[XCSSA] Man Made Global Warming Consensus A Farce?

[X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio]

X-otic Computer Systems of San Antonio wrote:
> Of course there are other factors and the earth will warm and cool  
> because of them.  But the long term problem (100's of years)  
> remains.  We won't have any ice unless we actually start reducing   
> CO2.  We're at 360ppm now, up from 270ppm at the dawn of the  
> industrial revolution and virtually flat for thousands of years prior  
> to that, and it curves upward tracking our CO2 output.  Last time the  
> earth was above 350ppm, which was 10 million years ago, there was no  
> ice.  And when all the ice is finished melting, which may take  
> awhile, the sea level will rise more than 200 feet because the ice is  
> miles high on Antarctica and Antarctica is huge.  Economic recessions  
> and depressions may reduce the rate of CO2 growth, but not stop or  
> reverse it by any means, and there is enough coal in the world to do  
> ourselves in.  Projections of CO2 level by the end of this century  
> are in the 400ppm-600ppm range.  Doesn't that sound a little risky?

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
According to that link 600ppm is an acceptable and safe indoor level of 
CO2.
Outdoor levels outdoors are typically 300ppm to 400ppm.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html
There is the chart on this link as well. CO2 levels haven't really 
affected global temperature all that much.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Search for the section "Similarities with our present world". the same 
graph from another link, and it details ppm over history. We're not 
doing so bad.

http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1239732
Global temperatures have dropped significantly in the last 10 years, 
just about wiping out the last 30 years of warming.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
There's a bunch of graphs from an organization that claims to be 
indifferent.
> 
> There's more than a "pretence" behind global warming theory.  There  
> *is* a scientific establishment, such as the National Academy of  
> Sciences in the USA, and similar organizations in other countries,  
> and the UN panel which gets input from thousands of climatologists.   
> And they all agree that Global Warming is a huge problem and that  
> it's caused by human activities (using some typical conservative  
> scientific language they say that the CO2 rise and global warming is  
> "very likely" caused by human activity, there are a few gw critics on  
> these panels, but they are a tiny minority and falling in number as  
> more scientists are convinced).
I'm not sure there's enough evidence to say anything other than the 
climate changes. Which really isn't saying anything at all. We've had 
record low temperatures this year. I believe that you're overgeneralizing.

> 
> Building renewable energy systems now will help the economy for most  
> people, virtually everyone except the oil and coal barons.
Well, not really. Wind power is unreliable, it can't meet the spikes in 
demand that exist as people use electricity. The only plants that can 
come online quick enough to supply those spikes are natural gas plants. 
Those aren't terribly efficient. If we really wanted to provide a 
substantial amount of cheap power, we'd build nuclear plants. Nuclear 
plants are safe, terribly efficient, and produce huge amounts of power.

So I must disagree with you, obviously. Humans aren't to blame for the 
entirety of climate change.


-- 
David Kowis

www.campaignforliberty.com - Freedom is popular!
www.sourcemage.org  - SourceMage GNU/Linux

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://xcssa.org/pipermail/xcssa/attachments/20090105/560c2249/attachment.bin