Man-made global warming???

Question

Does that mean that you think man has beaten mother nature???

Answer 1

Mother Nature always has the last laugh.

We did not cause Global Warming (that started 12,000 years ago). We are at Nature's mercy in this and other matters.

What foolishness to think we caused or could stop this.

Answer 2

I already answered this on another question of this type, but I'll answer here too:

Keep in mind we only have climate records for the past 150 years. The U.N. and global warming scientists say that the earth has been steadily heating up over the past fifty years or so. HOWEVER, this ignores a couple facts:

1) The hottest year on record? 1936!
2) During the 1970s, the data of the day showed the earth to be cooling, not warming.

But this is only the tip of the iceburg.

Do we know how scientists opperate?
Scientists are not infallible, and most don't challenge things like (man-induced) global warming or darwinian (macro) evolution because if they did their funds, their lifeblood would dry up. It's all about peer pressure man... Sorry. But the fact remains that human-induced global warming IS bad science.

Let's play numbers, shall we?

Let us say that the population of the world is 6 billion (that is a roughly correct estimate). Now let us say that one-one hundred thousandth of the population are scientists. That would give is 60,000 scientists worldwide. I'm sure we can ALL agree that 60,000 is a GROSS underestimate of the number of scientists worldwide, but this is just for an example.

Now, there is a claimed number of 2,500 scientists that say global warming is man-made and that man can stop it. If we take our 60,000 scientists worldwide and multiply that by .04, or 4%, we get 2,400. This is roughly the number of scientists that have been presented to us.

What does this tell us? Hypothetically, we have JUST over 4% of scientists worldwide telling us that we are to blame for global warming, and that we have to do something about it.

Now, let's be hypothecial and break it down further. Let us say that there are 10 fields of science (again, a gross underestimate), and that each is equally represented among the 60,000. That is 6,000 per field. Applying that to our 2,500, that means there are 250 per field represented. Applying our numbers from earlier, that is again JUST over 4% from each field saying that global warming is man made.

For the sake of argument, let us say our 2,500 is made up of nothing but 2 fields, weather experts and astrophysicists. I'm again sure we can agree that those 2 fields would know more about climate than ANYONE else. That gives us 1,250 from each field. If we have 6,000 in each field, we are STILL only talking about 21% of the "experts" preaching man-made global warming.

Obviously, this is all conjecture. We don't know how many scientists there are worldwide. We don't know how many different fields of science there are. We don't know the specific break-up of scientists per field. We don't know what the qualifications are of the 2,500 "experts" saying global warming is caused by man.

However, this does point out that even if we DID know all of those things, we are still only talking about a FRACTION of true experts trying to cram this theory down our throats.

But this is not all! Let's look at the problems behind the methodology.

There is NO way to ascertain that "global warming" is ANYTHING more than a cyclical climatological phenominon that holds up under scrutingy enough to be declared the 100% truth.

I'm BEGGING people here to just IGNORE the conclusions of the UN report for long enough to examine the methodology behind the report from a pure COMMON FREAKING SENSE perspective.....

We have only got DEFINITE, VERIFIABLE, RECORDED temperature/climate readings for approximately the last 150 years. THATS IT. EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IS ANECDOTAL, AND BY IT'S VERY NATURE CONTAINS INNACCURACY.

There is evidence in the form of satellite photography and imagery that the polar icecaps are shrinking, compared to 20-30 years ago. WHAT IS CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT OF STATEMENTS LIKE THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ONLY BEEN PUTTING SATELLITES IN ORBIT FOR LESS THAN 60 YEARS. So, while those icecaps can be shown to have shrunk, it is deceptive and misleading information to put out there, as we can't really say with ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY if they have shrunk or grown since, 1930, 1830, 1500, or 5 BC......theres simply no realistic way to verify it.


Examining ice core samples to show differing envrinmental condistions in varying layers of ice? HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH AN ACCURATE TIMELINE FOR COMPARISON? What about the distance between where the core samples are taken? My area got 6 inches of snow last night, and a mere 10 miles away, they had 10 inches....... THE LACK OF A TRUE "CONTROL GROUP" FOR THE EXAMINATION PROCESS MAKES THE WHOLE IDEA INCREDIBLY UNSCIENTIFIC BY IT'S VERY NATURE................


ANYTHING that involves the use of dating via radioactive isotope decay (also called "carbon-12 dating", where they compare levels of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in organic matter)?? How on Earth are they coming up with SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE dates of thousands, or tens of thousands of years with this methodology? The "radioactive halflife" of these isotopes is claimed to be 5,730 years.....yet we have only had the technology to detect this sort of radioactive decay for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 years!!!!!

It also REQUIRES the assumption carbon-14 has always been present in the atmosphere and in all living things IN THE SAME CONCENTRATIONS. ERGO, ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE THAT EFFECTED THE CONCENTRATION RENDERS THE WHOLE DATING METHODOLOGY INNACCURATE!!!! Howevere, since we have No TRULY verifiable, accurate environmental records beyond 150 years or so ago, it is simply assumed that no such event(s) occurred.......

Yet, such flawed methodolgies as I've mentioned above are being used to promote "global warming" is a thing of catastrophic environmental impact, and at the same time DENY that it is potentially a naturally occurring cyclical phenominon....


THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT JUNK SCIENCE IS, FOLKS!!!!!!

Answer 3

The only Global Warming is the hot air coming out of Al Gore.

Answer 4

Yes and it only took billions of dollars and thousands of scientists to figure out that if we all drive cars and spew gas into the air and cut down all the trees and their is 6 billion of us and counting that would have a difference on the apmosphere.
They should have called me I could have told them that, for free.

Answer 5

You don't beat nature. You just screw with it and screw with it and screw with it until eventually it becomes unpleasant and impossible to live with. Like playing mind games with a roommate.

Mother nature will always march on, the only question is if we will be marching with her.

Answer 6

no just that humans have done things that have destroyed part of the o-zone layer and there is less protection against the sun and that it could melt antartica greenland ant other various icecaps that means the water level will increase and parts of florida and california and other places will be under water.

Answer 7

Oh puh-lease! In the three step scientific method, the third step cannot be completed by those for or against it.

Answer 8

You have some serious misconceptions about this issue.

I suggest you take a breath and do some quiet reading on the topic.

Good luck!

Answer 9

Man did not create global warming, though we do attribute to it.