MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Causes of global warming
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Spaz  (Original Message)Sent: 1/9/2007 5:17 AM
Hello I am new. It has been reported that the Earth's magnetic field will shift in the near future. The signs of global warming seem to be due to more high energy particles striking the surface of the Earth due to a decrease in protection of the magnetic field as it prepares to shift. The increase in temperatures and the amount of moisture in the air would justify this is the case. As the Earth prepares to shift the magnetic field protecting us from radiation from the sun is decreasing. What are your thoughts on the matter and do any of you have evidence that this is not so? 


First  Previous  97-113 of 121  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 97 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 9/13/2008 9:30 PM
Centuries ago we used to burn witches at the stake for failed crops and short growing seasons.  And it never corrected the problem, but it did make it look like the authorities were in control and doing something about it.  But it did secure their position of power.   Sort of like today with Global Warming, burn the oil companys and Capitalist institutions to the ground to prevent global warming.  Today the oil companys, modern technologies and the successful working class of Capitalist institutions are today's convicted witches.
 
If we look closely at the ice core record, one can easily see that it was the little Ice Age tied to Sun Spot activities, or the lack of, that was responsible for the faild crops and short growing seasons in centuries past, not witches:
 
 
 
 
 

Reply
 Message 98 of 121 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknamemattissotiredSent: 9/15/2008 12:15 AM
The biggest problem with the hypothesis of man made global warming hypothesis is that if CO2 is the cause of the warming then why is it that we humans produce a single digit percentage of CO2? There were warmer periods in history when we produced virtually no CO2.

Reply
 Message 99 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 9/15/2008 1:41 AM

This is from the SPPC (Science & Public Policy Institute)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Written by Lord Monckton   

Friday, 12 September 2008
An extraordinary series of postings at www.climateaudit.org, the deservedly well trafficked website of the courageous and tenacious Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cynicism that is rife among the alarmist climate scientists favored by the UN’s discredited climate panel, the IPCC. In laymen’s language, the present paper respectfully summarizes Dr. McIntyre’s account of the systematically dishonest manner in which the “hockey-stick�?graph falsely showing that today’s temperatures are warmer than those that prevailed during the medieval climate optimum was fabricated in 1998/9, adopted as the poster-child of climate panic by the IPCC in its 2001 climate assessment, and then retained in its 2007 assessment report despite having been demolished in the scientific literature. It is a long tale, but well worth following. No one who reads it will ever again trust the IPCC or the “scientists�?and environmental extremists who author its climate assessments

Reply
 Message 100 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 9/15/2008 3:14 AM

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:   

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth."  "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.  

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming.  The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.  

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic.  Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology.  "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."  

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said. 

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added:  "The earth will not die."  

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process." 

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. 

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."  

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."  

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."  

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."  

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change." 

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate."

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."  

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."


Reply
 Message 102 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/3/2008 4:17 AM
 
September 24, 2008

Corrupted science revealed

Jerome J. Schmitt
Outsiders familiar with the proper workings of science have long known that modern Climate Science is dysfunctional. Now a prominent insider, MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled  "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?"  His answer:  A resounding "NO!"

Detailing the corruption, he names a series of names.  Until reading this I did not know that

"For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore." Page 5

Although a bit lengthy, this very important report is highly readable and revealing.  While some of the paragraphs are a bit technical, I encourage AT readers to wade through them because their purpose is to provide specific examples of how a radical cabal is forcing scientists to ignore or amend measurements that undermine the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists are literally forced to include sentences in their papers that indicate their support of AGW, even if these sentences are non-sequiturs, or even if they conflict with the overall thrust of the paper. In this way, Al Gore's uneducated political commissars are able to deliver the "consensus" he so craves.

How is this possible you might ask?  Prof. Lindzen gives considerable background history.

However, having been an undergraduate and graduate student in the hard sciences, and later a research collaborator with dozens of industrial scientists and university professors, perhaps I can shed some further light. Today's scientists get to the top of their field by extreme dedication to their specialty involving inordinate focus and concentration that cannot tolerate distractions. The best scientists are constantly "at home" at their lab bench, with their instruments, analyzing data, teaching a few promising students and preparing publications.  Most scientists interact intensively only with other specialists in allied fields ("geeks"). 

Many scientists are naturalized citizens from Asia and Eastern Europe, unfamiliar and intimidated by American politics and government, to which they are dependent upon for visas and grant support.  Although all stereotypes are unfair to individuals, there is some truth to the one of the shy, retiring, absent-minded professor.  His or her absent-mindedness is most likely due to intense cogitation on a difficult scientific problem.  Their dealings with one another are only possible by maintaining extreme standards of honesty, integrity and open-mindedness to scholarly debate in search of the truth. The very qualities that make them good scientists and scholars thus leave them ill-equipped to deal with the raucous, underhanded, disrespectful, politically-motivated radicals unleashed upon them by Al Gore and his fifth column for a "hostile takeover" of their scientific institutions.

I naively thought that the National Academy of Sciences could impose some quality-control on an errant discipline  Prof. Lindzen notes that event this august body has been penetrated by eco-activists by exploiting loopholes in its nominating procedures. 

Fortunately, in science "truth will out".  The long term faith of the American public in science, a trust built up since WWI is at stake. Next it will be important to see whether a prominent scientific journal publishes this revelation.

As an aside, for those who have wondered how leftist cabals were able in the 60's and 70's to take over our universities' humanity departments, the National Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities, Prof  Lindzen's report lays bare the template for radicalization.

Reply
 Message 103 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/3/2008 4:59 AM
  http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
 
Medieval Warm Period Project

Study Description and Results
   Africa
   Antarctica
   Asia
   Australia/New Zealand
   Europe
   North America
   Northern Hemisphere
   Oceans
   South America

MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials

MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials

Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot
To view this feature, your computer must be configured to run applets that use Java technology.  To download and install free Java software, we recommend Sun Microsystems' Java Runtime Environment, which is available at www.java.com.  Instructions on how to operate the map's features are located under the map.  Scroll down after clicking on the link above to view them.

List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite

List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite


Reply
 Message 104 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/10/2008 4:21 AM
Here is a chance for anyone that still thinks that man is causing global warming to win $500,000 ... All you have to do is submit your scientific evidance to this WEB site to win:
 

Reply
 Message 105 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/11/2008 8:59 PM
Here is more proof of how our sun is driving our climate and not man made CO2. 
 
These are the same graphs (minus the solar plot) that Global Warming Propagandist use to convince us that man is causing global warming.  But if you plot these graphs together along with the time line you will see the real evidance:
 
1) The Earth's temperature started to rise almost 100 years before Man made fossile fuel useage started to rise.
 
2) If you overlay Solar Activity (Red Plot) there is a much closer correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature swings, than there is between Earth's temperature swings and man made fossile fuel usage.
 
3) Notice that when World wide hydrocarbon usage started taking off and rising the Earth's temperature fell.  Not for one or two years, but for 4 decades.
 
 

Reply
 Message 107 of 121 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrectSent: 10/12/2008 7:33 PM
"Here is more proof..."

First of all, what you have is evidence, not "proof," which can never occur on this kind of issue (proof is for things like logic). Secondly, you do not cite the source of this data, which is not acceptable academically. I'll give you some time to cite the source, rather than deleting your post immediately.

Reply
 Message 108 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/19/2008 12:13 PM
Here is the link:
 
 

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON

Oregon In stitute of Sci ence and Med icine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junc tion, Or egon 97523 [[email protected]]

 

 


Reply
 Message 109 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 10/24/2008 3:03 AM
CO-2 Truth Alert:
 
 
World food supply is threatened by CO2 reductions, while insanity of man made global warming rules.

Reply
 Message 110 of 121 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameThe_Great_SocietySent: 11/3/2008 8:14 AM
Elsewhere Edmund argues that the Antarctic ice cap is growing. Scientific American, however, reports it continues to shrink. The July 2008 issue, pg 18, has this: "The accelerating pace of climate warming in the earth's polar regions is spurring a new sense of scientific urgency. This past February 28th a camera on board the NASA satellite Aqua caught a Manhattan size floating piece of ice shelf in the act of disintegrating. Slabs continued to calve and break up throughout the next 10 days; by March 8 the Wilkins ice shelf, comprising some 5,000 square miles of floating ice off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, had lost 160 square miles of ice to the Pacific Ocean.

The breakup is the latest of seven major Antarctic ice-shelf collapses in the past 30 years, after some 400 years of relative stability.... All of them corroborate temperature measurements showing that the western Antarctic Peninsula--now known as the Banana Belt--is warming up faster than any place else on earth.

Reply
 Message 111 of 121 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameGabriel_x79Sent: 11/5/2008 2:45 PM
Hi Great Society,
   The Antartic Peninsula is only 2% of the whole Antartic territory. It has indeed been warming in the last decades, but doesn´t represent what happens with the rest of the continent (where temperatures have been stable). The ice in the rest of the continent has been growing. The change in the Wilkins platform area climate has been due to changes in the sea currents and winds since 1980.

Reply
 Message 112 of 121 in Discussion 
From: Edmund129Sent: 11/8/2008 2:06 PM
 

In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the arctic sea ice melting. Additionally, there were predictions that it would not recover to its previous levels.

But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007.

From the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today:


Reply
 Message 113 of 121 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameRockJawTomSent: 11/12/2008 8:52 AM
Isn't that ice shelf an ice shelf in the first place because new material pushes the ice out to sea? It's going to break under mechanical stress anyway, sooner or later. Someone's got 'em in a knot because the ice shelf lost about 3.2 percent of its surface area? Alarmism is the real problem here.

First  Previous  97-113 of 121  Next  Last 
Return to General