Global Warming - Is it real, and if so is it caused by humans?

Yitzhak Rabin

Ok I'm going to state from the outset that I believe human-caused global warming is very real, and poses serious consequences to a large portion of the flora and fauna of earth.

However, I get the distinct impression that alot of the posters here believe it is either part of some conspiracy, or not happening at all. What follows is a simple argument for why I think climate change is real. Its not the only reason I believe, basically by starting this thread, I'm hoping some of the climate skeptcs come out of the woodwork so I can see what their objections are, and see if I can clear up a few misconceptions.

I am not a climate scientist. I do not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to dismiss the peer-reviewed work on which the IPCC Assessment Reports are based. I must rely on the judgment of those who do have the necessary expertise. Of those who have that expertise, the consensus accepts that anthropogenic climate change is real. There is no evidence that the members of the consensus are dishonest frauds, publishing fraudulent work and giving the nod to the fraudulent work of others, simply to advance their careers or some ecofascist agenda, nor is it reasonable to think that the members of the consensus are so stupid as to have somehow missed supposedly devastating counterarguments so simple that even a layman can understand them. Hence, it is irrational for me to oppose myself to the consensus, and likewise for anyone who shares my lack of expertise. This is simple respect for science.

Let me be clear. My analysis does not extend to true experts who disagree with the consensus. I do not begrudge them their conclusions. If they truly have expertise in climate science, they are entitled to their conclusions, for all I can say. But, my non-expert friends and I are nowhere near being in a position to adjudicate that dispute. It is well to say, "I know an honest, intelligent expert who rejects anthropogenic climate change." But, what personal expertise grounds our judgment that this one expert is so much more honest and intelligent than all of the experts in the consensus put together? It is incumbent upon the expert skeptics to convince the remainder of the scientific community, to transform the consensus from within, the way it is done in science. For the rest of us, there is no rational choice but to track the consensus.

I'm really interested in comments, particularly from those who disagree.

As a side note, I don't want this to degenerate into a "You're a sheep just following mainstream science debate" v "Your a conspiracy nut who gets all your ideas from fiction bloggers". Lets just discuss the evidence and see if there is a conspiracy with climate change.

Black Uhlan

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022157/how-climategate-killed-peer-review/

indough

so peer review is now dead because someone said it in a blog? not likely

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

Ok I'm going to state from the outset that I believe human-caused global warming is very real, and poses serious consequences to a large portion of the flora and fauna of earth.

However, I get the distinct impression that alot of the posters here believe it is either part of some conspiracy, or not happening at all. What follows is a simple argument for why I think climate change is real. Its not the only reason I believe, basically by starting this thread, I'm hoping some of the climate skeptcs come out of the woodwork so I can see what their objections are, and see if I can clear up a few misconceptions.

I am not a climate scientist. I do not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to dismiss the peer-reviewed work on which the IPCC Assessment Reports are based. I must rely on the judgment of those who do have the necessary expertise. Of those who have that expertise, the consensus accepts that anthropogenic climate change is real. There is no evidence that the members of the consensus are dishonest frauds, publishing fraudulent work and giving the nod to the fraudulent work of others, simply to advance their careers or some ecofascist agenda, nor is it reasonable to think that the members of the consensus are so stupid as to have somehow missed supposedly devastating counterarguments so simple that even a layman can understand them. Hence, it is irrational for me to oppose myself to the consensus, and likewise for anyone who shares my lack of expertise. This is simple respect for science.

Let me be clear. My analysis does not extend to true experts who disagree with the consensus. I do not begrudge them their conclusions. If they truly have expertise in climate science, they are entitled to their conclusions, for all I can say. But, my non-expert friends and I are nowhere near being in a position to adjudicate that dispute. It is well to say, "I know an honest, intelligent expert who rejects anthropogenic climate change." But, what personal expertise grounds our judgment that this one expert is so much more honest and intelligent than all of the experts in the consensus put together? It is incumbent upon the expert skeptics to convince the remainder of the scientific community, to transform the consensus from within, the way it is done in science. For the rest of us, there is no rational choice but to track the consensus.

I'm really interested in comments, particularly from those who disagree.

As a side note, I don't want this to degenerate into a "You're a sheep just following mainstream science debate" v "Your a conspiracy nut who gets all your ideas from fiction bloggers". Lets just discuss the evidence and see if there is a conspiracy with climate change.

Here's a great youtube channel that dispels alot of the anti global warning myths.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

And the great Potholer54 has a few on the subject as well.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

For a while I was on the fence about human cause global warming. I didn't have the knowledge to decide either way, and I couldn't honestly say I believe it solely on the scientific consensus.

What did push me over was the dishonest tactics used by the anti global warming crowd.
It seemed to me very similar to the tactics used by creationists and other anti science camps.

What's always surprised me was how Cters think global warming is a fraud and parrot arguments that come from the people who are usually accused of all sorts of things.
I mean all the signs are there: Who has the most to gain? Oil companies. Who's the most vocal against global warming? The conservative right and their media bitch FOX.

But for some reason, on global warming these guys are telling the truth?

Yitzhak Rabin

Black Uhlan wrote: »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022157/how-climategate-killed-peer-review/

I would rather you made a point, rather than just post a link and scamper off. I mean what do you want me to respond to? I will say this about the so-called "climate gate"

They essentially quote mined and cherry picked a few sentences from 13 years of emails. Those sentences can be easily explained when taken in context. I'd be happy to respond to anything you felt was deceptive in the emails?

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a great youtube channel that dispels alot of the anti global warning myths.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

And the great Potholer54 has a few on the subject as well.
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

For a while I was on the fence about human cause global warming. I didn't have the knowledge to decide either way, and I couldn't honestly say I believe it solely on the scientific consensus.

What did push me over was the dishonest tactics used by the anti global warming crowd.
It seemed to me very similar to the tactics used by creationists and other anti science camps.

What's always surprised me was how Cters think global warming is a fraud and parrot arguments that come from the people who are usually accused of all sorts of things.
I mean all the signs are there: Who has the most to gain? Oil companies. Who's the most vocal against global warming? The conservative right and their media bitch FOX.

But for some reason, on global warming these guys are telling the truth?

Yeah Potholer is brilliant for little 10min bytes on the cherry to direct people to. Greenman's video's are excellent too and I cannot comprehend why he suffers so many vote bot attacks. (Creationist tactics right there.)
Other useful sources are:
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change
(and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

As I think of more I'll add them

I really think it's getting to the stage where we need a "TalkClimate.org".
Sad, but true.

Turtwig

Black Uhlan wrote: »

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022157/how-climategate-killed-peer-review/

Climate killed peer review? This is so ridiculously stupid that it baffles me deniers even try this approach. Jones et Al, voiced their opposition to Soon and Baliunas in public. This wasn't something done in private; it was done in public fora. You didn't need to read the emails to know about this. Secondly, S&B paper was sh1te, the authors they referenced were pissed off with such blatant misrepresentations of their work and S&B showed quite clearly that their knowledge of dendrochronology stinked. They confused rainfall measurements on tree ring data with temperature measurements. If a paper is valid after such a blunder, I really don't know what to say. It was quite simply a rubbish paper.

squod

Environmental Protection Agency says Irish greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise
By Finfacts Team
Feb 16, 2007, 09:29

• Tonnage of Greenhouse Gas emissions 1.9 per cent higher than in 2004;
• Main increase from transport emissions which increased by 6.9 per cent (an increase of almost 870,000 tonnes);
• Substantial increase from energy generation of 2.4 per cent (increase of 380,000 tonnes) attributable mainly to increased use of peat in power stations;

It is geat we're discussing this. What I like to know is what the various governments are doing about it. I take the view that connecting the problem to taxation isn't the most wise idea. What's happened so far (correct me if I'm mistaken) is that carbon emissions have risen with every rise in taxation associated with theses emissions.

Lab_Mouse

Dont know about humans causing it,diffently contribute to it alright.

I think now in modern times is the first that we have measurements where fluctuations in climate can be noticed.There was ice-ages and droughts long before we burnt coal.

havent really read much on it tbh so thats about as deep as a hole im gonna dig myself:D

Yitzhak Rabin

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Dont know about humans causing it,diffently contribute to it alright.

Good to see you have an open mind on the issue. However the evidence is strongly indicitave of it being human caused. One of the pieces of evidences for this is that satelliete readings have shown that less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. This means that CO2 is what is causing the rise in temperature. It is us humans that are realeasing the billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
The scariest part though is the possible feedback effect. Essentially, thats the knockon effect of the early stages of climate change. Like the melting of permafrost will release long buried CO2 which will further heat the atmosphere which will melt more permafrost. I could get alot more into the reason why its man made if you are still skeptical that it is human caused.

I think now in modern times is the first that we have measurements where fluctuations in climate can be noticed.There was ice-ages and droughts long before we burnt coal.

The fact that there have been radical shifts in the past only proves one thing...that our climate changes. The previous ice-ages and global warming periods show that our climate is extremely sensitive. CO2 is one of those factors that causes our temperatures to increase. Knowing this and that our climate is extremely sensitive to it, then I don't think we should be dumping billions of tons of the stuff in the atmosphere :eek:

havent really read much on it tbh so thats about as deep as a hole im gonna dig myself:D

No holes been dug at all! I'm glad you responded. I am convinced, even on the CT forum we can have a good discussion about global warming and dispel the myths and conspiracies surrounding the issue!

espinolman

Is it ok to ask a stupid question here ?

Ok, if there is global warming , then how come it has been so cold during the winter over the last couple of years , the winters seem to be getting colder !

Captain Chaos

espinolman wrote: »

Is it ok to ask a stupid question here ?

Ok, if there is global warming , then how come it has been so cold during the winter over the last couple of years , the winters seem to be getting colder !

''Global warming'' is the old media name for ''climate change''. For us and the UK global warming will mean colder temperatures.

The Reason. We get our warmth from the warm Gulf Stream that flows from the coast of Florida and Cuba. As the ice caps melt they release more fresh water, this fresh water disrupts the natural salt water of the ocean. If enough fresh water enters the system the Atlantic stream system will switch off. The warm water flows along the top and when it loses its heat it drops deeps into the ocean and returns to the gulf. If there is little or no temperature difference, this cannot happen.

This is thought as a reason for the little ice age, how it sorted itself again is a mystery.

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

Is it ok to ask a stupid question here ?

Ok, if there is global warming , then how come it has been so cold during the winter over the last couple of years , the winters seem to be getting colder !

Not a stupid question at all. I have the perfect video about it, just hot off the youtube press today. Enjoy Espinolman!

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

Is it ok to ask a stupid question here ?

Ok, if there is global warming , then how come it has been so cold during the winter over the last couple of years , the winters seem to be getting colder !

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the way I understand it is that the increased temperature is not consistently linear across the globe. Instead it is thought of as a mean temperature increase. So while there are still local fluctuations of weather, this doesn't really affect the long term global trend.

mysterious

Captain Chaos wrote: »

''Global warming'' is the old media name for ''climate change''. For us and the UK global warming will mean colder temperatures.

The Reason. We get our warmth from the warm Gulf Stream that flows from the coast of Florida and Cuba. As the ice caps melt they release more fresh water, this fresh water disrupts the natural salt water of the ocean. If enough fresh water enters the system the Atlantic stream system will switch off. The warm water flows along the top and when it loses its heat it drops deeps into the ocean and returns to the gulf. If there is little or no temperature difference, this cannot happen.

This is thought as a reason for the little ice age, how it sorted itself again is a mystery.

But our Antarctic ice sheets are growing...

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

But our Antarctic ice sheets are growing...

It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fail to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarise the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

• Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
• Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean

I'll expand on this in an edit, just gimme a few mins to refresh some facts in my head.

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges. Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2. It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought. This is significant because East Antarctica contains much more ice than West Antarctica. East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 50 to 60 metres while West Antarctica would contribute around 6 to 7 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

DigiGal

Just wondering do any of the people here have a degree in science or have been to the sites of diminishing ice etc in order to back up what they are saying or did they simply just read other people opinions on blogs etc....

Not that you need a degree in science but a simple knowledge in the gases of our atmosphere to realise that adding so many harmful gases to the atmosphere has to be having an effect

espinolman

DigiGal wrote: »

Not that you need a degree in science but a simple knowledge in the gases of our atmosphere to realise that adding so many harmful gases to the atmosphere has to be having an effect

What harmful gases , carbon dioxide is not harmful , it is part of the carbon cycle and is supposed to be in the athmosphere .

So what other gases are being added to our athmosphere ?

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

carbon dioxide is not harmful

Carbon dioxide is a known climate change forcing agent. It IS harmful when vast quantities are emitted into the atmosphere. Whats dangerous about it, is its ability to absorb heat as its reflected from the sun and re-radiate this heat back to us.

tbh, saying things like x is or isn't harmful isn't all that helpful. I mean Oxegen is toxic at certain pressures, salt in certain doses is lethal etc. yet we don't call them harmful. It is about the quantity. CO2 is a vital part of our atmosphere and serves vital functions, that doesn't mean that too much of it isn't harmful for us.

Torakx

im in two minds over the global warming issue.

i know for sure there are governments looking to make lots and lots of money from taxing people using the global warming issue.

now wether they hijacked this for there own sick uses or just happen to be wrong/right i dont know.

it does seem bad to see all the smoke and gases humans are pumping up into the sky every day and i dont think i can even guess that it isnt causing harm.im sure it must be doing something to the enviornment.
i know there are forests being cut down and i do not know how many trees are growing.
i know trees love carbon dioxide and i know they love oxygen. so maybe if we pump more oxygen into the enviornment we will explode or fix the problem :P

i get the feeling this whole problem of global warming (if its fixable and is not a natural thing) can only be fixed with a world agreement regarding the cause and effects.
unfortunatly the only power rising right now to actually enforce a world agreement might not bother to do so when they are in power.
and the only power right now that can make this happen aside from enforcement is unfortunaly the same people as above.and they will not do it without making a serious profit.

If you guys are really worried about global warming i suggest you think of a way to make cleaning the enviornment profitable to the central banks for a start.
the power right now lies with money the last couple hundred years.

besides all that what steps are the irish government(or any other) making to eradicating global warming? thats an honest question.
id like to see who are the people really looking for change of policy and who are just waffling(on the world scene..not the forums)

i consider tax to be waffling out there ar$es to the extreme by the way, please dont mention tax its a joke that just isnt funny anymore.

squod

Torakx wrote: »

i consider tax to be waffling out there ar$es to the extreme by the way, please dont mention tax its a joke that just isnt funny anymore.

+1

Yitzhak Rabin

Thanks Torakx, I enjoyed your post, you made some very valid points. I'll do my best to answer some of the questions you've asked.

Torakx wrote: »

i get the feeling this whole problem of global warming (if its fixable and is not a natural thing) can only be fixed with a world agreement regarding the cause and effects.

Exacty. Thats why the denier movement is such a problem. They are holding governments back from accepting this is happening and actually doing something about it.

unfortunatly the only power rising right now to actually enforce a world agreement might not bother to do so when they are in power.
and the only power right now that can make this happen aside from enforcement is unfortunaly the same people as above.and they will not do it without making a serious profit.

We need a global agreement that governments will actually stick to. As the Copenhagan conference demonstrated, this is extremely hard to get any sort of agreement on. Its such a complex issue, who gets concessions, should countries like India and China which are now becoming developed be punished because the western countries have already f*cked up the atmosphere? Should the richer nations have to provide money to the poorer nations in Africa which are going to be affected more by climate change etc.

If you guys are really worried about global warming i suggest you think of a way to make cleaning the enviornment profitable to the central banks for a start.
the power right now lies with money the last couple hundred years.

Well thats what Obama tried to do with his stimilus package when he invested in Science and Technology. The only problem is, when you fund research, generally you don't get to see the results until many years down the road. Although science has comeup with some pretty radical ways to try and solve the problem, ranging from carbon catchers, to painting roofs white and laying huge reflectors on the north and south pole(seriously) to more drastic measures such as releasing reflective particles into the atmosphere, or rust into the oceans.

besides all that what steps are the irish government(or any other) making to eradicating global warming? thats an honest question.
id like to see who are the people really looking for change of policy and who are just waffling(on the world scene..not the forums)

Now I'm no fan of the current government, but I think the Irish government has performed ok in this arena. The introduced the plastic bag tax, the switch to energy efficient lightbulbs, they have tried to create a knowledge economy which resulted in some good breakthroughs in harnessing wave energy.

The thing is, they are only a very very very small player. The best we can hope is to set a good example to others, and by being green, we have a better authority to give out to the US China and India!!

i consider tax to be waffling out there ar$es to the extreme by the way, please dont mention tax its a joke that just isnt funny anymore.

Tax is a very effective way of influencing consumers when it is implemented right. But it can't all be punitive taxes. We can have tax breaks which encourage people to buy hybrids for example. The scrappage scheme is a good one for getting old very polluting bangers off the road, in order to get more efficient cleaner engines out there.

yekahs

yekahs wrote: »

Exacty. Thats why the denier movement is such a problem. They are holding governments back from accepting this is happening and actually doing something about it.

And I can't think of a single billion dollar industry that might benefit from government inaction and holding up taxes on their products.

Oh wait.....

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

And I can't think of a single billion dollar industry that might benefit from government inaction and holding up taxes on their products.

Oh wait.....

I think the reason CT'ers are skeptical of CC is because its a global problem that is going to require a global concerted effort to solve, and we all know what happens when heads of governments get together.... its a f*cking baby-sacraficing-blooddrinking-interdimensional-radiochip-tagging-earthquake-causing-lizzzzzzardfest :D

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Carbon dioxide is a known climate change forcing agent. It IS harmful when vast quantities are emitted into the atmosphere. Whats dangerous about it, is its ability to absorb heat as its reflected from the sun and re-radiate this heat back to us.

tbh, saying things like x is or isn't harmful isn't all that helpful. I mean Oxegen is toxic at certain pressures, salt in certain doses is lethal etc. yet we don't call them harmful. It is about the quantity. CO2 is a vital part of our atmosphere and serves vital functions, that doesn't mean that too much of it isn't harmful for us.

So is to much oxygen. lol.... (shakes head) if there is too much oxygen the fire would naturally wipe out the plant life. Because nature knows that to much oxgen is a result of a over productive global biosphere. There has been ages where there was for more carbon dixoide in the athmosphere.


People should look into the quotes of George Calin, who is now dead god bless him. I think if people just respect nature and let nature look after itself the world iwould be a lot better place. Man is contrubuting to about 5 % global warming the rest is because we are in a massive age cycle.

Its actually better to have a history degree rather than a science degree on this topic. I would prefer if people didnt rely on education to find out what is going on with our planet.

I'm sure there are many "scientistt who have degrees dont give a damn about our climate, especially hwne you have agencies such as Haarp around.

mysterious

mysterious wrote: »

People should look into the quotes of George Calin, who is now dead god bless him.

You realise that he was a very vocal atheist right?

mysterious wrote: »

I would prefer if people didnt rely on education to find out what is going on with our planet.

So people who have no idea what they are talking about should be trying to find out what's going on?

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

I would prefer if people didnt rely on education to find out what is going on with our planet.

Seriously? You crack me up mysterious! Intuition and reading online blogs didn't result in space flight, understanding the structure of the atom, modern medicine, combustion engines(ironic given the thread topic, I know!), the internet, computers...in fact anything worthwhile...

...so you'll have to excuse me if I "rely on education to find out whats going on"

I'm also not going to acknowledge any of your other points, for the simple reason that it will end up destroying this thread and it degenerating into you making off the wall claims and not backing an iota of it up.

Turtwig

mysterious wrote: »

Because nature knows that to much oxgen is a result of a over productive global biosphere.

Nature knows?
Nature doesn't care bout us, it just does it's own thing. Earth is a deadly planet, there wasn't even oxygen in the atmosphere in the young earth. Oxygen got into the atmosphere from the earliest bacteria that "exhaled" it, and in the course of millions of years these tiny bacteria raised the oxygen levels in the planet. Only for the new organisms that depended on oxygen to survive to "eat" the ones that produced it in the first place. Nature doesn't care about any particular species, survival of the fittest and all that.

There has been ages where there was for more carbon dixoide in the athmosphere.

I seem to recall the sun was a lot weaker too back in those "ages." We are now entering the stage where the C02 levels in the atmosphere are the highest that they've been for a million years. And I really hope I don't need to tell you what happened when C02 levels were just a bit higher than that.
(In a weaker sun too.)

Man is contrubuting to about 5 % global warming the rest is because we are in a massive age cycle.

Which "cycle" would that be now?

espinolman

I have a theory about this , the reason there is so much concern over an increase in green house gases in the athmosphere is because the powers that be know the sun is going to become very active in 2012 , the sun is going to become very hot and in the meantime greenhouse gases are increaing in the athmosphere and it is not going to help the problem .

Also i don't know but maybe the reason for HAARP and chemtrails is they are trying to work out how to prevent a physical pole shift in 2012 . :rolleyes:

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Seriously? You crack me up mysterious! Intuition and reading online blogs didn't result in space flight, understanding the structure of the atom, modern medicine, combustion engines(ironic given the thread topic, I know!), the internet, computers...in fact anything worthwhile...

...so you'll have to excuse me if I "rely on education to find out whats going on"

I'm also not going to acknowledge any of your other points, for the simple reason that it will end up destroying this thread and it degenerating into you making off the wall claims and not backing an iota of it up.

Well while you laugh, awareness is great. :rolleyes: You dont need to rely on an "education" system to be sound proof from been dumb.............

Seriously read your own post before you try appear high and mighty over others. We were born with brains, we didnt buy one in school. Even einstein believes education to be dumbing down. Most people here I believe would agree (when they stop relying on it and grow up in the real world and realise just how much time we spent learning complete crap)

As Bob Marely says, dont give me education give me inspiration.;)

Since I left school, and dumped T.V, I've never felt more alive in my entire life.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

I have a theory about this , the reason there is so much concern over an increase in green house gases in the athmosphere is because the powers that be know the sun is going to become very active in 2012 , the sun is going to become very hot and in the meantime greenhouse gases are increaing in the athmosphere and it is not going to help the problem .

Or you know, greenhouse gases could just be a problem without silly doomsday predictions.

mysterious

Malty_T wrote: »

Nature knows?
Nature doesn't care bout us, it just does it's own thing. Earth is a deadly planet, there wasn't even oxygen in the atmosphere in the young earth. Oxygen got into the atmosphere from the earliest bacteria that "exhaled" it, and in the course of millions of years these tiny bacteria raised the oxygen levels in the planet. Only for the new organisms that depended on oxygen to survive to "eat" the ones that produced it in the first place. Nature doesn't care about any particular species, survival of the fittest and all that.

I know "education" seems to want us repeat that, because what you said seems to be what we all learnt in school aswell. But no I won't and blindly follow it. I understand that the entire universe is conscious and our planet is too. Our planet responds to a seed, who makes that seed grow into a tree? Nature cares about you, because if it didnt you wouldnt be here. Btw, nature is like our own moods at has ups and downs. If man keeps going the way its going and making the same comments that you do about nature, we wont have much time left on this world.

I prefer to talk about "nature" to people who are in tune with it. I don't really understand when someone such as yourself pipes up about what nature is based on educational references. Nature is outside not indoors learning from some biologist....

Just because there was no oxygen on our planet doesn't mean it was dangerous, it was only inadequate for standard human colonization. It's still nature. I consider humanity more dangerous than anything else on this world.

As George Callin says, " I can't wait for when the Tsnumais comes, and earthquakes destroy our cities and "way of life", because thats when we are really worried and thats whats we were always worried about, a nice place to live, we don't care about nature. Because we are not intune with it.

I seem to recall the sun was a lot weaker too back in those "ages." We are now entering the stage where the C02 levels in the atmosphere are the highest that they've been for a million years. And I really hope I don't need to tell you what happened when C02 levels were just a bit higher than that.
(In a weaker sun too.)


Which "cycle" would that be now?

Its cycles, stronger weaker, bigger smaller, brighter, darker do la la. etc. We spin around our galaxy also. And there is ups and downs on the journey around it. Doing one revolution means we will do it all over again the next time around. Such a pity education didn't teach us more about this basic stuff. We are in the age of Aquarius or fifth age. Each ancient civilzations called it a diferent name.

But interestingly enough 10,980 bc, was the fall of Atlantis and the dating of the hall of records, which is opened but not to the public about our true history of the last ages. This was the age of Leo, leo is opposite of Aquarius. This was 12,900 years ago approx. A galactic day is 26.000 years approx half of this age is 13,000 years. The other interesting thing is, the pyramids of Giza are perfectly aligned to Orion and Sirius, 10,980 bc(12,900 years ago)

The last 13000 years has been called the dark ages. What we are moving into now is what's known as the Golden age (which is well underway)

Google the ages of the past, If you want links I'll send a few good referenced ones.

We are moving into a new age, and the powers of be dont want us to know the reality of this great change. They can't stop the truth from getting out the back door, but they have the power of the media and education systems to keep us locked in this frenzy of fear, pandamic, global warming, the world is going to end and using technology against us such as bio and armed warfare. Now we are been cot with the haarp weather changing systems. The list is endiess to keep us all worried and distracted to what is actually happening to our planet and our world as a whole.

mysterious

This man George Carlin had the IQ of all the woman combined here.:D

He's just on the ball with reality and more noticeably on environmental issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8p9IbXYHc&feature=related

RoboClam

mysterious wrote: »

This man George Carlin had the IQ of all the woman combined here.:D

He's just on the ball with reality and more noticeably on environmental issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U8p9IbXYHc&feature=related

"Wildfire victims getting what's coming to them, says Carlin"

Nice Mysterious, real nice.

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

He's just on the ball with reality and more noticeably on environmental issues.

He's pretty on the ball about religion too!:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

mysterious

I know, thats why I'm a big fan of him:p

Yitzhak Rabin

Mysterious if you'd like to read scientific literature which proposes that the earth is a living organism I suggest James Lovelocks stuff. He's a real scientist, who does research and submits it for peer review. You'd get a but more respect if you quoted his work rather than just stated your own opinions which you got from being 'in tune with nature'. Here's an introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

EDIT: I just like to add I'm not a fan of this theory, I just thought I try and take this back to the realm of science before this thread derails

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Or you know, greenhouse gases could just be a problem without silly doomsday predictions.

If the sun gets going , greenhouse gases will be a problem and electromagnetic induction from the sun will cause a pole shift and there will be massive earthquakes and the oceans will wipe Ireland clear of every standing structure .
A polar shift would be good for the environment because everything would be plowed up and soils will be re-mineralised and the planet would be set up like new for another 26000 years or so .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

If the sun gets going

It's going right now.
What's going to change in 3 years?

espinolman wrote: »

, greenhouse gases will be a problem

They're a problem now even without the sun heating up.

espinolman wrote: »

and electomagnetic induction from the sun will cause a polar shift

And electromagnetic induction from the sun does not and change not cause a polar shift.

espinolman wrote: »

and there will be massive earthquakes and the oceans will wipe Ireland clear of every standing structure ,

No they won't.

espinolman wrote: »

a polar shift would be good for the environment because everything would be plowed up and soils will be re-mineralised and the planet would be set up like new for another 26000 years or so .

No it won't.

All a pole shift does is flip the magnetic poles of the Earth that's it.
It's happened tons of times throughout history without any of the doomsday nonsense you think will happen.
There is nothing at all to suggest a pole shift will happen in 2012 or any time within our lifetimes.

Seriously where do you get this nonsense?
Do you ever try to check the claims?

mysterious

espinolman wrote: »

If the sun gets going , greenhouse gases will be a problem and electromagnetic induction from the sun will cause a pole shift and there will be massive earthquakes and the oceans will wipe Ireland clear of every standing structure .
A polar shift would be good for the environment because everything would be plowed up and soils will be re-mineralised and the planet would be set up like new for another 26000 years or so .

I can't wait for that, and I hope the powers of be that have kept us in darkness about our true history perish for good this time.

There are no second or third chances this time.

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

It's going right now.

There is nothing at all to suggest a pole shift will happen in 2012 or any time within our lifetimes.

Seriously where do you get this nonsense?
Do you ever try to check the claims?

Oh and I suppose its just a coincidence that you posted that at exactly 02:12 which rearranges as 2012!:eek::eek::eek:

But seriously, if anyone is interested the astronomer TDarnell did a video on this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxpjIhfVk6A . Not the most interesting, but he talks about the pole shifts and solar pole shifts from about 06:50 onwards.

The main points from the video are solar flares happen all the time, he has footage of them happening, its no biggie, certainly not the end of the world, just messes with satellites.

The earths poles change over hundreds of thousands of years...not in a day. The last time the magnetic field of the earth changed was over 740,000 years ago.

The earth shifts poles very rarely

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

I can't wait for that

Your lack of compassion for mankind is astonishing! You would relish a global genocide.:eek:

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

It's going right now.
What's going to change in 3 years?

The equator of the sun aligns with the galactic centre and this will cause electromagnetic induction from millions of stars in the galaxy into to sun , the sun will get extremely active , there will be colossal sun flares and the sun will have a pole shift , the suns magnetic field is connected to the earths magnetic field , so if the sun has a polar shift , earth will as well .

King Mob wrote: »

All a pole shift does is flip the magnetic poles of the Earth that's it.
It's happened tons of times throughout history without any of the doomsday nonsense you think will happen.

The earth's magnetic field and the earths true axis are one and the same , the suns magnetic field is powerful enough to warp earths magnetic field away from earths true axis and this is fact , a pole shift is a physical pole shift , a planets magnetic field cannot be independant of the axis of rotation of a planet .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

The equator of the sun aligns with the galactic centre and this will cause electromagnetic induction from millions of stars in the galaxy into to sun , the sun will get extremely active , there will be colossal sun flares and the sun will have a pole shift , the suns magnetic field is connected to the earths magnetic field , so if the sun has a polar shift , earth will as well .


The earth's magnetic field and the earths true axis are one and the same , the suns magnetic field is powerful enough to warp earths magnetic field away from earths true axis and this is fact , a pole shift is a physical pole shift ,

Pretty much everything you said in that post is not true.
It kinda displays your complete lack of understanding of astronomy or physics, and your willingness to accept any old crap as truth.

I dare you, show evidence for any of those claims.

espinolman wrote: »

a planets magnetic field cannot be independant of the axis of rotation of a planet .

Yep bull****.

Neptune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Magnetic_field

Yitzhak Rabin

espinolman wrote: »

The equator of the sun aligns with the galactic centre

The galactic alignment is only a visual effect, and only from the earths perspective, as a result of the procession cycle, the 26,000 wobble of the earth. Viewed from anywhere else in the solar system, this is an insignificant event. It is just a visual effect.

and this will cause electromagnetic induction from millions of stars in the galaxy into to sun , the sun will get extremely active

Well seen as galactic alignemnt is just an effect not sure by what mechanism you think this could happen.

, there will be colossal sun flares and the sun will have a pole shift , the suns magnetic field is connected to the earths magnetic field , so if the sun has a polar shift , earth will as well .

The sun shifts poles every 11 years and is NOT connected to the earths magnetic field.

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Your lack of compassion for mankind is astonishing! You would relish a global genocide.:eek:

No I think the people who take responsibility for their lives will survive,

Meaning people who can let go

• materilism
• physicality
• education
• sigh ence
• money
• insecurities
• hate
• separation

These are just some of the things that will hinder us in the probable worst case scenario.

I don't wish genocide, i just want this planet to wash itself out.

espinolman

yekahs wrote: »

The sun shifts poles every 11 years and is NOT connected to the earths magnetic field.

No , the sun does not shift poles every 11 years , they think it does based on observations of sunspots , but sunspots have their own magnetic fields which do shift , but that does't mean the sun pole shifts , of course mainstream scientists and astronomers think the suns poles shift every eleven years because they are idiots .
And suns magnetic field does influence the earths magnetic field , it causes the earths magnetic pole to be tillted 11 degrees from the earths true axis .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

No , the sun does not shift poles every 11 years , they think it does based on observations of sunspots , but sunspots have their own magnetic fields which do shift , but that does't mean the sun pole shifts ,

No sunspots are the product of the sun's magnetic field.
And the sun's pole does shift.
They have observed this happening.

espinolman wrote: »

of course mainstream scientists and astronomers think the suns poles shift every eleven years because they are idiots .

Yep that must be it. It couldn't possibly be you that's wrong.
Sure astronomers have equipment and satellites and experimental and observational data and peer reviewed papers and education and experience in their field and a notion about what they're talking about, but you've got.....

What do you have exactly?
How do you know this nonsense you're spouting is true?

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

And suns magnetic field does influence the earths magnetic field , it causes the earths magnetic pole to be tillted 11 degrees from the earths true axis .

Oops looks like you're contradicting your self.

espinolman wrote: »

a planets magnetic field cannot be independant of the axis of rotation of a planet .

It's almost like you're making this up in your head.

Yitzhak Rabin

I would just like to clarify an error I made a few posts ago:o. I said that the sun shifts poles every 11 years. This is not strictly true, it would have been more accurate for me to say it occurs spotaneously every 7-15 years at the peak of solar max during the 11year cycle.

espinolman

yekahs wrote: »

I would just like to clarify an error I made a few posts ago:o. I said that the sun shifts poles every 11 years. This is not strictly true, it would have been more accurate for me to say it occurs spotaneously every 7-15 years at the peak of solar max during the 11year cycle.

If the sun had a pole shift , the earth and all the planets would as well and it would be a physical pole shift , its simple mechanics and i understand this because i study suppressed science and technology .