Global warming?

[Sqrl]

Always so much FUD in these debates.../sigh

OK, since I'm really not in the mood to type this up again I'll just quote myself:

Here is a summary of some of the points made from my link along with the sources they provided, these are some of the problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming:

Point 1) Some 84% of total anthropogenic hydrocarbon output has occurred after 1940 when it started to increase exponentially, and yet the rate of temperature change has remained the same from ~1840 to present.  This indicates that temperatures were unaffected by a sudden massive increase in C02 and hydrocarbon output.

Point 2) According to ice core records an increase of 7% C02 should correspond to approximately a 1C increase in temperature. Yet over the last century we have seen a 30% increase in C02 and only a 0.5C increase in temperature. (note that the data actually suggest Temperature drives C02 and not the other way around which is precisely why this flaw exists).

Point 3) Temperature variations on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, and Triton all mimic the changes here on earth in trend but not in magnitude. This heavily implies that they are both responding to the same factor but are getting different amounts of exposure. The sun fits this description perfectly. Also note that these planets not being inhabited by mankind could not have anthropogenic global warming and thus the cause is clearly not related.

Sources Point 1:
Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,

Sources Point 2:
-Petit et. al., (1999) Nature 399, 429-436.
-Schneider, D. P. et. al. (2006) Geophysical Research Letters 33, 2006GL027057.

Sources Point 3:
-Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 438, 269-287.
-Fenton, L. K., Geissler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Nature 446, 646-649.
-Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831.
-Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Russell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T.
(2006) Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.
-Hammel, H. B., and Lockwood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.
-Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1998) Nature 393, 765-767.


The paper goes on to note that even if we do continue to see natural or anthropogenic increases in temperature it would be a good thing and not a bad thing. It makes this point by citing numerous studies that have shown C02 & temperature increases cause plant life to flourish and as a result animal life as well. Longer growing seasons and increases in workable lands would also be a result, which would in turn mean a greatly improved situation globally for countries where food supplies are scarce. In short, even if the worst of the realistic alarmists scenarios were to occur we would see tremendous net positives.

They also point out that tales of increased storm frequency, strength, etc... are exaggerated and that no increase has occurred in the last century based on undisputed empirical evidence and even the best storm modelers now agree that global warming would actually have a positive impact on storm activity for mankind and not a negative one.

In short, from start to finish the scare about global warming being a threat is bogus, and the idea that global warming is caused by mankind is equally bogus. You need not look further than the likes of Enron to see the source of the hysteria, its no coincidence that the dissenting view finally started being heard around 2001 when Enron went out of business, and their enormous financial and political clout was no longer being brought to bare. And it should come as no surprise that Mr. Gore was one of Kenneth Lay's biggest supporters (and vice versa) during his vice presidency. Of course in fairness Lay was concerned with keeping all politicians in his pocket and had a long list of them from both parties, who happily went along provided they stayed in power.

The moral outrage about global warming is the work of a puppet master pulling the strings he knows will get the strongest response from an uninformed and mislead public who would rather buy into it than look into it. If you are interested in this matter you owe it to yourself to hear both sides of the issue and I urge you to read the report I linked to above, I read realclimate at least once a month to catch up on the other viewpoint and believe it or not I used to be of the other viewpoint. If you can't make it through the 12 pages (extremely short for a paper like this actually) and follow along with the subject, then you're breaking a basic tenant of science by not considering all of the evidence.

In science no debate is ever finished, even Isaac Newton was once defeated on his idea that light was a particle by Dutch physicist Christian Huygens who believed it was a wave. Huygens devised an experiment known as the "double-slit experiment" which proved light behaved like a wave. It took more than a century before that settled matter was revisited and Einstein, working from a theory suggested by Richard Feynman, was able to show that it was actually both, in effect proving Newton, Huygens, & Feynman were ALL correct. And Feynman's assertion was that each photon traveled through both slits...pretty weird huh? But to this day that is still the prevailing theory...and yet it too could one day be challenged. So again, this idea that a debate ends in science is ridiculous. The fact that someone would even declare such a thing should be reason enough to thoroughly scrutinize anything they've proposed, especially the matter they claim to have ended.