Lake Water Levels Down

[blove8]

Originally Posted by GordMay

See: Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle:
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

You may also wish to consider the coments at:
The Great Global Warming Swindle Questions Answered « Reasic

In August 2007, Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory published a study which may have put the final nail in the coffin for the anti-CO2 brigade. He has shown than since 1985, solar activity has run in the opposite direction to global warming and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

Thanks GordMay, I'll take a look.

[GordMay]

Every court must (somehow) judge the credibility of the witness before it.

Argumentum ad hominem is a Latin phrase translated literally as "argument aimed at the person," but usually translated as "argument to the man."
Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past - it c(ad hominem) annot provide an infallible counterargument.
Although I made no ad hominem argument (tho' I often do), I could have been foregiven (had I), for his situation is one, in which ad hominem could be a valid argument – for it would have been used to attack the credibility of the person who is the sole source of information, not on the validity of their deduction, for there was none.
.

[jdoe71]

Was it not you who floated the whole global governance thing? I'm assuming that since you suggest people view this that you support the idea. I wasn't aware that was an irrelevant fact about you.

You have the right to believe what you do, as I have to believe what I do. Unfortunately, the consequences of you being wrong are far worse than the consequences of me being wrong.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jdoe71

[1]Was it not you who floated the whole global governance thing? ...
[2]You have the right to believe what you do, as I have to believe what I do. [3]Unfortunately, the consequences of you being wrong are far worse than the consequences of me being wrong.

1. Huh?
2. And we'll both be judged for our beliefs.
3. How so?

[blove8]

Originally Posted by jdoe71

You have the right to believe what you do, as I have to believe what I do. Unfortunately, the consequences of you being wrong are far worse than the consequences of me being wrong.

Thanks for obliging me that right. If you would, please explain to me how the consequences of me being wrong (not sure about what exactly) are far worse than if you are wrong?

Also, I do agree with you jdoe that there are problems with pollution, deforestation, air quality in cities, and other such man made phenomenas around the globe. I'm not contesting that fact, I'm simply putting something out there on the table that isn't generally being discussed.

[blove8]

Originally Posted by blove8

Thanks GordMay, I'll take a look.

I took a look and what I find is that this issue continues to get more convoluted as the discussion continues. Therefore, it is more difficult to come up with any definitive conclusions regarding 'human created global warming'.

One thing that the link you provided did not touch upon is the fact that several other planets in our solar system are also going through similar warming trends. This, for me, points to the sun and solar flares as more of a culprit than human created CO2.

With that said, if global warming is human created, I wonder if geoengineering technologies such has HAARP, weather modification, and chemtrails have been considered by the establishment's scientists studying this topic.

A couple interesting quotes from Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming

Evaluating Geoengineering Options
"Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail."

Screening Out Some Sunlight
"Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust."

One of the most concerning issues to me about this subject matter is the 'agenda', and how this 'human caused global warming' topic fits into the elites' grand scheme of things. Example... 'One Answer To Global Warming: A New Tax' (New York Times)

Hmm... I'll continue to follow this story.

OK, now any ideas on how to get this all back on topic?