PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why



Liffrea
12-15-2009, 04:06 PM
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.


8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/Climate-change-is-natural-100-reasons-why-

Sol Invictus
12-15-2009, 04:33 PM
Pwned.

Allenson
12-15-2009, 06:02 PM
My personal jury on anthropogenic climate change is still out and still deliberating. And I should mention here that I am a part of the puzzle of climatology here in the US as I am a cooperative observer for the NWS (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/).



One thing that I've wondered with regard to anthropogenic climate change "deniers" is this:

Even if human activity is not spurring on climate change, what's the problem with shifting away from finite resources like coal & all the petroleum-based products and focusing on "renewable" energy sources such as wind, solar & geothermal?

These sources really are much cleaner than fossil fuels--even thinking in terms of more tanglible things such as considerably less atmospheric pollution (air quality, smog, particulate desposition) and also less water pollution from the run-off of coal mines, nasty byproducts from oil refineries, etc.

Lahtari
12-15-2009, 06:10 PM
One thing that I've wondered with regard to anthropogenic climate change "deniers" is this:

Even if human activity is not spurring on climate change, what's the problem with shifting away from finite resources like coal & all the petroleum-based products and focusing on "renewable" energy sources such as wind, solar & geothermal?

These sources really are much cleaner than fossil fuels--even thinking in terms of more tanglible things such as considerably less atmospheric pollution (air quality, smog, particulate desposition) and also less water pollution from the run-off of coal mines, nasty byproducts from oil refineries, etc.

How about simply not approving that the science is hijacked to serve political purposes?

Anyway, limiting our industry and economy by the assumption that CO2 is harmful leaves us with less funds that could be put into development of clean and sustainable, serious forms of energy.

Allenson
12-15-2009, 06:50 PM
How about simply not approving that the science is hijacked to serve political purposes?

Well, I don't doubt that, actually. What I was trying to say was that even if anthropogenic climate change is nothing but a hoax and a farce (and it may very well be!), I still see nothing wrong with shifting our energy sources and our consumption habits.


Anyway, limiting our industry and economy by the assumption that CO2 is harmful leaves us with less funds that could be put into development of clean and sustainable, serious forms of energy.

A solid point.

How about taking money away from social programs designed to help foreigners immigrate and assimilate into our countries and putting that money into renewable energy reseach & development instead? :lightbul: ;)

Liffrea
12-15-2009, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by Allenson
My personal jury on anthropogenic climate change is still out and still deliberating.

It would be strange to claim that man has no impact on the climate, we are part of the world after all and naturally we contribute to the whole biosphere, but personally I’m not convinced that man is the main cause of climate change or even a significant one.

That climate change is happening is, of course, obvious.


Even if human activity is not spurring on climate change, what's the problem with shifting away from finite resources like coal & all the petroleum-based products and focusing on "renewable" energy sources such as wind, solar & geothermal?

Cost, ease of use.

Coal may be finite but some estimates place it’s reserve (at present consumption) between 300-1000 years.

Renewable energy is a valid idea, but I’m not sure it will provide the energy needs of an island of 70 million people and climbing.

I feel the problem is less one of energy supply and more one of over population….