Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Implications of Republican sweep, part II

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It is so unfortunate that pure scientific method has been bastardized by global warming types. To sum up the methods and conclusions of Gary's links, "A (increased CO2 measurements) is occuring along with B (average global tempuratures), therefore there is a causal relation between A and B, and we believe that A is in fact causing B." This type of simplistic corelational thought is what undermines true scientific analysis. Did it occur to anyone that using this approach we could also say that B (global rising tempuratures) are conversely causing A (increased CO2 levels)? Believe it or not, there are now a number of scientists who are saying just that, since the basic laws of physics would suggest increasing CO2 in concurrance along with increasing temperatures. As temperatures rise, plant growth increases, which also increases the amount of biomass exposed to oxidation. It takes a while before plant growth can catch up to the temperature rise and begin to sequester CO2 in greater quantities. Rather than get into a fight over who can provide the most links to prove their side, I will ask anyone to disprove the ones we've already provided. The links to sites which completely disprove the man-caused global warming theories are irrefutable, while the links provided by Andrew and Gary all have major omissions of the salient variables regarding greenhouse gas elements and these itemized gases' contributions to the greenhouse effect. All the models which support man-caused global warming leave out water vapor in their analysis, which is such absolutely absurd if one wants a true global climate impact model. All those models also make assumptions regarding man's contribution to current CO2 levels, assuming most if not all of the difference in pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels from current CO2 levels is due soley to man's burning of fossil fuels, ignoring the fact that it is more likely that CO2 levels will naturally rise in correspondence to rising tempurature. Lastly, they also completely ignore the one for one relationship between solar activity and global climate changes. Gary and Andrew, I challenge you to go back through the links you've provided, and see if the models used to "prove" man is causing global warming have the omissions I have just mentioned, e.g. no accounting of atmospheric water vapor, no acknowledgement of the probable positive relationship between rising tempuratures and a corresponding rise in CO2 levels (or "B" causing "A" rather than "A" causing "B"), or even the lack of relationship between man-caused CO2 emissions and the MIddle Ages warming period (in which plant growth data show that temperatures then were much warmer than today, and as far as we know no rise in sea levels or massive species extinction were measurably noticed in the historical record of the time). If you can't, then case closed!
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag