Every time someone brings up the topic of global warming on the forums, 10 people line up to talk about how it's bad science or bs. Any one of those with that inclination care to put some money where their mouth is and offer up some sources? I've seen scads of info that argue strongly for the presence of global warming at the hand of man, but very little credible documentation arguing against it. Being of skeptical nature though, I'd like to see what the other side has to say. Anyone care to show some scientific texts of a non politicized nature to back up the argument against global warming?
I have not read the whole thread so if this has been raised I apologize in advance.
For anyone to think there is not a large political and MONEY component is very naive.
1. I am of the age that when I was in school the mid 70's the theme that these same scientist were preaching was we were headed in to another ICE AGE yes Ice age we were taught that the polar caps were getting colder and were expanding. That did not get the same public attention that "global warming" got, it stuck and lookie at all the federal tax dollars that have been poured into global worming (follow the money) In academia you either get grants or you are out of work ( you might have to get a real job "Oh no").
2. Volcanoes: Say what you want you cannot dismiss it as an argument its "FACT" a single eruption creates more so called " green house gasses" ( yes another slick term that was made up by a PR firm to get traction thus more money) Then us mere humans have created since we arrived in the fossil record. That is a fact from the same scientist that tout global warming as a man made phenomena.
3. These same scientist that have such a long track record of be so right. Have given us many facts that just seem to be left out.
The earth is in a constant state of climatic change, ever since the earth was born. before dinosaurs the earth was a series of volcanoes constantly erupting and much hotter than today. Then somehow the earth cooled and dinosaurs appeared. Then, they think but can't quite agree that a huge asteroid, mind you big enough to blot out the entire sky long enough to make the dinosaurs extinct and all the plant life. Oh wait if that happened how do we reconcile "evolution" how do you evolve a T-rex to the current theory a "canary bird" If they were all wiped out. Or do we now believe that evolution can magically happen in the brief period of time that it would take to kill all the plant life on the planet. That is a very short time; see how long it takes any plant to die without sun light, put one in a closet and see, it takes a week till its dead. so let's say a month or a year let's even say 10 years till it dies out. what do you think? Hey there's a thought
"what do you think" on your own without the spin. Now let's fast forward to what these same scientist say would happen if an asteroid the same size would hit the earth today. That's right we would be extinct not that we would evolve in to who now what given the past evolutionary path! . Do you see the common problems here .
separately all these theories can hold water and even sound really good, combine them and they start to fall apart very quickly. you see NOTHING happens from just one cause everything interacts with everything else, to borrow from a of all things a Disney film there is a " circle of life ". If you exclude any possible causality your theory becomes flawed, unless you are looking for a certain result. Now what could that be hmmm.. a grant to study your proposed out come the we are responsible for oh here it is now wait for it ...... "global warming" .
global warming has become a Trillion Dollar industry. What did I tell you to do earlier FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Can you become a trillion dollar industry studying the climate? I don't think so it just doesn't have that certain something now what could that be OH Yea! we are somehow the cause.
Well as things go we humans have no lack of gall and arrogance there are a lot of us who can't even entertain the thought that in the whole grand and wondrous universe there could be life anywhere else. The math and the fact that we can only see such a small portion of the universe. we can't even see another planet up close in the next closest solar system doesn't even factor into this thinking.
To think that we could destroy this planet unintentionally or for that matter intentionally is the height of arrogance.
Now let's look at another cause for global warming that is put out there the rain forest is being cut down at a rate of 1000 acres a min. let me break this down first rain forest is another of those terms thought up by a PR firm.
Until recently and I mean less than half a generation ago there was NO rain forests it was just a forest but now every forest on the planet is a rain forest. now let's take this absurd number that has no basis in fact 1000 acres are being cut down and just for arguments sake there is 100,000,000 acres of "rain forest" let's do the math
100,000,000 / 1000 = 100,000 min /60 = 1666.667 hrs /24 = 69.44 days /30 = 2.3148 months now allowing for holidays and rainy days There should be no more rain forest it should all gone and we should be dead because there would be 80% less oxygen in our atmosphere.
This is all from that all knowing, all seeing science that is touted as absolute fact. We all know that there is little in this world that is ABSOLUTE.
So your question what's the argument against "Global Warming" I ask you what's your argument for "Global warming" besides this anecdotal evidence of some melting Ice and one hundredth of a degree warmer earth temperature
eventually our populat4ion will dwindle and our inpact on the world will be minimal.