Global Warming - the Greatest Fraud in History

[artistoli]

The Greatest Fraud in History - (I know its long but its important)

This may well be the most important thing you ever read. It is concerning something that effects every single one of us. It is concerning something that is costing every single one of us in terms of money and stress. It is concerning ‘Global Warming.’

For many years now the consensus amongst the public has been that ‘Global Warming’ is a man-made phenomenon - a direct result of increasing amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. People of my generation (mid 20’s) were taught it as ‘a matter of fact’ at school, and now whole industries have evolved that rely on these public assumptions in order to survive. ‘Environmental’ groups have wholeheartedly encouraged these common perceptions, and political opportunists such as Al Gore have capitalised unashamedly upon ‘man made Global Warming.’ The problem is quite simple and extremely serious: it is all based on out-dated data and misguided interpretations of that data.

The Earth, as everyone is aware, is a tiny lump of rock in a mind-blowingly massive universe. The Earth sits well within the ‘heliosphere’ or the Sun’s extended atmosphere. Every process on Earth is affected by the behaviour of the Sun, and everything within the heliosphere is also affected by the Sun’s hugely powerful Solar Winds and it’s magnetic field. This is where the problem with the generally accepted assumptions about ‘Global Warming’ begin. Quite simply most environmentalists, Earth scientists and the general public completely fail to pay attention to space - despite the fact that everything, ever, is a product of it and exists within it.

Since the dawning of the Space Age, space scientists have been making unexpected discoveries about what the ‘void’ of space actually consists of. Most people still assume that inter-planetary space is a vacuum with nothing in it. This is completely wrong. The apparent emptiness of Space is in fact filled with tiny particles, winds and gasses. The particles are so incredibly small that many have only been confirmed to exist during experiments conducted at the bottom of deep mines - captured as they pass right through the Earth’s crust. During the last twenty years a great deal of information has been discovered about these ‘Cosmic Rays.’

In a nutshell it is like this: there are literally innumerable stars in space. At any one time many are exploding. When they explode they shoot immense numbers of tiny particles into space in all directions. Inevitably many particles, or ‘Cosmic Rays’ head in our direction. They do not go in a straight line, but behave rather more like a pinball - being bounced around and thrown off course by the various magnetic fields of stars and planets, and by Solar Winds. Thus, our Sun diverts many away from the Earth. Still, many reach our atmosphere, some are deflected by our own magnetic field and our atmosphere, but vast numbers of high energy particles do make it through. They smash into particles in our atmosphere and the impact creates vast numbers of secondary particles that hurtle down through the air.

Ok, you might be asking, ‘what has this got to do with climate change?’ Well here it is: when these particles hurtle through our air they react with other particles in our air - and they tend to cause clouds to form. Especially clouds at relatively low-level. The same dense, reflective clouds that have a cooling effect on the Earth below. It has been proven beyond doubt that over the past few million years, periods when the Sun was inactive, and thus gave out weaker Solar Winds, enabled more of these tiny particles to penetrate our atmosphere - thus causing more cloud cover and cooling the Earth. During periods of intense Solar activity fewer ‘Cosmic Ray’s’ have made it through, and thus fewer clouds formed and the Earth heated up. Also, because the Solar System is not stationary, but rather travels through our Galaxy, the Milky Way, at various times through history the entire Solar System finds itself either in areas of space relatively dense with exploding stars, and hence receives more ‘Cosmic Ray’s or in relatively empty areas of space, and thus it receives fewer of these important charged particles.

These cycles, that have repeated many times, have been accurately tracked through core samples, tree rings, glacial tracks, animal evolution and human made historical records. Why else do you think all the ancient civilisations were obsessed with the behaviour of the Sun and the stars? They didn’t understand quite why there was a connection, but they were aware there was a connection between the Sun, the stars and the climate they had to live with.

So put it simply, the current ‘Global Warming’ is merely part of a huge, perfectly natural cosmic cycle. Human beings have very little to do with it. The forces that humans exert on the planet Earth are almost too tiny to comprehend when compared to the cosmic forces that bombard the Earth every single second of every single day. Yet because most Earth scientists and environmentalists have built their careers and reputations upon the accepted ‘man-made Global Warming’ and because most of the people involved with environmentalism tend to ignore space and be very self-obsessed with the Earth, they are simply refusing to even listen to the huge amounts of evidence collected by Space scientists about the real reasons for ‘Global Warming.’

So, if you have ever wondered why, if they are so convinced that CO2 is killing our future, politicians still drive around in massive cars and limousines and fly around the world in helicopters and jets - it is quite simply because they know the real reasons behind ‘Global Warming.’ They know that there is nothing human beings can do to stop it, and that all we can do is ride it out until the cosmic conditions change. But they also know that keeping people scared and stoking the fire of environmentalism enables them to levy huge ‘environmental’ taxes and keep the population living in fear. They also know that by diverting people’s attention to ‘saving the planet’ they can distract us from other, more pressing issues like the erosion civil liberties, the economy and crime.

It really is quite simple. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the various governments around the world are using the well intentioned but ultimately misguided Green movement as ‘useful fools.’ Climate change is indeed happening, but it is not man-made. Do not worry the next time you fill up your car - you are not killing the Earth, do not have sleepless nights fretting about your grandchildren baking in Sahara-like conditions in deepest Wiltshire. The Earth will start cooling again as different solar activity and the position of the Solar System in the Milky Way changes and enables more particles to reach us, and thus more reflective clouds to form.

Man-made Global Warming is a fraud. Pure and simple. It is based on out-dated information, ignorant misconceptions, political expedience and the self-glorification of many fame and power hungry individuals.

If you would like to find out more about the greatest fraud in history there are increasing numbers of books available; I would personally recommend ‘The Chilling Stars - A Cosmic View of Climate Change’ by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, Icon Books, 2008.

If you care about humanity’s future please forward this email to as many people as is humanly possible - we need to blow the lid off of this awful fraud and get the truth out there. Just don’t expect your neighbour who has just spent their life-savings buying solar panels for their roof and a new hybrid car to take kindly to the truth!


About the Author (of this post - not the researcher who came up with all this) - I'm adding this bit just so you know I'm not an oil company agent or a member of the Bush presidential team!:

Oliver Cook is a twenty-five year old artist and entrepreneur living and working in the West Midlands, near Birmingham, England. He has been fascinated by climate change since childhood, and after being a brain-washed ‘eco-warrior’ intent on destroying all 4x4s and the ‘evil people’ who drive them has since disowned the entire movement and now considers it to be misguided and highly dangerous. Oliver is a sincere campaigner for liberty and freedom, and is diametrically opposed to the surveillance state that the Labour government has created in the UK.

Oliver’s official site: www.ocook.net

© Oliver Cook, 2008.

[CMNot]

That's definetly not the most important thing I'll ever read...

[Invisigoth]

That's definetly not the most important thing I'll ever read...

"Global Warming - The greatest Fraud in History"

"Oliver Cook is a twenty-five year old artist and entrepreneur living and working in the West Midlands, near Birmingham, England."

"http://www.ocook.net/ - Erotic Art"


http://www.unpunk.com/%7Ewebtrash/images/lol-cat.jpg

[Salman]

I thought global warming was an established fenomenon by now, there might be some people who doubt it but the majority of the researchers agree for it. This is the impression I have gotten.

In any way "gobal warming" is serving as a good tool for the world to become less dependent on fossil fuels, which is always good. If not enviromentally then politially and economically.

[Kachinjsh]

Major load of F.A.I.L.!
Burning astronomical amounts of fossil fuels and releasing overwhelming amounts of CO2 into atmosphere sure ain't the source of the problem, IT'S THE DAMN COSMIC RAYS!

[Salman]

Major load of F.A.I.L.!
Burning astronomical amounts of fossil fuels and releasing overwhelming amounts of CO2 into atmosphere sure ain't the source of the problem, IT'S THE DAMN COSMIC RAYS!

Interesting, any source to back that up?

[Firefly26]

Yeah, I was questioning the reliability of the source of this as well. However, after finishing a physics class, and reading about all that goes on with our sun, and all of the energy it actually puts out, I think there is way more contributing to this than fossil fuel. I also don't think that anything we do is going to succeed in changing our climate back to where it was 20 years ago. Getting off oil is good anyway, I just think we humans overestimate ourselves and what we can do or have control of outside of our cities.

[Kaapeli]

About the Author:
Oliver Cook is a twenty-five year old artist and entrepreneur living and working in the West Midlands, near Birmingham, England.

What do all those geoscientists know about the climate chage anyway. An 25-year old artist is much more qualified in the field.

[artistoli]

What do all those geoscientists know about the climate chage anyway. An 25-year old artist is much more qualified in the field.

Well, as expected - most people simply have not read the post at all. I am the author of the post. I refer to research by Henrik Svensmark and others.

This is why, I fear, that the truth will not come out; people are too lazy to read things and just pick out the bits that they want. I really recommend that people look into this further and actually READ the entire post.

It makes no difference to me what any of you think of me personally - and I mention my art background simply to attest to the fact that I went to art college, was imersed in the typical tree-hugger world, and am not some corporate goon from an oil company. Some people really make me sick - but hey you are the ones being fooled here so..

[fac3s]

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6121/algore860ad1os1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[fac3s]

Well, as expected - most people simply have not read the post at all. I am the author of the post. I refer to research by Henrik Svensmark and others.

This is why, I fear, that the truth will not come out; people are too lazy to read things and just pick out the bits that they want. I really recommend that people look into this further and actually READ the entire post.

It makes no difference to me what any of you think of me personally - and I mention my art background simply to attest to the fact that I went to art college, was imersed in the typical tree-hugger world, and am not some corporate goon from an oil company. Some people really make me sick - but hey you are the ones being fooled here so..

I'm with you there man. Too many people are just jumping into the social band wagon head first without asking questions and making their own informed research.

[artistoli]

I'm with you there man. Too many people are just jumping into the social band wagon head first without asking questions and making their own informed research.

Thank you; at last someone who reads things and actually engages their brain!

I'm only bringing all this to your attention because I used to be a fully signed up environmentalist. But then I kept noticing things didn't quite add up. So I researched. I found that, despite what the IGPCC and UN say in public, there is no 'scientific consensus' and that many of the same people who are so anti-CO2 are also the same people who refuse to listen to anything that come from space scientists because they tend to think of anything to do with that kind of technology as the devil's work.

Then to top it all one of my close friends got into the field and now conducts research at Cambridge; she is always off somewhere drilling core samples and analysing radioactive elements. She is currently in Anatarctica with the BAS. She has repeatedly told me that it is catagorically NOT CO2 causing 'Global Warming'.

So then I read some more, and more, and recently I read the book I mentioned in the initial post. I really urge people to do more research into this - anyone who even saw the Channel 4 program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' should already have suspicions about man-made global warming.

I'm pretty sure I'll just be lambasted on here; I mean what do I know eh? And hell, I'm going to be a heretic to many environmentalists and their new religion.. but still.. I'm just speaking out because very few seem brave enough to.

[Dasein]

The argument seems to be because there are other factors which impact global climates, like solar activity, therefore humans cannot be responsible for any global climate change. This is an obviously flawed argument.

First, climatologists readily recognize many factors which impact global and regional climates. Obviously most of these are not anthropogenic, as humans have only been capable of impacting the earth at a global level for a century or so. Thus, there are many other factors involved.

Second, just because there are other things responsible for climate changes does not mean humans are not having an effect on these factors, exacerbating some or hindering others.

Third, regardless of the cause of global climate change, the effects are the reason for concern. It makes no difference if it is the sun, volcanic eruptions or human CO2 emissions that cause sea levels to rise, for example, the result is what we need to deal with. Too often, those arguing against anthropogenic climate change seem to think that if humans are not responsible, there's nothing to worry about. This is simply false.

[vinny_121_ND]

I don't believe in 'man made' climate change, but I do however believe that humans can alter the environment to the point where a sustainable future is questionable. (ie garbage, food production, quality of air, population density, natural resources).

[Clayton Gold]

I don't believe in 'man made' climate change, but I do however believe that humans can alter the environment to the point where a sustainable future is questionable. (ie garbage, food production, quality of air, population density, natural resources).

X2 - This is an issue of pollution, not Global Warming.

If we could dump all the money into cleaning up actual pollution, rather than trying to reduce Co2, we would be much better off IMO.

[Dasein]

I don't believe in 'man made' climate change, but I do however believe that humans can alter the environment to the point where a sustainable future is questionable. (ie garbage, food production, quality of air, population density, natural resources).

All of those can have climatological impacts, either globally or locally. Cities are well known for having their own micro-climates, and as urbanization increases, buildings get taller and more dense, and cities expand, you will see this impact increase.

[Tokamak]

Well, as expected - most people simply have not read the post at all. I am the author of the post. I refer to research by Henrik Svensmark and others.

This is why, I fear, that the truth will not come out; people are too lazy to read things and just pick out the bits that they want. I really recommend that people look into this further and actually READ the entire post.

It makes no difference to me what any of you think of me personally - and I mention my art background simply to attest to the fact that I went to art college, was imersed in the typical tree-hugger world, and am not some corporate goon from an oil company. Some people really make me sick - but hey you are the ones being fooled here so..

I see your post is well documented.

[Tokamak]

X2 - This is an issue of pollution, not Global Warming.

If we could dump all the money into cleaning up actual pollution, rather than trying to reduce Co2, we would be much better off IMO.


And pollution is not man made, right?. The weather is changing and as mentioned before is because of a complex combination of factors. Human activity is part of those factors.

[Pars]

Hai gais.

I'm taking a masters degree in Geosciences so let me give you me little input, even though it doesn't matter that much.

My professor told me that the world hasn't been as cold as it was last years for a very long time. In contrast to this, the oceans are only getting warmer. Hence the melting of ocean-based glaciers but cold climate on the continent.

We can all agree that there is a change in climate. But most geologists and geoscientists have a less alarming view of this phenomenon, because climate change is a natural part of Earth's history.

Now, my own opinion on the subject is somewhat unclear. It is unclear to me hwo much of this change in climate lies on human activities and how much is part of Earth's naturale climate change. I think we have an impact of course, but not as much as we are led to believe. The general consensus in my institute is the same.

Now, I'm all in favor of becoming less independent on fossil fuels, and I'm happy to see new technology deing developed so that we reach that goal.

But scare tacticts on a subject were there is no sure truth is a dangerous thing. Because you risk making people give you the finger.

In Scandinavia, the mood is almost apocalyptic. It's frustrating.

[Clayton Gold]

And pollution is not man made, right?. The weather is changing and as mentioned before is because of a complex combination of factors. Human activity is part of those factors.

You're not thinking about the big picture, rather a way to argue my post.

If you think about it again, you will realize we are saying the same thing.

Currently the whole focus is on "greenhouse gasses"; while the river behind my house is choked with oil and garbage, and there is a mountain of trash a few kilometres away.

With Al Gore making this "global warming" BS fashionable atm, everyone seems to have forgotten about the actual proven man-made damage we are doing every day. Jack Layton and the rest of his hippie-club are demanding that we implement kyoto and spend billions on stopping the emission of c02.

Seems like there are better ways to spend our money, than on a feel-good political hypothesis.

[Tokamak]

I think the important thing is that WE must change our way of life, this planet can't keep up with all the mess we are doing.

[Bongopete]

Even if you dont believe in manmade global warning, surely you will agree that the burning down and removal of rainforests is going to have an effect in oxygen production.

[Tokamak]

You're not thinking about the big picture, rather a way to argue my post.

If you think about it again, you will realize we are saying the same thing.

Currently the whole focus is on "greenhouse gasses"; while the river behind my house is choked with oil and garbage, and there is a mountain of trash a few kilometres away.

With Al Gore making this "global warming" BS fashionable atm, everyone seems to have forgotten about the actual proven man-made damage we are doing every day. Jack Layton and the rest of his hippie-club are demanding that we implement kyoto and spend billions on stopping the emission of c02.

Seems like there are better ways to spend our money, than on a feel-good political hypothesis.


I think we are talking about the same.

[Tokamak]

Climate change: Losing Greenland

Is the Arctic's biggest ice sheet in irreversible meltdown? And would we know if it were? Alexandra Witze reports.
Alexandra Witze (http://www.nature.com/news/author/Alexandra+Witze/index.html)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/images/452798a-i1.0.jpgI. JOUGHIN
When people talk about catastrophic climate change, there's a fair chance that Greenland is on their mind. If they use the term 'tipping point', then it is pretty much a sure thing. One-twentieth of the world's ice is locked up atop that island, and if it were to melt completely, global sea levels would rise by seven metres. The collapse of the Greenland ice sheet is in the front rank of potential climate catastrophes.
Melting is already undoubtedly and dramatically underway. Glaciers are spitting icebergs into the ocean and scurrying back up their narrow fjords like rats up drainpipes. Giant lakes are forming on the frozen surface, sending torrents of water plunging through fissures in the ice sheet and thus, perhaps, accelerating its slipping and sliding seawards. Over the past four summers, Greenland has shed an average of between 380 billion tonnes and 490 billion tonnes of ice each year — on average 150 billion tonnes more than it gains in snow in winter.
That's a lot of water. It is not, as yet, a lot of Greenland's ice, which totals 2.9 million cubic kilometres. Such size brings with it an inherent sense of stability. We do not expect things bigger than mountain ranges just to go away. But there's a disturbing sense in which Greenland shouldn't be here in the first place. It is a holdover of the most recent ice age, a creature of conditions that no longer apply. No ice sheet would grow in Greenland if the current one were to vanish — even without human-induced warming, the climate would not allow it. The ice is a relic, stranded out of time. And relics are fragile.
The question is, how fragile? Has the warming the sheet has experienced so far and the further warming already in the pipeline enough to push the ice sheet past a point of no return1 (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452798a.html#B1)? If that is not yet the case, how far from that threshold are we? And if the sheet does start to go, how fast will it do so? The sheet will not vanish tomorrow, nor in a century — but assumptions that such processes take millennia are being reexamined on the basis of the changes already seen. The most recent synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that the changes seen in Greenland today are not fully factored into the estimates of sea-level rise given in earlier science reports from the panel — a note that those who see Greenland as a potential poster child for catastrophe have made much of.
As yet, these pressing questions simply cannot be answered. They require models and theories not yet fully developed. And that lack of development is in part a lack of data — good data that show clear trends. Even though researchers scatter themselves around the island every summer to try to capture the meltdown's extent and processes, there is no systematic, long-term, broadly based monitoring of the sort needed to produce a truly comprehensive account of what is happening with the ice sheet. “Do we have the data we need to understand what's driving these changes?” asks Ian Howat, a glaciologist at Ohio State University in Columbus. “The answer is definitely no.” ......

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452798a.html

Nice paper, sorry I can't post the entire document I was told not to. If anyone is interested and can't download it, PM me.

[Tokamak]

Nature 442, 978-980 (31 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/442978a; Published online 30 August 2006
Oceanography: Sick seas


Jacqueline Ruttimann1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442978a.html#a1)
Jacqueline Ruttimann is a freelance writer in Maryland.

Top of page (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442978a.html#top) Abstract

The rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making the world's oceans more acidic. Jacqueline Ruttimann reports on the potentially catastrophic effect this could have on marine creatures.

It's not hard to imagine a tonne of water: it is a week's worth of not-very-deep baths. Getting to grips with a billion tonnes of water is more of a challenge. That would be a similar bath for every man, woman and child on the planet; a week's worth of flow for the Nile. To really expand your mind, go further still, to a billion billion tonnes — enough water to give every human a day's worth of the Nile instead of a shallow bath. There are dwarf planets that weigh less than a billion billion tonnes. Yet Earth's oceans weigh more.
If it is hard to imagine something so vast, it is perhaps even harder to imagine changing it. But humanity is changing the oceans. From the tropics to the Arctic, the seas are sucking up human-driven emissions of carbon dioxide — about half of the excess belched into the atmosphere over the past two centuries from fossil-fuel burning and cement manufacturing plants1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442978a.html#B1). When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, carbonic acid is produced: as a result the oceans are becoming more acidic. "It's basic chemistry," says Joanie Kleypas, a marine ecologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. "It's hard to say that this is not happening.".....

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442978a.html

For those who said humans can't have an important impact on the planet. The same if you want the paper and can't get it, PM me.

[markjh]

Hmm Greenland, didnt the Vikings gave it that name, because the island was green and they used it as farmland?!

[Marshall_Nord]

But scare tacticts on a subject were there is no sure truth is a dangerous thing. Because you risk making people give you the finger.

In Scandinavia, the mood is almost apolcalyptic. It's frustrating.

The Global Warming Debate has evolved into something akin to a religion.

If the “priests” say it’s true, then you must not doubt them! There are sinners and saints. If you are a sinner, i.e. one who doubts the dogma of Global Warming, then every bad thing that happens to you is justified. From burning your house to slashing tires of your EVIL SUV, this is just one way for the saints to appease the gods and usher the faithful into paradise.

When the “scientists” can’t tell me if it will rain one week hence, why should I believe the apocalyptic warnings 50 years into the future? What is the “normal” climate condition for dear Mother Earth?

I think we can all agree that pollution is not good for the planet. But, is it worth the social and economic strain to accomplish this in such a short period of time with quick, brutal strokes?

[artistoli]

Hai gais.

I'm taking a masters degree in Geosciences so let me give you me little input, even though it doesn't matter that much.

My professor told me that the world hasn't been as cold as it was last years for a very long time. In contrast to this, the oceans are only getting warmer. Hence the melting of ocean-based glaciers but cold climate on the continent.

We can all agree that there is a change in climate. But most geologists and geoscientists have a less alarming view of this phenomenon, because climate change is a natural part of Earth's history.

Now, my own opinion on the subject is somewhat unclear. It is unclear to me hwo much of this change in climate lies on human activities and how much is part of Earth's naturale climate change. I think we have an impact of course, but not as much as we are led to believe. The general consensus in my institute is the same.

Now, I'm all in favor of becoming less independent on fossil fuels, and I'm happy to see new technology deing developed so that we reach that goal.

But scare tacticts on a subject were there is no sure truth is a dangerous thing. Because you risk making people give you the finger.

In Scandinavia, the mood is almost apolcalyptic. It's frustrating.


This is pretty much what I'm getting at; the reason I think it is so utterly crucial that people look at whats happening.

The typical views most people have about global warming are based on very old data, and mostly only from the 19th and 20th centuries (I love the phrase 'since records began' - we really haven't been keeping accurate records for that long). The current public and political 'consensus' on climate change is based far too much on media hype and pressure groups, and far too little on the readily available science out there.

The very fact that many people seemed shocked that there are alternative views on climate change attest to the difficulties faced by people like yourself who study such matters. If you find out things that don't fit in with people's pre-concieved ideas then you will be shouted down.

I also agree that man does have an effect on his environment - that is just common sense, as some people have pointed out. The danger is though that by running off on a wild goose chase with the CO2 issue we will completely miss the real issues. Surely there is no point in stiffling technological progress, and the development of third world countries, if it is going to make a negligable effect on our climate?

What get me really annoyed is the fact that we, in the developed countries, are telling the poorer countries that they can't do this and they can't do that - well surely if climate change is mostly natural then we can back off of them a little; but of course that would mean we open our own economies to more competition.

I am not claiming to be any kind of expert, but I am absolutely certain that normal people like us need to force this issue because the politicians are not going to get rid of their nice fat cash cow all of their own accord.

[Dasein]

The Global Warming Debate has evolved into something akin to a religion.

If the “priests” say it’s true, then you must not doubt them! There are sinners and saints. If you are a sinner, i.e. one who doubts the dogma of Global Warming, then every bad thing that happens to you is justified. From burning your house to slashing tires of your EVIL SUV, this is just one way for the saints to appease the gods and usher the faithful into paradise.

When the “scientists” can’t tell me if it will rain one week hence, why should I believe the apocalyptic warnings 50 years into the future? What is the “normal” climate condition for dear Mother Earth?

I think we can all agree that pollution is not good for the planet. But, is it worth the social and economic strain to accomplish this in such a short period of time with quick, brutal strokes?

No, to me it seems that the debate over the role of humans in global climate change has progressed beyond the scientific understanding of your average American, so they fall back on trite sound-bites and claims that it is a 'religion'. The same applies to evolution. It's a corollary to the maxim that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Any debate concerning sufficiently scientifically advanced subjects will be dismissed as 'religion' by those who do not comprehend the science.

[Marshall_Nord]

Any debate concerning sufficiently scientifically advanced subjects will be dismissed as 'religion' by those who do not comprehend the science.


So, because I don’t grovel at the feet of the Global Warming proponents, I can’t comprehend advanced science?

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

[Dasein]

So, because I don’t grovel at the feet of the Global Warming proponents, I can’t comprehend advanced science?

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

Seeing as how you confuse weather and climate in your initial rant, I'd say it's pretty clear that you do not.

[Createdeemcee]

Its the greatest truth of all times more like it!

[Marshall_Nord]

Seeing as how you confuse weather and climate in your initial rant, I'd say it's pretty clear that you do not.

Congrats! You have slayed another infidel from polluting the “debate”. And thus, it is settled. Everything concerning the evil know as the Sin of Global Warming is an undisputed FACT. Go forth my disciples and put the non-believers to the sword so their dissenting voices may be forever silenced! It is your duty to save the world. Algore be with you!

[Chulo]

Its the greatest truth of all times more like it!there is enough confusion and data that does not give a full answer to the issue that it can not be called a "truth" or that the debate is over.

[Tokamak]

Even though researchers scatter themselves around the island every summer to try to capture the meltdown's extent and processes, there is no systematic, long-term, broadly based monitoring of the sort needed to produce a truly comprehensive account of what is happening with the ice sheet. “Do we have the data we need to understand what's driving these changes?” asks Ian Howat, a glaciologist at Ohio State University in Columbus. “The answer is definitely no.” ......

From the paper I posted before. So relax ladies!.

[Clayton Gold]

No, to me it seems that the debate over the role of humans in global climate change has progressed beyond the scientific understanding of your average American, so they fall back on trite sound-bites and claims that it is a 'religion'. The same applies to evolution. It's a corollary to the maxim that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Any debate concerning sufficiently scientifically advanced subjects will be dismissed as 'religion' by those who do not comprehend the science.

I would agree with your statement - if you didn't try bring the anti-American slant into it.

I do not know if you are from the US or not, but what does being American have to do with this topic ? It is not only Americans who do not subscribe to Al Gore's crusade.

[maw]

Hmm Greenland, didnt the Vikings gave it that name, because the island was green and they used it as farmland?!

lol. the vikings were doing their thing around a thousand years ago. most of the glaciers are tens if not hundreds of thousands of years old. think next time.

[kosse]

Well, as expected - most people simply have not read the post at all. I am the author of the post. I refer to research by Henrik Svensmark and others.


Then you should refer to them in the text in a correct manner. Now nobody knows what are your own ideas and what of the said authors. I'm sorry but as it is your article is worthless. Being an university student (?) this should be obvious to you.

[maw]

its not about global warming its about climate change, there's a big difference.

here are the facts:

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the last 500,000 years ranged between 180-300 parts per million. we are now over 385 ppm with the majority of the growth in that curve in the last few decades. the steep rise in the curve has not been seen in nature for hundreds of millions of years. forget volcanoes and whale farts, the only place that co2 came from is us.

what does it all mean? this is where the speculation starts. historically if we go back to when the earth had similar co2 levels the climate was very different. i'd say its a bad thing but you do your own research and draw your own conclusion.

[vinny_121_ND]

All of those can have climatological impacts, either globally or locally. Cities are well known for having their own micro-climates, and as urbanization increases, buildings get taller and more dense, and cities expand, you will see this impact increase.

exactly, and hence, the temperature in these cities are going to be higher than the outer fringes of the city. These densely populated urban cities is what causes these shocking new temperature records.

[Clayton Gold]

its not about global warming its about climate change, there's a big difference.

here are the facts:

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the last 500,000 years ranged between 180-300 parts per million. we are now over 385 ppm with the majority of the growth in that curve in the last few decades. the steep rise in the curve has not been seen in nature for hundreds of millions of years. forget volcanoes and whale farts, the only place that co2 came from is us.

what does it all mean? this is where the speculation starts. historically if we go back to when the earth had similar co2 levels the climate was very different. i'd say its a bad thing but you do your own research and draw your own conclusion.

Interesting facts, I'd like to see some sources if possible.

The thing with this argument, especially when related to this cO2 theory, is that both sides can find enough scientific evidence to support their claims.

I find it very disappointing that we are focussing on this one unproven aspect, (all because of a politicized movie!) instead of looking at the whole picture.

[Kitsune]

People, the guy in the article above is not saying that climate chnage is not happening. He just doubts wether it is really a man-made phenomenon.
While I am not agreeing with his "greatest fraud in history" statement, I would not entirely dismiss the possibility that mankind has less to do with climate change, than many seem to assume.

Now, I am not a full time climate expert, and no, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that burning so much oil in so short a time may have indeed significant effects on the climate on Earth.
But. The sun and the situation in our solar system can have more dire effects than we humans could ever hope to achieve down here. Climate changes, even radical and fast ones, have happened before the car was even invented or mankind came to be. As for experts, even those with all the greatest degrees have been wrong before, and besides, many of the serious ones do admit that the full complexities of our climate system here on Earth are not yet fully understood. So, it is possible, that the changes we see have different or more complex causes than we think.

That said, it is indeed prudent that mankind tries to limit the impact it has on Earth - precisely because we are not really comprehending what is going on. It is absolutely possible that things are much worse than we think and we are already doomed whatever we do! However, to assume the latter is not very wise. The other extreme, to fall into a hysterical mood that puts climate protection above everything else, is also not too clever - we might find out that, as much as we try, our efforts show no noticeable effect, and that the climate gets warmer and warmer nonetheless, and stabilizes at a new level.

The best thing would be not to panic, to assume that everything will turn out alright and yet to become more conscious about the way we are burdening this planet, its climate and its ecosystem. Above all things, we have to stay pragmatic and patient. Nothing what we do will have a quick effect anyway, only a long-haul approach will do as any good, not short lived, hysterical outbursts to save the world.

[Clayton Gold]

People, the guy in the article above is not saying that climate chnage is not happening. He just doubts wether it is really a man-made phenomenon.
While I am not agreeing with his "greatest fraud in history" statement, I would not entirely dismiss the possibility that mankind has less to do with climate change, than many seem to assume.

Now, I am not a full time climate expert, and no, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that burning so much oil in so short a time may have indeed significant effects on the climate on Earth.
But. The sun and the situation in our solar system can have more dire effects than we humans could ever hope to achieve down here. Climate changes, even radical and fast ones, have happened before the car was even invented or mankind came to be. As for experts, even those with all the greatest degrees have been wrong before, and besides, many of the serious ones do admit that the full complexities of our climate system here on Earth are not yet fully understood. So, it is possible, that the changes we see have different or more complex causes than we think.

That said, it is indeed prudent that mankind tries to limit the impact it has on Earth - precisely because we are not really comprehending what is going on. It is absolutely possible that things are much worse than we think and we are already doomed whatever we do! However, to assume the latter is not very wise. The other extreme, to fall into a hysterical mood that puts climate protection above everything else, is also not too clever - we might find out that, as much as we try, our efforts show no noticeable effect, and that the climate gets warmer and warmer nonetheless, and stabilizes at a new level.

The best thing would be not to panic, to assume that everything will turn out alright and yet to become more conscious about the way we are burdening this planet, its climate and its ecosystem. Above all things, we have to stay pragmatic and patient. Nothing what we do will have a quick effect anyway, only a long-haul approach will do as any good, not short lived, hysterical outbursts to save the world.

X2 - Nice approach.

[CMNot]

people are too lazy to read things and just pick out the bits that they want.

Sure thing - reference your work so people can skip your opinion and look at the science its based on.

[wotsnext]

I remember being told in the 70s that if we did not change our life styles dramatically we would be in an ice age by now! We did'nt we are'nt.

[Tokamak]

I remember being told in the 70s that if we did not change our life styles dramatically we would be in an ice age by now! We did'nt we are'nt.

Ice age? why would they say that, do you remember?.

[wotsnext]

Ice age? why would they say that, do you remember?.
Yes, I remember that was the thinking at that time.

[weizen]

I remember being told in the 70s that if we did not change our life styles dramatically we would be in an ice age by now! We did'nt we are'nt.

You need to distinguish between what the media and scientists are/were saying.

Have a look at this:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Should you be sceptical regarding the cited PDF, you could go to a decent library and verify it yourself.

[Tokamak]

You need to distinguish between what the media and scientists are/were saying.

Have a look at this:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Should you be sceptical regarding the cited PDF, you could go to a decent library and verify it yourself.

Good info, thanks!.

[Power_serj]

Major load of F.A.I.L.!
Burning astronomical amounts of fossil fuels and releasing overwhelming amounts of CO2 into atmosphere sure ain't the source of the problem, IT'S THE DAMN COSMIC RAYS!

You are a load of fail! Apparently you haven't even seen all sides of the argument but believe what Gore is telling you [who by the way is guilty of polluting more than the average person with his own airplane, and President Bush's ranch was found to be more green than Gore's house].
Even the Weather Channel called Gore on the B.S and said that global warming is a natural cycle the Earth is going through. Remember, we had the ice age, stone age...etc. It's natural.

One of you global warming Al-Gorists please tell me how much the temperature of the Earth rose since the industrial revolution.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

There's money to be made and power to be wielded here so whatever truth is required will be manufactured. Hey just be glad Al Gore didn't figure out how to get rich by banning **** on all the interwebs he created.

[Marshall_Nord]

There's money to be made and power to be wielded here so whatever truth is required will be manufactured. Hey just be glad Al Gore didn't figure out how to get rich by banning **** on all the interwebs he created.

Correct, this is more about power and control than "saving the planet".

[Fade]

There's money to be made and power to be wielded here so whatever truth is required will be manufactured. Hey just be glad Al Gore didn't figure out how to get rich by banning **** on all the interwebs he created.
Rather convenient how you overlook the fact that theres a 2Shangs ass-creme factory in China that runs 24/7, belching said greenhouse gases.

[epictetus]

You are a load of fail! Apparently you haven't even seen all sides of the argument but believe what Gore is telling you [who by the way is guilty of polluting more than the average person with his own airplane, and President Bush's ranch was found to be more green than Gore's house].
Even the Weather Channel called Gore on the B.S and said that global warming is a natural cycle the Earth is going through. Remember, we had the ice age, stone age...etc. It's natural.

One of you global warming Al-Gorists please tell me how much the temperature of the Earth rose since the industrial revolution.

The temperature has risen by about 0.25 C since the Revolution and about 5 C since the ice age. The current hysteria seems to stem from the melting of the glaciers, which are actually melting fast. The concern is that a lot of suns rays won't be reflected back to space but actually be absorbed by the planet. Anyways, we human haven't been here long enough to be able to know what will happen if we do this or that to the planet. Finding alternate sources of energy is actually admirable. We can't power the Galaxy class with oil, can we!
PS a funny fact: Cows actually fart methane after digesting the grass and are responsible for about 50% of it in the atmosphere. Solution: kill the cows! More burgers for me!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dasein]

There's money to be made and power to be wielded here so whatever truth is required will be manufactured. Hey just be glad Al Gore didn't figure out how to get rich by banning **** on all the interwebs he created.

This goes both ways, however. Those backing the critics of anthropogenic climate change are looking to make money and wield power.

[Happy]

clearly, the earth has been warming since the last ice age, or else we would still be in an ice age, and I don't know about you, but 10,000 years ago, there was 2 miles of ice on top of Minnesota, and it's gone now. So, something must have warmed up the earth, and I am pretty sure it wasn't SUV driving Clovis people 10,000 years ago.

So, if the earth warmed up itself for 10,00 years, why is global warming for the last 50 years caused by Humans, but the other 9950 years were caused by natural phenomenon?

[weizen]

The Greatest Fraud in History - (I know its long but its important)

....

© Oliver Cook, 2008.

Poorly researched and lacking sources. You should pick up a book on writing scientific papers.

[Dasein]

clearly, the earth has been warming since the last ice age, or else we would still be in an ice age, and I don't know about you, but 10,000 years ago, there was 2 miles of ice on top of Minnesota, and it's gone now. So, something must have warmed up the earth, and I am pretty sure it wasn't SUV driving Clovis people 10,000 years ago.

So, if the earth warmed up itself for 10,00 years, why is global warming for the last 50 years caused by Humans, but the other 9950 years were caused by natural phenomenon?

Perhaps a better question would be what impact are human activities having on these pre-existing climate change cycles?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Rather convenient how you overlook the fact that theres a 2Shangs ass-creme factory in China that runs 24/7, belching said greenhouse gases.

Those deadly gasses are a natural part of the fermenting process, and while they do kill hundreds in the surrounding prefectures each year, human corpses are a key component of the cream. Thus, it is death-neutral. I solemnly demand you retract the evil words and apologize to each person in China, individually, in person.

[weizen]

Those deadly gasses are a natural part of the fermenting process, and while they do kill hundreds in the surrounding prefectures each year, human corpses are a key component of the cream. Thus, it is death-neutral. I solemnly demand you retract the evil words and apologize to each person in China, individually, in person.

Splendid! Well researched! But you need to copy that characteristic chinese spelling for that authenthic feeling. Like this:

"The gass deadly be part fermenting process natural. [...] Ubee state media misslead by."

[Zerazax]

On global warming I always put it this way:

To believe that humans are the sole cause of warming the Earth is downright foolish. Volcanic activity can release enough debris into the air to cool the Earths temperature by many degrees average for a year (look at: supervolcanoes, and massive eruptions like Krakatoa which lowered the Earths temperature by around 1 degrees C for a year). Cosmic activity is a huge factor as well (of course, you'd have to research whether Mars or Venus during this same period increased in temperature relative to Earth's and so on). Given how little we know of the universe and of Earth itself (think back what we knew even 10 years ago versus what we know today, and you'll be amazed), its absolutely foolish to pinpoint the climate on a planet 4 billion years old on a species that has lived on it for a fraction of that time, and has directly influenced the atmosphere for an even smaller amount of that time. We're giving too much credit to ourselves.

BUT, to believe that humans have no impact on the Earth is equally foolish. Dense urban areas create their own mini-climates and there is no doubt that things like over-fishing, destruction of resources with little concern for renewal, and so on cannot last forever. It doesn't take a genius to know that pumping harmful waste into the ocean will in the long run hurt ourselves, whether it takes 1 year or 100 years. Furthermore, the bigger issue I see with this that environmentalists often forget (and is probably a more valid point) is the fact we should be careful not to exacerbate the situation. We do not know if our influence is accelerating the warming or slowing down the natural recovery cycle. We don't need to abolish cars or anything drastic (correction, its downright loony), but we should certainly be willing to look at ways to minimize stupid waste, look at better energy sources (for both the short and long term) and look into research for whether the current Earth climate change will be temporary and what we can do to adapt to it, or prevent it from becoming permanent.

And as always, Mars could use a little global warming and maybe terraforming for us, if we need a new home..

[Gunpack]

You need to distinguish between what the media and scientists are/were saying.

Have a look at this:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Should you be sceptical regarding the cited PDF, you could go to a decent library and verify it yourself.

In 30 years time the media will be blamed again with some saying 'we never said that, it's the media that said it'. The media may be to blame in proclaiming everything that is being said today as 'irrefutable proof', but the scientists in question have no problem in the sensationalist position being taken. '90%' likelihoods leave room for u-turns, but we are rarely told of such possibilities.

[Calanen]

I would like to propose that the United States Senate create the Committee Against Unglobalwarming Actitivities to properly deal with these naysayers, who are really just communists wanting to restart the new Soviet Union. Who is with me! If you are not, appear before the Committee!

[Power_serj]

The temperature has risen by about 0.25 C since the Revolution and about 5 C since the ice age. The current hysteria seems to stem from the melting of the glaciers, which are actually melting fast. The concern is that a lot of suns rays won't be reflected back to space but actually be absorbed by the planet. Anyways, we human haven't been here long enough to be able to know what will happen if we do this or that to the planet. Finding alternate sources of energy is actually admirable. We can't power the Galaxy class with oil, can we!
PS a funny fact: Cows actually fart methane after digesting the grass and are responsible for about 50% of it in the atmosphere. Solution: kill the cows! More burgers for me!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that humans may be a minor factor in climate change, but not responsible for it. Humans are not responsible for melting the ice caps, nor changing changing the climate.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything either. We definately should. Pollution, and our reliance on foreign oil are two undenyable problems we have. However, taking extremes such as signing the Kyoto Protocol or passing any measures which punish people/companies [which will mess up our economy] is not the right way to go about.

Jumping into alternative fuel sources is not the way we should go about fixing our pollution and reliance on foreign oil. First of all, these alternative fuel sources may be equally as bad for the enviroment or even worse. Also, some of these alternatve sources cause us to still have a reliance on foreign fuel. For example, mass usage of Ethanol would help in deforestation which would take away our plants that help rid the Earth of CO2. Ethanol would divert our reliance on fuel from the Middle East, to South America. Brazil and other farming countries would be responsible for giving us Ethanol. We should not jump into anything just for the sake of change.

While we wait for reliable alternative fuel sources, the United States should invest in nuclear power. It helps to solve our pollution and enviromental problems as well as reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Europe is using nuclear power more than the United States, and it's time to catch up!

[Happy]

Perhaps a better question would be what impact are human activities having on these pre-existing climate change cycles?

My assumption are that humans are helping the warming cycle, but is enough for all the tree huggers to panic, and shut down modern society?

All I know, is that Lake Pepin, on the Mississippi river, had the latest ice out, which delayed river traffic, in recorded history. Does it prove anything? Not really in a global context, but if there was a huge global warming in the last 100 years, then the ice should have already melted.

Building more nukes is the only clear answer to be found.

[Tokamak]

Although many people don't like it, nuclear energy is an excellent option to our problems, especially with Gen III, Gen III+ and even GenIV in the near future. Unfortunately this so called renaissence of nuclear energy is taking longer than I would like to.

[Calanen]

Although many people don't like it, nuclear energy is an excellent option to our problems, especially with Gen III, Gen III+ and even GenIV in the near future.


Where do we put the nuclear waste? Also, doesn't take into account, the massive cost of getting the stuff out of the ground and enriching it.

[ex Strathcona]

I remember being told in the 70s that if we did not change our life styles dramatically we would be in an ice age by now! We did'nt we are'nt.

i remember those days very well.

i seriously doubt our ability to predict the weather 2 weeks from now never mind years or decades or...

[Marshall_Nord]

i seriously doubt our ability to predict the weather 2 weeks from now never mind years or decades or...

Watch out! I was called out as “ignorant to advanced scientific principles” because I didn’t differentiate between weather and climate using the exact same argument. As if the disciplines involved are polar opposites! :roll:

[Chulo]

In 30 years time the media will be blamed again with some saying 'we never said that, it's the media that said it'. The media may be to blame in proclaiming everything that is being said today as 'irrefutable proof', but the scientists in question have no problem in the sensationalist position being taken. '90%' likelihoods leave room for u-turns, but we are rarely told of such possibilities.
30 years ago the scientist were calling for a great cooldown and freezing of the world around this time. there is a 30 year cycle

[ex Strathcona]

Watch out! I was called out as “ignorant to advanced scientific principles” because I didn’t differentiate between weather and climate using the exact same argument. As if the disciplines involved are polar opposites! :roll:
lol. yes but the basic point is still that according to the leading science of the day back then we should now be on the verge of an ice age :)

same thing now just a new way to get research money

[fac3s]

Strath, if you're in the GTA Dr. Timothy Ball is discussing this issue right now on AM 640 radio. Been talking for more than an hour now. Pretty insightful stuff.

[BugHunt]

The best thing would be not to panic, to assume that everything will turn out alright and yet to become more conscious about the way we are burdening this planet, its climate and its ecosystem. Above all things, we have to stay pragmatic and patient. Nothing what we do will have a quick effect anyway, only a long-haul approach will do as any good, not short lived, hysterical outbursts to save the world.


Good post. Global warming is more then likely a red herring a detour and waste of resources from effective action on a world wide scale... The man made Global warming campagine definately has all the hallmarks of a scientific and enviromental bandwagon out of control.

Id say the main useful "attitude change" is to stop the massive habitat destruction and protect biodiversity - due to sadly the capitalist engine. Which profits most from how unsustainably we live.....

These are the crucial timedependant issues facing us.

If you want quick effects were on the evolutionary timeframe destroying so many precious different species in what amounts to a eyeblink.

Capitalism currently doesnt have any effective mechanisms reigning in its most destructive aspects. Its like a junkie - fish local fisheries to extinction? Move on to another profitable area and do the same again!
Destroy one patch of forest keep going! Find some more!

Need some water? Suck those rivers dry....



Future generations arent going to thank us at all.

[epictetus]

I agree that humans may be a minor factor in climate change, but not responsible for it. Humans are not responsible for melting the ice caps, nor changing changing the climate.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything either. We definately should. Pollution, and our reliance on foreign oil are two undenyable problems we have. However, taking extremes such as signing the Kyoto Protocol or passing any measures which punish people/companies [which will mess up our economy] is not the right way to go about.

Jumping into alternative fuel sources is not the way we should go about fixing our pollution and reliance on foreign oil. First of all, these alternative fuel sources may be equally as bad for the enviroment or even worse. Also, some of these alternatve sources cause us to still have a reliance on foreign fuel. For example, mass usage of Ethanol would help in deforestation which would take away our plants that help rid the Earth of CO2. Ethanol would divert our reliance on fuel from the Middle East, to South America. Brazil and other farming countries would be responsible for giving us Ethanol. We should not jump into anything just for the sake of change.

While we wait for reliable alternative fuel sources, the United States should invest in nuclear power. It helps to solve our pollution and enviromental problems as well as reducing our reliance on foreign oil. Europe is using nuclear power more than the United States, and it's time to catch up!

Totally agree. Nuclear power is being pushed aside by people who know nothing about it. Just thinking that is evil, is not science. Ethanol is not the answer. Other than raising food prices, it will achieve nothing. The process to make ethanol requires energy, wich comes from fossil fuel. The bateries of hybrid cars also require energy, a lot of energy to be produced. It seems that for the moment, to me at least, switching to diesel might be an answer. If all cars in US were run on diesel, we would cut our consumption by a lot. And todays diesel cars run as clean as gas cars.

[weizen]

30 years ago the scientist were calling for a great cooldown and freezing of the world around this time. there is a 30 year cycle


lol. yes but the basic point is still that according to the leading science of the day back then we should now be on the verge of an ice age :)

same thing now just a new way to get research money

I can only repeat what I already said in this thread:

You need to distinguish between what the media and scientists are/were saying.

Have a look at this:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Should you be sceptical regarding the cited PDF, you could go to a decent library and verify it yourself.


Strath, if you're in the GTA Dr. Timothy Ball is discussing this issue right now on AM 640 radio. Been talking for more than an hour now. Pretty insightful stuff.

Mainstream media and the intertubes are probably the worst place to get reliable information. A university library where you have access to proper literature and journals is the place to inform yourself.

Since my research skills were not so good when I was your age, I just want to nudge you in the right direction. ;)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Although many people don't like it, nuclear energy is an excellent option to our problems, especially with Gen III, Gen III+ and even GenIV in the near future. Unfortunately this so called renaissence of nuclear energy is taking longer than I would like to.

It's been theorized that if only 10% of nuclear weapons/energy development was spent on solar and wind energy development we would be living in a society that uses 100% renewable energy now.

Nuclear energy is at best a short term solution. Uranium will eventually run out to you know.

[Tokamak]

Where do we put the nuclear waste? Also, doesn't take into account, the massive cost of getting the stuff out of the ground and enriching it.


Wind farms are more expensive than Nuclear (Nuclear 2.25 p/kWhe, Wind 3.40 p/kWhe).

A. White. Nuclear Future. 02 (2006) 67-72. If you really want to learn.

About the waste, the amount and type of waste can be seriously reduced by closing the fuel cycle and using a fast reactor. This reactor will burn the waste that normal reactors produce. You still are going to need to do something with that remaining waste but overall nuclear energy is our best shot to produce the large amount of energy we need without using fossil fuels.

[Tokamak]

It's been theorized that if only 10% of nuclear weapons/energy development was spent on solar and wind energy development we would be living in a society that uses 100% renewable energy now.

Nuclear energy is at best a short term solution. Uranium will eventually run out to you know.

How short do you think Nuclear can be used?.

[Tokamak]

It's been theorized that if only 10% of nuclear weapons/energy development was spent on solar and wind energy development we would be living in a society that uses 100% renewable energy now.

Nuclear energy is at best a short term solution. Uranium will eventually run out to you know.


I am not against renewables, I think we must use them aswell. A lot of the technology needed for the deployment of solar and wind is already available, but at the end money talks that's why we haven't seen them as much as I would like to.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Wind farms are more expensive than Nuclear (Nuclear 2.25 p/kWhe, Wind 3.40 p/kWhe).

A. White. Nuclear Future. 02 (2006) 67-72. If you really want to learn.





And how much money has been spent on nuclear energy programs?

[Tokamak]

And how much money has been spent on nuclear energy programs?

I really don't know. There hasn't been a real investment in nuclear technology since the 1970's for obvious reasons. Only until recently people is starting to get interested in nuclear again and even then is hard to get funding, specially here in the UK.

[Kaapeli]

And how much money has been spent on nuclear energy programs?

A lot and I hope it will go on that way.
Harnessing fusion power is our best hope of an almost unlimited safe energy source.

[Mastermind]

There is a "break" point rapidly coming between population rise and dwindling resources. A massive change must take place if we are to continue as is on this planet...and that "as is" moment in time will be short lived. The eventual collapse is mathmatically predictable and absolutely certain to happen. All we don't know for sure is the "When" of it.

The recent desperation changes made in the US over energy...the foolish changes toward moving a food commodity into the energy commodity market is a disater that will eventually be realized on a scale never before seen in human history.

Then, and only then (after millions of not billions die and the resulting global economic and poltical chaos that ensues) will there be a political and public will to accept the inevitalbe demise of fossile fuel as the primary energy resource.

This pain is something we humans seem predestined to suffer. And, mark my words...it will be painful.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The recent desperation changes made in the US over energy...the foolish changes toward moving a food commodity into the energy commodity market is a disater that will eventually be realized on a scale never before seen in human history.And encouraged and funded by our goverments through direct subsidy and research grants.

[Firetxmi]

Watch out! I was called out as “ignorant to advanced scientific principles” because I didn’t differentiate between weather and climate using the exact same argument. As if the disciplines involved are polar opposites! :roll:

They are not polar opposites, but the are different- and that is the very reason that the argument of "we can't predict todays weather so how can we predict it 1000 years ago" argument is foolish.

Both are atmospheric sciences, but they are not one in the same.


Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time,and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology


Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology).

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology


Meteorology: A discipline involving the study of the atmosphere and its phenomena. Meteorology and climatology are rooted in different parent disciplines, the former in physics and the latter in physical geography.

Link: http://www.answers.com/topic/meteorology?cat=technology

[Tokamak]

There is a "break" point rapidly coming between population rise and dwindling resources. A massive change must take place if we are to continue as is on this planet...and that "as is" moment in time will be short lived. The eventual collapse is mathmatically predictable and absolutely certain to happen. All we don't know for sure is the "When" of it.

The recent desperation changes made in the US over energy...the foolish changes toward moving a food commodity into the energy commodity market is a disater that will eventually be realized on a scale never before seen in human history.

Then, and only then (after millions of not billions die and the resulting global economic and poltical chaos that ensues) will there be a political and public will to accept the inevitalbe demise of fossile fuel as the primary energy resource.

This pain is something we humans seem predestined to suffer. And, mark my words...it will be painful.


Although I hope we don't come to that, at the moment I think you are right.

[Dasein]

There is a "break" point rapidly coming between population rise and dwindling resources. A massive change must take place if we are to continue as is on this planet...and that "as is" moment in time will be short lived. The eventual collapse is mathmatically predictable and absolutely certain to happen. All we don't know for sure is the "When" of it.

The recent desperation changes made in the US over energy...the foolish changes toward moving a food commodity into the energy commodity market is a disater that will eventually be realized on a scale never before seen in human history.

Then, and only then (after millions of not billions die and the resulting global economic and poltical chaos that ensues) will there be a political and public will to accept the inevitalbe demise of fossile fuel as the primary energy resource.

This pain is something we humans seem predestined to suffer. And, mark my words...it will be painful.

Malthusian predictions have been around for some time now, but have not yet come true. Right now, most food shortages are caused by problems with distribution or land use, not limited production capability. For example, the situation in Zimbabwe under Mugabe is purely a political issue, but the result is that Zimbabwe's food production is greatly reduced.

Further, we divert a lot of food, or at least food production capability to animal feed to support massive amounts of meat consumption. Were we to cut back here, and use the grain currently used to feed cattle and other animals to feed people, we'd have quite a bit more food.

Then we need to look at untapped areas, like the insect biomass, which is simply huge. Insects could provide a useful food supply, especially if we started to breed them specifically for human consumption.

On top of that, there is steady technological progress being made to increase food supplies, from genetically modified crops which give higher yields, to better fertilizers.

[vinny_121_ND]

Then we need to look at untapped areas, like the insect biomass, which is simply huge. Insects could provide a useful food supply, especially if we started to breed them specifically for human consumption.

Dasein, I am so not eating insects. I'm not a picky eater, but insects, no way.

[maw]

Wind farms are more expensive than Nuclear (Nuclear 2.25 p/kWhe, Wind 3.40 p/kWhe).


nuclear power is only viable because of huge subsidies, the cost of insurance is what kills it. without .gov subsidies it would be priced out of the market. if those same subsidies were applied to wind or solar then...
stop typing for a minute and start reading:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
forget about tokamak reactors, if nuclear has future it's with thorium.

[maw]

Interesting facts, I'd like to see some sources if possible.

The thing with this argument, especially when related to this cO2 theory, is that both sides can find enough scientific evidence to support their claims.

I find it very disappointing that we are focussing on this one unproven aspect, (all because of a politicized movie!) instead of looking at the whole picture.

sorry about the delay, i've been busy on the front lines protecting mp.net's honor from the chicom spambots.

here's something for you:
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

sauce (noaa), read down about two paragraphs:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

regarding the sun being the cause of global climate change in the past few decades (essentially, there haven't been any unusual solar fluctuations recently to explain the shift):
http://www.physorg.com/news122655339.html

pretty much everything i've posted up to this point is beyond reproach. however, most of the assumptions beyond this point are speculative or at best educated guesses. the head nasa scientist believes that 385 ppm is the tipping point, i don't know. sauce:
http://www.physorg.com/news126761406.html

it is believed that as the oceans absorb more co2 they become more acidic which affects the amount of life which in turn reduces the amount of co2 absorption. vicious cycle.

[Tokamak]

nuclear power is only viable because of huge subsidies, the cost of insurance is what kills it. without .gov subsidies it would be priced out of the market. if those same subsidies were applied to wind or solar then...
stop typing for a minute and start reading:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
forget about tokamak reactors, if nuclear has future it's with thorium.

Nice article, yes I know about Thorium. One of my colleagues was working on producing Thorium fuel. I don't know what happened to that project. Overall this also shows that nuclear is a good option. Fusion technology is not even near commercial use and it is a along term option, still I love that technology.

[Tokamak]

sorry about the delay, i've been busy on the front lines protecting mp.net's honor from the chicom spambots.

here's something for you:
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

sauce (noaa), read down about two paragraphs:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1

regarding the sun being the cause of global climate change in the past few decades (essentially, there haven't been any unusual solar fluctuations recently to explain the shift):
http://www.physorg.com/news122655339.html

pretty much everything i've posted up to this point is beyond reproach. however, most of the assumptions beyond this point are speculative or at best educated guesses. the head nasa scientist believes that 385 ppm is the tipping point, i don't know. sauce:
http://www.physorg.com/news126761406.html

it is believed that as the oceans absorb more co2 they become more acidic which affects the amount of life which in turn reduces the amount of co2 absorption. vicious cycle.

I posted an article published in Nature about this a couple of pages back.

[maw]

Nice article, yes I know about Thorium. One of my colleagues was working on producing Thorium fuel. I don't know what happened to that project. Overall this also shows that nuclear is a good option. Fusion technology is not even near commercial use and it is a along term option, still I love that technology.

thorium is the only way that i get excited about nuclear fusion. we have the alternatives (wind, sea and solar). what we lack is the political will.

[fac3s]

Don't forget about geothermal energy. It's mostly untapped due to the technological restraints but if engineers can develope a system that efficiently draws heat from the ground, that'll put a lot of strain off the gas resources and hopefully also the electical grids.



Since my research skills were not so good when I was your age, I just want to nudge you in the right direction. ;)

Thank you for the advice assclown.

[weizen]

Thank you for the advice assclown.

:hug: ...............

[Tokamak]

. we have the alternatives (wind, sea and solar). what we lack is the political will.


"thorium is the only way that i get excited about nuclear fission."

Fusion at the moment is with tritium and deuterium.

[maw]

"thorium is the only way that i get excited about nuclear fission."

Fusion at the moment is with tritium and deuterium.

you're correct. i meant fission.

[budgie]

The thing with a fraud, that is the crime of defrauding someone, is that someone must hope to profit from it. If the global warming movement is a fraud then what does it profit financially? That is, as compared to the industries it alleges are chiefly responsible for polluting the atmosphere....

[Chulo]

The thing with a fraud, that is the crime of defrauding someone, is that someone must hope to profit from it. If the global warming movement is a fraud then what does it profit financially? That is, as compared to the industries it alleges are chiefly responsible for polluting the atmosphere....Scientist that get research grants, authors that get to write books, activist that get expedition and cause money, karma points and a sense of wellbeing and pointing the finger at some one else
There is BIG industry of the Global warming scare. look at Al gore, he got a Noble prize

[fac3s]

What chulo said...