Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

[RWSchilz]

Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

Stephanie Stein / Standard-Freeholder
Local News - Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00

The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.

Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.

Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.

"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=

Good article everyone should read. Check it out!

[BlessedinHim]

All along, the so called global warming problem has just been something the green people have used to get their agenda on the top of the list. the hole in the ozone layer didnt do enough to get people riled, so they got to use whatever they can to sway political views and cause unrest and panic so they can take away our rights.

POLITICS:gaah

[Lexie]

I'm trying to understand the oil verses the oil debate, and how this is going to help, with pollution.

A GROWING SOLUTION
The original Bush plan had accommodated the ethanol lobby’s request for a three-billion gallon mandate — a provision justified by the “infant industries” argument, though by this time ethanol was a 30-year-old “infant” supported by more than 16 statutes granting it preferences and subsidies.

"Fossil fuel" is a term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, naturral gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust

IMO the flood created the fossil fuels


Alternative fuel Ethanol is corn-based plant fuel


Some environmentalists also question whether corn ethanol will ultimately help combat global warming. Dan Becker says it's necessary to take into account the energy expended to produce the fuel."The way we make ethanol now," Becker says, involves "seven passes over the field with a diesel tractor, heating the corn to convert it into ethanol, and transporting the fuel in diesel-guzzling trucks."

It would take 1,215 gallons of water per acre of corn for the conversion process. The yield per acre of corn to ethanol is 405 gallons. That’s per year. So how much would it take to run our country for just one day on ethanol? Here are the numbers, 32,035,500 gallons of ethanol or 791,000 acres of corn, 96,106,500 gallons of water and that is just to process it to ethanol. We still have not touched the amount of water it takes to grow it. So for the yearly amount of water required for an ethanol only market is 34,982,766,000. 35 BILLION gallons of water!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTExMDUzNjhjNDllNzMxMjBiYTRjNDlmMjA1Y2FiMTg=

[Raptureorbust]

POLITICS:gaah

I'll go you one better

GRANT MONEY :gaah

Creating something out of nothing, hoping nothing will become something..... :willie


And as many point out, Global Taxation. It doesn't have to be one thing. :hehee

[svend]

I read a pamphlet where the author asserts that oil is not a fossil fuel but is manufactured by forces deep with in the earth. That got me to thinking and guess what Noah covered the inside and out of the Ark with pitch. I looked up the word in Strong's and found that the word was bitumen which is basically tar. Now where did this petroleum product come from before the flood. Might lend credence to this mans theory. Before I'm flamed I know coal was formed from the flood, and it is possible other hydrocarbons were also, but makes one think doesn't it.

[CitySearcher]

Global warming, solar warming, cycles, end-times; all the same in my book. Don't need money to fix, just Salvation and the return of the King.

:candle

[SisterNChrist]

Global warming, solar warming, cycles, end-times; all the same in my book. Don't need money to fix, just Salvation and the return of the King.

:candle

Amen! & Amen to that!!!:thumbup Besides, a much worse calamity will happen during the Tribulation...especially during the last 3 1/2-years, when God makes life down here on planet earth so embearably scorching hot.

[csharpdotcom]

I read a pamphlet where the author asserts that oil is not a fossil fuel but is manufactured by forces deep with in the earth. That got me to thinking and guess what Noah covered the inside and out of the Ark with pitch. I looked up the word in Strong's and found that the word was bitumen which is basically tar. Now where did this petroleum product come from before the flood. Might lend credence to this mans theory. Before I'm flamed I know coal was formed from the flood, and it is possible other hydrocarbons were also, but makes one think doesn't it.

I watched a video yesterday about global warming. In looking at past records, including in ice cores from Greenland and Antartica, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does correlate with average global temperatures, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere lags by several hundred years after changes in temperature, thus although CO2 is a greenhouse gas, cause and effect are reversed.

The conclusion appears to be that as the sun's activity increases, cosmic rays originating outside the solar system are deflected away from the earth, and as these cosmic rays help seed the formation of clouds from water vapour, which is an even more important greenhouse gas than CO2, this inhibits the formation of clouds. As clouds reflect a large fraction of sunlight incident on them back into space, they have a coolling effect. When the sun becomes less active, then the whole process is reversed. Thus variations in the activity in the sun indirectly affect the earth, and perhaps directly as well. The oceans are a major source or sink of CO2, and when water heats up the CO2 is liberated. However, there is a lag of several hundred years due to the time it takes deap water to heat up, or cool down, depending on solar activity.

As pointed out in the video, there is a radical left wing group in the enviromentalist movement who are anti-industry and anti-modern society. It was also pointed out that CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is natural component of the atmosphere, and most CO2 is produced by natural processes, with a small fraction produced by burning fossil fuels.

This brings me to another point, in order to understand the changing climate, it's necessary to look at records going back many hundreds of thousands and even millions of years through glaciology and geology respectively. Most Christians are against at least the radical elements of environmentalism, quoting Scripture saying God created man to have dominion over the earth. Fine, I certainly agree with that. Unfortunately, some of these Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and there was a global flood about 1500 years later, for which there is no evidence. Consequently, they are undermining their own arguments against radical environmentalism by rejecting the science that could back up their claims in the name of a particular dogmatic interpretation of the Bible, and a general anti-science stance. How can people put forward coherent arguments if they reject a good fraction of the science that could back up their arguments?

[blitzkreig]

But Al Gore ... the guy who invented the internet said ...

[Cd4u]

I don't think any scientists can convince environmentalists (or however you call them) because they are more afraid that human race will extinct like dinosaurs. They are not really concern about the earth because it will always be OK.