Don't forget Methane. Not only from humans but the animals that humans breed to sustain ourselves.
Printable View
Don't forget Methane. Not only from humans but the animals that humans breed to sustain ourselves.
The hoax stems from the simple fact that things like auto exhaust and industrial emissions are but a small fraction of the CO2 produced naturally. Many other "greenhouse gasses" such as methane are actually less prevalent now than in the past few centuries. These things go through a natural cycle of increase and decrease - always have and always will.
The worst part of the whole global warming issue is much akin to back in the middle of the 20th century when the US (among others) were experimenting with cloud seeding - both as a means of increasing and decreasing the intensity of weatherstorms. Given the sheer magnitude of factors involved, it's impossible to determine whether a particular action actually does have any effect or just what that effect might be.
Under the dictates of scientific reasoning, isolating a determining factor in such circumstances necessitates the implementation of a 'control' - so that the modification of a given parameter can be more assuredly identified as the contributing factor between the two. As we have no second earth to serve as a control, we don't have any fundamental basis to conclusively say that mankind's impact on the environment has in any way affected the global climate or to what degree it has done so if such is the case.
We can THEORIZE, obviously. There have been countless efforts to run computer simulations which can accurately depict progressions under specific circumstances. But, considering the hit-and-miss track record of even the best efforts made to predict how hurricanes will behave, what paths they'll follow, and where they'll make landfall, I certainly don't attribute much accuracy to computer models depicting mankind's impact on such a massive scale.
I'm certainly not discounting that there are many areas where human activity has played a significant role in large-scale environmental situations - the Dust Bowl serving as a prime example. But planet-wide, we have had a much smaller impact than many doomsayers profess.
Coupled with the fact that those same studies also confirm numerous radical fluctuations - from super-heated polar conditions to equatorial ice ages - the scientific community is in no way prepared or equipped to conclusively say that human activity has X amount of influence in global climate. CO2 and methane are but two factors among trillions which determine climate progression and, for all we truly know, human activity is as likely to have been staving off a natural cycle of warming as contributing towards it.
There are simply far too many unknowns to say mankind has any role at all - let alone to what degree - in climate change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm getting you:
1. Acknowledge that Global Warming is a real thing (i.e. the Earth warms/cools and is currently in a warming trend)
2. Humans are contributing (even if it's only slightly) to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
That imo, does not qualify you to say that Global Warming is a hoax. People who say global warming is a hoax are more under the impression that the Earth is NOT warming. Honestly it sounds like we were both standing on a neutral line and took one hop in opposite directions, with you siding more in the way of skepticism.
I agree that the current response to global warming has been, to put it delicately, excessive. Some of the facts have really been stretched and gone more towards the way of scare tactics rather than informing people. However, that doesn't change the real facts. There's no point in throwing gas on a burning house.
I suppose it'd be more accurate to say that the hoax is in the tendency to lay the blame ENTIRELY on human industrialization.
The Dust Bowl, a disaster unto itself, undoubtedly had some small role due to the lack of vegetation to remove CO2 and such from the atmosphere. And issues concerning deforestation and such are valid as well.
But for the most part, our impact on the environment is more on the scale of what would happen to the oceans if the entire world's population spit into them at the same time. Good chance it could be measured, but the tidal pull of the moon is a bigger influence by several orders of magnitude.
scorpio - have your heared about Nassim Haramein? you should read his stuff, i think you will like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
http://theresonanceproject.org/
Cheers for the link, i shall check it when i get some spare time. At the moment i am studying a few different things as i try to further my education and eventually go to university.
I have a hard time believing someone who has 'pay' me to learn. But I'm a pessimist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharaf
Clearly you are.
you can read all of his papers under http://theresonanceproject.org/research/scientificQuote:
Originally Posted by flutterby
and you can see parts of the dvd in the web site, as for paying - i did order his dvd, but in order to support his and dr Rauscher study, but thats me.
you can get the same info from the web site without paying.
Wait a second. Pay you to learn? Is that a typo?
I am currently paying my local College to learn. I don't see the issue with that.
Oh I know. Donating to further a cause is one thing but saying pay x amount is another. I grew up in religions that made it mandatory that you paid for booksQuote:
Originally Posted by Sharaf
you needed to study something. It just rubs me the wrong way.
How do you not have a problem with that? Education should be as free as the information it stands on.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
I just don't.
Err i mean science vs religion!
Social differences and lowered social mobility are the results of pay-2-get-educated. Studying in the US is damn expensive and the Brits just made the same error. Going to university should be as good as free to enable EVERYONE the same possibilities in life. If it costs a lot of money, people coming from the lower classes can't afford to get an education and will be forever stuck in poverty and Alabama.Quote:
Originally Posted by octobrev
I pay 80 dollars per semester to study and we get 15000 dollars per year by the government in which 60% is a loan and 40% will be given to you when you complete the exams.
When i went to uni registration was 300 euro (which was refundable) there were no other fees and the government grant given to most students was about 100 euro a week. Back then rent was 25-30 a room so 100 euro went a long way. Well, it went to the pub pretty fast, but you could have used it wisely.