Can anyone tell me how many Ice Ages the planet Earth has experienced and what caused them??
I work closely with our EPA and I guarantee you there are two sides to this argument.
One side is that Fossil Fuels and Industrialization are the #1 factor responsible for the current Global Warming Trend and the other side is that they are minimally responsible and that the Earth historically goes through these cycles on it's own.
Check this Forestry site for some of the "other side" to Gore's over-reactionary propaganda.......
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:M2lq...us&ct=clnk&cd=8
Where you can read this.......
__________________________________________________________________________________
It seems there is some serious scientific doubt about whether man-made C02 has any significant effect on global warming.
With some research, I found out there is a huge group of scientists who have signed their name to the Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidleberg Appeal expresses these scientists' concerns with "the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Their demand is that "this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions." It warns "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data."
The Heidleberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries. The full text of the appeal is not long, about a page, and can be found at http://www.sepp.org/heidelberg_appeal.html
In a related story, Canadian scientists are having trouble getting the Canadian media to let them broadcast their 27 minute documentary arguing against the Kyoto Protocol (that limits C02 production because it is supposed to contribute to global warming). The scientists felt strongly enough about this documentary that they produced it with their own money. The story is at: http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm
More information arguing that the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed can be found at a website titled Friends of Science. In their own words . . . "Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, not to mention concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable. Friends of Science has assembled a scientific advisory board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, and any interested parties."
Their website can be found at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
One section of the website lists the following Myths and Facts:
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Temperatures have increased around urban areas (???heat islands???) which distorts the overall picture; whereas accurate satellite, balloon and long-term mountain top measurements have observed no increase at all.
Myth 2: The ???hockey stick??? graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
Fact: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average" global temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius per 100 years; although from 1940 ??? 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The hockey stick not only ignores historical fact, but is also scientifically flawed.
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto. However, as measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the result of, not the cause of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this. There is solid evidence that as temperatures rise naturally and cyclically, the earth naturally produces more CO2 as a result.
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere, is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up only about 3% of the greenhouse gases, or about 0.03% of the atmosphere. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
Myth 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
Fact: Unfortunately, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which is CO2.
Yes, the earth goes through cycles. No, we are not in a warming cycle now, we should be in a cooling cycle. Yes, not all greenhouse gasses are caused by people. Only the greenhouse gasses we have control over are caused by people.
Climatologist and independent scientist who have studied global warming are not among those who endorse the HA. The HA is not a scientific paper nor has contrary scientific views stood up to peer review.
Sorry.
