DE: 100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural

[hokie4redskins]

Some of these aren't as much outright lies as they are logical assessments. But it's pretty clear that the high-level collusion to promote this hysteria is losing its credibility..........quickly. Cue the "right-wing rag" posts.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

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

** EXPRESS NEWS: 100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL**

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.

SEARCH UK NEWS for:

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.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

[Predicto]

Oh yay. A cut and paste job, combined with a passive-aggressive "cue the 'right wing rag' posts preemptive shot.

You see, hokie4redskins posted this because he wants to stimulate reasoned discussion on an issue of significance. That is why he attempted to mock, in advance, any effort to refute the post. Because, you know, all us libs are agenda driven, and he just seeks the truth.

I think the most effective way to refute this laundry list of nonsense is to let someone else do it. How about the editors of a famous scientific publication, the New Scientist?

50 reasons why global warming isn't natural

Michael Le Page, features editor

A British newspaper today published a list of "100 reasons why global warming is natural".

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims - and debunk each one.

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

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

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

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

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

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.

4) After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

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

Yes. And sea level has been up to 70 metres higher during warm periods. If that happens again, there'll be no more London or New York.

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

Wrong. The rapid warming since the late 1970s has occurred even though other factors that can warm the planet, such as the sun's intensity, have remained constant.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers, not the 4000 usually cited.

Untrue, as even the briefest look at the scientific literature can establish.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "climategate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Nothing in the emails undermines any of the key scientific conclusions. Independent groups have come to the same conclusions.

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.

The sun may have contributed to the warming in the first part of the 20th century but it has not caused the rapid warming since the late 1970s.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming, but sea levels have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Wrong. Sea level rose very rapidly as the North American ice sheet melted after the last ice age but levelled off and has been nearly stable for the past 2000 years or so. Now it is starting to rise rapidly again.

12) Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He is right. All sorts of factors affect climate, even the lead in petrol. However, the recent warming is mostly due to rising greenhouse gases, and if we pump out more CO2 it will get even hotter.

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that "fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".

Irrelevant and incorrect on all counts.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

There are arguments over how much wind power can contribute, but there is no doubt they are already helping reduce emissions in many countries.

15) Professor Plimer, professor of geology and earth sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity".

See (1). And note that Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist.

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

Many scientists think Soon should be embarrassed by some of the papers he has published.

17) The science of what determines the Earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

There are still lots of details to fill in but the big picture is increasingly clear. The uncertainties that do exist swing both ways: there could be more warming than predicted.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour, which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a cause of warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere depends on temperature; any excess rains out within days.

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4000 signatories, including 72 Nobel prizewinners, from 106 countries have signed it.

That's not what the Heidelberg Appeal really said, and 1992 was a long time ago.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 °C per century - within natural rates.

Incorrect. Over the past 1000 years temperature has never changed nearly as fast.

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the scientific council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, says the Earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapour than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

See (18). And why believe someone whose work was rejected by the scientific community?

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

The Earth is still warming and even if the sun's intensity does fall, it will not outweigh the effect of rising greenhouse gases.

23) It is a myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.

Incorrect. The current retreat is unprecendented.

24) It is a falsehood that the Earth's poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

Illogical and incorrect. Warming is warming whatever causes it. And all parts of the Arctic are warmer compared with the average from 1951 to 1980. The extent of the warming is contributing to the rapidly shrinking in the extent of sea ice cover during summer.

25) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims climate-driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance", but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.

There is already clear evidence that the distributions of many species are changing as the planet warms (PDF). If it gets much warmer, some will have nowhere to go.

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not make sense as wild species are at least 1 million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

Many species are less than 1 million years old. In any case, during the past 3 million years, the Earth has got a lot colder than it is now during ice ages but never much hotter.

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Depends on what timescale you are talking about. Scientists differ on how quickly they think the ice sheets will melt, but studies of warm periods leave no doubt that if the temperature gets much higher and stays higher, all the ice sheets will melt completely after several centuries or millennia, causing sea level to rise by 70 metres.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.

Higher CO2 levels do boost growth of some plants, but only if there's enough water throughout the growing season and the temperature is appropriate for particular plants. Overall, climate change is expected to reduce yields once the temperature rise exceeds 3 °C.

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on Earth took place around 700 million years ago.

So what?

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (10).

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming.

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 and consumes oxygen, and thus lowers oxygen levels, though the decrease is too tiny to matter.

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain-top observations made over the past three decades have not shown any significant change in the long-term rate of increase in global temperatures.

The rate of increase is in line with predictions.

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared with most of the Earth's history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

And when CO2 levels were higher there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 metres higher. Plus, the sun was cooler in the past.

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037 per cent of the atmosphere.

You can only get close to the 3 per cent figure by counting water vapour, which as we have already said is a feedback not a cause.

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to "verify" anything.

No, they can't, because climate models are based on the physical laws that apply in the real world. In any case, the crucial evidence that CO2 warms the planet comes from physics and chemistry, not from general climate models.

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Incorrect. For instance, while there is much uncertainty in this area, there is growing evidence that hurricanes will get stronger, though there may not be more of them.

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases".

Meaningless taken out of context, without knowing what studies the statement was referring to.

38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 +/- 0.07 °C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 °C expected by the IPCC.

Actually temperature rose 0.19 ºC, but global warming does not mean natural variation goes away. Periods of cooling are still to be expected.

39) The IPCC says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally.

Incorrect. Some studies have found an increase.

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

Incorrect and contradictory. Either the effect is negligible or helpful: it can't be both. In fact, rising CO2 will lead to big temperature increases, which will have a dramatic effect on Earth's ecosystems. Some species will benefit as their range expands, others will run out of suitable space. The speed of the change - far faster than natural climate change in the past - will make it very difficult for plants and animals to move fast enough.

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate-change impact on civilisations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

Which researchers? Where were their findings published? In any case, over the past two millennia, warm periods have generally involved tiny changes compared with the changes we can expect over the next century.

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical.

Er, why?

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

Yet more repetition. See (28).

44) The historical increase in the air's CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years.

According to who? This statement is impossible to prove or disprove. What we can say is that the bulk of the increase in yields over this time are due to improved plant varieties and techniques, many of which are heavily reliant on the use of fossil fuels. If we don't start planning for the end of cheap oil, food prices could soar.

45) The increase of the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

How exactly, and according to who?

46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths", but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations.

Incorrect. Excessive heat during summers is already killing more people than are being saved by milder winters.

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

See here for the political background. Russia signed up to the Kyoto protocol later that year.

48) The "climategate" scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change.

Or it points to a relatively cheap public education campaign and efforts by responsible scientists to ensure political decisions are based on sound science rather than on papers that have been shown to be flawed.

49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

Even if he has - no source is given - no one can be forced to spend money they don't have and such spending is an investment that will save householders thousands of pounds in the long term. If energy prices rise sharply as demand for oil and gas exceeds supply, we may all be wishing we had invested more in energy efficiency.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies", but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (14). No, wind power is not the answer to our energy needs but it is one of the answers, and it would be very short-sighted not to invest in alternative energy sources as peak oil nears, even if there was no issue with global warming.

There are another 50 "reasons" listed but they are even less credible than the ones we've already dealt with...

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

[Burgold]

I defer to Predicto's answer. More or less had the same instict, but he said it better.

There is undeniable proof that there is a problem. Frankly, if we can help to alleviate that problem, I don't care whether it's our fault or not. It'll make life better.

[Predicto]

But again, I want to thank hokie4redskins for playing, and we look forward to his next effort very soon.

Expect it to be much like this one:

1) Cut and paste some right wing chatter

2) throw in cheap shot about ideological opponents

3) no discussion of the merits

4) bail out till next time

:notworthy:

[Koolblue13]

But again, I want to thank hokie4redskins for playing, and we look forward to his next effort very soon.

Expect it to be much like this one:

1) Cut and paste some right wing chatter

2) throw in cheap shot about ideological opponents

3) no discussion of the merits

4) bail out till next time

:notworthy:

Shut this one down, right out of the gate. Well played P. :hysterical:

[Zguy28]

This won't end well.

[The Evil Genius]

But again, I want to thank hokie4redskins for playing, and we look forward to his next effort very soon.

Expect it to be much like this one:

1) Cut and paste some right wing chatter

2) throw in cheap shot about ideological opponents

3) no discussion of the merits

4) bail out till next time

:notworthy:

You don't understand. 4skin is all about puffing out his chest and telling you "his" version of the truth. Even if he doesn't have an original thought to his bone.

[Burgundy Burner]

Oh yay. A cut and paste job, combined with a passive-aggressive "cue the 'right wing rag' posts preemptive shot.

You see, hokie4redskins posted this because he wants to stimulate reasoned discussion on an issue of significance. That is why he attempted to mock, in advance, any effort to refute the post. Because, you know, all us libs are agenda driven, and he just seeks the truth.

I think the most effective way to refute this laundry list of nonsense is to let someone else do it. How about the editors of a famous scientific publication, the New Scientist?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

But again, I want to thank hokie4redskins for playing, and we look forward to his next effort very soon.

Expect it to be much like this one:

1) Cut and paste some right wing chatter

2) throw in cheap shot about ideological opponents

3) no discussion of the merits

4) bail out till next time

:notworthy:

And let's add this one in...

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7112854&postcount=65

If you post something that is perceived to be from the right, then insult it and insult the op. That's the ticket!

[PeterMP]

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

Would you like to suggest a mechanism that you would consider proof?

"35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to "verify" anything."

Models are good "tools". A model that can "predict" (in many cases rather than wait years for new data people use old data "verify" their model and as such it isn't really a prediction) behavior to a significant degree are considered "good" models. It is possible for a "good" model to be wrong, as in science no model, includes ALL of the behavior in the system (it is only required to describe a "signficant" amount of the behavior), but they tend to be more right than wrong.

Here are IPCC "predictions" (they started "predicting" in 1990 in all cases):

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001319verification_of_ipcc.html

"19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal

"Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal do endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved." Its 72 Nobel laureates include 49 who also signed the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," which was circulated that same year by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and attracted the majority of the world's living Nobel laureates in science along with some 1,700 other leading scientists. In contrast with the vagueness of the Heidelberg Appeal, the "World Scientists' Warning" is a very explicit environmental manifesto, stating that "human beings and the natural world are on a collision course" and citing ozone depletion, global climate change, air pollution, groundwater depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and species extinction among the trends that threaten to "so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.""

"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."

Over the history of the world, we aren't the major releasors of the particles that cause acid rain or the gases that cause ozone depeltion. The problem becomes when we release far more than would have been released naturally over a short period of time like we did with coal power plants and CFCs.

[Renegade7]

Even if climate change is natural, our rate of pollution and deforrestation isn't. Call it what you want, but we're destroying the planet and we need to fix our ways before there ain't nothing left to destroy. Arguing back and forth on whether or not climate change or global warming is real neglects the true point of what this all boils down to: our current ways are leading to this planet being uninhabitable.

It's like gay marriage; call it civil unions and move on already. Stop debating about the fine print and technicalities and just fix the problem already. Jesus.

[Duncan]

I think the most effective way to refute this laundry list of nonsense is to let someone else do it. How about the editors of a famous scientific publication, the New Scientist?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

To be fair, new scientist is not a peer reviewed journal and Michael Le Page is an environmental activist.

[alexey]

Cut and paste battle!!!

:saber: :saber: :saber: :saber:

[Heisenberg]

LOL at hokie4redskins having his post completely destroyed in the very first reply.

I'm not sure how anyone with a rational mind could sit there and see all of the things humans are doing to the planet and assume that there are no negative effects of this pollution/deforestation/etc.

[PeterMP]

To be fair, new scientist is not a peer reviewed journal and Michael Le Page is an environmental activist.

The claims are linked to various other pages. Those pages themselves contain links. In all the cases that I looked at, it was possible to trace the claim back to the peer reviewed science literature.

[Larry]

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

And there is "no real scientific proof" that smoking causes cancer.

Although there is scientific proof that CO2 causes a body in space to retain heat. That is pretty much the only fact in this entire discussion which can (and has) been proven in controlled, reproducible, scientific experiments.

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.

Wow. Mankind, in the last 100 years, (which is when the vast bulk of their pollution has occurred), has only artificially dumped a very small amount of additional CO2, when compared to total history of the Universe.

That's certainly important to know.

So tell us, what's the magic number?

If Man has artificially dumped into the atmosphere, 1% as much of a pollutant as has existed over the entire history of the Earth, then is that important to you?

Or does Man's pollution have to be, say, 50% of all the pollution which has ever been produced in the history of the Earth?

Or does he have to, in 100 years, produce more than what's been produced in the previous billion years? Before you'll decide that maybe we should stop polluting?

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

Oooh. And the Earth was warmer when there was no life on it, too.

Care to go back to those days?

Same question: How much of an effect does human pollution have to have, before you think it's important?

Does it have to be the warmest year in the last thousand years? Ten thousand? Million?

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

You mean, when Man started recording CO2 emissions, then there were a lot more recorded emissions than there were recorded emissions before we started recording?

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.

Ooh, look, two more examples of "well, the Earth was warmer before Man existed, therefore we should artificially encourage it to happen, again" "reasoning".

If I'm not mistaken, science says that at one time, there was no Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, either. So you'd be good if Man were, say, removing half a billion tons of Oxygen from the atmosphere, every year for the last 100 years, and accelerating, right? You'd be standing here telling us that "An atmosphere without Oxygen is natural, and the half a billion tons a year I'm destroying doesn't count"?

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.

Now there's a claim that looks like it might actually be scientific, and relevant.

I don't think for a minute that it's true. In fact, from what I've picked up of science from reading Peter's posts, I suspect that it's the first flat-out, complete lie in this list.

But I'll freely admit that I'm not qualified to point out the obvious fraud in this point the way I can in the others.

(Leon can't do everything) [/joke]

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

And if "The IPCC theory" was the only scientific research showing that artificially dumping a pollutant which has been proven to cause retention of heat, causes retention of heat, then that would be a really important stat.

OTOH, I seem to recall Peter pointing out that something like 92% of all scientists who study climate believe that Man is altering the climate. In fact, among all scientists (not just those who work in climate research), the only group where less than half (42%?) believed that Man was altering the climate were . . . petroleum geologists.

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

Outright lie. Plain and simple.

And it's a lie that was shown to be a lie, here on ES, mere hours after it was made. Using information that has been freely available to anybody who cares to actually look at the science for over a decade.

In short, the only way someone could possibly believe that lie, is if they haven't been paying attention to the science.

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.

Wow. A statement that I suspect is true.

'Course, not one person has suggested that CO2 is the only factor which affects climate. In short, this statement "disproves" something that not one person has ever said.

It's like the tobacco industry pointing out that here's a guy who got cancer who didn't smoke. No one ever said that smoking was the only thing that causes cancer.

----------

So, OK, I've looked at the 10 talking points that the authors think are their best ones.

One is an outright lie. Another I suspect is a lie, but I don't have the scientific knowledge to refute it, myself.

Three attempts to minimize the effects of dumping half a billion tons a year of pollution into the environment, for the last 100 years, and accelerating, by saying "well, if you average that pollution over the last Billion years . . . "

Two attempts to disprove statements that nobody's made in the first place. (Including what I suspect is the only statement of the 10 that's actually true.)

And four revelations of the stunning news that weather changes.

I'm shocked.

[hokie4redskins]

Oh yay. A cut and paste job, combined with a passive-aggressive "cue the 'right wing rag' posts preemptive shot.

You see, hokie4redskins posted this because he wants to stimulate reasoned discussion on an issue of significance. That is why he attempted to mock, in advance, any effort to refute the post. Because, you know, all us libs are agenda driven, and he just seeks the truth.

I think the most effective way to refute this laundry list of nonsense is to let someone else do it. How about the editors of a famous scientific publication, the New Scientist?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

You mean the same New Scientist whose former editor said this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

It's quite funny how angry you get when I post something. It's almost as funny as your accusations of political hackery. Hypocrisy, thy name is Predicto.

I found this doozy in your quoted text by throwing a dart at my monitor blindfolded.

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared with most of the Earth's history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

And when CO2 levels were higher there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 metres higher. Plus, the sun was cooler in the past.

So were sea levels 70 metres [brit sic] higher before or after the invention of the SUV?

:thumbsup:

And "plus the sun was cooler"?? This was the rebuttal? This "rebuttal" only helps confirm the notion that climate change is indeed natural.

Let's see, CO2 levels higher before industrial man? Check! Sun has drastic impact on Earth's temperature? Check!

I should've predicted your predictable attacks on OPs as well.

:laugh:

[Burgundy Burner]

LOL at hokie4redskins having his post completely destroyed in the very first reply.

I'm not sure how anyone with a rational mind could sit there and see all of the things humans are doing to the planet and assume that there are no negative effects of this pollution/deforestation/etc.

Bwahahahahaha.

[sacase]

Oh yay. A cut and paste job, combined with a passive-aggressive "cue the 'right wing rag' posts preemptive shot.

You see, hokie4redskins posted this because he wants to stimulate reasoned discussion on an issue of significance. That is why he attempted to mock, in advance, any effort to refute the post. Because, you know, all us libs are agenda driven, and he just seeks the truth.

I think the most effective way to refute this laundry list of nonsense is to let someone else do it. How about the editors of a famous scientific publication, the New Scientist?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

That article was laughable at best. None of the responses actually provide any information to back up what is being said. In fact at one point the author acknowledges that there was 4 decades of cooling but turnes around and later in the article says there was warming during that same period, so which is it was there warming or cooling? Several points were enviromentalist talking points or just drive by cheap shots without any substanance.

Predicto, stop with the little game you are playing, you are better than that. By your standard the only person that can probably talk about climate change is PerterMP. 95% of the converstation here is generated by people posting articles and using the information in them to back up their points.

H4R didn't stifle discussion, he just knew what was coming. Just like many of the left in this forum do when anything is posted that they don't agree with, they attack the source rather than discussing the article. He was pretty much mocking you and the stance you have taken with anything global warming related.

Even if climate change is natural, our rate of pollution and deforrestation isn't. Call it what you want, but we're destroying the planet and we need to fix our ways before there ain't nothing left to destroy. Arguing back and forth on whether or not climate change or global warming is real neglects the true point of what this all boils down to: our current ways are leading to this planet being uninhabitable.

It's like gay marriage; call it civil unions and move on already. Stop debating about the fine print and technicalities and just fix the problem already. Jesus.

Climate change is natural. Extinction is natural. Not all species are meant to carry on forever in the same way. Eventually they will die out. We are not destroying the planet, at worst we are destroying our enviroment. The planet will be here long after we are gone, not matter what we do to it. Life will continue in one form or another.

Can we keep the earth's climate like it is now? Isn't that climate change? Or is that just acceptable climate change. Don't we have a duty to let the earth change its climate and we either adapt and survive or don't and die out giving rise to a newer species? I would argue that human overpopulation is having a more drastic affect on the enviroment than CO2, but yet no one wants to talk about human overpopulation...I wonder why?

[skinfan133]

LOL at hokie4redskins having his post completely destroyed in the very first reply.

I'm not sure how anyone with a rational mind could sit there and see all of the things humans are doing to the planet and assume that there are no negative effects of this pollution/deforestation/etc.

funny, I would say the opposite. How can we be so arrogant to believe we can so profoundly affect creation in such a short time? I do not deny the data, I just simply do not believe humanity is physically capable of altering the biosphere in such a drastic and unintentional way. I'm all for being environmentally friendly: who isn't for having clean air to breathe? But, all this focus on CO2 is just diverting attention from the fact that:

-water levels are rising as well as temperatures.

Quick! dump everything you think and know about the issue out the window: this is happening, what do you do!? The military is game-planning all kinds of global warming scenarios whether they believe it or not, maybe the civilian sector should do the same.

[Larry]

Bwahahahahaha.

Wow.

Species die naturally. Therefore we should kill them. Brilliant.

(That ranks right up there with the "There was a time when CO2 was higher, the Earth was warmer, sea levels were higher, and there were no humans on the planet. Therefore it's OK with me if we artificially re-create those days." "reasoning" being displayed in this thread.)

[PeterMP]

Don't we have a duty to let the earth change its climate and we either adapt and survive or don't and die out giving rise to a newer species?

Why?

I would argue that human overpopulation is having a more drastic affect on the enviroment than CO2, but yet no one wants to talk about human overpopulation...I wonder why?

Over population is directly related to the resources that the population requires. A larger population that requries fewer resources actually causes fewer problems than a smaller one that requires more.

Things related to resource use, like land use issues, are a major concern that lot's of people talk about.

[Larry]

That article was laughable at best. None of the responses actually provide any information to back up what is being said.

You're referring to the OP, right?

[PeterMP]

funny, I would say the opposite. How can we be so arrogant to believe we can so profoundly affect creation in such a short time?

Ever heard of nuclear winter?

[hokie4redskins]

You're referring to the OP, right?

Nope. Your comprehension is just really, really bad.

[skinfan133]

Ever heard of nuclear winter?

it hasn't happened yet. That's also active, not passive action. I'm talking about unintentional destruction. We absolutely have the capacity to willingly destroy the planet. roughly 70 times over actually including the moon. not the surface, the whole goddam thing. Trust me, I take this into account for what I said, perhaps I should have been clear that I meant passive actions.