Post by Barry Phease
Max, you are normally reasonably rational. If you think that GW
is a matter of faith, where do you see the chain of reasoning
breaking down? Where is the faith introduced?
Post by Max Burke Post by Barry Phease
1. CO2 and other GHGs cause the planet to be warm? 2. Higher
concentrations of GHGs cause the average temperature to rise?
3. Human activities are emitting GHGs? 4. GHG levels are being
measured and have risen considerably throughout the time that
they have been measured? 5. The temperature has risen of over the
last century or so?
You are not answering the question. Which one of these is not
I haven't answered that because you haven't told me what YOU mean by
Post by Barry Phease
6. Sea levels have risen?
Post by Max Burke
By what? 10-15mm.....
By about 2-3 mm per year.
Shock, horror that's TERRIBLE! We all better move to the highest hills we
can find huh.....
I dont know Barry, every time I see a marine forecast that lists the low and
high tides they dont show the high tide level getting higher.....
In fact it's a different GUESSTIMATE of what it will be at each high
But lets go with your 2 - 3 mm per year.
let's say it started rising 100 years ago. (as often is claimed by believers
in global warming)
100 X 3mm - is 300mm/30cm in ONE HUNDRED YEARS!!!!
And that's supposed to be a disaster??????
Then theres the [scientific] FACT that this supposed rise in sea levels has
NOT been recorded all over the world; It has ONLY been recorded in the data
and the computer models or the scientists who like to claim that GLOBALLY
the sea level has risen.....
Post by Barry Phease Post by Max Burke
It's laughable that any scientist can claim that a small mean
change if sea levels is proof, let alone evidence of global
warming; Hell it's not even a world wide rise. It JUST in their
carefully selected data samples that they've feed into their
computer models which are programmed to say it's happening all over
I am sorry. I take back what I said about your being rational. I
will leave you to YOUR religious beliefs.
I'm not the one who believes the world is on the edge of destruction
That's what YOU believe, remember....
Post by Barry Phease
We have a mechanism
Post by Max Burke
Not enough knowledge of how it works by a LONG shot....
Naaa it's true....
Post by Barry Phease
What more do you want?
Post by Max Burke
A consensus and rational, verifiable research from the scientific
community would be a start....
I sugest you actually start reading some of the scientific papers.
You mean the ones you SELECTIVELY read? The ones that support what you
believe? Why would I need to do that Barry?
I like to get every side of the argument, NOT just one side....
'Humanity is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change.'
THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's
Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals
that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species
inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than
what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to
at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared
far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and
others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much
warmer and colder than today.
For more than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer
than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole.
As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that
hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in
However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler
than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals
known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations
include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural
wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in
Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as
much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large
majority of the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) ,
overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000
years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5
degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin
within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could
be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at
least reduce its severity."
Many other scientists are sceptical of the fashionable view that people are
causing significant climate change. A particularly compelling one is Dr.
Fred Singer, president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project.
'Climate Change is Occurring at an Unprecedented Rate.'
THE ENVIROTRUTH: Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences
(Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University explains that it is a serious
mistake to regard the natural climate cycle as tranquil and predictable. In
fact, there is no reason to believe that current rates of temperature change
are in any way different to what one would expect due to entirely natural
causes. Dr. Patterson says that, by examining Greenland ice cores,
scientists have found breathtakingly sudden variations in climate throughout
the geologic record.
"About 15,000 years ago, while the planet was still emerging from the last
ice age, Greenland's temperature rose by 9°C in only 50 years," explains Dr.
Patterson. "Once, 12,000 years ago, the temperature rose an astonishing 8°C
in a single decade."
Recent European data suggests that even more severe climate fluctuations
occurred at the end of the previous interglacial warm period. Their data
shows that temperatures varied from warmer than they are today to the
coldest of the ice age in merely a few decades, and then bounced back up
again over the next century or so. Dr. Patterson sums up - "the only thing
constant about climate is change."
'The Consensus of World Scientists, as Revealed by the UN's IPCC,
Agree - Humanity is Causing Significant Climate Change.'
THE ENVIROTRUTH: "There is of course no consensus at all," according to Dr.
Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and
Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor
Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. "There
isn't even a consensus on whether the atmosphere is currently warming --
never mind on whether humanity should be held responsible."
Most people don't realize that there are in fact two parts to the IPCC
report - a large science section (the 'main report') which is a description
of research activities in climate science, as well as a highly politicized
"Summary for Policymakers". The summary is what is commonly quoted in the
media and by those supporting Kyoto. They present it as the consensus of
thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such
thing. It only represents a consensus of government representatives (many of
whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), NGO's and business,
rather than of scientists. The Summary for Policymakers has a strong
tendency to disguise uncertainty and presents frightening scenarios for
which there is no evidence.
Dr. Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of
London (England), explains, "The whole feel of the IPCC report differs
between its political summary and the scientific sections. It comes as a
shock to read the following in the conclusions to the science part: "In sum,
a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and
modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear
system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is
not possible." - quite a contrast to the alarmism of the Summary for
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department
of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, and one of the lead authors of the science sections of the
IPCC report, has scathingly described the summary as "very much a children's
exercise of what might possibly happen," prepared by a "peculiar group" with
"no technical competence." Professor Lindzen further described the inept and
unethical behaviour of the IPCC in preparing their reports in his May 2,
2001 testimony to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee -
the full transcript of that testimony can be viewed at
http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/lin_0502.htm. On hearing about Canada's
Minister of the Environment David Anderson's confidence in the dramatic
conclusions of the IPCC summary report, Dr. Lindzen laughed, "There is a
certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the
scientists are not."
'Historical Records Confirm That Global Warming Has Resulted From Increasing
Levels of CO2 in Our Atmosphere.'
THE ENVIROTRUTH: The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct
increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante
Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global
temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the
theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the
acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.
Considerable evidence now supports the carbon cycle modelers' assumption
that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:
Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice
ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago,
CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.
Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical
sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is
unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas
into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.
Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected
journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the
Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's
brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age, the rapid
warming in the early part of the twentieth century, or the relatively
unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global
temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "...the
Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than
Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and
"Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last
ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier.
These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were
during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting
to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial
and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels - see Myth #3
for more on this point.
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me