View Points On Global Warming - part 1


Standing at the Portal
Oct 16, 2007

The deceit behind global warming
By Christopher Booker and Richard North

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the
planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of
our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed
in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international
terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable
continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat
one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there
must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was
promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which
emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the
top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came
in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a
disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but
global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up
to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about
climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the
last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant
swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and
was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman
Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire. Three centuries of cooling in
the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence
agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until
200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But
even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling"
between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming

A scare is often set off - as we show in our book with other
examples - when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one
must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings
commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it
was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the
earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was
causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable
speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly
due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who
had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in
1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).
Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather
unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to
produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts
and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers,
drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials - essentially a
political document - in which most of the caveats contained in the experts'
report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991,
which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report
in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government
scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming
and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under
heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated
the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that
there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the
Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al
Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous
Kyoto Protocol.


Standing at the Portal
Oct 16, 2007
Original Poster
Part 2

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing
governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty
still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to
its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article
co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be
known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be
viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this
time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures
had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they
were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American
physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it
showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past
1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001
report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The
Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when
CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts
about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study
by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence
before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph
whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the
graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as
hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so
comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming
juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004,
thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage
four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every
kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more
highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have
reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be
met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to
see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global
temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless
mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so
vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of
question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he
claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by
20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of
between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that,
wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now
expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting
more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to
show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in
the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest
scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures
showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph
now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but
1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing
up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more
consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in
CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's
effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all
the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from
reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will
be very interesting.

. Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming - How Scares Are
Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum,
£16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books
on 0870 428 4115 or go to
Last edited:


Beloved Mentor
Apr 8, 2006
CO2 -- cause or effect?

Something to add that was somehow not included in the post: carbon dioxide levels rise BECAUSE of global warming, and NOT that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Supposedly, all climatologists know this. And yet, it was a (the?) main argument of Gore, though he actually manipulated his charts to show that CO2 rise was a cause instead of an effect.

I think this video clip of Beck puts things in perspective:

There are other clips in youtube, one even showing that with the supposed rise in the earth's temperature in the last few years, there was also a rise in the temperature of a couple of outer planets (Neptune and Uranus). So who's the real culprit? (Hint: it's at the
center of our solar system.)

Global warming IS happening (after the cooling that was observed up to the 1970s). But man had nothing to do with it. While it is excellent to care for our environment, it is unscientific to blame man for the rise in tempertures (if, indeed, it is happening -- some actually blame this rise on the method of taking temperatures). Even the proponents of man-made global warming say that man can no longer halt it, whatever we do from now. Shouldn't it therefore show them that man had nothing to do with it in the first place?

As for carbon dioxide, was it only me who was wondering why it was suddenly called a pollutant? Isn't carbon dioxide what animals exhale all the time, and what even plants give off when it's dark? And isn't it something essential for plants during daylight? So if CO2 is indeed the pollutant cause of global warming, isn't it solved simply by killing all life? LOL

Here's some interesting reading about Gore and his Nobel Prize:

Gore's Nine Lies

Me, I no longer believed Nobel Prizes ever since Arafat was given one. :(



Standing at the Portal
Oct 16, 2007
Original Poster
I thought plants used CO2 to for photosynthesis and they produced oxygen as a by-product?

The dark forces are out everywhere. They would have you believe that ozone is a pollutant and is responsible for asthma in the big cities. But ozone only carries the pollution to the ground for mother natures recycling process. Ozone is a natural and important part of the biosphere. They are trying to use it as a scape goat instead of addressing real air pollution problems.. Ozone alert days! phooey! What about air pollution alert days?!!! The ozone only comes to the ground when the air pollution rises and bonds to the ozone. The molecule then becomes heavy and falls to the ground. They would prefer that their filth fly away and land somewhere else. Now they complain because its landing right back on them.


New member
May 1, 2006
But is the warming truly global? I just read that the Southern ice caps are the thickest ever recorded.



Beloved Mentor
Apr 8, 2006
I thought plants used CO2 to for photosynthesis and they produced oxygen as a by-product?
That's right. But photosynthesis only occurs in daylight. So CO2 usage by plants is only during the daytime.

At night time, in the dark, they use up oxygen just like all other life, though I think I better check on whether they also give out CO2 (maybe not).

Last edited:


New member
Apr 4, 2006
Warmer temperatures equals more CO2

3 December 2004

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Filed under: — group @ 9:42 AM - ()
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Iggy Dalrymple

New member
Apr 9, 2006
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

John Coleman
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it."

Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.


Standing at the Portal
Oct 16, 2007
Original Poster
I don't really care if global warming is a scam or not. there are far worse scams to comtemplate than this. I don't think it is a scam perse. Then again all positions are slanted. All news is slanted. And most of all All politicans are slanted. People will bicker about it till the end of time. Sometimes both points of view seem equally valid to me. What is most important to me is that it is now forcing us to look at the planet and our position of domain over it and our responsibility to it, our total existence in a more wholistic manner.

If cleaner air and water and earth come out it then so be it.

Actually we have been coming out of an ice age for quite a while far as I can tell.

Iggy Dalrymple

New member
Apr 9, 2006
The ice-cores from 150,000 years ago tell their own story on who is right or wrong.
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations

One of the "scientific" highlights in Al Gore's movie is the discussion about the clear correlation between CO2 and temperature, as is obtained in ice cores. To quote, he says the following when discussing the ice-core data (about 40 mins after the beginning for the film):

“The relationship is actually very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”

Any laymen will understand from this statement that the ice-cores demonstrate a causal link, that higher amounts of CO2 give rise to higher temperatures. Of course, this could indeed be the case, and to some extent, it necessarily is. However, can this conclusion really be drawn from this graph? Can one actually say anything at all about how much CO2 affects the global temperature?

To the dismay of Al Gore, the answer is that this graph doesn't prove at all that CO2 has any effect on the global temperature. All it says is that there is some equilibrium between dissolved CO2 and atmospheric CO2, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature. Of course, the temperature itself can depend on a dozen different factors, including CO2, but just the CO2 / temperature correlation by itself doesn't tell you the strength of the CO2→ΔT link. It doesn't even tell you the sign.

Al Gore uses pyrotechnics to lead his audience to the wrong conclusion. If CO2 affects the temperature, as this graph supposedly demonstrates, then the 20th century CO2 rise should cause a temperature rise larger than the rise seen from the last ice-age to today's interglacial. This is of course wrong. All it says is that we offsetted the dissolution balance of CO2 in the oceans. If we were to stop burning fossil fuels (which is a good thing in general, but totally irrelevant here), then the large CO2 increase would turn into a CO2 decrease, returning back to the pre-industrial level over a century or so.

Think for example on a closed coke bottle. It has coke with dissolved CO2 and it has air with gaseous CO2. Just like Earth, most of the CO2 is in the dissolved form. If you warm the coke bottle, the coke cannot hold as much CO2, so it releases a little amount and increases the partial pressure of the gaseous CO2, enough to force the rest of the dissolved CO2 to stay dissolved. Since there is much more dissolved CO2 than gaseous CO2, the amount released from the coke is relatively small.

Of course, the comparison can go only so far. The mechanisms governing CO2 in the oceans are much more complicated such that the equilibrium depends on the amount of biological activity, on the complicated chemical reactions in the oceans, and many more interactions I am probably not aware of. For example, a lower temperature can increase the amount of dust reaching the oceans. This will bring more fertilizing iron which will increase the biological activity (since large parts of the ocean's photosynthesis is nutrient limited) and with it affect the CO2 dissolution balance. The bottom line is that the equilibrium is quite complicated to calculate.

Nevertheless, the equilibrium can be empirically determined by simply reading it straight off the ice-core CO2/temperature graph. The global temperature variations between ice-ages and interglacials is about 4°C. The change in the amount of atmospheric CO2 is about 80 ppm. This gives 20 ppm of oceanic out-gassing per °C.

The main evidence proving that CO2 does not control the climate, but at most can play a second fiddle by just amplifying the variations already present, is that of lags. In all cases where there is a good enough resolution, one finds that the CO2 lags behind the temperature by typically several hundred to a thousand years. Namely, the basic climate driver which controls the temperature cannot be that of CO2. That driver, whatever it is, affects the climate equilibrium, and the temperature changes accordingly. Once the oceans adjust (on time scale of decades to centuries), the CO2 equilibrium changes as well. The changed CO2 can further affect the temperature, but the CO2 / temperature correlation cannot be used to say almost anything about the strength of this link. Note that I write "almost anything", because it turns out that the CO2 temperature correlation can be used to say at least one thing about the temperature sensitivity to CO2 variations, as can be seen in the box below.

It is interesting to note that the IPCC scientific report (e.g., the AR4) avoids this question of lag. Instead of pointing it out, they write that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores. This is of course chaff to cover the fact that when CO2 and temperature are measured with the same cores, or when carefully comparing different cores, a lag of typically several hundred years is found to be present, if the quality and resolution permit. Such an example is found in the figure below.
Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.

There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:

* Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).
* Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
* Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.
* Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

Clearly, the correlation and lags unequivocally demonstrate that the temperature drives changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. The same correlations, however cannot be used to say anything about the temperature's sensitivity to variations in the CO2. I am sure there is some effect in that direction, but to empirically demonstrate it, one needs a correlation between the temperature and CO2 variations, which do not originate from temperature variations.

The only temperature independent CO2 variations I know of are those of anthropogenic sources, i.e., the 20th century increase, and CO2 variations over geological time scales.

Since the increase of CO2 over the 20th is monotonic, and other climate drivers (e.g., the sun) increased as well, a correlation with temperature is mostly meaningless. This leaves the geological variations in CO2 as the only variations which could be used to empirically estimate the effect of the CO2→ΔT link.

The reason that over geological time scales, the variations do not depend on the temperature is because over these long durations, the total CO2 in the ecosystem varies from a net imbalance between volcanic out-gassing and sedimentation/subduction. This "random walk" in the amount of CO2 is the reason why there were periods with 3 or even 10 times as much CO2 than present, over the past billion years.

Unfortunately, there is no clear correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time scales. This lack of correlation should have translated into an upper limit on the CO2→ΔT link. However, because the geochemical temperature data is actually biased by the amount of CO2, this lack of correlation result translates into a CO2 doubling sensitivity which is about ΔTx2 ~ 1.0±0.5°C. More about it in this paper.

The moral of this story is that when you are shown data such as the graph by Al Gore, ask yourself what does it really mean. You might be surprised from the answer.


Beloved Mentor
Apr 8, 2006
Not man-made

Personally, I think global warming is for real, and its happening alot faster than anyone predicted.
Yeah, but I think the issue here is whether man had anything to do with it, and thus, whether man can do anything about it. I think the facts show that the globe cools, and the globe warms, in spite of what man does.

This is not to mean that we should be uncaring for our environment. But neither should it mean that we impose crippling rules and policies such as the Kyoto protocol (which even Kyoto would not follow), supposedly to limit global warming, when in fact man has nothing to do with it at all. And neither will such crippling policies affect the global temperature.

As shown in , everyone believed we were in an irreversible state of global cooling in the '70s. Now we are in a state of "irreversible" global warming.

As one climatologist is quoted in that video clip, "Climate changes... get used to it."


Mad Scientest

New member
Apr 11, 2006
We are told that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it traps and holds heat in the air and that we are adding ever and ever greater amounts of it into our atmosphere. From this one can only assume that there must be a huge amount of it in the air.

So if you were to take a box and fill it with air, then separate it into its individual gases, by volume what would you have? Well approximately 79% of your box would contain Nitrogen. About 20% would contain oxygen. And .03% would contain the CO2. Plus there would be traces amounts of other rare gases.

Is reasonable that this fraction of a percent of CO2 is really causing all the problems that are attributed to it?

If so then maybe we should consider this. When an average person inhales this .03% CO2 laden air by the time they exhale they have increased the CO2 content to approximately 5%.

Therefore to save the planet we need to start an education program to convince people, particular the environmentalists to stop breathing as this is the best way that they can show that they really care about the earth.:D


Standing at the Portal
Oct 16, 2007
Original Poster
Scientists Warn of Rapid Global Warming Rise

The oceans are losing the capacity to soak up rising man-made carbon emissions, which is increasing the rate of global warming by up to 30 per cent, scientists said yesterday.
Researchers have found that the Southern Ocean is absorbing an ever-decreasing proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The excess carbon, which cannot be absorbed by the oceans, will remain in the atmosphere and accelerate global warming, they said.

The reduced ability to absorb carbon is thought to be a result of high winds acting on ocean currents bringing deeper waters that already contain high levels of carbon to the surface.

The higher winds are themselves believed to have been caused by climate change due to a combination of changes in the ozone layer and carbon emissions.

The scientists from countries including Britain, France and Germany, said their findings marked the first time that one of the world’s natural “carbon sinks” had been shown to be weakened by Man’s own actions.

Ian Totterdell, a climate modeller at the Met Office Hadley Centre, described the research as “an important piece of work”.

He said: “This is the first time we have been able to get convincing evidence that a change in the uptake of CO2 by the oceans is linked to climate change.

“It’s one of many feedbacks we didn’t expect to kick in until some way into the 21st century.”

While a reduction in absorption rates by carbon sinks has long been forecast, the discovery that the Southern Ocean is mopping up less of Man’s carbon emissions has come at least two decades earlier than expected.

The Southern Ocean is the world’s biggest marine carbon sink and accounts for 15 per cent of all the carbon taken out of the atmosphere. Temperatures are already predicted to rise by almost 1.5C (2.7F) by the middle of the century, without taking into account any further emissions caused, for example, by the rapid construction of fossil fuel power plants in China and India.

The weakening of the Southern Ocean’s absorption rates– which could be in the range of 5 to 30 per cent– is likely to result in an increase in the rate at which temperatures rise, scientists say. “This is serious,” said Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), two of the world’s leading environmental research centres. “This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. “With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere. Since the early 1980s the carbon sink hasn’t changed. In the same period the emissions have gone up by 43 per cent.”

Dr Le Quéré led a team measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide, which found that, despite this rise in emissions since 1981, the quantity absorbed by the ocean was static.

Since the industrial revolution an estimated 500 giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels, cement manufacture and changes in land use.

About a quarter of this has been absorbed by the oceans and a further quarter taken up by vegetation.

The research, published in Science, identified changes in wind patterns caused by climate change as being the direct cause of the weakened ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

While able to pinpoint the hole in the ozone layer and carbon emissions as the man-made causes of the increased winds, the researchers were unable to identify which of them had the greater effect.

The net quantity of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Southern Ocean remained at 0.3 billion tonnes a year from 1981 to 2004, according to calculations by the research team.

In 1981 it absorbed 0.6 billion tonnes from the atmosphere but emitted 0.3 billion tonnes back into it. In 2004 it absorbed 0.8 billion tonnes but emitted 0.5 billion tonnes. In the report they said that climate models project more intense Southern Ocean winds if CO2 levels continue to increase over the next century.

The researchers accepted there were limits to the data available from the Southern Ocean and that “the magnitude of the CO2 sink is heavily disputed”.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of BAS, said uncertaintities remained, but the findings were “a serious concern”.

He said the reduced efficiency of the ocean to act as a carbon sink would make it harder to reduce emissions to levels that were low enough to limit temperature rises to 2C. Source: Times

Iggy Dalrymple

New member
Apr 9, 2006
Personally, I think global warming is for real, and its happening alot faster than anyone predicted.
No one disputes that there is global warming. This old planet has been warming and cooling for millions of years. The question is whether it caused by man. I say man's contribution is minuscule.


Active member
Oct 1, 2007
Saskatchewan Canada
Therefore to save the planet we need to start an education program to convince people, particular the environmentalists to stop breathing as this is the best way that they can show that they really care about the earth.

Interesting theory there.
I wonder which problem is worse, the CO2 keeping the heat in, or the ozone layer getting thinner, allowing more heat from the sun.
How about everyone buys a small ozone generator, and run it two or three days per week...eventually, it would find its way into the atmosphere..(or not).

Mad Scientest

New member
Apr 11, 2006
Ah but haven’t you heard “Consumers Reports” has stated the ozone is bad for you. :)

Now lets see if man made CO2 is a problem then if we reduced the amount that we produce then naturally the level should go down. This idea was actually put to the test some years back.

With the beginning of the industrial revolution we started burning ever and ever greater amounts of coal and it is claimed that was causing CO2 levels to rise. Well in 1928 there was a depression, thousands of people out of work, factories closed, and as a result the use of coal was dramatically reduced and stayed low for a number of years before slowly start it upward climb again. Therefore if we track the CO2 levels we should see a dip during the years following the depression.

But there was no dip! The CO2 just continued its slow rise unaided by the hand of man.
Now if we could just figure out way other planets in our solar system are also heating up maybe we might be able to figure out what’s happing here.


New member
May 22, 2009
In my head
First, I'd like to apologize for resurrecting the global warming thread--can I hear a collective groan--but I have some questions. So if anyone is willing...I like Mad Scientist's intelligence and reasonableness so maybe he wouldn't mind helping here. (Or any of you other wonderful people on this forum. :))

I'm not really on one side of the debate or the other though I admit I side more with the pro-Global Warming side just because I don't trust Big Business and feel they have more of a stake in pooh-poohing global warming, as well as a lot of power. Of course I know there's other issues, such as a shaky economy. And really, pollution is pollution whether it causes Global Warming or not and for me, reducing pollution is more of an issue. But I never saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth because I don't trust a politician and I didn't want to see a program that maybe started with a bias on one side or the other.

But--I still am trying to stay as open minded as I can. So, the questions:

I saw a program the other night about the sun and it said we are in solar minimum right now, a period of time marked by reduced solar activiity and therefore some cooling temperatures on earth, which we seem to have seen. The next solar maximum is to be 2012 so shouldn't we worry at least a little in case this results in high temps from solar activity combined with increased greenhouse gases?

Secondly, why doesn't anyone ever talk about the other gases, besides CO2? :

There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2,
· Collectively they are adding almost as much warming as CO2 (more, collectively, if estimates above about black soot are correct!)

· All are increasing under human influence

· Many are involved in more than one environmental problem (for example, tropospheric ozone causes problems in its own right and also contributes to excess warming; CFC's, deplete stratospheric ozone and also contribute to warming
Models of effects of gases on climate must take all of these gases into account. This is a great challenge, as they have complex atmospheric chemistry, it is challenging to predict trends in their production, and there are complex feedbacks and interactions among them. Policy decisions must also take this variety of gases into account. Thus, it is a mistake to think that the prospect of global climate change is reducible to CO2 alone.

Mad Scientest

New member
Apr 11, 2006
Nothing wrong with applying a little more heat to global warming theories to see which ones melt away.
I'm not really on one side of the debate or the other though I admit I side more with the pro-Global Warming side just because I don't trust Big Business and feel they have more of a stake in pooh-poohing global warming, as well as a lot of power. Of course I know there's other issues, such as a shaky economy. And really, pollution is pollution whether it causes Global Warming or not and for me, reducing pollution is more of an issue.
So true. No one wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water and pollution in many urban areas is a problem. However the problem here is that Al Gore has latched on to this basic concern and is using it to promote his “carbon credits” plan. Nevertheless this is just a new way to introduce a new tax. This new tax that would be on a world wide scale and allow the “elite leaders” virtual control over just about all aspect of our lives. In my opinion this has more to do with world domination rather then the exalted goal of saving the planet.
But I never saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth because I don't trust a politician and I didn't want to see a program that maybe started with a bias on one side or the other.
One inconvenient truth about Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth it that he steadfastly refuses to listen to much less debate those scientists, and there are lots of them, that disagree with his theories. He claims he has gathered all the facts and further discussion is not needed. All that is needed is to pass a form of massive new taxation along with punitive legislation for those who will not willing submit.

But--I still am trying to stay as open minded as I can. So, the questions:

I saw a program the other night about the sun and it said we are in solar minimum right now, a period of time marked by reduced solar activiity and therefore some cooling temperatures on earth, which we seem to have seen. The next solar maximum is to be 2012 so shouldn't we worry at least a little in case this results in high temps from solar activity combined with increased greenhouse gases?

Not necessarily. The sun has been going through these changes for as long as we can tell and yes the earth does heat up and cool down as a result. But this is perfectly normal. Of course this can make some areas of the planet more or less desirable places to live and people will have to adapt or move. For example Greenland was not named Greenland because it was cold and covered in ice.

Secondly, why doesn't anyone ever talk about the other gases, besides CO2? :
Good question. I would say it has been made the villain because it is easily measured and thus can be easily taxed.
By comparison water vapor traps and holds way more heat then CO2 ever will. Of course you are not supposed to be aware of that. But can you imagine what would happen to a politician if he tried to propose a tax on the amount of water that you are allowed to evaporate? Stop! Turn off that tea pot you are destroying the planet. :shock::D:D

CO2 was set up as a straw man as something that would be easy to blame for natural occurring global warming (and /cooling).
Consider how we are lead to believe that we are virtually being smothered in CO2 from all of the millions and billions of tons of CO2 that we are polluting the atmosphere with everyday, but now let’s consider it from a slightly different perspective.

Lets say you have a bunch of gas bottles and each one filled with one of the gases that are present in the air.
I then give you an empty box and ask you to fill it with appropriate amount of each of these gases so that the box will contain what is considered our standard atmosphere.

To do this the first bottle you want is the nitrogen, you would then fill up 78% of that box with nitrogen.
Next we need oxygen to live so you need to add the oxygen, this will take up another 21% of the space in our box.

This means that there is only one percent of the space left for all of the other gases including the evil CO2. And yes it is the largest of all of these trace gases and it comes in at .3%
So for all of these millions and billions of tons of CO2 that we have pumped into the air, the total concentration of CO2 is still only a fraction of 1% of the total and that number has not seen any significant change.

Meanwhile we are being conditioned to jump up and down and be running around like a chicken with its feet cut off screaming to the government “Save us. Save us, we will pay more taxes, you can take more control over our lives, and you can do whatever you what. Just save us.”:evil:

D Bergy

Apr 16, 2006
Personally, The global warming debate is pretty useless in general, other than an exercise in debate itself.

The only real solution to the problem, if there is a problem, is to dramatically reduce the human population. Any other measures are just drops in a bucket and it is delusional to think our huge population can eliminate our influence without eliminating the source, which is us.

Since population reduction is not being pursued to any degree, it really does not matter if global warming is happening or not, since we are not going to significantly curtail it with the piecemeal efforts being proposed.

It is just like effective medical treatment, go after the source of the problem. We are the source of the alleged problem. It really is not any more complex than that.