Did Global Warming START Only 6 Years Ago ?

Question

Take a look at the daily global warming Q/A . Liberal people consistently blame President Bush as if Global Warming only began 6 years ago . What about 7 years ago, or 8, or 10. . . . . ? Who was the President then ? Where was the vitriolic hatred then ?

And then .. . . . . the biggest hypocrisy of all. . ... . Liberals driving SUV's . .. . . Or are they gonna lie about that too, and claim ONLY Conservatives drive SUV's ????

'Qncyguy' - You cannot be taken seriously when you CHOOSE to DENY that the LIBERALS BLAME BUSH .

9thwonder - " Pretty interesting STUFF and predictions ? Gimme a break !!

Answer 1

This thing about man-made global warming and the blame going to the president over it are some of the most glaring examples of liberal hypocracy. I hope you don't mind long responses, because this one WILL be a doozy. I've posted it several times before, but it's important that people understand just how much of a crock this whole man-made global warming thing is. Once that's done, I'll also post a list of the world's most polluted cities. You'll find that not ONE of them is in the United States.

----------

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.

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

Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that this junk science known as man-made global warming IS true. Does the blame REALLY lie on George Bush and the United States?

Not at all.

Here's a list of the world's ten most polluted cities.

Chernobyl, Ukraine
Dzerzhinsk, Russia
Haina, Dominican Republic
Kabwe, Zambia
La Oroya, Peru
Linfen, China
Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan
Norilsk, Russia
Ranipet, India
Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia

-----------

Now before I end this rather lengthy response (and to the asker, I thank you if you've taken the time to read through this whole thing.), I have one more objection to man-made global warming.

IF humanity is the cause, then why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting? Is it because of all the martians driving their SUVs?

Answer 2

You make a good point. Global warming has been occurring for decades and yet Dems do try to make it political issue and blame Bush. I am smart enough to remember that the Kyoto Accords was the greatest effort to address global warming on a global basis and yet Al Gore who was our rep there brought home the accords and Clinton/Gore decided at that time that it was not in their best interests and so the US did not sign it. Yep, thats right Gore had a chance to make the big impact but put politics first. How he can have creditability with ecologists is certain the best slight of hand trick to ever fool anyone. He has a swell movie now that tells us how bad things are and forgets to mention his own role. The Republicans held a majority in Congress for only a short time and have done little (though they did increase funding for alternative fuels, did not rape the Arctic circle and have not made baby seals part of the fast food diet). Dems have held majorities in Congress for decades and under Clinton they granted waiver after waiver (because Dem Sens/Reps have to appease the labor vote which is smokestack industry) and so the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have never been fully implemented. I don't know of a stream or river where you can actually eat the fish you catch. If you are looking for a political party to embrace global warming and take it on you are an idiot who should also stay away from car lots. There is no moral high ground in the global warming issue and there is no moral imperative in the political system. Its a mess. Pick up a copy of Outside magazine, a chic magazine directed toward hip, left outdoor people. It will have the occaisional slam at George Bush's environmental positions but every third page is an ad for the biggest, gas guzzling SUVs on earth. Tundra, Excterra, Armada, Explorer, Jeep. The people who think that the environment is their issue are the phoniest people on earth, the Repubs on the other hand only act when they have to on it. Political party cultism is the absolute wrong thing to do about global warming. They are all playing us for chumps, including those little earth tone creeps in the "green groups". who make a nice living delivering green votes to politicians who don't deserve them and the motor industry who delivers hush money in the form of advertising.

Answer 3

Somebody is smoking too much ditch weed. We have normal climate cycles that repeat every 100,000 years, we are emerging from a recent ice age on a normal temperature/Co2 upswing, goto Malkovich Earth Orbit Cycles and Tschumi and Stauffer Ice Core studies. That's the REAL story. These cycles have been consistent for the past 6 million years, Gore carefully tailored his fraud to cover only the past 50,000 years, while on our normal temperature upswing. See Tschumi and Stauffer global temperature and atmospheric Co2 charts. The picture becomes pine blank clear. The preponderance of scientific opinion places man's responsibility for atmospheric temperature and Co2 increases at less than 3%, but the limp wrist leg wetting liberals want to apply their knee jerk reduction to even that..."We just must do SOMETHING, you know?"

Answer 4

Liberals blame Bush for not acting and for his administration intentionally falsifying scientific reports to make it look like Global Warming isn't happening. Liberals don't blame Bush for Global Warming.

Get your facts straight and stop trolling.

Edit: Watch yourself there Earnest. You say people can't be taken seriously if they deny that liberals blame Bush... what you neglect to consider is that if liberals say to you "we don't blame Bush for it" you can no longer credibly claim that liberals blame Bush...

Answer 5

There is no truth in your statements what so ever. I've never seen anyone this board blame Bush for global warming. He has been criticized for not acknowledging that it was real, something he has now done.

Human impact on the environment and potential climate change was an issue in the 70's. Studies looking at global dimming have been going on longer than that.

Answer 6

No one that I know asserts that Global Warming started with the arrival of the Bush Administration, it has been happening for a long time. It is counterproductive to point fingers of blame with "who started it", but any good leadership should start to develop policies to eliminate things that cause global warming.

Answer 7

I have never heard of anyone directly blaming Bush for global warming. However, he is to blame for the everything else.

Answer 8

Pretty soon, we'll be rid of annual designators AD and BC and restart the clock with AGW.

(just like the beginning of the last major religion.)

Answer 9

the thing about bush is that we were all lined up to take part in the kyoto protocol when he came into office 6 years ago. as soon as he took office, he immediately withdrew our participation...meanwhile he has made polluting by industry easier and opened up our last wild places to drilling despite the fact that we need to move away from oil in general

gw has been discussed since the late 60s it is becoming such a hot topic b/c we are at a point in our history when we either reign in our selfish, shortsighted behaviors and look at the long term...or pay the consequences.

Answer 10

who is pointing the finger at Bush?? the only thing bush is too blame, is campaigning ont he fact that he would see that something would be done about certain things that are factors of it....campaign promises not lived up to by the Bush admin.

Bebe, comments like that show how little you understand the problem of global climate change. you understand it even less than the scientists of the 70s, who only realized half of the problem!