Talk:Climate change/General discussion

message: A few things;
99.7% of CO2 emissions come from volcanoes.  See .  
: That page is nonsense. The recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. No-one (with any scientific merit) doubts that - not even Bush. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. . Bush is wrong - its more than just "in large part" - but if even he won't support your stuff, you're lost. William M. Connolley 09:20:25, 2005-07-18 (UTC).
In fact, many of the weather stations used to collect data are at the top of active volcanoes .
: Sigh. Give it up. There are better things to argue about. The South Pole gets the same answers as Mauna Loa, and it isn't on a volcano.
Climate change models are often presented as being based on real phenomena, however they are almost always gross simplifications of the real systems.  They can almost never explain the Ige Age, or even the Little Ice Age.   
: Because very few of them are run through those periods.
So, temperatures have risen since the 18th century, when we were in the middle of a little ige age.  So what?  They can't even correctly predict global temperatures for next month or next year accurately, so how can they claim to be able to predict 50 years into the future?  
: Heard it all before... http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html
Sadly we never stop and perform the basic checks on these predictions necessary for scientific validation - seeing if their predictions are correct.  The IPCC are continually revising their doomsday predictions downwards.
: You're a victim of septic propaganda. 
The reality is that the Earth's climate is a complex system with multiple feedback systems, and that water vapour, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas.  
: http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
More warming should lead to more clouds, which will reflect more light out to space.  
: Why?
You see that there is an equilibrium involved that is simply assumed to have certain characteristics, via a link that has never been shown.  In fact, polar ice core samples show that CO2 levels follow periods of global warming rather than preceding them.  There's a lot on this subject at 
: Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals... or, a front for the petroleum type people? With, sigh, Baliunas. 
Dirty tricks were employed by Enron from 1993 to 1996 to basically fool the easily succeptible Green movement (who, despite their good intentions, are well known for taking an anti-establishment view in any debate, with or without evidence) into protesting about Global Warming, which previously had only minor groups supporting it.  As they pulled other strings to make sure it got further through government (so as to gain control of the lucrative Carbon tax market), more people got on the bandwagon to support it, and eventually the Kyoto protocol made it through, despite these gaping holes in the science behind it.  There is a long, well referenced account of this at .
The Green movement needs to refocus on the control toxic pollutants rather than life-giving ones, as a matter of urgency.  There are good reasons to move away from oil dependancy - otherwise the disatrous consequences of Oil shale mining or shortsightedness of Nuclear Fission may cause global pollution on a hereto unforseen scale.  Global warming is real, but you may as well campaign against the movement of the sea tides for all the good it will do anyone. 
:(above unsigned comments by User:Mugwumpjism on 02:48, 18 July 2005)
:Vsmith 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant and compelling evidence to refute anthopomorphic global warming.