.But I really, sincerely wish that these people are going to be proved right in 30 years, and that all the scientists and Gretas and so on are going to be proved wrong. And that my young daughter and her children are going to be living in a good environment (in every sense) and can look back at this era of history
. This is not sarcasm or irony on my part. I really hope it turns out this way. I want the scientists and those basically believing them (such as myself) to be proved wrong by events in the future and I want the CC sceptics to be proved right, big time.
Trick wrote:next to the UN speaker podium
. When co2 levels drop below 150 ppm that's when plants start to die (and your source of o2 as well) at the time of the melting of the laurentide ice sheet 11,000 yrs ago the amount of carbon in the atmosphere was at its lowest levels in earth's 4.8 billion yr history and yet the laurentide ice sheet which covered all of Canada and even covered NYC with 2 1/2 mile of ice - that's enough to fit 3 world trade centers end over end, so the question is with carbon emissions from man non exist ant, how is possible that all that ice melted at 180ppm...if carbon was the main driver of climate than we'd have no ice at the poles today but obviously that's not true and according to nasa Antarctica is getting bigger and heavier snow packs that cause ice hanging off the continent to calve NOT CO2....
ENOUGH OF THE HISTERIA!
A PAPER PUBLISHED LAST WK BY TURKU UNIVERSITY(finland) AND KOBE UNIVERSITY (JAPAN)
FOUND 0 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
Steve James wrote:A paper last week? Could you cite a link? However, how does one prove that humans are not part of the cause, at least? Secondly, if it's just cyclical, that means it is happening, just not caused by humans. In that cause, it does seem logical to address it rather than deny it. And, if not humans or cycles, then what is it?
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers added. “If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.”
The Finnish research has been corroborated by research from Kobe University in Japan.
“New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect,'” the Japanese scientists concluded, noting that this natural phenomenon “has never been considered in climate predictions.”
windwalker wrote:. This is not sarcasm or irony on my part. I really hope it turns out this way. I want the scientists and those basically believing them (such as myself) to be proved wrong by events in the future and I want the CC sceptics to be proved right, big time.
Science is about
Observation, arriving at a theory that reflects and explains what one has observed.
There are many scientists skeptical of the modeling used buy those using the co2 modeling in the climate debate..
beyond our influence on the atmosphere - i.e. the amount of hydrocarbons we have contributed that led to a measurable Greenhouse Effect - there are the also the factors of human population growth, urbanization, food consumption, land use, and the extensive impact these have had on our planet's ecosystems, effecting everything from ocean acidification and deforestation to biodiversity deterioration.
This is what is refefred to by the IGBP as the "Great Acceleration" - a period in human activity that began with in the industrial revolution in 1750 and has continued to the present. As Professor Will Steffen, who led the joint project between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, explained: "“It is difficult to overestimate the scale and speed of change. In a single lifetime humanity has become a planetary-scale geological force."
Composed of two sets of charts, the Planetary Dashboard compares humanity's expanding presence on the planet in terms of 12 different indicators (shown above), which include things like economic growth (GDP), total population, foreign direct investment, energy consumption, telecommunications, transportation and water use.
On the other side of the aisle, twelve indicators show the concurrent changes that took place within several major environmental components - such as the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and biodiversity. Taken together, these indicators highlight how the trajectories of Earth and human development are now tightly bound.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests