OZONE Asylum
Forums
Philosophy and other Silliness
On global warming...
This page's ID:
28114
Search
QuickChanges
Forums
FAQ
Archives
Register
Edit Post
Who can edit a post?
The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.
Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:
Remember Me On This Computer
Your Text:
Insert Slimies »
Insert UBB Code »
Close
Last Tag
|
All Tags
UBB Help
Yes, I read the report, and I am not implying that it wasn't well researched. I am merely proposing a plausible alternative. [quote] There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report. [/quote] Global temperature changes usually work on a timescale of thousands of years. In contrast, warmer temperatures in the last 400 years wouldn't even register on that kind of scale. Also, the industrial revolution didn't really get going until the 18th and 19th century. [quote] The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. [/quote] Let's dissect the first assumption of that qoute: that we are in a warming period. The report only stats that they can say with a high level of confidence that the "Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years". Again, this is such an insignificant period on a global scale that it really proves nothing. [quote] The 'junk science' site seems do a good job of talking in circles and getting hung up on terminology, but doesn't seem to address the kind of information presented in the 'national academies' piece. [/quote] I think the reason that the "Junk Science" site reads like this is because that is the state of current research on global warming. When all the rhetoric and politics has been stripped away, there just isn't much hard evidence to go on. This is all addressed in the first few paragraphs of that article which I will quote here: [quote] Given the number of JunkScience.com readers expressing some confusion over the "greenhouse effect," carbon dioxide, global warming and climate change, we thought it might be a good idea to pull together a page of questions-and-answers, complete with a few nice little graphics explaining the facts. We thought that since there is long-standing, intense public interest in these topics and that vast sums of public and private monies are being thrown at the much-dreaded "problem" of "global warming," there should be a wealth of quality explanations and graphics to which we can point readers to alleviate their confusion. That was about the time that our quick project and quiet weekend went awry very quickly. Who would have thought so many "issue" sites, environment sites and, yes, government sites, could be hosting so much utter garbage on a topic subject to such intense scrutiny? Who could have imagined having to spend several hours wading through searches to find a few simple graphics correctly expressing the greenhouse effect? Who knew that so many blowhards are out there pontificating from complete ignorance? Some of the bad descriptions appear to be poor efforts at simplifying the material to suit grade school course work and the like, but that does not make them any more acceptable. Obviously a slight rethink of this project was necessary. We will now try to deliver an extremely simplified version of how this greenhouse thing actually works and some indication of what might be expected from what is known about the Earth and what has been measured, rather than simply guessed about. [/quote] [img]http://www.blueskynet.as/alo/ozone/egypt.gif[/img]
Loading...
Options:
Enable Slimies
Enable Linkwords
« Backwards
—
Onwards »