Five Reasons Against Global Warming

[Flesh Thorn]

Global warming is in full swing, say some of the world's climatologists. Or is it?

On Thursday the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998. "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.

But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/ ... z1C09LIutJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[boscounderfoot]

Not really sure if this dude (Watts) is the man to make this argument. His 9ish years as a weather man pale in comparison to the hundreds of Phd's who have studied this phenomenon for decades. He makes a few good points but as is typical with people who bitch, he doesn't offer any solutions. Watts is nothing more than the republican equivalent to Al Gore.......The left says one thing, the right says the complete opposite. :roll:

[rgrokelley]

Without bothering to dig back and look up all the info I've read on the subject, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that global warming is occuring.

Actually the whole doubt is that man has caused it. Most of these hacks are paid by someone to say that the sky is falling, or their income is solely based upon running around trying to create panic (such as Al Gore). Outside of the chicken littles, historians know that the earth gets hot, the earth cools and it doesn't really make a difference to the rest of us. When this country was founded we were still going through the final stages of the "little ice age". If the weather pimps had been alive back then they would be trying to get everyone to freak out that there was global cooling. The warmest time period in recorded history was the middle ages. What was the long term ramifications of that? Lots of growth and some great vineyards.

So the long term ramifications of this "global warming"... none. Life goes on, like always, and if we think we can actually change the climate, we are pretty egotistical.

[Flesh Thorn]

When this country was founded we were still going through the final stages of the "little ice age". If the weather pimps had been alive back then they would be trying to get everyone to freak out that there was global cooling. The warmest time period in recorded history was the middle ages. What was the long term ramifications of that? Lots of growth and some great vineyards.

So the long term ramifications of this "global warming"... none. Life goes on, like always, and if we think we can actually change the climate, we are pretty egotistical.

Exactly! The climate has always went back and forth from heating to cooling. Sometimes it is gradual and sometimes abrupt. Back in the 70's, human air pollution was going to cause a new ice age. Here is a Newsweek article from 1975. Back in 1906 there was talk of global warming. The Little Ice Age didn't end until around 1850's, so yes there was global warming and it was the "recovery" from the Little Ice Age. Here you can watch a documentary about the Little Ice Age in 11 parts. Interpretation of data can usually go in both directions. Global warming supporters cite rising CO2 and methane as the driving force behind global warming. On the other side you have scientist stating that a warming cycle is driving the levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. There is also the issue of sun spot activity. Google Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum. If history does repeat itself then you might want to stock up on wool socks and a good wood stove. My new snow shoes arrived yesterday .........

[Flesh Thorn]

In spite of what you've heard, man DOES in fact have an impact on climate change, and a rather large one. It's a basic math situation. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better the atmosphere becomes at insulating the earth. fifty percent of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is now CO2. That is a staggering amount, and it is not the result of natural sources of greenhouse gases. Natural levels of CO2 were FAR lower some hundred and fifty years ago. But then right around the time that most nations hit the Industrial Revolution, things took a jump,

Nice graphs, but I want to point out a couple of things that are open to interpretation. Notice how the levels of CO2 takes a dip from around 1300- 1850 ? Is it a coincidence that this is the same time period known as the Little Ice Age ? Then CO2 levels rise from 1850-2000. I agree that this coincides with industrialization, but it also coincides with warming after the cooling period. So does CO2 and other greenhouse gases drive temperature changes or does temperature changes drive greenhouse gas levels ? I will not argue that most scientist polled ( scientific poll ?) will say that they agree that man is responsible for climate change, but then again most MDs prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol even though there isn't a direct mechanism know that demonstrates that high cholesterol is detrimental. There is a correlation that shows that people with heart disease tend to have high cholesterol, so how do you choose to interpret the data ? Back in 1975 the dominate belief was that we were headed into another ice age Clicky. A decade later we were headed into global warming and now most of us in the northern hemisphere see what looks like mini-glaciers forming out in our front yards, so is it any wonder that we are all skeptical of climate gloom and doom ?

[rgrokelley]

[Man's Effect on Climate Change: In spite of what you've heard, man DOES in fact have an impact on climate change, and a rather large one.

Horseshit. There is nothing that man can do, that nature hasn't done 1000-fold, and it has not screwed up the world. No matter what we throw in the atmosphere, it pales in comparison to a single volcanic eruption. Now amplify that by hundreds of small and large volcanic eruptions per year, and it is a joke that anything we do changes the atmosphere in any way.

Also this crap about C02 going in the atmosphere is also bullshit. Yes, CO2 is in the atmosphere. Lots and lots of it. Tons of it. So much of it is in the the earth's atmosphere, that it is basically, a good portion of the earth's atmosphere and it is an essential component that absorbs the sun's infrared radiation.

CO2 is basically the your breath. Breath out. Boom, you just polluted the atmosphere. So, will you die by that, will it kill you, will it harm you in any way? No. Carbon dioxide is the simple by product of living. Interestingly the creator made something to "eat" all this CO2. Plants eat it and "shit" out oxygen. Does all this CO2 kill the plants? No, the opposite, the more CO2 there is, the more plants thrive. This is one of the reasons why greenhouses are made, they increase the CO2 levels. So do folks keel over dead if they go into a greenhouse. No. The levels inside your typical greenhouse are greater than anything floating in the atmosphere right now (by the way, I'm a part time farmer, with greenhouses to start the crops each year).

What has happened is that the left has run out of things to scare you about, so now they made up this bullshit about CO2 being bad for you, hoping that you won't notice the difference between CO2 (the stuff of life) and carbon monoxide (CO)... the stuff that kills you. However some of us actually live in the environment and not our mom's basement and realize that it is horseshit.

[Flesh Thorn]

Here is an essay with lost of nice graphs dealing with global temperatures driving the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as opposed to the idea that concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide driving global temperatures. I am not a climatologist, but since I may be asked to help pay for global warming then I have to question everything that that some expect me to accept as fact.

[rgrokelley]

[This quote sums up my concerns with this article entirely. It doesn't appear as though the guy has put his paper up for peer review, which is the second most critical step in the scientific process, right after experimentation.

Being one of those published guys, I can tell you that Peer Review is a joke, or better terminology... a scam. Peer Review today means having two or three of your academia buddies who think exactly like you sign off on your paper. Most do not check up on the facts or the data. As long as it adheres to the way they think, it is good. Peer Review is what gave us the whole bullshit hockeystick graphics of Al Gore. Peer Review gave us climate gate.