Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

Tarra

New Member
It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

A case could be made that incandescent light bulbs are indeed more enjoyable than fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?

It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?

Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia who explains that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream media. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic because people would be afraid of the uncontrollable forces of nature:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“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.”




Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” at the bottom of this post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”



Last but not least here is a quotation from an article by the author Amitakh Stanford, you won’t hear this logical perspective in the mainstream media clearly presented like that:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar8.html
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”
 
Back in the '70s some of the same guys who started the Global warming thing were warning about the New Ice Age, thier solution for it is the same as today, more Govt control of the economy. Like has been said before, the Enviromental Leadership are Watermelons, Green on the outside & Red on the inside.
 
I remember the doom and gloom about the coming ice age. Now it is global warming. Wish the doom sayers would make up their minds. IMO temperature changes are cyclic and while we may have an impact, it is nothing but hubris to think that we are significantly affecting global temperatures.
 
I myself have always believed it was natural. Especially since 500 odd years ago we were in a mini ice age. It makes sense that we should go through a hot period. That and we give off the least amount of CO2 on the planet. Animal dung, volcanoes and rotting plants give off far more CO2 individually than we do.
 
It is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans.

Finally something I can agree with, we know the earth goes through warming and cooling periods and I still believe that this natural cycle is responsible for the lions share of what we term "global warming" however there is a man made aspect of this as well which contributes to the process.

The reason we tend to focus on the man made aspect of global warming is simply because that is the part we can do something about.
 
Finally something I can agree with, we know the earth goes through warming and cooling periods and I still believe that this natural cycle is responsible for the lions share of what we term "global warming" however there is a man made aspect of this as well which contributes to the process.

The reason we tend to focus on the man made aspect of global warming is simply because that is the part we can do something about.

Many people who look it as natural, especially me, would just argue that man's contribution is really just speeding up, but not by much. But in agreeing that it's natural doesn't mean that I disagree to cutting back on fuel and using renewable energy ect. Because it makes practical and economical sense.
 
Many people who look it as natural, especially me, would just argue that man's contribution is really just speeding up, but not by much. But in agreeing that it's natural doesn't mean that I disagree to cutting back on fuel and using renewable energy ect. Because it makes practical and economical sense.

I agree but I tend to believe we have had a significant effect on the frequency of the cycle which leads me to believe that we have had more of an affect than we think but I have no idea how you would ever quantify that as a number.

But I believe the move toward renewable energy is in the long term the only sensible option we have and as with most technology it will be expensive at first but over time will become more refined and streamlined into a cost effective option as well.
 
But I believe the move toward renewable energy is in the long term the only sensible option we have and as with most technology it will be expensive at first but over time will become more refined and streamlined into a cost effective option as well.

The issue I have with renewable energy at the minute is that it really isn't efficient. Although I agree that we will get far more efficient forms of renewable energy in the future I do think that constantly investing in it now could be a big mistake. We need a backup power supply before all fossil fuels run out and that's why I propose we build more nuclear power stations. To eb totally frank, other than the nuclear waste, it is a rather green form of energy and can last a long time. Admittebly there is the risk of a nuclear explosion but how many nuclear power plant explosions have we had? Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3. Compared to the amount of nuclear power stations we have in the world that is incredibly small. I'm surprised more haven't exploded actually. But yeah, I believe until technology has improved drastically we need to install some more nuclear power stations as backup power sources.
 
I don't have a huge issue with nuclear power although it is not something I believe would be a wise idea for New Zealand due to our small size and location on a lot of fault lines, basically while an accident is unlikely if there were to be one here it would destroy the economy of country not just a small portion of it.

As for constant investment in renewable energy unfortunately it is the only way we will ever develop efficiency, I am also in favour of continued investment in cleaning up and improving the efficiency of existing fuels such as coal which offers a huge source of fuel.
 
The issue I have with renewable energy at the minute is that it really isn't efficient. Although I agree that we will get far more efficient forms of renewable energy in the future I do think that constantly investing in it now could be a big mistake. We need a backup power supply before all fossil fuels run out and that's why I propose we build more nuclear power stations. To eb totally frank, other than the nuclear waste, it is a rather green form of energy and can last a long time. Admittebly there is the risk of a nuclear explosion but how many nuclear power plant explosions have we had? Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3. Compared to the amount of nuclear power stations we have in the world that is incredibly small. I'm surprised more haven't exploded actually. But yeah, I believe until technology has improved drastically we need to install some more nuclear power stations as backup power sources.

No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.
 
No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Now that is not strictly true, there have been a fatalities at American nuclear power plants and it is hard to determine whether accidents have led to the deaths of members of the general public as for the most part accidents have been downplayed and indirect nuclear deaths are hard to prove.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

However I agree US nuclear power plants are by far the safest of those available, but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode and since you didn't quantify the nationality of the power plant I draw your attention to 1:24am of the Chernobyl incident...

Under intense heat, the core began to break down. Fuel assemblies fragmented, control rod channels warped, steam built up furiously and, finally, steam tubes burst. Tons of steam and water shot into the reactor, causing a tremendous steam explosion. Steam pressure blew the 1000-ton steel- and cement-filled biologic shield off the top of the reactor, destroying the roof of the reactor building along the way and exposing the hot core to the atmosphere.

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/chernobyl/timeline.html

Being pedantic can be fun sometimes.
 
No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Hmmm. I might of meant meltdown, but that in a sense leads to an explosion. I highly doubt the ash cloud ever got to America but have you ever heard of Cheynobol? (Or however it is spelt.) Nobody actually died in the immediate blast but many people now are dieing from cancer due to their exposure of radioactive materials because they can't move. Children are muted, the ground is very good to grow crops in. Effectively the 'meltdown' there ruined the area for thousands of years to come. And this was only an accident, which they couldn't stop but I can't remember why. It was also made worse because the USSR didn't inform the world of what happened.
 
We need a backup power supply before all fossil fuels run out and that's why I propose we build more nuclear power stations. To eb totally frank, other than the nuclear waste, it is a rather green form of energy and can last a long time. Admittebly there is the risk of a nuclear explosion but how many nuclear power plant explosions have we had? Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3. Compared to the amount of nuclear power stations we have in the world that is incredibly small.

No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Now that is not strictly true, there have been a fatalities at American nuclear power plants and it is hard to determine whether accidents have led to the deaths of members of the general public as for the most part accidents have been downplayed and indirect nuclear deaths are hard to prove.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

However I agree US nuclear power plants are by far the safest of those available, but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode and since you didn't quantify the nationality of the power plant I draw your attention to 1:24am of the Chernobyl incident...

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/chernobyl/timeline.html
"but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode"quote MontyB

Never said it. I said, "it is impossible to get a nuclear explosion".


You can play lawyer all you want and try to steer the statement away from NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, but it does not change or disprove the facts.
Nuclear power plant reactors have never been fueled with weapons grade nuclear fuel capable of resulting in a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION.

As to your first link, it is obvious you did not actually read very far into it. This source lists a lot of "accidents" but lack sources to verify them. Also under the power plant section it lists accidents with deaths, but the locations were not power plants and are not verified.

I never said that a boiler in a Nuclear Power plant could not fail, I only stated you could not get a nuclear explosion. General accidents that could happen at any steam driven power plant was not what was being discussed.

You really don't make a very good Perry Mason(Old TV Lawyer).

Hmmm. I might of meant meltdown, but that in a sense leads to an explosion. I highly doubt the ash cloud ever got to America but have you ever heard of Cheynobol? (Or however it is spelt.) Nobody actually died in the immediate blast but many people now are dieing from cancer due to their exposure of radioactive materials because they can't move. Children are muted, the ground is very good to grow crops in. Effectively the 'meltdown' there ruined the area for thousands of years to come. And this was only an accident, which they couldn't stop but I can't remember why. It was also made worse because the USSR didn't inform the world of what happened.

The Internet can be your friend. Try entering Chernobyl in your search engine.
Here is a neutral site that gives a very through and in depth analysis of the Chernobyl Disaster.
http://chernobyl.info/

Here is the short wikipedia version of the UN study of Chernobyl deaths due to radiation exposure:

"An international assessment of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident is contained in a series of reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).[89] UNSCEAR was set up as a collaboration between various UN bodies, including the World Health Organisation, after the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to assess the long-term effects of radiation on human health.
UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident.[90] However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated.[91] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[92]
Precisely, UNSCEAR states:
Among the residents of Belaruss 09, the Russian Federation and Ukraine there had been, up to 2002, about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases are to be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding problems associated with screening, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.[91]
Thyroid cancer is generally treatable.[93] With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years"

In looking up this data for you I was surprised at the health risks associated with fear:
"It also concluded that a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure is the risk to mental health of exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation."


Yin717
"Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3." quote Yin 717

"You and your friends", does not constitute a credible source.

I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry. We appreciate that you watch disaster films, just don't take them to seriously.
 
Yin717
"Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3." quote Yin 717

"You and your friends", does not constitute a credible source.

I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry. We appreciate that you watch disaster films, just don't take them to seriously.

I'll admit that. And to be totally frank we worked out over lunch. But I am rather offended that you presume we have guessed this from 'disaster films'. Haven gained an A in my GCSE Geography and various other A's, B's and C's and I am taking Geography, History, Philosophy and Ethics and Government and Politics for A-Level, I am offended that you think I would not back up my thoughts and reasoning (which is how I got the answer) from no background evidence or knowledge. Now I will admit that you haven't known this about me and that you have had more experience in this world than me, but that is no reason why you can degrade me to a person who knows very little and has incredibly poor analytical skills.

As to your comments on the current effects seen from Chernobyl that is very interesting and I thankyou for sharing it with me. However, as the report states, this is over a time period of 20 years. The radioactive material, depending what type has landed in the area, can last for 1000's of years. It is possible that the effects aren't being felt now.

As to your comments on nuclear explosions, yes we were trying to steer it away from that because I made the wrong comment. It was not really a nuclear explosion, as I was corrected, but a nuclear meltdown. Just something I've have learnt on my way through life. People have corrected that for me, such as yourself, and we were trying to point out that while a nuclear explosion is, to your evidence, not possible the effects of a nuclear meltdown, which we know are possible, can be serious.
 
Last edited:
1. You're sources are, for the most part, outdated and wrong, the concensus of all respected scientists is, as of 2011, that global warming is not natural, and quite a bit deal.
2. The sun is currently going through a LOW spot in terms of solar flares and such, and while there are natural changes in climate, we've noticed that things are fluctuatiing VASTLY more than they would naturally, the only people who deny this are kooks on the fringe of the scientific community and republican politicians.
3. The way to stop this is simple. First is nuclear power, clean, much safer than coal, and efficient as the day is long. As a stop gap, at least, until advances in solar can be shifted primarily into solar, as a stopgap to fusion power, using plentiful deuterium fuel to privide quite a bit of power cleanly.
 
The geological record indicates that we have had an ice age on our planet every 200.000 years or so. Each ice age has been preceeded by global warming, it is a necessary precursor. The warming takes place gradually over centuries--just as it is now--until enough fresh water from polar melting alters the salinity of the great oceans and shuts down the salt driven currents that warm the continents. Then, Ice Age. This is going to happen, even if we all go back to living in caves and drawing on the walls. Man-made? Then how do we account for the ice ages that preceeded the evolution of man? Many people throughout history have labored under the delusion that man can affect the weather or climate. They have been generally labelled as crackpots. The current green movement? Follow the money. Oh yes, the last great ice age? Almost 200,000 years ago. Man's contribution to the process? It might only take 199,990 years this time.
 
Last edited:
Not quite 200,000 years ago, the last ice age was 110,000 to 10,000 years ago with the last expansion being 18,000-21,000 years ago.

The last four significant ice ages were, about 2 million years ago to the present, 350 to 250 million years ago, 800 to 600 million years ago and 2400 to 2100 million years ago.

It gets a bit sketchy after that.
 
Back
Top