on 20-10-2014 12:17 PM
Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade
There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace.
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’
Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher
He said: ‘There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia.
The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’
Even if the earth does warm up, Moore claims that it will be to the advantage of humans and other forms of life, as ‘humans are a tropical species’.
He said: ‘It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’
Humans, he added, just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes.
Moore said that he left Greenpeace because it ‘took a sharp turn to the political left’.
on 21-10-2014 11:23 AM
@flygal.funfactor wrote:Do you realise c02 is carbon dioxide....not carbon monoxide?
Yes, the stuff that plants breathe, I was pointing out that dioxide isn't the only thing poluting the environment. Also, if there is more dioxide than oxygen and not enough trees to turn it into oxygen due to deforestation we may find ourselves going on the endangered list.
You cut down all the trees to build your houses, pour all the things into the air that pushes out the little oxygen we do have, and what do you think will happen? I'm not sayin everything we hear about global warming is true, i'm sure much of it is exassurated, but I do believe theres something to it, and global warming or not, we should take care of the planet that takes care of us. I mean it's not like we can redally leave and go to another planet capable of supporting us.
C02 is not a pollutant, nor is it polluting the environment.
Plants thrive on increased c02 levels.... and use water more efficiently.
21-10-2014 11:57 AM - edited 21-10-2014 12:00 PM
Its back!!!!
SRBA: "What global warming?.......global temperatures haven't increased for nearly two decades..." Nonsense, but I suppose you still choose a very warm El Nino year (1998) as your starting reference whilst ignoring long term trend. So lets start with Spencer your "champion" who has written:
What Causes Weather?
"Let’s start with the basics: Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter)"
Temperature differences are the root cause of weather, not pressure.
Here is Roy's latest set of figures
UAH Global Temperature Update for Sept. 2014: +0.29 deg. C
October 2nd, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
"The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2014 is +0.29 deg. C, up from the August value of +0.20 deg. C. Whoops, warming? Even non scientific types might notice a "trend" with the red 13 month average line, (might?)
Basic atmospheric science:
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere in 2013 ,estimated to be 38.8 billion tonnes, 40% of that is not absorbed, resulting in a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thus it will contribute to a positive global warming trend. Weather (climate) is caused t
by temperature differentials, thus our climate is destined to change over time . However, unlike in the past when changes in temperature/climate occurred over many thousands of years these changes have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
We will not halt what is happening, perhaps slow it down a little, so we must adapt. Just saying I don't believe it, is silly, believe the majority of scientists who apply the Scientific Method, and do.
nɥºɾ
on 21-10-2014 12:09 PM
Plants thrive on increased c02 levels.... and use water more efficiently.
Ideally, trees would thrive on it and make their waste product "oxygen" for us to breathe. Only there are no more trees, humans cut them all down. The amount of oxygen produced by weeds just isn't gonna be enough. Because weeds grow and spread more redally rapidly than trees, we are over run with them, also, many plants/weeds actually put off harmfull toxins into the air that wouldn't kill us, but can make us sick. Poison Ivy, oak, ect..
There are wooded areas around here but no big trees, I fear the small trees won't become big trees in my lifetime. So yes, plants use c02 and to the plants, oxygen is polution "a waste product" Simply put, we are putting way too much c02, and other waste products like carbon monoxide, forine, lithium, bisphinal, and litterally hundreds more into water, air, and soil. Theres no way I am going to believe that this can't harm us in some ways, or possiblly kill us.
If there are no trees to use it, where is it gonna go and where are we gonna get our oxygen?
on 21-10-2014 12:31 PM
@flygal.funfactor wrote:Plants thrive on increased c02 levels.... and use water more efficiently.
Ideally, trees would thrive on it and make their waste product "oxygen" for us to breathe. Only there are no more trees, humans cut them all down. The amount of oxygen produced by weeds just isn't gonna be enough. Because weeds grow and spread more redally rapidly than trees, we are over run with them, also, many plants/weeds actually put off harmfull toxins into the air that wouldn't kill us, but can make us sick. Poison Ivy, oak, ect..
There are wooded areas around here but no big trees, I fear the small trees won't become big trees in my lifetime. So yes, plants use c02 and to the plants, oxygen is polution "a waste product" Simply put, we are putting way too much c02, and other waste products like carbon monoxide, forine, lithium, bisphinal, and litterally hundreds more into water, air, and soil. Theres no way I am going to believe that this can't harm us in some ways, or possiblly kill us.
If there are no trees to use it, where is it gonna go and where are we gonna get our oxygen?
Seriously?........ Humans cut all the trees down?.......Don't you wonder where your oxygen comes from.....
What is the evidence that there is too much c02 in the atmosphere........
on 21-10-2014 12:33 PM
@monman12 wrote:Its back!!!!
SRBA: "What global warming?.......global temperatures haven't increased for nearly two decades..." Nonsense, but I suppose you still choose a very warm El Nino year (1998) as your starting reference whilst ignoring long term trend. So lets start with Spencer your "champion" who has written:
What Causes Weather?
"Let’s start with the basics: Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter)"
Temperature differences are the root cause of weather, not pressure.
Here is Roy's latest set of figures
UAH Global Temperature Update for Sept. 2014: +0.29 deg. C
October 2nd, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
"The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2014 is +0.29 deg. C, up from the August value of +0.20 deg. C. Whoops, warming? Even non scientific types might notice a "trend" with the red 13 month average line, (might?)
Basic atmospheric science:
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere in 2013 ,estimated to be 38.8 billion tonnes, 40% of that is not absorbed, resulting in a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thus it will contribute to a positive global warming trend. Weather (climate) is caused t
by temperature differentials, thus our climate is destined to change over time . However, unlike in the past when changes in temperature/climate occurred over many thousands of years these changes have occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
We will not halt what is happening, perhaps slow it down a little, so we must adapt. Just saying I don't believe it, is silly, believe the majority of scientists who apply the Scientific Method, and do.
nɥºɾ
Nice graphs.....and?
on 21-10-2014 04:14 PM
on 21-10-2014 04:33 PM
on 21-10-2014 04:39 PM
on 22-10-2014 06:43 AM
I'll see your cute little pictures, and raise you a documentary
Meltdown- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVyWwYU3XE
Air polution- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTsxx1KZwlM
Going on about c02 being good for the environment, fine, lets say it is and theres not enough and needs to be more. That still leaves hundreds of other toxins in the air, water and soil. We breathe it, drink it, eat it in our food.
Just look at the cancer rates over the past 100 years or so, compare, see the increase. Would anyone care to drink unfiltered water from the Ohio river?
on 22-10-2014 07:43 AM
Cancer rates over the last one hundred years?....... We also live a lot longer.......And?
How does that relate to the thread?