I'll start by explaining what I understand as global warming theory
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... sed-to-ask.
Does anyone dispute this as the currently accepted theory? If not then I'll explain why I have problems with it.
What is the highest ever temperature in the billions of years of earth history (I'll be generous and only count the years after the existence of liquid water) Was it more than 4C higher than today's temperature? The web sites I've read (all the links are at the end of the article) say it was much much hotter (20c+) but if you can show otherwise then please do so.
It is historical fact that Oxygen was a trace gas until plants and microbes started producing more. I was taught in school that early earth had lots of C02 and very little O2. The C02 caused lots of plants who used up lots of C02 and produced lots of 02. The fall in Co2 hurt plants, but the rise in O2 created animals who used O2 and produced C02 and so started the great oxygen cycle.
What was the Co2 level at the time? My websites say CO2 levels were much higher (5x) at the time but again if you can prove otherwise let me know.
I have looked at the arguments for climate change and against climate change. I'm generalising but the pro climate change sites are based on computer models of what they think will happen whilst the anti climate change sites looked at what happened in the past and how they don't match the computer models. Now perhaps there is a good reason all the predictions based on these computer models have been proven wrong (No snow in UK after 2000, Ice free arctic in 2013 are just 2 examples) but why should I trust the people who got the predictions wrong over the people who correctly said that the predictions were wrong. And if the failed predictions weren't based on computer models but were unscientific scare stories designed to bounce people into signing up to climate change then why should I trust the people who lied then to tell the truth now?
Finally my local council arranged 3 climate change marches in the early 2000's. Every one of them was cancelled at least once because of snow. Strangely enough they stopped arranging them after that. I'm no devout church goer but you don't need to be Moses to hear God's laughter at the idea that mankind controls the weather.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... /page3.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tmosphere/
http://earthsky.org/earth/whats-hottest ... -ever-been
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurass ... oxide.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/ ... de-levels/
http://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... tic-ocean/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/2000-f ... om-the-uk/
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/cli ... ing-theory
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Perhaps every site above is fake. Perhaps the science I was taught at school was wrong. Perhaps the press only published the most unlikely climate change predictions. Perhaps. Perhaps not
I have read the arguments on both sides and compared them with the real world. It is now 2017. You still can't sail to the North Pole without an icebreaker (if at all) and it still snows in the UK. how many global warming scientists correctly predicted that this would still be the case? I bet it wasn't 95%.
Do you want a world where scientific theories are compared to real world measurements even if they are an inconvenient truth, or do you want a world where Galileo faces trial for disagreeing with the powers that be.
Mark
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... sed-to-ask.
Does anyone dispute this as the currently accepted theory? If not then I'll explain why I have problems with it.
What is the highest ever temperature in the billions of years of earth history (I'll be generous and only count the years after the existence of liquid water) Was it more than 4C higher than today's temperature? The web sites I've read (all the links are at the end of the article) say it was much much hotter (20c+) but if you can show otherwise then please do so.
It is historical fact that Oxygen was a trace gas until plants and microbes started producing more. I was taught in school that early earth had lots of C02 and very little O2. The C02 caused lots of plants who used up lots of C02 and produced lots of 02. The fall in Co2 hurt plants, but the rise in O2 created animals who used O2 and produced C02 and so started the great oxygen cycle.
What was the Co2 level at the time? My websites say CO2 levels were much higher (5x) at the time but again if you can prove otherwise let me know.
I have looked at the arguments for climate change and against climate change. I'm generalising but the pro climate change sites are based on computer models of what they think will happen whilst the anti climate change sites looked at what happened in the past and how they don't match the computer models. Now perhaps there is a good reason all the predictions based on these computer models have been proven wrong (No snow in UK after 2000, Ice free arctic in 2013 are just 2 examples) but why should I trust the people who got the predictions wrong over the people who correctly said that the predictions were wrong. And if the failed predictions weren't based on computer models but were unscientific scare stories designed to bounce people into signing up to climate change then why should I trust the people who lied then to tell the truth now?
Finally my local council arranged 3 climate change marches in the early 2000's. Every one of them was cancelled at least once because of snow. Strangely enough they stopped arranging them after that. I'm no devout church goer but you don't need to be Moses to hear God's laughter at the idea that mankind controls the weather.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... /page3.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... tmosphere/
http://earthsky.org/earth/whats-hottest ... -ever-been
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurass ... oxide.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/ ... de-levels/
http://arizonadailyindependent.com/201 ... tic-ocean/
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/2000-f ... om-the-uk/
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/
http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/cli ... ing-theory
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Perhaps every site above is fake. Perhaps the science I was taught at school was wrong. Perhaps the press only published the most unlikely climate change predictions. Perhaps. Perhaps not
I have read the arguments on both sides and compared them with the real world. It is now 2017. You still can't sail to the North Pole without an icebreaker (if at all) and it still snows in the UK. how many global warming scientists correctly predicted that this would still be the case? I bet it wasn't 95%.
Do you want a world where scientific theories are compared to real world measurements even if they are an inconvenient truth, or do you want a world where Galileo faces trial for disagreeing with the powers that be.
Mark