AGW petition

  • News
  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #1
4,464
66

Main Question or Discussion Point

After reading: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/longversionfinal.pdf [Broken]

You may want to consider this:

http://patriotpetitions.us/StopGore/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
verty
Homework Helper
2,164
198
That's not enough. How are the other scientists mislead? Where lies their mistake?
 
  • #3
The Nine Facts

1.Climate change is a constant.The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial
periods from 415,000 years ago to the present.The Greenland Ice Cores reveal
a Minoan Warm Period 1450 –1300 BC,a Roman Warm Period 250 –0 BC,the
Mediaeval Warm Period 800 –1100AD,the Little Ice Age.
All of these can be explained purely by natural phenomena

2.Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric
concentrations are bene ficial to plant growth,particularly in arid conditions.
Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are al-
ready saturated,increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels
will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
Increased drought generally is not conducive to growth and neither are unusually large amounts of rainfall, to say this will increase growth is dismissing the bigger picture. See link below.

3.The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval
Warm Period,an era of great achievement in European civilisation.The recent
warm period,1976 –2000,appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists
who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25 –50 years could be a cool
period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
This is understood and accounted, for, it is supposed it will give us some breathing space.

4.The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made)carbon dioxide emissions and
current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976
to 2000.Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon
dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth,and thus determines aver-
age global temperatures,have failed.
What do you suggest we do not use correlation, predictive models are not meant to be accurate, they are meant to reflect past indicators, but no one claims they are 100% accurate, they are guestimates based on our best information to date.

5.The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are
agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control;that the
science is settled and the debate is over;and that scienti fic sceptics are in the pay
of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
These claims are an expression of hope,not of reality.
Er no scientists don't deal in hope, just evidence, if they didn't see enough of that they wouldn't be comfortable making predictions.

6.Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic
emissions of CO 2 for high temperatures,droughts,melting polar ice caps,rising
sea levels and retreating glaciers,and a decline in the polar bear population.
They also blame anthropogenic CO 2 for blizzards,unseasonable snow,freez-
ing weather generally and for hurricanes,cyclones and other extreme weather
events.There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.
I wouldn't take a politicians views as seriously as I would a scientists, Al Gore whilst he means well is guilty of somewhat sensationalising matters.

7.Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible
impact on the earth ’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth every-
where.There is no need to sequester CO 2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear
or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
Not necessarily

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

The plots thicken

The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.

"Based on earlier single-treatment studies with elevated CO2, we initially hypothesized that, with the combination of all four treatments together, the response would be additional growth," said W. Rebecca Shaw, a researcher with the Nature Conservancy of California and lead author of the Science study.

But results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation alone or in combination promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO2 consistently dampened those increases.

"The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote.

The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO2 was about 4.9 tons per acre compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO2 levels were kept normal. However, when higher amounts of CO2 gas were added to plots with normal temperature, moisture and nitrogen levels, aboveground plant growth increased by nearly a third.

Why would elevated CO2 in combination with other factors have a suppressive effect on plant growth? The researchers aren't sure, but one possibility is that excess carbon in the soil is allowing microbes to outcompete plants for one or more limiting nutrients.

"By applying all four treatments, we may be repositioning the ecosystem so that another environmental factor becomes limiting to growth," Field observed. "For example, by increasing plant growth as a result of adding water or nitrogen, the ecosystem may become more sensitive to limitation by another mineral nutrient such as phosphorous, potassium or something else we hadn't been measuring."

A new five-year experiment is underway at the Jasper Ridge site to analyze potential limiting nutrients in the soil along with microbial-plant interactions and the molecular biology of the vegetation.
8.‘Tropical ’diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to tem-
perature but to poverty,lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control
practices.
This is sloppy the habitat of the malarial mosquito is a warm and humid one, increase these two and it will spread to areas which are warmer. Yes poverty is a factor but so is natural habitat, which probably explains why Malaria was present in Middle Age southern Europe.

9.The decarbonisation of the world ’s economy would,if attempted,cause huge
economic dislocation.Any democratic government which seriously sought to
ful fil decarbonisation commitments would lose of fice.Shutting down coal-fired
power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as
windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic depriva-
tion.
Of course our country is in ruins financially, it's hell, why oh why did we achieve our Kyoto protocols? :rolleyes:

This is where this sort of stuff comes from the Big Business Group of Ardent Skeptics With No Formal Scientific Training. I question the bias here.

There is no global conspiracy against big business, the consensus is not formed by computer nerds and conspiracy theorists, but by scientists, I find it hard to believe there all just not listening to the obvious truth. Even if they're wrong the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. More efficiency, lower power costs, cleaner air, and less death related to pollution. Frankly I'd support it anyway.

EDIT: Signing this petition is like signing a death warrant to those who will suffer because of the narrow minded views of the politically gullible(mostly those in developing countries) Or those who take an obviously biased government as indicative of there scientific view point(a government I might had that has tried to censor scientific reports into global warming several times) :rolleyes:

As said even if there is no global warming benefit the restriction of pollution and the efficient use of resources, more than makes up for anything, it's a no lose situation either way; businesses will even lower costs in the long run, and it simply isn't that devastating or hard monetarily? As we in England have capably shown - having steady growth economically since the policies were implemented - this is a fallacy. Hear ends the political broadcast on behalf of the Green party :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #6
4,464
66
Mosquito's

This is sloppy the habitat of the malarial mosquito is a warm and humid one, increase these two and it will spread to areas which are warmer. Yes poverty is a factor but so is natural habitat, which probably explains why Malaria was present in Middle Age southern Europe.
Talking about sloppy, why not try this:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm

....Claims that malaria resurgence is due to climate change ignore these realities and disregard history. For example, the many statements that recent climate change has caused malaria to ascend to new altitudes (10,31,32) are contradicted by records of its distribution in 1880 to 1945 ....
Furthermore..


As said even if there is no global warming benefit the restriction of pollution and the efficient use of resources, more than makes up for anything, it's a no lose situation either way; businesses will even lower costs in the long run, and it simply isn't that devastating or hard monetarily? As we in England have capably shown - having steady growth economically since the policies were implemented - this is a fallacy. Hear ends the political broadcast on behalf of the Green party :smile:
CO2 is not pollution and polluters can be fought in other ways.

How about having spent all our surplus capital to windmills producing less than 30% of their capacity, in 50 years there are no sufficiet assets anymore to replace aging renewables due to the extreme negative economic balance. How happy we are with the clean air, when solar deflecting panels in space are dimming the sun when we are just in the next Maunder minimum little ice age around 2030. And when the global warming hoax is overtaken by that reality there will be some very big loosers, science being in the top five.

There is only one "no-regret option" and that's going nuclear but nothing justifies a scam forcing it, if it works at all. And it will backfire for sure.
 
  • #7
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
175
I'll send Gore some money to help the cause. :biggrin:
 

Related Threads on AGW petition

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
138
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top