Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Read this article please, its short, and tell us what you think.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=9&u=/oneworld/4536815561079359338

If you have the time, it would be great to hear your deep analysis on the subject.

Thanks ahead of time!

Matt

For anyone reading this, italicized statements are from the article, regular print is my response/analysis.

Complete and total nonsense. What else can I say. Virtually every sentence that tries to make a statement in that article is false, or at least making huge assumptions that don't appear to make any sense.

"We are quickly moving to the point where the damage will be irreversible

What? We know for a fact that there have been temp. changes in the recent past (geologically speaking) that were far, far more drastic than what is now being claimed as catastrophic now. In the order of 100 times faster change. That didn't kill everything off, and it obviously was reversible or we wouldn't even be here!

In fact, the latest scientific reports indicate that global warming is worsening. Unless we act now, the world will be locked into temperatures that would cause irreversible harm.

and

Studies over the past decade have shown that the warming trend continues. "The five warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place over the last six years," noted WRI's president, Jonathan Lash.

What? Global temps. have been below average for the past 10 years in row. At least according to the most recent and accurate data

The administration of former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) signed the Kyoto Protocol, but President Bush (news - web sites) withdrew the U.S., which currently emits about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, from negotiations over Kyoto's implementation

It is known that the Clinton administration had been lobbied by Enron to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Enron could make billions if it was enacted. (Due to Enron's natural gas production abilities and the fact that that would be the only feasible replacement for the coal burning energy plants now in operation.) This was obviously done to try and discredit Bush (who didn't sign it) and give credit to Clinton (who did sign it). But why didn't Bush sign it, when he is in bed with the large energy corporations like Enron, like all the libeals claim?

WRI researchers estimate that greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide rose 11 percent over the last decade, and will grow another 50 percent worldwide by 2020. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the international agreement that sets out specific targets to follow up on the treaty, 38 industrialized countries were supposed to reduce their emissions by an average of seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012

While I highly doubt those numbers, considering that global warming from green house gasses is caused about 95% by water vapor and only 5% by CO2 (according to scientists). And considering that the environment produces far more CO2 than man does, a 50% increase of CO2 by 2020 would only mean a temp. increase of about .00001 degrees. And that is assuming you believe their assumption that the Earth is warming! (.28% of earths warming times 1.5 = .42% -------- .42% times the actual warming they are claiming, is a very very small amout!

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And why are non-industrialized countries not affected, like industrialized countries, by the Kyoto protocol? Especially when industrialized countries are already producing far less pollution, compared to their output, than non-industrialized countries. You don't think it is political and based on the fact that it would be very difficult for countries like the U.S. to compete internationally due to unreasonably high anti-pollution measures that these other countries wouldn't have do you? You don't think these non-industrial countries would vote for the Kyoto Protocol just to get an enormous advantage over us economically do you? You don't think Russia came to the same conclusion do you?

The Kyoto Protocol grew out of the UNFCCC when it became clear that plans for voluntary reductions would not meet the initial targets, and as climate and atmospheric scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have become increasingly convinced that the rise in global temperatures of about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century is due primarily to artificial emissions, notably the combustion of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas.

What? Most scientists don't believe that there is global warming or that we are the cause of it! But I won't bother to go over all that evidence again. (Multiple polls of environmental scientists, climatologists, petitions, etc.)

"The ten warmest years in recorded weather history have taken place since 1987. Whether it's the retreat of glaciers, the melting of the permafrost in Alaska, or the increase in severe weather events, the world is experiencing what the global warming models predict," he said.

Again, what? Take a look at NASAs chart of the most accurate info we have on global warming. The last 10 years have all been below average, not above! And as for glaciers, I've looked into that too. Why haven't they mentioned all the glaciers that are know to be growing? Like in California or Norway's glaciers growing at record pace, or the Alps, etc. Just do a search of "Glaciers growing" to find more examples!

Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050. A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually.

Notice the use of the words could, if, may, etc. both in this statement and elsewhere in the article. Notice how they don't tell you about increased growing seasons in colder climates if there is global warming? Notice how they don't tell you that there would be more overall food production in the world since there is more land mass that is in these colder areas that would benefit from warming? And while I doubt those numbers, what's $150 billion? The U.S alone spends many trillions every year! That's a drop in the bucket! And this "alarmist" statement is based on a prediction?

I predict that insurance company will be out of business within 10 years!-LOL (What good is a prediction really, when it is just a guess of what might happen?)

I could go on, as there are tons of other falsehoods in this article. But I think that is more than enough to show what a load of _(*&*&^)^ that article is.

-------------------------

On a side note, I heard a very interesting conversation on talk radio a few days ago, on a show that primarily deals with science. It went something like this.

Caller said, "Why is every change believed to be bad? If the earth is cooling by one degree is bad, wouldn't warming by 1 degree then be good? Why do we always assume that the current temps. are ideal? Why do we assume that the Earth is currently a balanced system, and any change is catastrophic? Why do we believe that any imbalance is caused by us?

Talk show's response, "If you don't make everything sound like a crisis, an emergency, etc. you can't get funding/donations for your particular organization. It's all about money, not the truth, or science, or what's best for the world."

That is so sad, but true. And most people will demonize the corporations that provide both the jobs and goods we need, but they won't critically look at any organization that uses catch words/phrases like "environmental", "ethical", "reform" etc. They become immune to scrutiny and thus open to fraud. Political correctness at it's worst!

Rodney

It is people like you that lead mankind to demise.

What will you say if the predicted change in climate actually happens and half of mankind (or even more) will vanish?

"Oh, sorry. I was wrong."

Great. Apology accepted...

What? Global temps. have been below average for the past 10 years in row. At least according to the most recent and accurate data
***OK, Your graph below doesn't say global temps it says stratosphere temps, we and our weather are in the troposhere, not the stratosphere. I am confused.

The administration of former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) signed the Kyoto Protocol, but President Bush (news - web sites) withdrew the U.S., which currently emits about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, from negotiations over Kyoto's implementation

It is known that the Clinton administration had been lobbied by Enron to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Enron could make billions if it was enacted. (Due to Enron's natural gas production abilities and the fact that that would be the only feasible replacement for the coal burning energy plants now in operation.) This was obviously done to try and discredit Bush (who didn't sign it) and give credit to Clinton (who did sign it). But why didn't Bush sign it, when he is in bed with the large energy corporations like Enron, like all the libeals claim?

***Rodralm, Aren't we running out of natural gas? Pemex too. Prices per mmbtu have gone up 500% in last five years. Bolivia's president got sacked in September because Bolivia was going to export the stuff to USA. Greenspan mentioned depleted nat gas reserves a serious threat to our economy. Even if one doesn't like greenspan look at the five year charts of NAT GAS on the commodity boards. Enron has the piping for the gas if it is here in the states, but the US reserves are running short.
I am not sure I follow the Enron connection.
The companies that hold gas rights outside the US and Mexico would make the kings share of the money. Right?

Wrong sphere though!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Doesn't weather occur in the TROPOSPHERE though?

You show the stratophere!

Rumor has it that the troposhere is responsible for climate.

This will expalin if not clear,

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html

Why do you list stratosphere aberrations? Its the tropospheric average changes in temp that affect us.

***Great response rodralm, I am curious if you could explain how the stratospheric temperature changes induce changes in the troposphere(especially since there is such a small amount of gas in the stratosphere compared to the troposhphere). At the outset of the issue, it seems that though that stratopheric temps would just show how active the ozone layer is in absorbing uv, but they are saying the ozone is shrinking so that would fit nicely. See where I am confused?

Thanks ahead of time! Just can ask a few questions to avoid so much clutter, rest of your post was great.

y'all don't think that wiping out half of the human population (or all of it) would be just about the best thing for this planet? mother nature takes care of her own....and there have been great destructions in the past and things have recovered and look where we are today....imagine what the future could be like! just a thought for you

sue

Yeah! I vote to wipe out 1/2 the population that is either terrorists, socialists, or democrats! in that order. LOL

On a side note, that is another myth I keep hearing. Overpopulation and food. Did you know that the population is growing much slower than our ability to produce food? Through improved crops, and farming techniques, we produce food at a rate that is much faster than population growth. And when you look at consistently falling pollution levels over the years, overpopulation is not a problem at all.--except for the traffic and lines at the check out counter!

Rodney

believe me I am well aware that we can produce enough food...especially if people take hold of the GM idea. but as for overpopulation--what do you consider to be 'ok' evenyone has their little room and plenty to eat and it's all like Jetsons, or having an actual world with trees and animals and places that still feel wild? We are rapidly destroying the things around us in the all-consuming drive to further our species. Personally I don't want kids because I think in my lifetime or theirs, things are just gonna go to pot....they already are now

OK, Your graph below doesn't say global temps it says stratosphere temps, we and our weather are in the troposhere, not the stratosphere. I am confused.

First, take into account we are talking about global temp. averages. (I hear so many critics that look at local data only.)

Satellite data has been shown to be much more accurate due to both sample size and Urban sprawl.

First, lets consider sample size, the land based data is from just 99 locations. And predictions and computer models then try to predict what will happen 50-100 years from now. Consider this. We know that glaciers are growing in some areas and shrinking in others. If you were to move just one temperature taking location, from the place the glaciers are melting to where they are growing, you would get completely different results! Remember, we are only talking about a degree change every couple of decades, and we are basing what needs to be extremely accurate (due to the very small change) on a sample size of just 99 locations!. That is absolutely ridiculous. It would be like taking a public opinion poll of 99 people, and claiming the results reflect the total, and are accurate to + or - .01%. Lets assume 49 of the 99 locations show falling temps., and 50 show raising temps. If you move just one station, to another area, you could go from a net average gain to a net average loss.

Second, lets consider Urban Sprawl. If you placed a station to take temps. in a particular location 75 years ago, you would most likely place it in a city. That city would most likely have grown considerably since then. (Just 30 years ago I was surrounded by orchards, now I can't find one in the entire area!) As a result, all the concrete/asphault/buildings that had since been placed in that area would corrupt the data, due to the heat retention characteristics of these materials. You can easily see how that would make it appear that the earth is warming. In order to be accurate, you would really need to have all of your data come from areas devoid of development. Something no one though of when the stations were initially installed.

NASA, the ones that originally testified to congress and came up with the theory of global warming, have been taking temps. of the atmosphere using satellites. This data, that takes temps of many thousands of locations, is obviously far more accurate than the 99 land based stations that have been shown to have problems with accuracy. Again, with temperature changes this small, accuracy is critical! By accuracy, I am talking about the data not being affected by urban sprawl, not that the temp. measurements are inaccurate. (By the way, NASA's measurements have been proven to be accurate by using both weather balloons, and by comparing their satellite data measurements with the land based temp measurements. NASA has changed their position on global warming since then, but that just doesn't make the news!)

Rodralm, Aren't we running out of natural gas? Pemex too. Prices per mmbtu have gone up 500% in last five years. Bolivia's president got sacked in September because Bolivia was going to export the stuff to USA. Greenspan mentioned depleted nat gas reserves a serious threat to our economy. Even if one doesn't like greenspan look at the five year charts of NAT GAS on the commodity boards. Enron has the piping for the gas if it is here in the states, but the US reserves are running short.
I am not sure I follow the Enron connection.
The companies that hold gas rights outside the US and Mexico would make the kings share of the money. Right?

First, natural gas is regularly burned off (wasted) because it is basically a by product of oil drilling. It generally isn't worth the trouble to transport it to the public, power plants. There is actually quite a lot of it. Notice all the flames coming from stacks on top of all the large oil rigs? They are burning off the natural gas that comes up with the oil. If you don't see any flames, they are probably harvesting it instead of burning it.

Second, natural gas reserves. I'm pretty sure that Greenspan was talking about natural gas that is being held in storage facilities, not the ability to get the stuff out of the ground. Generally, reserves means what has already been taken out of the ground and is in storage.

Third, if all the coal burning plants had to be shut down, the only thing we could replace them with quickly, would be natural gas burning plants. Enron could then make a killing due to both rising natural gas prices, and the enormous increase in the volume it sold.

As for the stratosphere, troposphere, etc. Wouldn't you think there would be a massive increase in all atmospheric temperatures if green house gasses were causing global warming. (considering the heat indexes of gasses "the atmosphere" vs. solids "Earth". For those that don't understand this, what takes more energy, heating a certain volume of air 10 degrees or heating a sold 10 degrees?) The theory is that these gasses prevent cooling by preventing heat from radiating into space, should mean that we would see temperature changes in the atmosphere first. And this heating would then work it's way down. If we could measure tempereature changes from land based stations, wouldn't ANY atmosphere readings be extremely exaggerated compared to the Earth's surface temp. readings? This contradicts the satellite data.

Rodney

First, take into account we are talking about global temp. averages. (I hear so many critics that look at local data only.)
****Global averages of what, your graph says stratophere and our weather occurs in the troposphere.

****Average troposphere temperatures are what count.
****Decrease in ave temps in stratosphere indicate that there is less ozone to absorb UV rays, therefore that layer should be cooler. Thats easy less ozone on average, less UV absorption on average, less warmth for the stratosphere, temps drop a degree.

****Meanwhile in the troposphere we absorb all the UV light in this layer, the oceans, land etc. Granted there is some surface albedo, but we have more radiation (heat energy) making it down to the troposphere and therefore global warming, like the enviro freaks keep talking about.

****I am not sure why you included this since tropospheric temperature changes are not occurring in the same direction as the stratophere temp changes you mentioned.

Satellite data has been shown to be much more accurate due to both sample size and Urban sprawl.

*******Your looking at satellite data measuring the wrong layer of the atmosphere, great investigative work, I just think maybe you forgot that the atmosphere is composed of different layers.

We know that glaciers are growing in some areas and shrinking in others.

Cool, I did not know glaciers are growing. What ice shelves are growing? By how much and where are they? Fascinating investigative work you have done. Tell me more!

As for the stratosphere, troposphere, etc. Wouldn't you think there would be a massive increase in all atmospheric temperatures if green house gasses were causing global warming.

No, I wouldn't think there would be an across the board increase because you can see that temperatures do not increase linear throughout the whole atmosphere.
Remember your atmospheric science?
I didn't at first, but heres the link that descripes the abrupt rise in temps one expereinces as you rise out of the top of the troposphere (negative 70C) to the stratosphere (0 to -3C) remeber the ozone layer thhrows a wrench in it.
Maybe I misread the graph, here's Nasa's description.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html

Your graph only shows satellite data of the stratosphere. I guess those meteorologist named the different parts of the atmosphere because there can be some surprises to common sense or intuition in how the whole thing works.

Great points Rodney. I am glad you are standing up for corporations! I love to hear you opinions! Keep writing!
I hope you understand the questions I have asked! Sometimes I may not write so clearly!

to my two questions. I hope they aren't too much for you. I am curious to hear your thoughtful response to the two questions in my above post.

...I think you got him!

Someone finally stunned Rodney into silence. Or maybe he's in the process of drafting a 250,000 word thread to "prove" his point. Rodney has used that graph before and I've wondered for some time what the Stratosphere has to do with low altitude temps.

One thing I mentioned to Rodney as evidence of global warming is the fact that I can grow certain palm trees in my garden that were an impossibility 20 years ago and difficult even 10 years prior but he had no comment on this. A long term gardener in my area (he's 82) also pointed out that Georgia is called the Peach state but we can't grow peaches anymore even in north Georgia mountains. We simply don't get the number of cold hours that we once did and the trees don't flower well. Maybe in a few more years we'll be known as the Mango state! And all the while, Rodney will be sticking his head in the sand denying that change has occurred. Hey Rodney, garden for 30 years and then (and only then) will you be qualified to tell me the weather isn't warming up.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

This is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post--of how the media makes people believe things that couldn't possibly be true.

I've said this before, but I guessed you missed it. You are another person confusing local with global.

First, the temp. changes over the past 30 years has been what? maybe as much as one degree, if you believe global warming alarmists. (remember, they say it is accelerating dangerously and we could increase temps. by maybe .2-6 degrees in the next 100 years--depending on which computer model you believe) So consider a smaller temp. difference and then multiply by 3/10.

So you are trying to tell me a one degree change is enough to prevent and/or support peach and palm tree growing? If that was true, how could palm trees ever be transplanted anywere without dying? Do you really think all the palm trees up here in northern Ca. can't survive in southern, Ca.? I know for a fact that they can, and we are talking about an average of 15 degrees difference between the two locations. I also know for a fact that these trees (the same species) reproduce in both of these locations.

Or that these palms can't live on two different islands because of the temp. differences in the two locations? THERE IS NOT A CHANCE THAT THESE PLANTS COULD HAVE SURVIVED EVOLUTION IF THEY ARE THAT TEMPERATURE SPECIFIC. They would have been extinct 10,000 years ago. Or maybe you are going to tell me that a plant that grows that slowly has evolved into existence since then?

Just use some common sense!

Rodney

Rodney,

I don't give a rat's behind about your 1 degree. What I'm talking about is the number of total cold (frost) hours is less than it used to be and anyone that read my comment would have understood that but you. The Media (dah-dah-dum) has no influence on what I see firsthand in my backyard. I don't directly care about global events because I can't affect them, but I do care about local events because they affect me so don't tell me I'm confused.

Your palm rant is as misguided as the totality of your logic on this board. Fewer total frost hours on a marginal plant means less chance of defoliation and therefore a greater chance of survival. Twenty years ago my palms were defoliated by a succession of frosts and couldn't recover enough in Summer to survive defoliation again the following Winter. About 14 years ago we started having warmer Winters. Instead of getting cold and staying that way night and day, we began to warm up strongly during the daylight hours almost like North Florida weather. When this began to happen, I started planting palms again and there was only occasional damage every other year or every 3 years and the palms easily recovered. Currently a new palm fresh dug from a Central Florida field settles in just fine with the same care and planting techniques that I used 20 years ago.

Have you started that garden yet? Maybe it will liberalize some of that brain power that you're so conservative with.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

In your first post you said, One thing I mentioned to Rodney as evidence of global warming is the fact that I can grow certain palm trees in my garden that were an impossibility 20 years ago and difficult even 10 years prior but he had no comment on this.

When I told you the incredibly small temperature increase due to global warming that even the alarmist quote, would only be about one degree.....

Then, in your second post you said I don't give a rat's behind about your 1 degree. What I'm talking about is the number of total cold (frost) hours is less than it used to be and anyone that read my comment would have understood that but you. and
I don't directly care about global events because I can't affect them, but I do care about local events because they affect me so don't tell me I'm confused.

Well, which is it? Is it evidence of global warming or is it I don't give a rat's behind? It does sound to me like you are confused. First its evidence now it is I don't care about global events? After you already stated that your local event was evidence of global warming?- and that is all I was referring to in my post. Global warming data shows a warming of about .04 degrees C every decade for the last 50 years, so in the last 20 years, global warming data from non-alarmists would be .08 degrees C or .144 degrees F. Do you really think a .144 degree increase in 20 years will make any difference in frost hours? Were your typical nighttime lows around 31.9 degrees 20 years ago and now it is 32.04 degrees and that will make a difference? I don't think so. Even if you believe the alarmists numbers, your weather couldn't be so consistent that a one degree change would make any difference. How many days a year do you get frost? How many days are just one degree warmer? Is there a difference between these two numbers? It is far more likely a local event has caused a much greater change in your temps., like large trees growing up that protect from frost, construction, traffic, etc. (try measuring the temps of roadways that are traveled vs. those that are not with a temp. gun sometime.)

I never claimed that your experience growing palms wasn't true, just that you thinking that it proved global warming was total nonsense.

And consider this, the global warming alarmists that all say we are doomed if we don't stop CO2 emissions, also say global warming causes more extreme weather conditions, colder winters, more hurricanes, warmer summers, etc. If you believe them, it would have been getting colder for you, not warmer!

It is the scientist that don't believe in global warming that are saying that warmer winter and night time temps. come from urban development.

So basically, your experiences in gardening, totally confirm what I have been saying all along, and they precisely contradict both what global warming activists are saying and your statement that "what you are seeing is proof of global warming!"

And no, I haven't started my garden yet. It's a little too risky as frost is still somewhat likely. (I have been gardening for around 20 years also, plus another 15 years before that with my dad, and I have seen no change at all, that I can tell, here in California.) Now I mostly just do tomatoes, and plants for my animals to eat (Hybiscus, Mulberry), due to lack of time---, plus all my fruit trees that are all doing great--Dancy Tangerines, Navel Oranges, Honey Mandarins, Lisbon Lemons, Fuju Parsimmons, Beautiful Pomegranites, plus various cacti, succulents, bamboo, etc. I don't know how people can even think of hiring gardeners to take care of their lawns!

Have you ever tried tree tomatoes? I never have, but am considering it this year. Just wondering if they are as good to eat as "bush" type tomatoes. (My crickets eat a lot of tomatoes! I started raising my own crickets for my animals, and I hatch so many that I am selling about 15K of them a week to a local reptile shop now.)

Rodney

I can't be on the internet 24/7- LOL

A quick clarification. Global warming is said to be caused by green house gases that allow all radiation to penetrate the atmosphere and then prevent heat (Infra-red radiation) from escaping. (your post didn't look like you understood that, maybe it was just me.)

No, I wouldn't think there would be an across the board increase because you can see that temperatures do not increase linear throughout the whole atmosphere.

First, the point I was trying to make was, that when you introduce an insulator into a system, you will get maximum temperature changes at the location of the insulator. Due to this, you should see major changes in atmospheric temps. before you see any at the Earth surface. (And that doesn't even take into account the heat sync. effect of the earth, due to it's mass (heat holding capabilities) compared to the atmosphere's mass. After all, you are still getting the same heating, it is just that the heat can't escape like it used to. Why wouldn't you see much higher temperature changes in the atmosphere when that is the location of the insulation? (I am only talking about changes in temps. not what the temps. actually are-those are two distinct things.) Temps. will obviously be different in the various "ospheres", but there should still be more of a change in the upper portion of the lower atmosphere than there is directly on the Earths surface. The satellite data doesn't show this to be happening.

you said ****Global averages of what, your graph says stratosphere and our weather occurs in the troposphere.

****Average troposphere temperatures are what count

I don't believe that is true. Considering we are talking about global warming, the stratosphere should be warming also. Admittedly, the troposphere temps. are important, but I don't think global warming would necessarily exclude the stratosphere from changes. And again, considering the stratosphere's density compared to the troposphere's you should see a bigger change there due to density. (Also, if the temp. of the stratosphere is related mostly to ozone levels, the temp. maps should correlate with ozone distribution maps.)

Cool, I did not know glaciers are growing. What ice shelves are growing? By how much and where are they? Fascinating investigative work you have done. Tell me more!

As for glaciers, there are a lot of them that are growing. This first short article is about 5 years old, (but still well within the time frame global warming alarmists talk about) here is a URL to look at it and some more recent ones.

http://www.sepp.org/controv/afp.html

Niwa's surveys showed an increase in ice almost every year from 1979 to 1997
http://www.ecology.com/ecology-news-links/2003/articles/5-2003/5-27-03/glaciers.htm

they are even growing here in sunny California
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1678.html

do an internet search and I am sure you can find many more. I know there are some growing in Alaska as well.

Here's something else I found interesting that I though you might like.

While this shows that there is some correlation between CO2 and global temps. It also shows that things have been both hotter and with higher CO2 levels than today, and yet things didn't continue to get worse as many global warming alarmists are saying. It also shows that there must be many other variables because there are points on the graph where there is not a correlation. (Temps. going up while CO2 is going down and vice-versa.) Also, we were not even around during these regular fluctuations. What caused them? Don't think it could be a regular cycle that doesn't involve us do you?
LOL

When you look into it, it is amazing how little effect we could even have on global warming, if it is occurring. For instance, pretty much every living thing produces CO2. (CO2 production is basically just the byproduct of using carbohydrates) Ants, for instance. Who would even consider ants? Did you know that all the ants on Earth weigh 12 times more than all the humans?--just showing how insignificant we really are. And then take into account things like, bacteria, forest fires, termites, all other animals, etc.

Rodney

Sorry, but look up there and answer, great post you made but still more questions!!

Rodney,

You are very wrong in just about everything you say about global warming and the scientific reasoning behind the evidence. Are you a scientist or researcher ??? You are jumping to conclusions based on an extremely insufficient weighing of the evidence.

I will not waste my time refuting you point per point, and I suspect that you will try to call me out and argue my point, but I will only say that I have been studying this phenonmenon for over 12 years and you are dead wrong. Your stratospheric graph means nothing since the warming DOES occur at the surface and is trapped there by the rest of the atmosphere. There is a big difference between the conductive heat transfer mechanism and the radiating mechanism that first causes the conductive temperature rise in the first place.

For others reading these posts on global warming, I would urge you to seek out more credible scientific sites if you want to form an opinion. A quick search reveals many. Just be careful of the ones that are trying to build a case to prove a pre-concieved point......ON BOTH SIDES.

You will not see me comment further Rodney, you revealed to me all to well where you stand with your comment on which people in our world it would be acceptable to see dead.

OH yeah................NASA was not the first "entity" to put forth the global warming hypothesis. It was a planetary scientist named Carl Sagan. I'm sure you see him as just another dope smoking liberal set out to forward his socialist agenda and put democrats in office. But don't let your agenda stand in the way of the ignorant ranting you portray on this board...............fire away.

First, I believe I said a NASA scientist first testified to congress about this, and that is when this controversy first arose. --not that no one had thought of it earlier.

Second, No, I am not a researcher. But I have read many articles on global warming, and those that refute it make a lot more sense than those articles that support it. Are you a researcher? If so, could you explain to me why most of the warming in the last 150 years occurred prior to green house gasses? Why is there so little now that there are a lot of green house gasses? How much does water vapor contribute compared to CO2?

Third, I have looked into how insignificant we are as far as green house gasses are concerned. We produce very, very little compared to the environment.

I couldn't agree more with you about not believing me and instructing other to read more about it. (I have read around 100 articles on this subject.) That is how I formed my opinion.--Primarily from NASA though, since they changed their position on global warming. This tells me they are more interested it allowing data to form their opinion, than others who try to find data to support their position.

And for those that look into this further, do more than just read articles. For instance, you will find every environmental or liberal group on the planet saying things like "There is a consensus of scientists that believe in global warming!". Look for evidence of this and you will find they have none. The opposition will show you evidence (polls for instance) and you will find the exact opposite is true of what the environmentalists are saying. (I tend to find empirical data more substantial than opinions.) Be critical and don't believe everything you read. And above all, don't belive it if it doesn't make sense!

Rodney