I'm sure it is all of the probes that NASA has sent there in the last
decade. Probably messed up what little atmosphere the Martians have. I
bet they'll soon be filing a lawsuit ... as soon as we send them a lawyer.
If one really LISTENED to what was said on that program last night it was
obvious that they started with a premise then tried to convince you it was a
correct assumption. Everything was based on the increase in Caron dioxide
over the rears. The 'suggestion' was it was that and that alone that was
leading to a increase in temperature over the past 150 years!!! Lots of
theory's, as does a good lawyer, were put forth as questions but were
presented few definitive answers to those questions. 'If' it continues.
Melting ice caps 'may' lead to, 'could result' etc. At one point they even
suggest Florida and NYC 'Could' be under water, 'If' the ice caps ALL melted
etc. 'We don't know if El Ninio will shift south but if it DID it could
etc. Volcanoes, the sun, moon and tectonic plate movement were mentioned
but not one suggest that they even 'might' be related to the warming trend.
Many thinks were closed over. The admit there is no proof to show the
oceans are rising, not mentioning the fact there IS a record in ant-Attica
that the ocean there has dropped one and one half feet since Americans first
went there. Mention was made to recent hurricanes and the fact they were
more sever in 2005 than at any time in the past ten years. No mention of
the fact many period in the past, as recent as 1955 they were far more
severe. I tuned it off after an hour and a half as just one more outlet for
those vested in global warming. Sad, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we
should know the actual causes before we know if we can even try to 'do
I am all for it be a bit biased in one direction, as they NEVER showed
any of the conflicting research and scientists that claim the exact
opposite of what the show was claiming, but I am a little confused about
what you are writing above. You claim you really LISTENED to the show.
They did PROVE the ice caps, and other glaciers are melting at an
accelerated pace. The did PROVE that CO2 levels are higher than they
have ever been. They did show that the ocean levels have risen, albeit
What they did not prove is that it will have any permanent or seriously
detrimental effect to life as we know it.
However, the ex-NASA scientist (sorry, I forgot his name) does seem to
have the most credibility on the global warming side of the coin. He
created a computer model 20 years ago that showed exaclty where we would
be, and are, today. His models show where we will be in another 20
years, and it doesn't look good.
Although they did try to show that man has had a large impact on the
contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, I really think that part of it
was at least partially propoganda based, although some of it is probably
I guess the debate will continue for the next 20-50 years and then we'll
see where we are at again. I think by then at least PART of the South
Pacific will be under water.
Alas that show did nothing to prove, nor can they PROVE that although CO2
levels may higher than 150 years ago that it alone is the cause of the earth
temperature rising one degree over that time period, as they want us to
believe. That is the point I raised.
An interesting fact about computer weather models used today. If they look
BACK the do not show the last ice age or evn the mini ice age in Europe
during the sixteenth century .
Again I suggest, if the world is ACTUALLY warming we should know the actual
causes before we know if we can even try to 'do something.'
Ask yourself, would you plan a vacation based on a weather forecast for next
Actually, according to the show, the CO2 levels are higher than the last
200,000 - 500,000 years as presented by the gas levels forzen into the
ice core samples taken. And yes, they did prove that CO2 levels
directly correlate with the average temperatures on the earth. Did you
watch the same show I did?
Not sure what weather models you are referring to. The modelling
software that the NWS, and several university research departments use,
certainly do show the last "big" ice age, and one of them (I don't
remember which) does show the mini in Eurpoe.
The cause has been proven. Rising levels of CO2. The underlying cause
OF that increase in CO2 has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable
Long-term outlooks by certain people using certain models has already
proven itself to me to be almost dead nuts accurate. I'm not talking
about the NWS, the Weather Channel or Accuweather. But several research
scientists that have been doing this there entire lives can pinpoint a
forecast with a high degree of accuracy. And just so you know how
serious I am about that, I really did plan my vacation based on my own
reading of three different reliable long-term forecasts.
It hasn't been proven at all. At best there is a correlation, but there
certainly is no proof of cause and effect. The system is just way too
complex for that. It is just like medical studies that claim this or
that causes this or that. They almost always get contradicted in a few
years and than what do you believe? For years it was stated as fact
that consuming too much calcium caused kidney stones. Now it is claimed
that it is actually a calcium deficiency that causes them.
I just chuckle when folks get correlation and causation confused.
I believe that just proves how gullible you are. These are the same folks
that were telling me, when I was is college in the late forties, and my
children in the mid seventies, that these same greenhouse gases when leading
the world into another ice age. Why and when should we believe them? Have
you read anything from those that believe the changes in the earths
temperature is caused by changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun
or the angle of it axis? How about the 70% of the earths volcano's that are
under the ocean and the experts who believe they can warm the oceans and
thus the air at will? How about the expert that blame sun activity? Which
do you believe is more probable as a cause of warming?
There are two issues here. First, does global warming exist? I think thee
is plenty of evidence that yes, it does.
The second issue is the cause. It is from humans polluting and burning
fossil fuels? That is much more complex and difficult to prove or disprove.
If you look at thousands of years of temperature trends, the amount of CO2
increases with temperature. If you look at the increased emissions of CO2,
the depletion of the rain forests, you'd have to conclude at least a
"maybe". It is worth researching
Most people as well as most experts agree global temperature change occurs.
That is a lot different than concluding that global temperature change is
caused by man, and that man can do something to change the earth
temperature, as the alarmist would like us to believe. That my friend has
been my point during this discussion. The fact is during the 165 million
year the dinosaur roamed the earth experts tell us the average earth
temperature was a staggering 4 degrees higher and that produce all the large
vegetation on which they fed. The vegetation produced the higher percentage
of oxygen it the air that allowed them to breath without a diaphragm. Some
believe it was a reduction in the percentage of oxygen cause by ice ages
that cause their demise and the number of mammals, with a diaphragm, to
increase. During the 65 million years since the dinosaur disappeared there
have been numerous ice ages, the latest just 35 thousand years ago. Who do
we believe, what do we do about it and what if what if what we do is the
The wrong thing to do is to ignore it. The right thing to do is to try to
figure out the real cause.
The alarmists would have us living in caves. Like most issues, the real
solution is probably middle ground. If you have a sensible choice of a
little conservation, some reasonable and sensible pollution controls, no
harm will be done. Possibly, no good will be done regarding global warming,
but certainly no harm comes from turning out some lights and using less fuel
in our cars.
We complain about the price of gas, but continue to use just as much as we
did last year and the year before that and the year before that. If we all
got together and reduced demand by 5%, the price would drop and civilization
as we know it will continue on. No one want to be first. No one want the
inconvenience, no matter how small. Forget your constitutional right to own
a Hummer and Navigator, but look at the reality of them. Do we need that
much space? I'm not advocating bringing back the Hillman Minx in their
place, but a Lacrosse, Camry, Impala would be an acceptable substitute in
I live in Texas. I've been looking for a production EV since 1982. I had an
11 mile round trip to work. The only thing I have seen is things like the
GEM. Don't blame me, blame GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
We've all been burned before with bad data, or the best data available
at the time. I'm not saying you should pack up everything and head for
the hills just yet. But it is the best "proof" that is available right
And yes, I have read almost all of the research, both for and against
The earth's elliptical rotation around the sun IS part of the cause.
The problem there is that the high CO2 levels aren't letting the parts
of the earth that should be cooling cool.
Sun activity has the same effect.
It is a combination of everything at once, PLUS the inability of the
heat to escape fast enough because of the CO2 levels.
And for the record, I don't believe humans are responsible for the CO2
problems. Nor can we do anything about it.
Are these the same folks that yesterday failed to predict the rain storms in
our area that dropped 3.8 inches of rain in five hours? '7/15/06 Hot
humid with a 20% chance of widely scattered showers in the evening.' ;)
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.