"Global warming" fanatics - care to explain this:?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Oops. I forgot. Anything you disagree with is "junk science". Anything that agrees with your "theory" is fair and balanced reporting.

Answer 1

We have evidence that global warming is not caused by human activities. NASA has plenty of photos of Mars’ polar ice caps shrinking over the last forty years. This was not caused by Earth pollution…! It is caused by the Sun.

Having said this, we must remember than just because we did not cause global warming does not mean it is not happening to us. The Sun is also warming the Earth. I do not think that our greenhouse gasses will result in a significant amount of heat retention, especially compared to all the heat we will be getting, as the Sun goes through the hot phase of its cycle. Volcanic activity, like that of Mt. Saint Helens back in 1980, put more dust, dirt, greenhouse gasses and more radioactive particles into the atmosphere than everything we have done for thousands of years. Volcanoes do this repeatedly, two or three times a century. And yet the planet has survived. It is pure egotism to think that we can change the planet.

Having dealt with that, I must once more take to task dishonest men like Al Gore for promoting global warming. He is a politician. He failed in his bid to become President. The only thing left for him, now that he has failed, is to try to get his name into the history books some other way. (You can use ‘statistics’ to ‘prove’ anything,.)

When Columbus was exploring the Caribbean, his ships were running out of food, and the soldiers wanted to simply take it from the natives. Columbus asked for food, and was refused. Yet, instead of allowing his troops to steal what they wished, Columbus told them that they would wait a few days and then ask again.

Columbus told the natives that if they did not give him what he wanted, he would make the sun go away. They laughed at him. The next day, there was a solar eclipse. The natives were terrified and begged Columbus to put the sun back. He agreed, but told them that if they did not give him everything he asked for from then on, the sun would go away again, and it would never come back.

Do you see what that stinking conquistadore did…? He took advantage of the ignorance of the poor natives, by using a natural phenomenon-- that he knew was going to happen anyway-- to deceive them and enslave them through fear…! He got so much more out of them than if the soldiers has simply used force!

It’s the same thing with Gore. If global warming doesn’t happen it’s because we ‘listened to him in time’! If global warming happens, it’s because we ‘didn’t listen to him in time’! It’s ”heads I win and tails you lose!” Gore means to go down in the history books as a great guy, and he plans to blacken George bush’s name as much as possible! Did you think it was a COINCIDENCE that Global Warming has the same initials as George W. Bush…? Make sure everybody knows what a fake Gore is!

20 DEC 06, 0258 hrs, GMT.

Answer 2

I say look at this other graph (see the source) from the same wikipedia article (global warming). The graph you linked was the Vostok, Antarctica ice core data. The graph I linked has data from the same ice core plus date from the EPICA ice core plus the Law Dome ice core plus the Siple Dome ice core plus the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. Those other data show carbon dioxide from the more recent past than the Vostok core does. So basically the graph you linked shows the same CO2 trace as the one I linked, but with the last few hundred years omitted. That would of course not support global warming since its record ends before the present situation started.

The Mauna Loa data, which is measurements of ambient air taken in real time for the last few years, show carbon dioxide measurements that go WAY above all those other natural peaks from the last 400,000 years. The most recent CO2 reading is 375 PPM where the highest natural peak in the last 400,000 years is only 300 PPM. But most alarming of all is the steepness of the rise in the last 100 years.

Now you might say that I didn't show a temperature rise. Right! Because I don't trust the temperature data. There is too much noise in temperature data. But even if there has not yet been any important temperature change, the CO2 change is alarming all by itself. If it continues the present trend, there WILL be a temperature change; the only question is how much and how soon.

Answer 3

I am not sure whether your "junk science" references indicate you agree or disagree with the concept of human-induced global warming, but I take it that you are not a believer. If I mistake your position, then I apologize and you need not read the rest. If not, then read on...

It seems you utterly fail to understand the implications of this well-known research. Surprise!!! It absolutely indicates global warming. It must be rather frustrating and embarrasing for you to find that your "Hah, take THAT, you commie tree-huggers" data actually confirms the one thing you seem determined to refute! This is a common hazard for those who do not understand the meaning and significance of their science.

The authors of this study state that "From the extended Vostok record, Petit et al. concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years." And the ice core used was actually drilled way back in the early 90s, before monster SUV's were common (and exempt from the emissions standards of the Clean Air Act). “This study is probably the most convincing evidence to date that humans are making some really large changes to Earth's climate system,” said Jonathan Overpeck, head of the paleoclimatology program at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “What this says is we're going well beyond the bounds of natural variation.”

These days, the only people left on the planet who argue that global climate change is not our fault are those who profit from pollution. Also, serious scholars and the intellectually curious avoid wikipedia at all costs.

Answer 4

Umm, no, actually plenty of climate scientists agree that temperatures cycle. But did you look at the timescale of the graph? Were there any humans alive at the last temperature peak? No. Our species emerged, at earliest, 100,000 years ago. Will the earth "survive" global warming? Of course. Will your life be the same? No. So you can act, or deny, and since you seem to have trouble accepting new information, you'll deny. Here's a link to data from the past 1000 years, and the past 150 years.
And why are you so opposed to a new economic opportunity? The US could be leading the world in R&D of alternative energies, and making buck off exporting that technology, but sticks in the mud don't make anything.

Answer 5

What's to explain? There's nothing here that in any way refutes that the earth is warming, or that we are the cause of it. Natural variations in the earth's temperature have been known for years.

Between the leftmost peak on that graph (the Holocene maximum) and the mid 20th century, it took 10,000 years to cool the earth by 0.5 to 2°C. Since then, it's taken less than 60 years to warm the earth by 0.6°C. That's 500 to 2000 times faster than the long-term trend.

But since the inconvenient truth doesn't agree with your junk science, I guess you'll just have to stick to Fox News.

Answer 6

How 'bout YOU explain the picture, considering you're the one who disagrees with global warming. It's not a just some social belief, it's a political issue along with an occurence that's happening as I type.

You're looking at a diagram from 1999, buddy.

Maybe you should travel around the world and take a look at the ice for yourself. (As if it's supposed to be freezing into bigger glaciers=_='')

Or if you're as lazy as I am, watch An Inconveniant Truth, listen to some real stats from Al Gore, a guy who did his hw, and learn something.

Geez...

Answer 7

a million) would not substitute the very undeniable fact that it particularly is nonetheless the main well-liked June on checklist. If something, that purely makes it greater staggering pondering some places are having their coldest. 2) no person mentioned that proves worldwide climate substitute. it particularly is worrisome, yet this shift in climate (confident, climate, no longer climate, by using fact it particularly is a worldwide shift) would not instruct worldwide climate substitute. 3) you recognize how worldwide climate substitute works? Is our planet homogeneous? certainly no longer. we've extremes at fairly some places as a consequence of sunlight exposure and distinctive different factors. by using fact of this would desire to a minimum of something like worldwide climate substitute ensue, some places gets chillier jointly as others get warmer. What we are seeking for isn't an extreme in one direction, yet particularly symptoms that extremes are occuring in the two instructions. by using fact of this the occasion of Peru certainly advantages people who're helping the thought.

Answer 8

are we supposed to click on that link and look at stuff or somehing i am cofused about your question

Answer 9

how about you explain your question or better yet have a point