Machiavelli Wrote:We have tested Ice sheets core samples back 650,000 years. Never have C02 concentrations been over 300 ppm. Today we are at 375 ppm. We are gaining on avg. 2 ppm every year. When you consider 275 ppm would throws us back into an ice age what will happen when we go over 400 ppm.
Ok, so we've been over 350 ppm for how long? A few decades? And yet, we have no clear proof of GW.
Quote:In the next 50 years we will find out if we don't do something about it. There is BIG MONEY in throwing doubt into this equation.
There is also big money in perpetuating this notion. Or have you noticed that these scientists aren't living in squalor, and there are big-time lawsuits from "displaced peoples".
Quote:Casting doubt on global warming as a theory. Now in science a theory is well tested and never disprovened. Some people get confused and think of scientific laws vs. theories. Like a theory can one day graduate into a law. Nothing is farther from the truth and big oil and those who doubt evolution have been very effective in planting seeds of doubt in our public's mind.
I might know a little something about scientific theory. First of all, to be an accepted theory, you need to have clear evidence. You also need to have tests. This has not been done w/ GW.
Secondly oh might science teacher, what is being overlooked in your historical data is the difference between causality and correlation. Did low CO2 levels CAUSE ice ages, or do they simply correlate w/ ice ages b/c of another event?
Sure, the mechanism of thermal capture by CO2 is at least a plausible mechanism, but it has not been verified. Low CO2 leading to low temps does not necessarily mean that high CO2 leads to high temps...the whole system is non-linear, and it's not even a reasonable approximation to extrapolate linerarly.
Your sources also IGNORE the UNDISPUTED fact that there has been increased solar output over the time frame associated w/ GW. One letter to the editor described publishing such material as "irresponsible". I find that disturbing that a "scientist" is advocating that scientific observables should be hidden from the public.
The advocates for GW also tend to "cherry pick" the data that supports their thesis. I know this b/c I have seen the data firsthand, and read the primary literature. Have you?
Finally, your sources ignore the fact that even the best models to date are relatively simplistic in their methodologies, and the actual users are less likely to champion these extreme scenarios. I know b/c I had such a conversation w/ someone from NCAR...at an Earth Sciences & Technology Conference.
Quote:As long as their is DOUBT some people could care less.
As long as there is some doubt, people should be shutting up and working harder...not preaching doom and gloom, which ironically they did in the 1970s when they were promising a new ice-age. Oops.
<-- Graybeard
