I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine... Before Europeans Canada was one huge monoculture from coast to coast"; or "We found the honey bees rolling around in the pesticide and they showed no ill effects"... It really is quite depressing. And the fact that the public believes these people is just the icing on the cake.

Exactly! You get it! CO2 is not a 'traditional' pollutant, but in excess it sure as hell is a pollutant. When the level of a gas increases too fast for the planet to adapt, and when it causes undesirable consequences, it is a pollutant.

Here's my analogy (Please DO NOT try this at home):

Seal a single room in your house completely. Make sure there is no gas exchange between this room and the air outside of this room. Now, you go into this room and see how long you last. There is no 'pollution' in the traditional sense (well, maybe some methane and some background radiation... And probably some stuff form the plastic you used to seal the room), but I guarantee that it won't take too long for the air to become 'polluted' in the sense I'm using! I also guarantee that it won't be the traditional pollutants that kills you.

Oversimplified? You bet.

Fill a room up with water and you will drown, but it will have to rain a lot before that happens.

Fill a room up with water and you will drown, but it will have to rain a lot before that happens.

A very different situation. But yes, if we were producing water as a bi-product of industry (from non-water sources), it could become a concern (there is a concern about the documented melting of glaciers and sea level rise, but this is different again). Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, so, yes, in certain circumstances water could be a pollutant.

No one has pointed out that most of the greenhouse gas methane is produced naturally...

LOL.Wow is Bob Carter the only one questioning G.W. C.C. His video still has plenty of data to back up what he is stating. Thousands of scientists are not buying the dogma presented by the IPCC. Maybe we can go through all the pro IPCC scientists and see where their funding comes from? Billions upon billions of carbon tax dollars are riding on the public buying into G.W. C.C. They make sure we get our daily dose of G.W. C.C. agenda everyday on the news. The house of cards is slowly beginning to crumble beneath the weight of deception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Position:_Accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections_is_questionable
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php I don`t think most people would know there is such opposition amongst scientists of G.W. C.C. This topic is helping get the word out though. Thanks 8) ,

John

Drumroll...
media release: the following has now been added--by the esteemed IPCC--as greenhouse gases: air, water, daffodils, popcorn, Gucci handbags, Scholl's corn plasters, garden rakes, wooden rulers, yoghurt, augers, diving boards, gliders, spider webs, palms, family photos, postage stamps, acrylic paintings, theatre tickets, ice skates, bobby pins, roosters, acorns, canoes, whales, beeswax, aspirin, hot chocolate, grass seed, rubber bands, mirrors, hole punchers, hammers, and lock de-icers.

Naturally all the above contribute immensely to ocean acidification, soon to be proven to release such unimaginable quantities that they exceed the effects of methane release from deep-sea rifts and former perma-frost.
Ya right.

Barb

No one has pointed out that most of the greenhouse gas methane is produced naturally...

So true 😉 Good luck with the GW/CC Thing. 😀

I can tell you that any climate scientists worth a damn in Canada would be getting funding through NSERC or maybe NASA (there may be specific funding sources for physicists that I, as a biologist, am unaware of). A common misunderstanding is that real science (read unbiased) is on an equal level with that paid for by a company (which can be well funded, but expects a certain result). It is not.

You are free to believe what you like. You're both misguided, which is unfortunate, but expected when only half an argument is presented, and data are cherry-picked. Not your fault. You don't understand the chemistry, and when you don't understand something it is difficult to realize that you are being purposely led astray. An example from my field: http://creationrevolution.com/2011/03/flower-evolves-in-the-wrong-direction/

Note: This article is complete nonsense, but it is by design.

I do like that petition John, Good on you for posting it, I'll have a look through it.

I won't argue this any further. It is very frustrating.

I won't argue this any further. It is very frustrating.

Take a break and come back in a month or so. You can find some good reads in .GOV web sites, that is where I get alot of my info. It is a govement web, mostly fact not theory. 😀
Dont give up, just think what would have happened if nobody challanged GW, gas would be 10 dollars a gallon and you would have to pay twice as much for food. But if there is a silver bullet for GW/CC you might be the one to get it back on the table. Because if someone can show some real CO2 facts for the rise of temps, or is that the lower of temps...anyways it should be shared.

I once belived, help me change my mind. 😐

Paul people do understand the theory behind G.W C.C. everybody does. We`ve been told to! What I `am in total disagreement is taking that theory and inflating numbers, monopolizing the debate, pushing an agenda, and scare mongering. I`ve never heard such non debate in my life in the media regarding a subject. This is Global warming "time for debate is over" like it or lump it. Don`t you dare disagree with the all mighty scientists of the IPCC. We will discredit, ridicule, deny you. "MONEY" is the reason. Isn`t it always! Any contradictory evidence you bring to the table that C02 is playing a "far much smaller role" in the earths warming and now cooling trend will be dismissed. Now I`m done with this. Back to growing and planting palms,yuccas,bananas. Weather forecast for spring here in B.C. is colder and wetter.

I agree that the GW theory is generally presented as 'fact'. Scientists and the news media need to do a better job presenting this data as a theory and not as fact. Jim Hanson is the head of GISS of NASA and is claimed to be the most notable climatologist. Here's his climate model as presented to congress back in 1988. It's been over 22 years...........you be the judge...............do we know how to model the climate?

<img src= >

I'm not very impressed with the prediction. Our global temps are lower than the lowest prediction. 2011 global temps through february are +0.0C.

This is why thers is such a huge debate over it too. There are many differences between global warming, and climate change. Most of the world seems to be warming generaly, but when you look at europe over the last few years, namley the UK, they are definetly getting COLDER. WHen you talk to people from england that are over 50 years old, they tell you of stories where the summers are hot ( well relitivley), sunny and stories of sunburn:S

I dont think its global warming, but I do belive the climate is changing. Stronger weather patterns, less rain in some areas, more in others. Plants are already moving up mountain slopes to get more cool air, corals and other sensitive plants are retreating further underwater. IF things arent changing, then why are there all of a sudden state sized ice shelves preaking off of the ice sheets? Not to mention the polar ice sheet is shrinking.

The thing that lots of us dont realise, is that the planet goes warm and cool every few thousand years. We should be cooling right now, if things were generaly staying the same, or "normal", but we generaly arent. There has been no real debate on the fact that its changing, or warming, but once again, its the cause that is the real debate. We seem incapible of thinking that we have something to do with it, when more and more evidence is showing a correlation between an increase in Co2 emmisions, and general warming trends. The bottom line is, the climate has changed before, without out us even being around. A few hundred million years ago, the earth was one giant ice ball. During the time of the dinosaurs, the climate was WAY warmer, with higher amounts of C02 we have now. During the midevil period, europe was on average 3C colder then it is today.

Humans have been through climate change many times in our history. 150 000 years ago in africa ( i believe this is the right date), there is thought to have been only 10 000 hominids left ( our branch). Climate change cause africa to to heat up, and dry. Our species were literaly prisoners in a few random oasis before the climate changed, and africa became a vast savannah.

12 000 years ago, after the last interglacial period, europe was under glaciation for the most part, and the climate in the black sea/ middle east region was dry and colder. When the climate changed again, africa dried up in 100 years. In north america, the last ice damn burst, relaseing trillions of tons of fresh water into the ocean, causing a massive flood to seperate the UK from europe, and flood the mediterranian sea, and also create the black sea as we see it today. This release of fresh water cause a mini ice age in europe only for a few hundred years. After it warmed up, farming was created.

Mabey something soemwhere in our psychys, we remember then climate shifts? Its been proven that subconsiously, we fear snakes, reptiles and insects, because at one point in our evolution our ancistors were food for these animals. Its the same adaptation we used to "remember" the right foods to eat, or feeling comfertable in a savannah type enviroment ( most of our yards are savannah, a few trees here and there, with large spans of short grass). Mabey we fear the change of climate so much, that part of us totaly wishes to disregard it?

/

I agree that the GW theory is generally presented as 'fact'. Scientists and the news media need to do a better job presenting this data as a theory and not as fact.

I'm not very impressed with the prediction. Our global temps are lower than the lowest prediction. 2011 global temps through february are +0.0C.

Not on CC, but you have to be careful calling something a fact vs. a theory. A theory is a scientifically validated explanation of a given set of data. In science only mathematics have the luxury of 'proving' an idea. This is opposed to a hypothesis which is a proposed, but not tested, explanation for a given phenomenon. You still this is invalid argument given against evolution ("Evolution is JUST a theory")... Well, I'd say (and so would any credible scientist, presented with the data) that the theory of evolution is certainly correct. It has been subjected to 130 years of consistent testing and has passed every test.

Some other theories:
The Big Bang Theory
The Theory of Gravity
The Shape of the Earth
Climate Change Theory ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.635/full , The theory explains the observed temperature trends (warming) are human caused. An alternate would be that the observed warming is not due to human influence. An easily disproven theory would be that there has been no warming.)
Plate Tectonics
Cell Theory
Germ Theory
Atomic theory

More reading (I know, wikipedia is not a good source, but it is useful for simple explanations):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Paul,
in class, I drop an eraser. That it is falls is a fact; "gravity" is a theory to account for why it fell.
And not, by the way, as robust a theory as GW/CC....

As for additional theories for your list, my havorite is HIV/AIDS. AIDS is a fact; HIV as a cause is a theory. Former South Africa president Mbeki argued for years that AIDS was caused by poverty and that Africa needed more deveopment aid. He had two claims against the HIV theory: 1) it was premised on racist assumptions about African sexuality; 2) it was part of a conspiracy to let European and US pharmaceutical companies sell expensive drugs to poor African countries.

This article in Forbes (a conservative/right-wing magazine) raises an interesting question: whether Mbeki should be charged with crimes against humanity. I think you see where this is going in the present context 👿
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/08/mbeki-aids-africa-oped-cx_des_0108schoen.html
--Erik
P.S. this Forbes article links to the Harvard study. Is it too much to ask that we give reliable sources, given that none of us are experts?

The IPCC removed the medieval warm period. One must question their motives in this change. The current temp ramp up sure looks much worse without the medieval warm period.

<img src= >