Global warming is a man-made event.

[Wagner]

every scientists says so.............REALLY?
-----
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

....
click the link above to read the whole thing.

[AzX5]

[MrLabGuy]

Our emissions are not only warming the Earth and melting the polar caps but it is also responsible for melting the ice caps on Mars. If you want I can give you a graph of our carbon monoxide emissions superimposed on the the graph showing the melting ice caps on Mars. You will see a definite correlation. That kind of proof is hard to dispute. I'm Joking...Just so someone new does not mistake me for Eric.

[MrLabGuy]

Here is a controversial theory -> Everyone knows National Geographic knows nothing about Science or Geography.


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)



Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.





http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[noncom23]

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:

Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

[AzX5]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Our emissions are not only warming the Earth and melting the polar caps but it is also responsible for melting the ice caps on Mars. If you want I can give you a graph of our carbon monoxide emissions superimposed on the the graph showing the melting ice caps on Mars. You will see a definite correlation. That kind of proof is hard to dispute. I'm Joking...Just so someone new does not mistake me for Eric.

It is clearly caused by those Rover SUVs we got all over Mars....

[JCL]

The level of denial exhibited by these US Senate spin doctors is incredible. They are guilty of every media trick they accuse the other side of. Reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog"

One can only hope that the issue becomes less politicized, and that common sense eventually prevails. IMO that means consuming fossil fuels more responsibly.

[Wagner]

The silliness of it all is that instead of simply saying "we should use resources more efficiently and look for reusable forms of energy" the westernized world insists on scare tactics in saying "the world is in peril and humans are to blame". The message gets lost in the interpretation. IMO.

[MrLabGuy]

The funny thing is that we can't even grasp the dynamics of the weather enough to come up with an accurate 7 day forecast. Yet some are willing to turn the world upside in hopes of reversing something we don't completely understand.

That said I'm all for looking for a solution to reduce our impact on the environment and I have no doubt technology is the answer.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

The funny thing is that we can't even grasp the dynamics of the weather enough to come up with an accurate 7 day forecast. Yet some are willing to turn the world upside in hopes of reversing something we don't completely understand.

But doesn't that go back to the scare tactics referenced above? Why would we want to turn the world upside down? That seems like a polarizing statement to me.

To follow your weather example, some things are self-evident. If it is raining, we tend to carry umbrellas. If there is a good chance of rain, we tend to take umbrellas with us just in case. Just because we don't know for sure whether it is going to be raining in 7 days, doesn't mean that we should ignore the likely or possible outcome.

Regarding man's effect on climate change, we have a large body of scientists in the world today (but apparently not in the US senate or on various news channels) who have a theory. This is not speculation, but a theory consistent with the scientific method of postulating theories which describe the behaviour of natural phenomena, and then testing them logically and with empirical evidence. That theory is increasingly supported by observation, testing, etc. To use a non-scientific approach and describe it as theoretical because not every element is understood basically abandons the scientific method and takes us into a realm where we are unlikely to move forward because we have abandoned the principles of science, where we are searching for 'truth' as if it is somehow superior to a scientific theory.

Takes me back to university courses in philosophy and the history of the scientific method.

To paraphrase MD, my (philosophical) quarter is up. Looking forward to further discussions and observations. I think the topic is valuable enough not to be dismissed, but that is just me.