Its the rise of Cli-Fi (Climate Fiction) as opposed to Sci-Fi. Its complete crap.
Unfortunately we humans are self-centered and vain enough to believe that our activity on the planet far outweighs the ability of naturally occurring phenomenon to generate CO2. Holywood has a lot to gain by that.
Your average human really could do with a good education on earth processes and geological evolution of our planet to really understand the gaping holes in the 'global warming' argument.
I agree Colin but still entertaining to watch.
Some "scientists" say global warming is caused by cow and cattle farts creating too much methane, LOL.
This old earth did well before humans came and will do so long after we are gone. On a 24 hour scale humans have been on Earth about 8 seconds.
Neutron Stars Rip Each Other Apart to Form Black Hole
This supercomputer simulation shows one of the most violent events in the universe: a pair of neutron stars colliding, merging and forming a black hole. A neutron star is the compressed core left behind when a star born with between eight and 30 times the sun's mass explodes as a supernova. Neutron stars pack about 1.5 times the mass of the sun -- equivalent to about half a million Earths -- into a ball just 12 miles (20 km) across.
Goddard Multimedia Item 11530 - Neutron Stars Rip Each Other Apart to Form Black Hole
A Guy
If I remember correctly this Glolbal Warming cause by mankind got it's big boost by our buddy Al Gore who was also promoting the sale of carbon credits.
Al Gore's carbon foot print.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate...carbon_fo.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Globa...ory?id=2906888
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-...ge-bushs-ranch
Carbon credits put simple were going to be use to allow compiles to purchase the right to use more carbon energy.
I let you all figure out who's friends was going to control the sale of extra carbon credits.
Lets say you own a factory that makes wig-its and you are allowed 3 carbon credits per month.
Because of improving the sales of wig-its you need to hire another shift of workers and produce more wig-its for the new market demand. Therefor you will be needing more carbon energy for the extra production.
No problem, all the companies has to do is buy some extra carbon credits from ( ) buddies.
( ) buddies don't care how much carbon foot print the factory has as long as they are buying the extra carbon credit from them.
In my neck of the woods that is called a con game.
As Golden posted in #271, I must agree.
Where I live in Ohio just a few miles from Lake Erie (one of the 5 great lakes) it's estimated that during the Ice Age the glacier was about 1 mike thick (high) where the Great Lakes are now located. Can you even imagine how much Global Warming it to to melt that glacier back to where it is located now. At the time of the glacier melting their wasn't one coal fired industrial plant and for sure not many SUV's.
I'm thinking that the population of mankind was also limited.
Some interesting reading on termites. They are our friends.
Termite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As an energy source
The U.S. Department of Energy is researching ways to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of cleaner energy, and termites are considered a possible way to reach this goal through metagenomics.[21]
Termites may produce up to two litres of hydrogen from digesting a single sheet of paper, making them one of the planet’s most efficient bioreactors.[22] Termites achieve this high degree of efficiency by exploiting the metabolic capabilities of about 200 different species of microbes that inhabit their hindguts. The microbial community in the termite gut efficiently manufactures large quantities of hydrogen; the complex lignocellulose polymers within wood are broken down into simple sugars by fermenting bacteria in the termite’s gut, using enzymes that produce hydrogen as a byproduct. A second wave of bacteria uses the simple sugars and hydrogen to make the acetate the termite requires for energy. By sequencing the termite's microbial community, the DOE hopes to get a better understanding of these biochemical pathways. If it can be determined which enzymes are used to create hydrogen, and which genes produce them, this process could potentially be scaled up with bioreactors to generate hydrogen from woody biomass, such as poplar, in commercial quantities.
Skeptics regard this as unlikely to become a carbon-neutral commercial process owing to the energy inputs required to maintain the system. For decades, researchers have sought to house termites on a commercial scale (like worm farms) to break down woody debris and paper, but funding has been scarce, and the problems of developing a continuous process that does not disrupt the termites' homeostasis have not been overcome
A disclaimer - I am a professional scientist, but a biologist, not a climate expert. My insights come from understanding how science works and how scientific advances are resisted by those who wish they weren't true.
The prediction that was made when it became obvious that the earth's climate was changing, decades ago, was that there would be a greater occurrence of extreme weather events. That has happened (read here, and here).
Devising a hypothesis, making a prediction based on it, observing the accuracy of the hypothesis, then adjusting it to make a new hypothesis - that is science. It does not mean that the climate change hypothesis is true: it just means that it's the best explanation we have come up with so far. What I see here from climate denialists are the usual arguments from personal incredulity, coupled with vague conspiracy theories. Saying that it's obviously wrong and been promulgated by Al Gore is not a scientific hypothesis.
Have a look at this site, and this one. Scientists admit their uncertainties, explain their reasoning, adjust their thinking in the light of new evidence. That is what enlightened science looks like, and its best current guess is that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible. There will be sea level changes and alterations in weather patterns that will require huge efforts to withstand.
Depressingly, I am now wondering how long it will be before I get flamed.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Take a read here.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes
This link Ice Ages Blamed on Tilted Earth | LiveScience Steve (Anak) posted explains a lot about why glaciers recede without mans presence and ice ages are a natural occurrence with and without man. I think if Man's presence has even a tiny effect on global climate it won't be of any concern to us, man will become extinct the same as 1000's of other species have, and that's not our fault either.
Theres no need for any flaming I don't think. Afterall fellow scientists shouldn't be using the word 'climate deniers'...should they. The opposite of a denier is a believer, and no scientists worth their salt would ever use that word
Im also a professional scientist, but a geologist. My viewpoint is based purely on knowledge of earth processes and the history of the planet. I have no doubt our climate is changing - I'm just not convinced human activity has that great an impact.
The global warming phenomenon is based on measurements since about the 1850's - an infinitesimal sampling of our planets history - but it is a well established scientific observation, that our planet has gone through several periods of alternate heating and cooling, and will continue to do so. We just happen to be at the peak of a warm cycle.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old - 160 odd years of temperature measurement is an insignificant period on which to make observations and then make predictions. The climate always has changed, and always will - fact. There is nothing humankind can do about it.
Source:
Historical Temperatures and Climate Change | Science Articles | PlanetSEED
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data
Quote
