rfarren
New member
May I remind you that the reason why it was such a big deal that those emails were hacked was because it showed that the hockey stick graph of global warming was a total fabrication. In fact, if the scientist in question had been consistent with the data they used, the graph would have shown a cooling of the environment in the last 50 years. The key to this is: the largest piece of evidence behind man-made global warming is that apparently the earth is warming at a faster speed than at anytime we know of (based on ice-core readings, Co2 records in fossils, tree rings etc.) However, it was this hockey stick graph that showed it, and when we re-examine the data, the warming doesn't seem as fast we thought.
Many of the runaway warming scenarios are based on feedback, i.e more ocean in the north so more warming, so more methane gets released, etc. The affect of these variables are entirely based on speculation and models. Mind you, these are the models that can't create hurricanes and didn't predict a cooling of the earth the last ten years. But let's visit the feedback scenario again, and say due to natural causes the earth has been warming since the 1850's. Perhaps these feedbacks accelerated the warming that was due to natural causes. My point is merely: there are a lot of variables that affect the climate and to focus on only one seems foolhardy. When one considers that humans account for less that 3% of the carbon released in the environment, and that the heat trapping properties of Co2 is algorithmic and not linear, I think questioning this all is very healthy, if not rational. Whereas, wholesale buying into what has turned out to be not so peer-reviewed science, comes off almost like religious fanaticism.
Many of the runaway warming scenarios are based on feedback, i.e more ocean in the north so more warming, so more methane gets released, etc. The affect of these variables are entirely based on speculation and models. Mind you, these are the models that can't create hurricanes and didn't predict a cooling of the earth the last ten years. But let's visit the feedback scenario again, and say due to natural causes the earth has been warming since the 1850's. Perhaps these feedbacks accelerated the warming that was due to natural causes. My point is merely: there are a lot of variables that affect the climate and to focus on only one seems foolhardy. When one considers that humans account for less that 3% of the carbon released in the environment, and that the heat trapping properties of Co2 is algorithmic and not linear, I think questioning this all is very healthy, if not rational. Whereas, wholesale buying into what has turned out to be not so peer-reviewed science, comes off almost like religious fanaticism.