Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The fact that there is no geological correlation between CO2 levels and temperature should be enough evidence, but then something that does not characterize our society is objectivity :s
But Tinchote. Look at the graphs they post showing correlation!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGG GGGGGGGGGH!!!! We're all going to die! Die I tell's ya!
Except that the graph posted earlier in this thread regarding atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature shows an overall upward trend....Quote:
Originally Posted by tinchote
I would like to see a coherent argument on this thread regarding WHY the evidence concerning global warming is flawed and point out flaws in the methodology of the research done instead of regressing to junior school science.
tinchote posted a graph which showed extremely high levels of co2 in the atmosphere and low temperatures
Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton university, is an expert in examining climate records from the distant past. He has said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
There is also an article from him here. He mentions something I've been thinking since I first met the terms "climate change":Quote:
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?
Quote:
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Argh Tinchote! I bet he's paid by Exxon, Shell and BP. He doesn't agree with what other scientists say so I'm going to suggest that he is biased with no evidence whatsoever because I'm part of the Eco-Cult.
Daniel seems to become more and more cultivated, post by post. :-)
Global Warming is likely a fact ... what causes it? THE SUN!
In order to know what part of GW is caused by man you MUST know what is caused naturally.
Again, I would suspect that the climatologists who come down on the side of man-made global warming haven't forgotten to factor this in to their calculations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blancvino
Prove it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I can be convinced with REAL evidence. So show me. It's not to much to ask if I am to be totally inconvenienced by radical programs to cut greenhouse gases. I'll be a strong supporter if you can show me we are in extreme peril AND we can do something about it. But I think it's kind of hard to turn down the Sun's thermostat.
Should we do things now to curb greenhouse gases? Yes, just not in some crazed obsessive manner.
Aluminum + gallium + water = Hydrogen on demand.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html