Can you? There is absolutely no such thing as global warming caused by humans producing too much Co2 green house gas period. The evidence is getting stronger everyday and scientists are jumping off the band wagon as more research comes in. There is no solid scientific proof it is occurring. The alarmists want to so they can prove a point or line their pockedts with my money. When you find you mean tempurature and tell me how much it has risen (I already know and your sources are wrong we are in an overall cooling period) the amount of rise in tempurature you are touting is nothgin in the big picture as you stated yourself about the last ice age where mother nature was in control. Good luck.
Posted March 13th, 2009 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
TyDurden,
further more you go ahead and fork over your cash and be a sheep and get swindles out of your hard earned money. I will laugh all the way to the bank with mine and the future generation will laugh at you and the rest of likes of you when this is all proven once for all that man made global warming is a hoax.
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just because I haven’t posted on this site doesn’t mean I don’t read it. Whenever I see a thread going that you’ve posted in, I’ve got to read it for a good laugh.
So are you saying that NASA has their heads up their you-know-whats? You believe whatever you want to believe, I am not even going to try to sway you. Hell, I’m not even going to try to explain anything to you because you’re too stubborn to even attempt to comprehend. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t stoop down to name-calling, though. This sheep thing is much more obnoxious than it is offensive.
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Publiusco-
“I don’t get this comment - “Also, did you know that during the last Ice Age the world was only 9 to 15 degrees F cooler than it is today? Puts into perspective the 1.6 degrees we’ve risen over the last 100 years, doesn’t it?” I can turn this right back around on you. That is a large tempurature swing, thus showing mother nature is in control, not humans.”
Of course it wasn’t humans’ doing because weren’t around then. It was a natural ice age. You just don’t understand what I was saying. Please refer to post 57.
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
TyDurden
Good idea you will never sway me sorry due to my research and education the matter and having a college degree in a scientific discipline it would never work. The sheep thing, I call it like I see it. I have researched both sides thoroughly and landed on the denier side of manmade global warming because I decided not to be a sheep and get the facts. As far has NASA having HUA, yep they do. One simple question for you on that. Where does NASA get their funding for their research? You obviously know I am sure. There are no major space missions planned by our government right now and NASA employees a lot of people. Of course they will fall on the side of manmade global warming research because they know it will keep them employed right now. So NASA is for sure not any holy grail for manmade global warming opinion. In fact you need to check this out. NASA scientist can’t even agree among themselves.
http://abcnews.go.com/technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
TyDurden,
The star of NASA has been Dr. James Hansen. You need to look at all the information from this website as well…
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200806231257/energy-and-environment/james-hansen-exposed-climate-outlook-is-excellent.html
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 6:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Updates on recent climate reports from the National Climatic Data Center:
Global Boreal Winter temperatures 2008-2009 8th warmest on record
Global February 2009 temperatures 9th warmest on record
“Arctic sea ice coverage during February 2009 was at its fourth lowest February extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during February was 5.7 million square miles (14.8 million square kilometers). The Arctic sea ice pack usually expands during the cold season, reaching a maximum in March, then contracts during the warm season, reaching a minimum in September.”
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hmm so much for relying on satellite records as an accurate way of tracking arctic sea ice -
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/
Yep you sure have to put stock in what NASA says -
http://crushliberalism.com/2007/08/10/nasa-quietly-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/
As far as the highly touted National Climatic Data Center of U.S. Department of Commerce, another government agency that depends on man made global warming hype to keep jobs, yep we should bet our future on what they say also - the global Boreal Winter temperatures 2008-2009 8th warmest on record and global February 2009 temperatures 9th warmest on record are nothing out of the norm, the were as high in 1920. SO what? does this small of a tempurature increase make man made global warming true? Hardly.
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco:
“Good idea you will never sway me sorry due to my research and education the matter and having a college degree in a scientific discipline it would never work.”
A couple of questions. First of all, what scientific discipline is that degree in? Also, what scientific discipline teaches that they cannot be wrong?
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 7:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“www.crushliberalism.com”
Boy, that sure sounds like an objective, non-biased site to me.
Man, we need that rolling-eyes smiley.
Posted March 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Poor old publiusco, always a day late and a dollar short. From NSIDC;
” Near-real-time sea ice data updates are again available from Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis. We have switched to the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F13 satellite following the sensor drift problem described in our February 18 post.
The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data. “
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 2:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
That degree would be in geology. So please excuse me if I see a bigger picture and time frame than “recorded” average global tempurature rising or falling less than half a degree since the late 1800’s. Less than 125 years of recorded temperature during the history of the whole earth and you and others are buying into the whole man made global warming hoax. In the geologic past the polar ice caps melted and froze many times over due to mother nature driving the climate, as is happening now, not manmade Co2. I will say it again, get some perspective. Poor old rm, being the sheep only wanting to look at the past 125 years of “recorded” average global tempurature to fit his political agenda. Oh yeah, I still yet to have an answer from you and rm why average global tempurature went down from about 1949 to 1975 when humans were dumping about as much C02 into the atmosphere as now.
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 3:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What scientific discipline teaches they cannot be wrong? Any scientist having a degree in any discipline who alligned themselves with Algore and his political agenda regarding manmade global warming from Co2.
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 3:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rm,
yep you sure got to put all your eggs in one basket and blindly trust the data from the NSIDC…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco,
you are the one who said “Good idea you will never sway me sorry due to my research and education the matter and having a college degree in a scientific discipline it would never work.”
The run-on sentence aside, that does not sound like someone with a scientific mindset.
And what part of geology makes you an expert on climatology as it is happening today? Sorry, but I’ll that the word of today’s practicing climatologists over the word of a geologist who claims he can’t be wrong. Geology may well give clues to the climate in the past, and I don’t deny that the earth has been warmer in the past due to natural causes. None of that says anything about what is happening now.
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
We can look at the past and a lot of what happened in the past says a lot about what is happening now or should I say what is NOT happening now. In the past volcanic activity has placed twice the concentration of Co2 into the atmosphere. The climate did not warm to levels that so called manmade global warming alarmists are claiming it will even with twice the amount. By saying this I don’t mean that should give us carte blanc to pump more into the atmosphere. It is just a point even if we do it will not cause tempurature to rise. As shown in the Vostok Ice Core data Co2 levels increased AFTER a rise in temperature, not the other way around. Co2 has no bearing on tempurature, but it is scientifically proven tempurature rise will increase Co2. This is because a tempurature rises the oceans give off more C02 when they heat up due decaying matter etc. SO some natural force is causing tempurature rise. It is cyclic and natural and will go up and down until the end day s of the earth and C02 will have no bearing on it at all. Co2 is Co2 regardless of the source, it is an end product of natural or manmade phenomena, the oceans producing 80% or more of it. Oh my run on sentence, I oblviously did not major in English for a reason. Are my run on sentences now going to be an issue since you can’t come with any valid scientific points of your own? Don’t kill the messenger but if makes you feel better to stoop down to grammar correction I can certainly go through every post you have made hear and find more than I have. But what would that prove?
Posted March 15th, 2009 at 9:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publisco,
How does the geologic record prove that man-made CO2 is NOT causing warming today? I’d really like to hear that explained, and so would a bunch of climatologists who think otherwise.
Posted March 16th, 2009 at 2:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I don’t know any simpler way to put it to you than the examples that I have already given, but alas maybe this will be the last time but I highly doubt it. By the way before I get started where is your solid scientific proof that manmade global warming is occurring? All you keep doing is asking me questions on one or two points I have made without offering any scientific facts of your own. You chose to ignore some of the glaring questions I have raised and skip on to something else. I have made consistent valid points to you that chose to ignore. I will stick to one question for you to answer then since you want and answer from me on “How does the geologic record prove that man-made CO2 is NOT causing warming today?” My questions again to you is this – why during the years from 1949 until 1975 show a decline in average global temperature in spite of increased manmade Co2 being dumped into the atmosphere? Why does tempurature rise first then the rise in Co2 lags behind the tempurature? With manmade global warming due to Co2 should it not be the opposite?
Ok on to your question about how the geologic record can help prove that manmade global warming from Co2 is not occurring. One part of the answer might be because some climatologists refuse to look at the geologic record as part of their theories, either because they did not think of it or because they don’t want to know the truth because it will disprove their theories and/or interfere with their political agenda.
Co2 is the end product of several chemical processes to include decaying animal and plant matter, volcanoes, fossil fuel burning, and the is list goes on. Any way you dice it up Co2 is Co2 is Co2 is Co2 as part of these processes. An active large scale volcanic eruption can put many times more Co2 in the atmosphere than man can ever dream of producing and has done so in the past as evidenced in the geological record. Traces of the ancient climates are found in sedimentary rock, sea silt, volcanic mud flows, ancient river and stream channels, ice cores and the list goes on. These traces are in the forms of chemical compounds and trace gases left behind by an ancient climate that help geologists (and for the climatologists who care to use it) determine what climate was at a given point in time. Just like the Vostok Ice Core records. Prior to humans main entry into the scene, Earth’s ancient climates went through many changes, the average global temperature rising and falling many times in a much greater swing than we are seeing now, but not due to Co2 levels. Co2 is a trace gas not enough in abundance to change climate. Co2 is actually a necessary important gas to plant who absorb it and turn it in to oxygen.
Finally over the last 100 years or so of “recorded” average global temperature we are talking less than half a degree in either direction. Now we are going about a half a degree cooler in spite of the Co2 levels in the atmosphere. Anyone would be foolish to hang their hat on this much of a temperature swing as hard evidence of manmade global warming due to Co2. The only usefulness this idea has is that right now it fits a political agenda to generate revenue for the federal government. I will not pay any “carbon based tax” on such a scheme and no one else should either. The science is coming in stronger every day that manmade global warming from Co2 does not exist. Since there is no solid completely convincing evidence that it does people won’t buy it, they see it as a hoax.
Posted March 16th, 2009 at 6:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
publisco,
You are jumping to the conclusion that because I don’t agree with you, I must be advocating man-made global warming. I’m not. I simply do not see the causal link between the geologic record and the proof that man-made warming caused by CO2 is not happening. I agree that everything you refer to can be deduced from the geologic record, but none of that shows that it can’t be happening now. The only thing you have provided supporting your argument is that so much CO2 is produced naturally that anything man does is infinitesimal by comparison. That’s simply an argument from incredulity.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.