It is true that CO2 levels and temperatures have been high in the past. Hence the argument that man has nothing to do with it. But the correlation between the two is totally striking. It is also possible that higher temparatures cause higher CO2 levels, but then CO2 acts as an amplifier that makes matters worse. One way or the other, the two are correlated.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1170477257.jpg

Aurel

Show me the data, I don`t know what you are refering to. One possible explanation could be that CO2 was consumed by photosynthesis from the development of vegetation during global warming. That is just a guess.

Aurel

Unfortunately, for your credibility, virtually all of those myths have been thoroughtly debunked.

Quote:

Now Ice caps are melting and glaciers are receding. How can you not realize the impact that humans have on the health and natural balance of the Earth!

That would be because relative to other influences, human influences are tiny. By the way, there is more rain forest acreage today than there was 40 years ago, and the rain forests rapidly recover from cutting as well.

Do uses of resources have to be husbanded, certainly, but not by governments. Having the resources in private hands is much more efficient in the wise use of resources.

That's the whole point, the effects of CO2 aren't anything other than correlation; and any first year student of statistics can tell you that "correlation isn't causation."

Do you remember when you were a kid in history class and you were told about life around the 1600s when people would go on witch hunts because witches were the cause of disease, crop failures, bad weather, etc.?

Look at the people today who are touting the nonsense about CO2 in the atmosphere causing "global warming" and it will be like you were looking at the same people who, 400 years ago, would have been screaming, "Burn witch, burn!"

Trace amount of CO2 added to an oxygen-nitrogen gas mixture does not change that gas mixture's insulating properties to a significant enough degree that one can conclude that CO2 content in the atmosphere could possibly affect global temperature change.

The CO2 -- global warming suggested "link" is absolute junk science believed by fanatics who understand nothing about science.

In many ways, we're slowly sliding into a scientific Dark Ages, complete with "Global Warming" alchemy.

I don't think anyone REALLY has a clue why the weather is doing what it's doing or ultimately what it's going to do.

Who knows, this may just be the natural cycle of things as it's happened several times before.

Scientists make educated guesses about the past, but since none of them were there, they are really only educated guesses. And I've seen some really smart people make educated guesses that sounded very good but were very wrong.

Personally, I think the weather is going to do what it's going to do, and there's not much that we can do about it.

Howdy!

Typical communist propaganda!

Only a few thousand scientists from 130 countries have come up with that phony IPCC-report, and they are only 90% sure. Not very trustworthy in my eyes :p

Anyway if they are right only pure left wing liberal communist cities like London, Tokyo, New York and San Francisco will disappear.

I'm looking forward to it SmileWavy

According to these same 'scientists', who in 1979 conjured up their 'New Ice Age' theory, there should be a glacier covering the state of Michigan right now (they gave us about 25 years to get the hell out ...... ). It is a tad chilly today, but I STILL can't see any glaciers approaching :D

If you prefer the quest for oil and its associated wars, dark ages may come even faster than the scientists are predicting. This will happen through nuclear confrontation, or economic collapse. Slowly reducing emissions and thinking about alternatives to oil does not seem like a stupid idea to me. When 5% of the population uses 25% of the energy, I suppose this is what they call capitalism: total disregard for the effects on the planet, which most the time affect poorer countries anyways. Keep on going like this, and the rest of the world will keep on detesting you. Not that you care, I know. You did not care either when the rest of the world was against your stupid Iraq war. But now you are in deep trouble with that, arent`t you? Well, guess what: the rest of the world could also be right about global warming. See you in 5 years to talk about it again.

Aurel

I have two specific issues with the "Global Warming" discussion, and a number of things that I would agree with. Essentially, I am not questioning the data, but the interpretations.

Agreements:
1) Yup, the world seems to be getting warmer.

2) Yup, it's gotten a lot warmer, a lot faster then in the last 200 years then in the previous few thousands.

Disagreements or concerns:
1) The data set used for this analysis is too limited. For example, it only goes thousands of years. Here's an example of a graph that supposedly proves mankinds influence on global warming:
http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg

or this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...6337/img/1.jpg

Now Compare that data with this chart:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Figures/Ice_Ages.jpg

Note the difference in scale. All of the global warming charts are in 1,000's of years, Global climate is measured in 1,000,000's of years, while the Earth itself is about 4,500,000,000 years old.

So I don't see a strong link between mankinds actions and the climate change. That being said...

Yes, the world is getting warmer. What are we going to do about it. It's not clear of the best strategy is to try to roll-back the temperature to the "correct" temperature, because it's not even clear what the "correct temperature" is, nor if we have the capability to actually influence it. That being said, a reduction in emmissions (of all sorts) and consumption of non-renewable fuels can only be a good thing.

Personally I think that it would be prudent to assume that the world is going to be getting warmer -- now what?
- Should development be curtailed in low-laying regions?
- Should storm contingency plans be improved?
- What areas are expected to become more or less arriable? How can we manage them correctly.

Everything Pat said +1.

Global warming and climate change are the nuclear winter, global cooling and eugenics of the 21st century. It's Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson with an agenda-driven, international team of scientists behind it.

Guess how many ants live on the planet right now?

Latest estimates put the number at one quadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000)

Mainstream independent source?

It's all about research grants, my friend, and since none of them will pay a price for publishing crap, why not publish science that generates funding. Publishing science that says "nothing to worry about" generates nothing.

This chart contains the "Hockey Stick Projection" fallacy.
It was used a long time before some smart people showed it to be grossly incorrect.

The problem here is very complicated but that really doesn't matter. The bottom line, emissions from exhaust and stacks are just not good. The NOx, CO and SO3 are just not good period. Anyone who doesn't think so hasn't spent enough time in a garage with poor ventilation.

Even if it may not contribute to climate change it is still something you do not want to produce.

Emissions should be reduced like any other abusive action.

+1

Aurel

But most importantly, what should my investment strategies be to best profit from all this?
Hopeless Capitalist :)

I don't have an argument with that, that's a quality of life issue and we know that we can reduce those things, because we have reduced them. If you compare current production cars with those produced before the PCV was introduced there is a very large change, 99% reduction or something close to it. I had a 9 year old car, a 1992, that had 140,000 miles on it and was still well under limits in California before it went away. That's typical.

The issue with so-called "Global Warming" is wholly different. "Global Warming" is world sociofascism (I combine all socialists under one identification) attempting to get control of industry, lifestyles, and nearly everything else that they've tried to get control of for the last 100+ years via a phony catastrophic environmental issue. Sociofascists think that this will give them the handle they've longed for, but could only get in some countries. It's their last chance at the gold ring.