Could there be another reason for global warming.....

[CPA]

some Danish scientists believe so.

 

[TravisT]

Why are we worried about it? Even if everyone in our country rode bikes to work, and did all the "green friendly" things we could (which won't happen)... there are still other countries that cause more polution than ourselves.

 

[Grabo]

Travis: You are not from the U.S, I hope?

And what happened to 'every little river', anyway? 'I can't stop killing bunnies because my big neighbour will continue to do it anyway'?

I'm sorry, but 'Cosmic rays' doesn't strike me as incredibly likely, given the already quite proven correlation between co2 in the atmosphere and the average global temperature; and the amount of co2 we do release, and have since industriualization began.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Grabo
Travis: You are not from the U.S, I hope?

Great conclusion they've drawn. Co2 in the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the global mean temperature..nix, nope.

There are about 40 more relevant contributing factors.

 

[Grabo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Grabo
Travis: You are not from the U.S, I hope?

Great conclusion they've drawn. Co2 in the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the global mean temperature..nix, nope.

There are about 40 more relevant contributing factors.

Really? Will water vapour be one of them, pray tell? Remember change has to be part of the equation.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: CPA
some Danish scientists believe so.

First: Fox News?

Second: Sure it is possible I would even venture on likely that there are other causes for global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't cut back on pollution? Even if there is NOTHING we can do about and we are not the CAUSE of global warming why not try and keep pollution down or cut it out completely? Oh yeah, I forgot it would somehow hurt big business :roll:

EDIT:

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus/minus) of that impact.

Not surprisingly, Svensmark?s potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it?s only been reported ? and briefly at that ? in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).

The media?s lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Svensmark?s experiment so much as it reflects upon the media?s and global warming lobby?s excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

...right... again :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Oh come on.

They don't even try to ask why is the readings now the highest ever?

All of a sudden cosmic radiation is the highest in the Universe ever?

The only thing different in Earth's history is man took out a massive proportion of foliage and burning the crap out of fossil fuels.

Those two factors combined are the only main reasons for the mess we are creating, period.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh come on.

They don't even try to ask why is the readings now the highest ever?

All of a sudden cosmic radiation is the highest in the Universe ever?

The only thing different in Earth's history is man took out a massive proportion of foliage and burning the crap out of fossil fuels.

Those two factors combined are the only main reasons for the mess we are creating, period.

What's that word you like to use when people only believe what they're told and refuse to look at any evidence contrary to their own personal beliefs? Oh what its it... Could it beeee... SHEEPLE!

 

[catnap1972]

Come on people--everyone knows the Martians are trying to destroy us (George W Bush said so).

Time to bomb Iran and punish those beyotches!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CPA
some Danish scientists believe so.

First: Fox News?

Second: Sure it is possible I would even venture on likely that there are other causes for global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't cut back on pollution? Even if there is NOTHING we can do about and we are not the CAUSE of global warming why not try and keep pollution down or cut it out completely? Oh yeah, I forgot it would somehow hurt big business :roll:

EDIT:

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus/minus) of that impact.

Not surprisingly, Svensmark?s potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it?s only been reported ? and briefly at that ? in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).

The media?s lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Svensmark?s experiment so much as it reflects upon the media?s and global warming lobby?s excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

...right... again :roll:

LMAO... Fox News? That's your complaint? Bwaaahahahahahahahaah You weren't looking close enough. That was written by Steven Milloy of junkscience.com fame. Steve would be the anti-christ of the fanatical, religious global warming movement. At least get your outrage pointed in the right direction.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: CPA
some Danish scientists believe so.

First: Fox News?

Second: Sure it is possible I would even venture on likely that there are other causes for global warming, but does that mean we shouldn't cut back on pollution? Even if there is NOTHING we can do about and we are not the CAUSE of global warming why not try and keep pollution down or cut it out completely? Oh yeah, I forgot it would somehow hurt big business :roll:

EDIT:

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus/minus) of that impact.

Not surprisingly, Svensmark?s potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it?s only been reported ? and briefly at that ? in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).

The media?s lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Svensmark?s experiment so much as it reflects upon the media?s and global warming lobby?s excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

...right... again :roll:

LMAO... Fox News? That's your complaint? Bwaaahahahahahahahaah You weren't looking close enough. That was written by Steven Milloy of junkscience.com fame. Steve would be the anti-christ of the fanatical, religious global warming movement. At least get your outrage pointed in the right direction.

I just was saying fox news, because on like other news sources they have no agenda. And Steven Milloy's personal opinion comes through pretty clearly. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I am not attacking him or even what he is saying. I even say it is not only possible that there are multiple reasons why global warming is happening, it is likely. So how about you retract your claws, take a breath, and READ before jumping all over me.

 

[BlancoNino]

Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

First off we are talking about global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. President Bush says carbon dioxide is not air pollution.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing world wide at an enormous rate.
You are completely wrong on this one.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

What are you smoking?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

First off we are talking about global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. President Bush says carbon dioxide is not air pollution.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing world wide at an enormous rate.
You are completely wrong on this one.

I guess I just completely hate this issue. Environmentalists have really never been right. Global Warming has more pros than cons IF it even exists, and IF it does there is no way humans, which make up a tiny tiny portion of the planet, could possibly be responsible. Case closed.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

1) It's GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE . . . although warming is going to be a component.

2) Clouds are undeniably important . . . but this study (and the tool from junkscience.com) exhibit an extreme confirmation bias.

3) It's fair to criticize Faux News b/c they are publishing an opinion piece (Views) but giving the impression its an objective review of the study and the broader issue of anthropomorphic vs natural climate change.

4) If you go to their craptastic website duh they claim confirmation of Svensmark by noting a British astronomer suggested a link between sunsports and wheat prices in 1801. Now that's what I call quality.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

First off we are talking about global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. President Bush says carbon dioxide is not air pollution.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing world wide at an enormous rate.
You are completely wrong on this one.

I guess I just completely hate this issue. Environmentalists have really never been right. Global Warming has more pros than cons IF it even exists, and IF it does there is no way humans, which make up a tiny tiny portion of the planet, could possibly be responsible. Case closed.

I guess I just completely hate this issue
Hence, the term, "An Inconvenient Truth"

there is no way humans, which make up a tiny tiny portion of the planet, could possibly be responsible.

Humans have depleted the entire cod stock from the Georges Bank in less than 200 years.

Humans have turned a huge swathe of Russia into a glow in the dark kill zone.

Humans have rendered thousands of lakes in the Northeast US devoid of all life due to acid rain.

Humans have killed off thousands of species completely.

Humans caused dust storms a thousand miles wide in North America.

Yes, humans can change the world wide environment.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

First off we are talking about global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. President Bush says carbon dioxide is not air pollution.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing world wide at an enormous rate.
You are completely wrong on this one.

I guess I just completely hate this issue. Environmentalists have really never been right. Global Warming has more pros than cons IF it even exists, and IF it does there is no way humans, which make up a tiny tiny portion of the planet, could possibly be responsible. Case closed.

Since we aren't as numerous as other species on this planet it means that we don't make as much of an impact. Oh that's golden.

When was the last time you heard of otters causing mass oil spills killing tens of thousands of fish, birds, and other sea living creatures?

When was the last time that a population of barn owls caused the giant brown clouds of smog that linger over the top of many major US cities?

When was the last time that a herd of carribou were responsible for turn thousands of acres worth of land into a radioactive waste dump?

When was the last time that a polar bear thought that it would drill in a hole in the ground for oil...just for kicks?

When was the last time that an industrious gathering of three toed sloths burned and slashed down thousands of acres worth of rain forests?

How many birds hop in a 2 ton gasoline powered vehicle for their daily commute?

Humans make much more of an impact than give us credit for.

I'm no tree hugger but to say that we haven't cause some scaring to this rock that we call home is blindly ignorant.

 

[Brovane]

The Climate of Earth has been changing for Millions of years before humans were present and will continue to change with our without human's putting polution in the air.

GB

 

[MonkeyK]

The OP looks like a different spin on Global Dimming, described in this episode of Nova

 

[ayabe]

It's methane from all the cows farts

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: ayabe
It's methane from all the cows farts

and aliens are giving them gas to further global warming to terraform Earth before the invasion.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Air pollution keeps getting better but global warming keeps increasing. That doesn't add up.

First off we are talking about global warming caused by carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. President Bush says carbon dioxide is not air pollution.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing world wide at an enormous rate.
You are completely wrong on this one.

I guess I just completely hate this issue. Environmentalists have really never been right. Global Warming has more pros than cons IF it even exists, and IF it does there is no way humans, which make up a tiny tiny portion of the planet, could possibly be responsible. Case closed.

1. No, environmentalists have been mostly right and you hate them because it works. Unfortunately, they have to be extreme because of people like you. If someone tries a rational argument with you poeple, they just get ignored, but doom and gloom does get poeple's attention and does cause change. Apart from CO2 emissions, our environment today is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, and its all thanks to them.

2. Violent, extreme weather is better than normal and stable? You're wrong.

3. As others have pointed out human impact on the planet is enormous, you're really wrong on this one.

4. case closed? ignoring a problem won't ever make it go away. Luckily people like you are on the losing side...

 

[techs]

Its interesting to see the completely debunked cloud theory coming back. Just in time for US elections.
For those who don't know it, it says that if the earth gets warmer, there will be more evaporation, therefore more clouds. The clouds will reflect the suns energy away from the earth and the earth will get cooler.
So therefore global warming is no threat.
I first heard this on Rush Limbaugh like 15 years ago.
Turns out it is so incredibly wrong.
I could go into the scientific reasons but suffice to say Venus is covered with heavy clouds. And due to the trapped greenhouse gasses Venus is like 400 degrees celsius. Yes celsius. Its hotter than Mercury. Despite being nearly twice the distance from the sun

 

[piasabird]

Solar Flares? Maybe the sun is just hotter.