I'll let you eggheads hash out the technicalities of PH levels, trace elements, and theories of coral reefs.
I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.
1. A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record. We have had a satellite record for less than 35 years of the billions of years of the Earth's existence. We have been measuring surface temperatures of the oceans for only 46 years. And the fragmented records of sea captain's logs, etc. from past centuries don't fit the propaganda that arctic ice is at its lowest level ever. Nor can climate models explain how the Earth has been much cooler in the past when CO2 levels were much higher which calls into question whether CO2 levels are mostly driven by factors other than human activity.
2. Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living. That alone should raise some interest re the veracity of these AGW proponents.
3. The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent. No, rather they focus on tightening the noose of authority and power around those who are already doing the best job of reducing greenouse emissions. Doesn't that give you AGW religionists even pause for thought that their motives are something different than combating climate change?
4. The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them. Shouldn't we questions how accurate they are in predicting our climate future?
5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.
While all this put together is certainly no proof that AGW is NOT happening, it sure does make a good case for a healthy skepticism about it. And I think intelligent people will want a good deal more to go on before they hand over their liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to goverments who very likely do not have their best interests in mind.
I look to the more tangible aspects of the argument and my opinions are based on logic.
1. A great many AGW advocates base their entire philosophy on the satellite record. We have had a satellite record for less than 35 years of the billions of years of the Earth's existence. We have been measuring surface temperatures of the oceans for only 46 years. And the fragmented records of sea captain's logs, etc. from past centuries don't fit the propaganda that arctic ice is at its lowest level ever. Nor can climate models explain how the Earth has been much cooler in the past when CO2 levels were much higher which calls into question whether CO2 levels are mostly driven by factors other than human activity.
2. Those most strongly advocating the AGW theory do not themselves demonstrate any concern for human activity and in fact live lifestyles that they condemn the rest of us for living. That alone should raise some interest re the veracity of these AGW proponents.
3. The politicans of the world are not focusing on the largest producers of CO2 in their efforts to combat this terrible catastrophe of global warming that they say is imminent. No, rather they focus on tightening the noose of authority and power around those who are already doing the best job of reducing greenouse emissions. Doesn't that give you AGW religionists even pause for thought that their motives are something different than combating climate change?
4. The climate models are unable to produce a conclusion of the climate we have now when KNOWN data is entered into them. Shouldn't we questions how accurate they are in predicting our climate future?
5. I have been able to locate not a single scientists who is actively studying this stuff who has concluded that AGW is a significant probability UNLESS his income is dependent on those who want AGW promoted.
While all this put together is certainly no proof that AGW is NOT happening, it sure does make a good case for a healthy skepticism about it. And I think intelligent people will want a good deal more to go on before they hand over their liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to goverments who very likely do not have their best interests in mind.
Last edited: