<<  <  Page 26/54  >  >>
User Rank
4000+ Scientists Say There Is No Reason For Alarm
Evidence   8/23/2012 12:11:03 PM
1000s of scientists today, with advanced degrees in atmospheric science, claim the global warming alarmists are wrong. See the list of 31,000+ scientists with advanced degrees who said basically the same thing (over 3000 with degrees in atmospheric science and over 5000 in Physics and Aerospace science, and 9000 with PhDs). Unfortunately, some of the scientists on this list have been verbally attacked so much that many of them would like to have not signed the petition. This list has also been attacked by claiming these were mostly made up names and titles. But even Wikipedia claims they are real scientists due to the test that was done:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases ..."

The enemies of this petition have even gone through the trouble to send physical letters in the mail as if they were real scientists, so they could get a few names on the list that were not real scientists (so they can discredit all the real signatures). See http://www.petitionproject.org/ or http://www.oism.org/pproject/ 

What does the evidence say? Even those who are Christians (Bible Christians, not denominational Christians) know what the Bible says in 1 Thess 5:21. It says, "Test all things, hold fast what is good." A Christian must follow the evidence because they have committed themselves to a love of (sacrifice for) the truth (see www.MiraculousBible.org or www.WhyBaptism.org). Right now the evidence for concern over Global Warming is primarily based on assumptions that have been disproved by other scientific facts (ice core data conflicts with erosion rates, etc.).

User Rank
Re: I thought skepticism was a good thing?
tekochip   8/23/2012 12:00:43 PM
Yes, water is opaque to IR, but Earth's water cycle is capable of moving water in and out of the atmosphere.  The CO2 cycle requires life to move the CO2 around and humans are contributing much more CO2 than the rest of life on Earth can consume.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Re: earth showing signs of wear and tear
Rob Spiegel   8/23/2012 11:42:04 AM
Good information, Etmax. Too often the argument regarding climate change has to do with emotion rather than science. Unfortunately, many believe science is just another point of view rather than something that can be proved and repeated.

User Rank
Re: earth showing signs of wear and tear
rczeranko   8/23/2012 11:29:00 AM
The problem with your 'experiment' is that a bottle is not an accurate model of the earth's atmosphere. You are comparing apples and oranges. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be. The bottle with gas heats because there is more room for the gas molecules to move around, which they do. The heating is caused by the excitation of the gas. Water is a very unique entity and there reallly is not much room for the molecules to move around. You also have to look at the thermal retention properties of gaseous CO2 versus liquid water (again apples and oranges).

And presenting a single case in which higher atmospheric CO2 caused certain plants to have issues, does not make a cause in the general sense. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and see the effects is has on plant life.

User Rank
Global warming cannot be proven.
jfs1970   8/23/2012 11:27:21 AM
In order for a theory to be proven, it MUST be able to pass the "scientific method" which has been used for centuries.  It MUST because the scientific method does not allow biased opinion (either scientific or political).  Global warming cannot be proven because there is no way to "pass" step 4:  Repeatability in a controlled way that can be measured accurately and PROVEN.  This is why true scientists do not accept the politically charged debate.  Pretty much the same as the debate about Darwinism.  Where is the proof of step #4?  Where is the "missing link"?  Even Darwin doubted his own theory after it was published.


User Rank
I thought skepticism was a good thing?
rczeranko   8/23/2012 11:18:35 AM
I have not read all the comments, but wanted to add that water vapor, which makes up a lot more of the atmosphere than CO2 is actually a larger driver in what the global warming alarmists believe in. I took an IR course a while back while working for a major defense contractor and what we learned in this course is that both CO2 and water vapor are IR opaque. So they keep IR out as much as they keep it in. Indeed, if CO2 levels are rising one might expect to see a cooling effect as solar IR would be blocked by the atmosphere. So I guess the next move will be to regulate water vapor in the atmosphere.

In addition, this so-called carbon sequestering sounds a lot like fracking, that the global warming alarmists are dead set against. What is the difference between injecting high pressure CO2 into the ground or injecting the fracting solution? If fracking is bad, then carbon sequestering cannot be all that good either. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, I always thought that skepticism was good for science. Isn't healthy skepticism, a questioning of the established norms, what pushes science and knowledge forward?

User Rank
Re: earth showing signs of wear and tear
etmax   8/23/2012 11:03:16 AM
If you place two clear drink bottles side by side, one containing air and one containing CO2 there is a temperature difference of a few degrees that can be measured if a thermocouple is placed inside. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that proves CO2 retains heat more than air.

Also since the 80's there have been incidences in Africa where some food crops have become toxic. The reasoning was that as CO2 levels rise plant grow with less effort and put the energy saved towards producing cyanide containing chemicals. This has since then been shown to be the case with crops grown in green houses where elevated CO2 levels were created. It's not all food crops, but Casava and I think from memory Tapioca was the other one were affected. A large number of people survive on these 2 foods.

Check this link out on this subject:


Science is supposed to evidence based, not imagination based, the above 2 experiments give me cause for concern.

User Rank
global warming bias
Whistlemaker   8/23/2012 10:46:10 AM
It is interesting that even among engineers and scientist there are some topics that we seem incapable of approaching with objectivity. Even defining the problem seems to tangle people up in some dark maze of religious and cultural preconceptions that is far away from how we normally would approach a practical problem of technology. The depth of the bias on both sides is revealed in these comments by how much of the discussion focuses on whether the potential for a globe changing environmental process is man made or a product of natural consequences.

What is it about humans facing a possible existential challenge that apparently requires us to respond by first arguing over who should be blamed.  If it happens will it be our fault, the fault of a blind evolutionary process or some arbitray act of God?

If we could trancend these irrelevant distractions the answers to whether or not climate change threatens our existence could be discovered through the application of the same tools that are presently allowing a dedicated group of humans to drive a very sophisticated golf cart around the surface of Mars.  

User Rank
Re: Get to the Bottom
kf2qd   8/23/2012 10:11:42 AM
Yeah - if the expert can't explain it then he doesn't understand it either.

User Rank
Lets look at the facts...
kf2qd   8/23/2012 10:08:29 AM
I live in South Texas, an area that definately watches the weather through the summer months. For all the warnings about how "Global Warming" is going to create fiercer and fiercer weather, the hurricanes during this supposed period of fiercer storms we have actually seen less severe storms and less damage due to storms.

Previous to moving to South Texas I lived in Northern Indiana. My boss ther had a fruit farm. The peaches that produced so well over the last 30 years were not producing any more because the winters were growing colder and the trees were freezing.

The big natural disaters of the past few years have had nothing to do with climate. As far as I know, earthquakes an tsunamis are not a climate effect. While there were a couple hurricanes that hit the USA, statistically, we were do to have a huricane or two hit the gulf and east coast becasue they happen to be populated areas that are in huricane prone ares. No supprise there. We put lots of people where storms hit. Peopple have problems with storms...

I know these are only anecdotal evidence, but if we looked at the weather trends I think we would find that the climate is very cyclic, and our evidence of such has been collected over a very short period of time. 80 years ago we had a severe drought. Got the name "The Dust Bowl". larger ares suffered because of a lack of precipitation and high temperatures. We have been able to reduce some of that effect by different farming practices, but when there is no rain the crops don't grow.

There are a number of us who look at the idea of a "cansensus" among scientists as a completely bogus argument. Over the centuries "scientists" have had a consensus about many things that were proved to be wrong. Earth Centered solar system, sponrtaneous generation of flies from rotten meat... If we looked at scientific history we might well find enugh evidence that when scientists form a consensus they are going to be found to be wrong. Let's rather look at all the models with as much skepticism as possible. Do any of those who have created the models have an agenda? have they been good prognosticators in the past? Are tehy willing to accept critical analysis of their work and be critical of their own results? Or are they going to be involved in suppressing the ideas of those who dissagree? Or are tehy doing poor science and using political pressure to accomplish what their evidence does not support. Unfortunately "science" has prostituted itself to politics and other sources of funding and has become a tool for control rather than knowledge.

<<  <  Page 26/54  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Today's robots should be respected, and humans should be wary of their growing skills and sophistication. Quite simply, robots are better than us in a lot of ways. Here are 10 of them.
3D printing has met up with drones in a 3D-printed UAV. University of Sheffield engineers printed the prototype drone in 24 hours from ABS plastic using Fused Deposition Modeling.
Product design is changing with advances in technology and outsourced manufacturing. The Art of Product Design spells out the future of design engineering.
AMD is set to launch the industry's first 16 GB workstation graphics card -- the W9100.
Samsung's 5th-generation Android-based Galaxy smartphone includes a fingerprint scanner, updated camera and display, and water/dust resistance.
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service