Global Warming Documentary

[ProTouring442]

Originally Posted by RussMS

I remember sitting through a documentary in 1986 saying that all fossil fuels would be used up in 12 years so we had to find alternative fuel sources. Now almost 10 years beyond that mark, we are not in a crisis. While it may one day come to pass that we do deplete our earth's petroleum reserves, I do not believe that we can accurately predict when that will be.

My 2 cents anyway.

Don't forget, we actually don't know how the oil got there. We keep finding more, even after we predict there shouldn't be more. It's a process we don't understand, any more than we understand the enviroment.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[Doug Harden]

The scariest part of all of this is the fervor that this myth is being shoved down our throats and into policy....

The result is a cadre of GW believers and plenty of doubters among the so-called "scientific community." Which group gets the media attention and lucrative research grants? Which gets ignored, marginalized, ostracized, demonized, sometimes fired and even death threats? Yes, death threats! Such is the depth of GWF passion.

The New York Times, among others, took Gore's GW Inconvenient Truth film apart for its errors and exaggerations. He says CO2 is the most important "greenhouse" gas. But 95 percent of that mix supposedly causing Earth to cook is water vapor; CO2 is four percent.

For example, just two percent of Antarctica is dramatically warming while 98 percent is cooling, according to Bjorn Lomborg, author of the widely acclaimed book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, and sea mass is increasing in the Northern Hemisphere while decreasing in the Southern Hemisphere. And global temperatures dropped for three decades following their recent high point in 1940 despite increasing levels of CO2. Now they are rising again and approaching that 1940 high. These cycles correlate closely with solar activity, not CO2.


What seems difficult for non-scientific GWFs and GW believers to grasp is that two things happening simultaneously - increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures - are not necessarily linked. Is increasing human life expectancy caused by increasing CO2?

The fact that CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been, Easterbrook points out, "does not mean that CO2 is causing global warming. The increase in CO2 since about 1945 has been from 0.03 percent [of the Earth's atmosphere] to 0.038 percent, a change of only 0.008 percent. The data I have indicates that CO2 is not the cause."

All human activity (including breathing) produces about 3.3 percent as much CO2 as does nature itself, primarily from solar ocean heating and decaying plants and animals. While CO2 now comprises 0.038 percent of the total global atmosphere, human activity contributes just four percent of that, and the U.S. supposedly 25 percent of that four percent. So if the entire United States were to disappear overnight, the resulting reduction in generation of new "greenhouse" gas would be one percent!

.......listen to geologist Easterbrook: "Extending the past [global temperature] pattern into the future," he contends, "we should start cooling again beginning between sometime this year and 2010." That should eventually hush GWF hysteria and send doomsayers over the edge (again) about "global cooling," as in the mid-'70s. He further projects that the globe will cool "half a degree or so" between 2010 and 2040, warm between 2040 and 2070, and cool again from 2070 to 2100, "give or take five years."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...92.A12354.html

[rlplive]

Nice, that really got me thinking. I wanted to rent an inconvenient truth but I don't think I will anymore.

[mstennes]

My question is "how has come that so many people buy into the GW myth?" One more, how is that Al Gore can prech it but than build this huge mansion that will use 5 times more energy than the average house lead the charge against GW. Are people really that dense that they follow by words and not example with no hard proof?