Originally posted by SpyMoose
I’m just trying to point out that the scientific establishment in America (or the 'Eco nazi's’ if you like) support the idea that humans are causing global warming and are depleting the ozone. My links support this, and your claims of 'bad science' have so far been supported only by your condescending tone. Unless I'm mistaken and you are realty working on a post-doctoral thesis in the field of meteorology, I really don’t care about your opinions on the science, I would rather see an argument supported by folks who would actually know.
The trouble is, the evidence does not back up this litany. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so since the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” in 1972. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transient—associated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. One form of pollution—the release of greenhouse gases that causes global warming—does appear to be a long-term phenomenon, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem for the future of humanity. A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=718860
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
And if that's not enough to convince you, I know
19,200 scientists that would like to have a word with you, and whose conclusions mimic mine verbatim.
All in all, the currently pervasive concept of global warming is an anathema of pseudoscience, and really a political agenda masquerading as truth. The
real truth is that we just don't know enough about this kind of thing yet. And as I said in a previous semi-rant, there
are some people conducting real research into this, but their findings generally don't make the media due to lack of requisite amounts of attention whoring and aggrandized melodrama. People want to hear exciting things. If somebody says, hey, we'll all be dead in 20 years and kittens will rule the world, it sells. A bunch of methodic and thorough scientists saying "oh hay guyz, our bad, nothin's gonna happen after all" isn't exciting and never makes the news. Nor is it romantic enough for our cookie-cutter campus demagogues to add to their toolbox of rhetoric. I also have a lingering suspicion that some of the kneejerk environmentalism is a symptom of the after-shocks of the whole anti-establishment Marxism craze that was cool for like ten years during the 60s and 70s. You know, the whole "give us another reason to prove that capitalism is BAAAAAD" motivation. I guarantee you that if you go to a Greenpeace protest and ask the guy with the dreadlocks and hacky sack how many ionesphere charge layers there are, and how solar radiation affects them (an intrinsic part of understanding the ozone hole issue), he will stare blankly at you before coughing up a lungful of bong smoke.
Anyway.
This article is a good article that pretty much sums up the current state of the environmentalist movement. There's some stuff about global warming, the ozone hole, and all the other line items in your average Greenpeace protester's pamphlet. Reading it will give you a good idea of how much political agenda has poisoned what is a very important issue; transmogrifying otherwise legitimate research into fictitious charicatures.
nico came out of the closet to say:
And you assume yours is somehow different then his assessment? I yet to hear anything from you other then DOSENT WORK! Simply compelling, and really no one wants to hear your arguments here in WEP b/c again this is the wrong forum to discuss such issues.
If you're not equipped to grasp the depth of the issue, it's easier to just admit it. Nobody's going to think any less of you.
It would seem that way, yes.
