Global Warming caused by us? Thnk again..

[Md Mashud]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+swindle&hl=en

Pretty sure when you saw it getting spammed on every newspaper it made you think "whats with this sudden surge about this"? Like everything else, like 9/11 etc its just another load of crap to benefit certain people by making you believe in stuff which isnt true.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

assalamu alaikum

eh dude wheres the salamz!!!!!!!!

gonna have to watch this after maghrib , jazakAllah

[Md Mashud]

Indeed, give me the extensions/icon stuff for it all . YOu and your pretty looking thread addiction ;')

[Fishman]

Propaganda not worth worth watching. Read 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Al Gore, which is full of proof for the human involvement in climate change.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Indeed, give me the extensions/icon stuff for it all . YOu and your pretty looking thread addiction ;')

LOL!

all i said is make the thread look pretty so it attracts people to pay more attention to it, fish !!


and give you wat?

its all there man, , just look "outside of the box" LOL,

[S]not hard to miss[/S]

[Md Mashud]

Fishman, this video targets inconvenient truth by al gore - al gore is old news - he got disproved ages ago and many times. Get with the times.


Edit: I just remembered your the guy who believes 9/11 was done by Osama, I rest my case.

[Fishman]

Fishman, this video targets inconvenient truth by al gore - al gore is old news - he got disproved ages ago and many times. Get with the times.


Edit: I just remembered your the guy who believes 9/11 was done by Osama, I rest my case.

Even if I wanted to watch the video, I can't, because this computer has no sound system anyway. Normally I don't like just responding with 'propaganda not worth worth watching', I prefer to actually refute things, so I apologise if anybody was offended. If somebody has actually seen the video, then please will they post the details and I will try to refute it. Be warned, I am currently obsessed with climate change and as I result I have researched the subject greatly for no reason.

[Fishman]

Ok, I managed to find the audio functions of the computer, so I am currently watching the video.

Points about the video:

1. There have been warmer times than now, yes, but came along slowly, probably due to a combination of orbital cycles and volcanic activity. There have also been mass extinctions caused when greenhouse gases escaping from the sea floor warmed the world at a similar rate to what is happenning now, in periods such as the eocene thermal maximum (source) and possibly the end of the Permian.

2. The graph shown is deceptive. First of all, the slope of the modern warming is shown to be much shallower than it is, giving the impression of a slow change rather than a dramatic spike. Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period was warm, but not as warm as current times. The graph overexaggerates the temperature rise. A more accurate graph can be seen here:


3. The holocene thermal maximum (also known as the holocene climatic optimum) is also much cooler than that shown on the graph, certainly not much warmer than today. Here's a more accurate graph:


4. Although cars and aeroplanes were not in common use until after the war, industry has been around longer than that. The end of the Little Ice Age and the start of the present warming conditions happened at a time when the industrial revolution was taking hold, when Europe was producing very large amounts of smoke, smog and CO2. The four decade gap 1940-1975 is hard to explain, but it is often explained as being caused by global dimming, a phenomenon that occurs when dirty fuels such as coals are burnt, which release sulphur dioxide, a aerosol which cools the atmosphere. clean air laws have recently started removing SO2 from fuels in many places, allowing warming to continue unhampered.

5. Although CO2 does not constitute a large portion of the atmosphere, that does not necessarily mean that it is not important. A even slight change in the composition of the atmosphere may have profound impacts on the climate of the Earth.

6. The differences between surface warming and atmospheric warming are to do with a malfunction in the measuring devices of the instruments. The CCSP SAP 1.1 Executive Summary states:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

More later, folks!

[Md Mashud]

5. Although CO2 does not constitute a large portion of the atmosphere, that does not necessarily mean that it is not important. A even slight change in the composition of the atmosphere may have profound impacts on the climate of the Earth.

Thats were your wrong, Im not saying human should start polluting world, but definatly we are not the controllers of climate change through global warming.

Even if you believe CO2 is the cause or not, the difference we make is too small - its just illogical to assume it has an effect.

Secondly, please don't google stuff - you are about to get some of the worst evidence out there.

I understand mathematic model/statistic well, and you know how easy it is to manipulate somthing? Its pretty crazy. Most things on the net, 90% you can reject based on complete bias/unfair result through tinkering or missing out many essential factors.

So, unless you understand a great deal of physics/mathematics, don't be giving this kind of stuff out. You will mislead yourself and others.

I had a 6 hour debate with a guy, who was trying to prove the engineering truth of 9/11. He would go look up facts all over net, present me. It came to a conclusion, he didnt even have the intellect to even understand any of the phsyics involved - even though being a graduate in a science - He just took it in.

So yeah, if you want real research - you got to restrict your study to the BEST. Its like learning islam through a random array of not so great scholars, instead of the greatest - your just asking to be misguided.

There people, who will fight to steer people into untruth on MANY things. Not just on politics, or environment, many are there to prove God cannot exist etc and they try back it up with alot of so called evidence. Unless you are very very educated on the matter, you cannot refute it.

I actually have nothing personal against you, but just get annoyed when you suddenly place certain (even if its a single person, aka Al Gore) above people far more intelligence (eh, reminds me of debates madhab vs salafism lol).

There are engineers who will try prove planes caused twin towers to fall, I read NASA's arguement why the moon landing wasnt fake (oh ye, has anyone other than me researched what NASA itself used as excuses for certain aspects? Made me laugh quite alot). When you look at both sources, you find one CLEARLY has more credibility. Usuaully, people are drawn to the "elite" governement crew, as I like to say, since they have the media on there side greatly to influence people towards them. Truth is though, they don't even come close to the others who dispute them but how are people to know.

Even more amusing is, somtimes my opinions are called propagand - yet my information in MANY circumstance is based on the same source as theres - what has that got to say about credibility of your source?

Being a maths undergraduate atm I can make some funny examples here. Basically, these, although at sight to any normal person is FLAWLESS calculations, obviously arnt true
:

PROOF 1=2

Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
a = b
Multiply through by a
a2 = ab
Subtract b2
a2 − b2 = ab − b2
Factor both sides
(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)
Divide out (a − b)
a + b = b
Observing that a = b
b + b = b
Combine like terms on the left
2b = b
Divide by the non-zero b
2 = 1

----

Proof that 0 = 1
Start with the addition of an infinite succession of zeros
0 = 0+0+0+0 etc

Then recognize that 0 = 1 − 1
0 = (1-1) + (1-1) + etc


Applying the associative law of addition results in

0 = 1 + (-1+1) + (-1+1) + etc

Of course − 1 + 1 = 0

And the addition of an infinite string of zeros can be discarded leaving
0 = 1

!

---

[edit] Proof that 1 = 3
From Euler's formula we see that
eni denotes e^ni where n = pi

eπi = cos(π) + isin(π) = − 1 + 0i = − 1
and

e3πi = cos(3π) + isin(3π) = − 1 + 0i = i
so we have

eπi = e3πi.
Taking logarithms gives

ln(eπi) = ln(e3πi)
and hence

πi = 3πi.
Dividing by πi gives

1 = 3

--

There a funny integration one aswell, which leads to a result of -2, but from the graph its evident the area cannot be of -2.

Basically ye, alot of things, if you don't understand, you can't refute them.

[InToTheRain]

PROOF 1=2

Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
a = b
Multiply through by a
a2 = ab
Subtract b2
a2 − b2 = ab − b2
Factor both sides
(a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b)
Divide out (a − b)
a + b = b
Observing that a = b
b + b = b
Combine like terms on the left
2b = b
Divide by the non-zero b
2 = 1

----

Proof that 0 = 1
Start with the addition of an infinite succession of zeros
0 = 0+0+0+0 etc

Then recognize that 0 = 1 − 1
0 = (1-1) + (1-1) + etc


Applying the associative law of addition results in

0 = 1 + (-1+1) + (-1+1) + etc

Of course − 1 + 1 = 0

And the addition of an infinite string of zeros can be discarded leaving
0 = 1

!

---

[edit] Proof that 1 = 3
From Euler's formula we see that
eni denotes e^ni where n = pi

eπi = cos(π) + isin(π) = − 1 + 0i = − 1
and

e3πi = cos(3π) + isin(3π) = − 1 + 0i = i
so we have

eπi = e3πi.
Taking logarithms gives

ln(eπi) = ln(e3πi)
and hence

πi = 3πi.
Dividing by πi gives

1 = 3

--

There a funny integration one aswell, which leads to a result of -2, but from the graph its evident the area cannot be of -2.

Basically ye, alot of things, if you don't understand, you can't refute them.

LOL LOoooooooL :laugh:

seriously thats some good stuff moit. nice 1 :')

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Channel 4 screens Thursday's The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary which says claims that carbon emissions are causing global warming are 'lies' and that attempts to debate the subject are being suppressed.

Given that the world's climatologists have just published a careful, sober report showing global warming is real and worrying, the programme is an astonishing foray into the debate. Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem. Yet a couple of important points do emerge from this nonsense and we should not make the mistake of ignoring them. To back his case, director Martin Durkin interviews climate-change deniers including Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder and Nigel Lawson who reveal their antipathy to the idea we are altering Earth's weather systems.

These names are scarcely unknown. Listeners to Today and viewers of Newsnight have been hearing Stott and the rest promote their views for years. Indeed, they have dominated and distorted the whole global warming debate, a point stressed by Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council. 'These people are never off the radio or TV, yet now they claim debate is being suppressed? It is preposterous.' So what, we might ask, is the deniers' problem? Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale.

'It is widely assumed that to control climate change, we will need a raft of government measures and increased bureaucracy - anathema to these people,' says political philosopher John Gray. 'So they deal with the issue by denying the problem in the first place. They say there is no such thing as global warming and therefore no need for more controls. They have closed their minds.'

The problem is that denial - in all its ludicrous glory - makes it easy for us to gloss over genuine concerns about society's right reaction to global warming and carbon emissions. And that is what is wrong with Durkin's programme. It opts for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem.

Consider emission controls. This is now assumed to be as much an issue of individual responsibility as of international negotiation. Petrol-guzzling 4x4s must be taxed, foreign holidays discouraged, TVs unplugged and lavatories left unflushed. After decades of waiting, the green movement has found the cause of its dreams: a crisis that gives them carte blanche, they believe, to rule our lives.

Hairshirts are being knitted and the self-righteous are gathering. The Observer's travel desk already gets hate mail merely for highlighting interesting destinations that might seem to encourage carbon-producing air travel. No wonder those poor old deniers cringe.

But it simply does not have to be that way. For a start, air travel accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. So I refuse to feel guilty because I have a family holiday in Spain and then write about the threatened glories of the Great Barrier Reef.

Indeed, if one looks at the world's last great ecological scare, the dwindling of our protective ozone layer, it is intriguing to see how we dealt with a threat that seemed as apocalyptic then as climate change does today. Ozone depletion, caused by CFC chemicals used in fridges and deodorants, was not contained through individual sacrifice. We were not asked to sell our Hotpoint freezers or go smelly to the office. Governments and industries agreed to replace CFCs with safe substitutes. So there was no need for an army of self-appointed greenies to sniff our armpits to check if they were suspiciously non-malodorous. The crisis was contained at an industrial, not a consumer, level, as it should be with greenhouse gases.

Climate change is a bigger, more pernicious problem and will require broader, more intense efforts to cut back on carbon emissions, which, in turn, offers more opportunities for campaigners and politicians to hijack a sound cause to gain control of people's lives. 'That is the striking thing about global warming,' says Myles Allen, of Oxford's climate dynamics group. 'It is a Christmas tree on which each of us can hang virtually everything we want.'

Thus, everyone from EU commissioners and Ken Livingstone to parish councils and writers of green-ink letters now uses global warming as an excuse to tell us how to live. Some of this advice, and attempts at lifestyle control, is sound. Some is not. Either way, it is misplaced. The lead must come from government and industry. So far it hasn't. That is incompetence. Not conspiracy.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...026125,00.html

[Md Mashud]

RighteousLady, nice article, jazakallah for the read.

Some very great comments left:

Oh wow.. Robert McLie: alleged "science" editor, but actually the Logic Denier and Global Dumber gets a soapbox in the Grauniad to spout the most idiotic ramblings it has ever been my misfortune to read.

The most alarming aspect of the so-called “debate” about the inevitable and unremarkable shifts in the earth’s climate in the past few billion years is the Logic Deniers cynical abandonment of the scientific method.

People who claim to be “scientists,” and who you might assume would know better, are actually leading the cartoon mob screaming about consensus, end of debate.

They sound like the mob at ye olde Witch Trials in England. The mob would gather for the traditional pastime of drinking, cavorting and burning a few women at the stake.

No matter what the poor females accused of “witchcraft” did or said proved that they were, in fact, witches. The mob found signs in everything to prove their idiotic ravings. Does that sound familiar?

See... the witch has a Cat. Burn the witch. See she floats when we drown her. Drag her from the village pond and burn the witch. See... she has a mole. Burn the witch.

I’m referencing Sir Karl Popper: the English/Austrian big brain widely recognized as one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the 20th Century.

According to Popper and supported by many, the researcher should begin by proposing hypotheses. The collection of data is guided by a theoretical preconception concerning what is relevant or important. The examination of causal connections between phenomena is also guided by leading hypotheses.

Such a hypothesis is scientific only if one can derive from it particular observation statements that, if falsified by the facts, would refute the hypothesis.

A statement is meaningful, therefore, if and only if there is a way it can be falsified. Hence the researcher should strive to refute rather than to confirm his hypotheses.

Refutation is the real advancement. And why? Because it clears the field of a likely hypothesis and let’s us move on.

You get that point of brilliant clarity?

Science can only be “science” if it is open to refutation or falsification – according to one of the top minds of the twentieth century.

Yet the Logic Deniers and the Global Dumbers have perverted that to say any scientists seeking to refute them should banished to outer darkness.

Yet it is they, the Logic Deniers, who have perverted the progress of science and infused “research” with DOGMA.

It is their minds which are CLOSED to refutation and falsification. It is they who should be attacking their own hypotheses with vigor so as to strengthen their case.

Yet they are not. This is truly a Stalinist level of scary for those who assumed we had left the Dark Ages behind.

Just ignoring the fact that in the past CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today. The fact that this predated not only industrialization, but mankind by millions of year.

The fact that sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 18,000 years as part of the natural cycle of Ice Ages cycles.

The fact that no one can state what the “correct” levels of carbon dioxide are.

The fact that the Sun has massive effects on weather and climate.

The fact that climatologists can’t even predict weather 14 days into the future.

All this and so, so much more is out there. They should all cause a reasonable man to pause and say, hang on...

“How does all this support MY theory that it is man who is having the major effect on our apparently small rise in the average global temperature recently. “

But then, we aren’t really dealing with science here. It’s that old time religion. Plus a grafted on does of the same old neo-communist/neo-socialist/watermelon politics.

“Green” on the outside. Red through and through.

The use of ad hominem attacks serves only to reinforce the case of the sceptics. If the CO2 case is so sound, why is it so vulnerable to scrutiny. You do not need to be a scientist to see that there have been previous warm periods in history, prior to the industrial revolution. The current consistently mild weather has happened only in the last 15 years.

Central England Temperature in 2006 was a massive 0.35 degrees C warmer than in 1733, 273 years ago and a whopping 0.2 degrees C warmer than 1949, almost 60 years ago. So much for massive amounts of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, now at an incredible 0.04% of the air we breathe.

The comments about cfc's, the Ozone hole and success of international action in controlling it, are difficult to reconcile with the recent announcement of a record ozone hole. This was another non-problem producing lots of government controls, lots of wasted resources and disastrous environmental problems with fridge mountains.

Once something can be measured the panic starts, but of course no-one knows anything about whether the Ozone hole should be there or not, or how big or otherwise it was in previous millennia, but it certainly brought in a lot of money for a lot of people.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

LOL LOoooooooL :laugh:

seriously thats some good stuff moit. nice 1 :')

ye LOL,

mash been revisin it up nicely getin ready for that 1st ye mash

[InToTheRain]

ye LOL,

mash been revisin it up nicely getin ready for that 1st ye mash

and you thought he wasn't revising eh? tut tut
fo real he forgot to put the . on the MD, it shud've been m.d :P nah just kidding MD stands for something much better

[Abdul Fattah]

I find it very odd your scale includes temperatures of the year 0, given that the first mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 by Gabriel Fahrenheit, and since we have only started making reliable recordings since around 1850.

[Fishman]

I find it very odd your scale includes temperatures of the year 0, given that the first mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 by Gabriel Fahrenheit, and since we have only started making reliable recordings since around 1850.

They are estimates, lots of them done by differwnt groups of people.

[Abdul Fattah]

They are estimates, lots of them done by differwnt groups of people.

I geuss that's why they fluctuate that much lol

[aadil77]

Why don't we just consider 'Global Warming' as a sign of qiyamah?

[Fishman]

Why don't we just consider 'Global Warming' as a sign of qiyamah?

I read that one of the signs of Qiyamah will be a three-year global drought, which the Dajjal will use magic to stop.

I geuss that's why they fluctuate that much lol

The fluctuations are just natural changes, the fact that the graphs are covered in loads of lines is because of the estimation involved!