In recent news, a lot of mistakes and erroneous assumptions regarding global warming have been collected and created on the websites of the global warming deniers. Some of them are also echoed in mantras repeated by all kinds of deniers. Carefully and humbly we will try to make a little order
In recent news, a lot of mistakes and erroneous assumptions regarding global warming have been collected and created on the websites of the global warming deniers. Some of them are also echoed in mantras repeated by all kinds of deniers. Carefully and humbly we will try to make a little order.
Common Argument 1: The last cold winter just blew the lid off the warming arguments
to the claim that "the last (cold...) winter in the Northern Hemisphere contradicts global warming". A distinction must be made between weather, which is local and temporary, and climate, which is the collection of weather events over long periods and the causes and causes of their formation, so that a cold summer does not contradict global warming just as a heat wave in winter would not verify it.
In the enclosed article, we will mention that the cold weather of 2009/10 is attributed to a shift in the jet streams, a shift that prevented warm air from equatorial regions from reaching the north. Some claim that the shift is related to sunspots. Warm air holds more water vapor,
Therefore, when winter comes after a hot summer, the air cools down and releases the moisture even as snow. Dry periods also occur in the same way, since the vapor "pressure" in the atmosphere causes rainstorms in which it rains heavily and is followed by long dry periods.
Common argument 2: Climate-Gate proves the report was wrong
to the claim that "the UN scientists' report on the warming was wrong". Indeed, there were errors in the report that resulted from inaccurate measurements and data. The mistakes are a "black spot" for the environmental organizations, but all the mistakes add up at the end of a long comprehensive and thorough report that brought the fact of global warming to a public and political level discussion and in the hope that actions will be taken to stop and prevent the warming.
Common argument 3 There was no warming in the last decade
For the claim that "there has been no warming in the last 10-15 years": the hottest year since there are measurements was ... 1998 according to the University of East Anglia and NASA. The year 2005 was close to the peak, and in fact the ten hottest years are among the last 15 years and the ones that are less warm - are less warm relative to this decade (and this is also at the edge of the measurement error) and not completely cold years. So the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest since 1880. When we weigh data from nature: ice layers, seasonal rings in trees, etc., we come to the assumption that we are in a warmer period than our planet has known in the past thousands of years.
Common argument 4: It would have been more correct to define the situation as "climate change"
The whole world is warming, but when you look at the personal feelings of people in different areas, it turns out that not everyone feels the "warming". Storms, floods, cold waves, fires, they are all intensified by global warming, but each phenomenon causes different reactions, so perhaps it would be correct to approach and instead of reading - warming, define the beam as regional climate changes caused by global warming.
Common Argument 5: DTP (or PDH as the global warming deniers like to call it, perhaps because it is similar to PDH) is a gas in nature and breathing is not pollution
It is clear that there is nothing wrong with breathing (there is no choice) and DTP is indeed a gas that has its place in the natural system and its importance to an anchored environment. It is not the breath that causes the infection. The DTP emitted in our breath could have been absorbed into the system and continued to live in cycles. But we don't just breathe, we have added (and continue to add) astronomical amounts of DTP to the system mainly by burning mineral fuel, the clue to the absurdity is in the name "mineral fuel" from fossil sources, which means we are releasing into the system DTP that was buried for millions of years, A DTP that was not active in the environment is released and upsets a balance that has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.
Today there is 40% more DTP in the atmosphere than there was at the beginning of the industrial age. The concentration of death in the atmosphere today is higher than it was in the last 650 thousand years, it's all a question of quantity, breathing is a natural activity and part of a natural cycle, burning fuel from fossil sources... disrupts the balance and causes climate change.
Common Argument 6: Even if we stop burning fuel the climate will not be affected
DTP emitted by burning fuel survives in the atmosphere for decades, other greenhouse gases survive for hundreds of years (therefore are considered more active), which means that the pollution we have caused until today will continue and heat up for many years to come, yet it is important to act today, it is important to stop emissions to prevent future emissions We followed the need/necessity to deal with climate changes that would endanger human society and the natural environment.
In conclusion, what to do? Actions to prevent damages and changes are conducted mainly in two spheres: the general and the private. In the general, national/political sphere, the individual can help by joining various green bodies, bodies that put pressure on statesmen and make decisions, pressure that has already brought results.
In the private space: the basis is to leave the (American) consumer culture that destroys every good part, buying groceries not because of an advertisement but because of a need would be a good start, saving energy expenses by: saving electricity at home and in the workplace, saving energy by using public transportation and means Clean transportation (bikes, walking, etc.), stop buying water in plastic bottles, (tap water is good for drinking), stop using disposable utensils, stop using plastic bags (for every purchase and every commodity), and again, correct, calculated and smart consumption of every We need you to reduce emissions and expenses. And of course... recycling, recycling, and again recycling.
I don't know how to do the quantitative calculation, how many emissions will be saved, but it has already been proven that following the water saving activity, domestic consumption decreased by 10%. From this it can be assumed that correct consumerism and correct (environmental) behavior of the individual will bring about a significant change in the field of carbon emissions as well.
It has already been said that "we must drive in the land with wisdom and humility, it is not an inheritance from our ancestors but a loan from our children".
More of the topic in Hayadan:
128 תגובות
Moses
The Mediterranean is not the global climate.
1998 was literally no warmer than 2020. There was then a momentary decrease in the rate of general warming, and the deniers of warming got dressed for that.
The effect of volcanoes is taken into account.
We know how much human radiation emits, and we know how to calculate how much energy this radiation absorbs. Climate modeling is of course more complicated than that, but the effects are noticeable. The North Pole is melting, seasons are starting later, storms are more extreme, and the global average temperature is rising.
Nothing will make the global warming deniers change their minds. You are a good example of that.
I'm reliving the dead here a bit. Science has been updated since then. Today it was published that: "A new study states: during the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean Sea was two degrees warmer than today (29.7.20). But then the temperatures dropped - and the empire fell." Is it possible that it was once warmer than today without any greenhouse gases? Is it possible that 1998 was warmer than 2020, without man-made greenhouse gases? What are the effects of volcanoes? Did the volcanic dust cool the earth or did the gases cause warming?
Everything said in the "article" here does not remove even one doubt.
By the way, I just now saw response 123 and I stand by my opinion.
The things are especially true for the visitors of the science website.
It would be fine if it were a scientist, but any global warming denier who is not a scientist simply says without any substantiation the opposite of what the vast majority of scientists claim (even those who claim that global warming is not caused by man!) and those who are committed to telling the truth cannot act like that.
On March 16, 2011, Professor Giora Shabib was hosted on the Galileo website.
He did this following the article he published in Galileo in which he described the theory of his son - Nir Shabiv, and explained why it is so successful.
Professor Giora Shabib is a world-renowned physicist, but that's it - he's a physicist and not a climate scientist.
I contacted Professor Pinchas Alpert from Tel Aviv University and asked him to join the discussion on the Galileo website.
He said it would be difficult to do so for technical reasons but gave me and the Galileo system a list of questions to present to Professor Giora Shabib.
The editor of the site did raise the questions and Gyura Shabiv tried to answer some of them.
The truth is that it was quite embarrassing because one of the questions describes findings that completely (but completely!) disprove the theory and Professor Shabib did not answer it until this writing.
Here is a link to that section of the discussion:
http://forums.ifeel.co.il/forum_posts.asp?TID=197629
By the way, I also agree with you that it is a slander to accuse my father of censoring global warming deniers. I guess it comes because when their responses were delayed as happens here many times by the system, they thought it was intentional censorship.
I agree with his last sentence in response 115.
When you say "since when is a global warming denier obliged to tell the truth?" You are essentially making a whole group of people with legitimate opinions in the debate non-legitimate and I have a hard time agreeing with that regardless of whether I think they are right or wrong. Do you think only those who think there is warming are bound to the truth??
R.H.:
What exactly do you agree with Eyal?
After all, everyone claims that they want a discussion free of defamation, so the question arises as to what exactly defamation is.
In my opinion, the false claim he directed towards my father as if he were censoring the responses of the global warming deniers is the mother of all slanders.
I actually agree with Eyal. Scientific discussion should be rational in light of facts and not emotional. Of course he should be free of defamation, it doesn't add anything. I know that the problem with global warming involves countless economic interests.
The science site, I believe my father, is not financially involved in the whole story but only represents science and therefore should be free of interests. So, gentlemen on both sides of the fence, tone it down and discuss the issue on its merits. Any opinion on the subject, if it is founded, is legitimate unless it is offensive or aimed at causing cheap provocations.
Good riddance:
The guy lies when he blames my father for deleting the comments that support his opinion, and instead of thanking him for not suing him for libel, he continues to lash out.
Let's hope he keeps his word.
To my father:
"Since when is a global warming denier obliged to tell the truth?"
Indeed, a scientific consensus….
How fortunate that in Darwin's day there were no sites like yours. He was also really not in the scientific consensus.
Hello, I don't think I will visit here again.
ram
Ron,
I also found that you present data in a trending way:
You gave a picture that should indicate that the ice actually spreads at the pole
This is the address you referred to:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
While reading carefully on the site, and especially from the daily summaries:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is noted that the glaciers shrink in those years:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure3_thumb.png
and "April sea ice extent near average; Arctic temperatures above average”
I mean everything is heating up
Apart from the characteristic fragility of a multidimensional system like the weather..
The trend is warming.
In fact, according to the site you Ron brought:
"Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, and slightly below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay, where ice extent remained below average all winter."
That is, there are areas where the ice spreads and there are areas where it shrinks, but on average it is lower.
Avi:
You didn't block, but since when is a global warming denier obligated to tell the truth?
A. I haven't blocked a single warming denier. The only case is simply a case of a flood whose dozens of comments prevented a real discussion of news that dealt with the environment, vaccines, the clouds and almost every subject.
The only reason all the science blog owners support the issue of global warming is because it is the scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is not made by violent coercion as the global warming deniers try to do. Consensus is built over time and only when all the accumulated evidence is in that direction, then it exists not because someone decided arbitrarily.
I repeat I personally did not make a single penny. Ask the marketing manager how his doors and phones were slammed at hybrid and electric car companies, at marketers of electricity generation systems from solar energy, and more. And all of them are reluctant to advertise on YNET or Walla because the advertising agencies have accustomed them to go for big and not for what is most suitable. So I'm probably not doing it for money.
To Avi Blizovsky:
I have read (almost) all the responses to this post (among us, there is no settled fact in it, only statements like "trust me, I know what I'm saying"), and as someone who started the path in accepting the concept of the scientific "consensus" on man-made warming Adam, I started reading more and more, and it turned out to me that the worst had happened: science went bankrupt and became a religion.
There is no longer a substantive debate on the subject (see the responses to Ron and others, to the body of a person and not to the body of an issue), no drawing conclusions, uninteresting facts, only "consensus" and a perception of "us" and "them".
Here too the phrase "deniers" appears, as a paraphrase of Holocaust deniers.
Here, too, accusations are made of "funding of interested parties", when it has already been proven that the butter is spread on the bread of the "green" side in this story (ask Pechauri, he will tell you how to do it right, or Al Gore...).
And above all, the figure who is supposed to lead this blog in a scientific and orderly debate, descends into personal lines against those who think differently from him, blocks (or enables the blocking) of those who write things that contradict his view - and in a completely ironic way confirms the criticism leveled at the people of the CRU, the IPCC and the party The one who argues for man-made warming, for gagging mouths and preventing publications of opponents of the "consensus".
It's not science, it's certainly not "knowledge". This is gagging, exactly what many good people are already warning about, such as Judith Carey, and Prof. Lindez.
How sad that even in Israel a scientific blog becomes an arena of slander and insults.
From the sale of this blog - it starts from the premise that there is no warming, and what you are saying right now is to attract surfers there. The writers are devourers of an extreme right-wing economic agenda of the disappearing hand without any checks and balances - and it is known that the environmental damage is felt indirectly and meanwhile the factory owners have already made their profit.
In the story about global warming there is a hint of truth and a lot of hysteria and fraud in the name of science. A lot of ideology and agenda that infiltrated the field of science and polluted it. Read details in the green blog
R.H. Ghosts:
Maybe they will laugh at him and maybe they will want to destroy him, but not because he made fun of the Torah but because he is Jewish.
A large part of the people who were destroyed in the Holocaust were destroyed because they took the Torah too seriously and listened to the words of their rabbis who told them (as the chief "scientist" of the Ministry of Education is now telling us) that God would already see to it that no evil befalls them.
A Jew who makes fun of the Torah, who will not be surprised later that the whole world will laugh at him (and along the way will also want to destroy him).
I read the discussion to which Michael refers and it has already been said:
"What is the advantage of a man in all his labor that he toils under the sun, a generation goes and a generation comes and the earth stands forever....What has been will be and what is done will be done and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes XNUMX)
incidentally,
Please note that the Bible already knew how to predict in advance the trickery of global warming and therefore clearly stated that "there is nothing new under the sun" - that is, it states that there is no increase in CO2 levels or in the global temperature. In the middle of the same passage, he also states that the sea is not full, to teach you again that there will be no rise in the sea level.
The discussion regarding "the land is forever standing" will be postponed to another time - the forgiveness is with you
tall:
Let's call the child by his name.
What you preach is simply irresponsible.
There are two options at stake.
One is the opinion of most experts; The second is the opinion of a small minority of them.
The opinion of the majority of experts is that man is causing the earth to warm and that if we continue at this rate then in a not long time the human culture will be lost.
The opinion of the minority of experts is that man has no real effect on the climate.
You propose to rely on the opinion of the minority of experts so that ….. we save some money….
That is - to save some money on a bet that is certainly not a successful bet - you are willing to risk the entire human culture.
So you should know, Tamir, that there are also some people for whom human culture is important.
I suggest to those who want to think about the subject a little more - to also read the surrounding debate This is my response
To tamir, eat and drink and burn fuel because tomorrow we will die.
1. Yes. The standard that the manufacturers meet is cleaner than typical air in a city like Tel Aviv. Porsche published in 2003 that the 911 model emits pollutants (again real, not CO2) in fifty kilometers of travel that are equivalent to burning one drop of gasoline. Failure to comply with the standard, for example a bus with a diesel engine that smokes visually, easily results in pollution tens to hundreds of thousands times the standard.
2. The price referred to the price that the entire public pays. privately and publicly. There is no consideration beyond the money paid (e.g. quantifying environmental damage of infrastructures)
3. I will always put the religious of all kinds at the bottom of the list. Even the tycoons who suck our blood harm the public less.
4. There is no problem with the arguments. I maintain that until a reasonable alternative is found (it doesn't have to be cheaper, there are other considerations of course) one should not invest massively (ie beyond my experience) in such a technology, in all respects the waste is enormous. If we were right in the bet and this is the future technology, we were still wrong, we invested in this time that the technology was far more wasteful than we needed. If we made a mistake and this is not the future technology and now everything has to be thrown away.... We were totally screwed. The legend that we will start investing in the application of immature technologies and over time it will become worthwhile is simply not true, it is the behavior of gamblers.
Invest in research only, and a lot.
The price of replacing technologies for basic infrastructure (energy and transportation) is enormous. And an error will surely lead to an economic collapse like never before.
tall:
Several points:
1. You may be right and the pollution from fuel burning can really be greatly reduced - I really don't know, are you sure of the data you presented?
2. Regarding the price of the train - does the article you presented referring to the price of the train/car elaborate both the price paid by the private consumer and the price paid by the authorities.
3. I'm really not a follower of green religions of any kind and there may be many irrational motives in their actions - yet I really prefer them to capitalists whose interests are much worse.
4. My main problem with your arguments is in the argument that there are currently no better alternatives and it is better to wait for them. Energy alternatives are not created in one clear day - they require development work, budgets and many failed attempts - if the efforts and budgets are not invested in this, alternative energies will not be found.
The one who wants us not to use all the alternatives is also the one who buys the patents for them and makes sure that the prices remain expensive.
Zvi, the demagoguery is that you write that "it doesn't matter, it's clear what needs to be done". A wrong sentence that appeals to emotion = demagoguery.
Indeed, in the end the oil and coal will run out, I remember that the estimates at the moment talk about two hundred years for oil and hundreds more years for coal regarding currently known reserves. I guess not all of them were discovered, I don't think it's a scalp gun problem.
Air pollution (not CO2) is a product of burning fuels. Today there is no problem to control it absolutely. A new gasoline car emits less pollution from the engine than the engine draws from the air. Where does the contamination come from? Buses and trucks. Each truck or bus emits pollution equal to tens of thousands of new cars. Of course it doesn't have to be that way. This can be handled with the help of individual enforcement.
A few years ago (in 2002 to the best of my memory) a study was published in England that examined the costs of normalized types of transportation per person. The examined costs included infrastructure (roads, rails, etc.). The cheapest - a private car, the most expensive - a train, somewhere in the middle of buses, taxis, etc. A train is indeed an excellent solution, but only in very specific cases. In any case it will be more expensive than a car.
As I already wrote a long time ago - no party is free from deceptions and dirty politics. I don't have to write it all over again.
The solutions that exist today for energy, transportation, etc. are bad. But there is **no** better substitute. Should only be replaced if there is a better solution. In other words, the main thing that needs to be done right now is research in all the aforementioned fields. Improvements should always be made according to what we currently know how to do, not according to what fantasy leads.
The most important! Progress! Do not go back, there is no reason for this except for religious reasons, ordinary religious and green religious, religion = suffering, if the believers do not suffer they do not feel that they are religious enough.
tall,
I'm a little hurt.
I think my writing was quite restrained, so to call me a demagogue - I really don't understand why.
To the heart of the matter:
It is clear that humanity did not start burning coal just like that - it is understood that it is a relatively simple energy to produce. The point is, whether you like it or not, the fuels of various kinds are a depleting resource - organic substances that were created over billions of years from solar energy and now humanity consumes them at a rate much faster than the rate of their creation. It will take 30 years, it will take 40 years or it will take 100 years - eventually they will end. Even while completely ignoring the issue of global warming (which you know what, if it's a warming of 3 degrees by the end of the century, let's say it can be ignored) - there simply won't be any fuel left.
Furthermore, have you ever driven at dusk on the coastal road in the Hadera area? You see the air pollution! You don't need Greenpeace reports for this - you see the soot and it's clear to anyone who has ever been to the LJ BaOmer bonfire that it doesn't do any good.
It is understood that switching to alternative energies may lower the standard of living, but do you really think it is reasonable that any person weighing 80 kg would take another ton to work every morning (this ton is called a car), it does not make much more sense to build a normal train system (regardless - even from the point of view of socially it will contribute). The solution must mainly come from reducing the energy consumption per capita and if moving from traveling by train to a private car seems to you like a detriment to a basic standard of living - then it is true - it will hurt and you will have to travel on trains with other people.
I don't think that with or without warming we are in a gun-to-the-temple situation within a few years. On the other hand, if we are looking at a range of decades (which is the range that governments should look at), then with or without global warming we are in a situation of a gun to the temple and it is better to start dealing with it.
A note of agreement with Tamir (who, as I recall, called me a demagogue) to followers of various green energies.
Despite the known magic of solar energy - it is clear to anyone who does a simple calculation that solar energy alone will not be able to provide a solution. The solution will probably have to consist of different natural energies (sun, wind, water, etc.) and it is very possible that we will need supplements (perhaps on a fuel basis, perhaps on a nuclear basis - a question for another discussion). Tamir is right in that the problem will not be solved if we do not at the same time turn to reducing consumption (luxury or non-luxury is a matter of taste).
Finally (Tamir again)
It is clear that there are economic interests of various kinds in the followers of green energy - Al Gore is a politician and I usually find it hard to believe in any kind of good intention of such people (what is more, from what I understand his film really suffers from many problems). If that's your ignoring of the many interests on the other side, it's a little strange - do you really think that the oil giants and the car companies are innocent people?
In short - back to my comment (95) - leave the public debate on global warming, this is a scientific debate and should remain as such. Regardless - it is very worthwhile for humanity to start thinking about its path in the future because the energies consumed today are not a renewable source and no matter how you look at it - this is a problem. And the solutions required for it start from today (and I will again take the example of the train from earlier because it is easy and makes the point clear - if you think ahead, you are not building compatible with Highway 6 to the Negev - but a railway).
To the others who think there is no price for the global warming lies.
You fail to understand the difference between stopping using fuels when a gun is pointed at your head and stopping using fuels because we found something better.
Zvi, you are indeed a demagogue.
Everyone agrees that we should stop using fuels. The cause of warming basically means that we need to *now* stop using fuels. And *now* we have no reasonable alternative. If we still require the public to make this transition, the price will be astronomical, the price of alternative energy is tens to hundreds of times more expensive than fuel, a price that must be paid from the budget of all of us, and the budget must be balanced (for those who don't know), this means that the standard of living will drop significantly, including in things that are not are considered "luxuries".
Already today you can see how this is happening, European countries are spending billions on wind stations and solar collectors that return a few percentages of energy to the euro compared to fuels. Who manages to convince the public to invest in such stupid deals?
Who will win? Fazuri and Gore and friends. Some? Mallards we cannot count.
Invest as much research as possible to find a way to get rid of the fuels, but using alternative energy sources right now is robbing the public. When they reach a reasonable price (say 2 times, not like today, tens to hundreds), you should pass, because it is a reasonable price to pay.
For the idiot who thinks I'm writing here for money, so typical of warm-up idiots, every time you put the facts in front of their faces it's because they get money. I despise you. And I'm also ready to meet you and show you anything you want. And you will apologize here.
deer:
Instead of stating that I also agree with your words - I have been looking for a response for the last hour along the same lines that I responded in the quite distant past.
I didn't have the strength to continue the search, so I will limit myself to pointing out the fact that I also think that what is important is how one should act and this decision can be easily made without a conclusive answer to the scientific question.
Deer 90,95:
Every word carved in stone. You expressed exactly what I feel.
Scrabbling.
Ending gift for this discussion from me
Former Arizona governor Jesse Ventura who supports the global warming agenda
He set out to investigate whether there really is a conspiracy, and anthropogenic global warming is a hoax
or not
Enjoy
http://tinyurl.com/GWInvestigation
Zvi, I'm with you on the subject, sometimes debates here on the site instead of being rational and cold scientific drift into some strange sentimentality. In fact, most of them are political debates in the sense that a person has a preconceived opinion about the subject and it doesn't matter what is written in the article. This is strange mainly because, usually, we are not talking about people who are involved in the field and the issue in their blood, but casual and interested readers. So why take it so hard?
Zvi, there is a public attitude when asking the public for money, and that is the situation now... there is no way to prevent it...
Bob
This is not demagoguery, the point is that some of the readers here enter the discussion in a kind of emotionalism, as if this question has importance in our daily lives and it is really important to decide it correctly.
This is not the case, in any case if we continue with the pollution it will not be good - really the question of whether it will be really bad, or really bad and also hot is not that important.
What is important is that it is clear what we as a society must do - we must put pressure on the governments to solve and reduce environmental quality problems with or without regard to the effects on global warming.
The scientific community can continue its debates, obviously someone is right, just like in many things in science, I can't decide and I don't really care (about conductivity at high temperatures in solids with two-dimensional layers - who is for and who is against?).
I think that if we talk about the good of science, then all the public attention is not good for scientific research - interest groups pull here and there and in any case it is not good - leave the science to the scientists.
Bob. Technically you are right, there are exceptional people in every field. Although in this case the chance of them being nominated for the Nobel is zero, the studies are unequivocal.
And Zvi, of course you are right to say that we should stop polluting... only for the right reasons...
Zvi, it's clear that burning fuels will not cool the KA, what Thea is doing is cheap demagoguery...
The question is what is the main factor... It could even be that the Earth would have warmed anyway... and here there are disputes... Although Michael proved to me that the majority (even the largest) think that man has a great influence on the climate change on our globe... but nevertheless, there is a dispute...
Ron,
Do not get carried away…
All in all, I expressed my personal opinion, and it is clear that the mainstream in science believes that there is warming, and that it is man-made.
I'm a bit skeptical about the second part (man-made), as I don't think enough time has passed to determine this, and there are also some conflicting findings.
There is a pure scientific question here -
What is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to changes in the level of CO2 (including everything), and as a result, how much will the temperature change due to the actions of humans?
In many scientific questions we as ordinary people (who are not experts) do not have clear positions and if we are asked about them we will not feel any need to say what is true and what is not - let the questioner refer to the experts.
When is it necessary for the general public to formulate a position (that is, try to make statistics of amounts of experts who think this way and that way) - when there is some doubt as to how we should behave.
If, in the case of global warming, there were experts who claim that we are causing global warming and in front of them there are experts who claim that we must continue to burn fuels because otherwise the temperature will drop as usual - or then there would be room for deliberation.
But this is not the case - the burning of fuels causes more than enough damage even if global warming is neglected and has become problematic anyway due to the depletion of fuel sources.
Therefore there is no problem: we need to stop and burn fuels for 1000 reasons, the question of whether global warming is the 1001st reason or not, is a scientific question that is really not significant for any of us to have an opinion on - leave the arena for scientific debates and don't depend on any scientist big ideologies .
If it is very important for you to know personally what I think is the right thing to think, I think it would be correct to adopt Michael's approach - I do not understand the field, so I will listen to the position of most experts, humans cause global warming (and the fact that the articles that Ron brings are not from the leading journals, i.e. nature, science, etc. , only proves that this is the case).
And again, the main point is that it doesn't matter, in any case it is clear what is the right thing to do!
Mick, I don't listen to Ron, the guy claims that the earth isn't warming, and it's clear that he is. The question is what is the main cause of its warming.
Shows, as you said, that indeed the great majority of scientists think that we are the main factor. But still, and even according to the link you gave me, it seems that this issue is not completely closed even to the scientists themselves.
And this title, of truth or falsehood - for the skeptics, is annoying. Mainly because the only thing the writer was trying to say is that there is warming (which is obvious). If we have to do something for the skeptics, it is to explain why celestial factors are not a major influence and how do we know that Israel was not supposed to enter this warm period in any case (because it is also known that it was much warmer in the past)... This is really an interesting and important topic...
The global warming deniers work overtime here, which can raise the profile that they are doing it for a salary.
"Opinions are simply divided"
We made good progress
Now, tell that to my father
Bob:
Be warned Maron.
You asked about statistics according to the opinion of the experts and received such statistics.
Now Ron is trying to turn the discussion in the direction of another conspiracy theory that does not belong to the matter.
Ron,
Say, isn't it easier to say: sorry, did I make a mistake?
There is no numbers game here, and even worse, you don't read carefully the information you yourself provide!
It is explicitly written that the warming trend in the period 1995-2009 is statistically close to a 95% certainty, while the short cooling trend is not statistically significant at all.
Your form of argument is so superficial and embarrassing - you brought a bad quote - no problem, you immediately run to bring another quote.
Personally - I have no idea who is right, the opinions are simply divided. Any attempt to decide such a complicated debate with the help of quotes here and there is in my opinion insignificant.
Bob beware of Wikipedia - despite the image it tries to present
History of climate gets 'erased' online
More than 5,000 entries tailored to hype global-warming agenda
A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message
Look for the article
Noam
You play with the numbers however you like, it doesn't work that way.
Because if you do a calculation since 1000 AD now you will see that there is a bit of a cooling trend and the small increase is just a comma
(See argument 1 in response 24)
The fact is that there was a heating period before 95 and then it stopped and there has been cooling since 2002
And see what a miracle - in perfect harmony with the activity of the sun..
In general
I believe Prof. Lindzen - who paid a lot due to his scientific honesty
Now after Climategate it is not wise to admit
(But some people need a figure who was at the heart of the Global Warming organization to admit it - Phil Jones)
There are many quotes - I bring the facts here.
Reading only the articles that the scientist is ready to publish is a way to draw conclusions?!!!
Bob:
Most of our information does not come from hearing but from reading.
If you were really interested in the subject, you would not have defied me but simply checked on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Ron,
The new quote you brought is simply different from the previous quote. Regarding the previous one, I'm sure if you call it again you will see that you were wrong.
Please note: in the period of 1995-2009 there was a warming of 0.12 degrees per decade, i.e. 0.012 degrees per year.
In a much shorter period, 2002-2009, there was cooling at exactly the same annual rate.
It is clear then that there was warming in the overall period.
Ron - The important thing is to understand that there are thousands of quotes on the Internet for and against every opinion.
Throwing links to the forum non-stop and confusing the brain is just not a way to draw conclusions!
At least you understood that?????????
I will refine it further
Prof. Richard Lindzen, a world-renowned scientist in his field, stated this back in July 2009
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically significant "global warming"
for almost 15 years
Statistically significant global cooling has now
persisted for almost eight years
*Copy paste the English text on Google to find the article (I get blocked when I add a link)
Unbelievable Noam,
Your brain sees what it wants to see.
Is there anyone else here who understands the scripture like Noam?
Michal, you're right, I'm not an expert either, but I haven't heard that they did a survey among the experts regarding the cause of global warming and found that the majority is on the side that we are to blame.
Are you sure about that? And in addition, if this is really the case, don't the scientists show a trend of change in this regard?
Ron,
You cite quotes as if they were scientific facts, and the funniest thing, you don't even bother to read them carefully.
Reporter:
"But there has been no heating for 15 years..."
But the quote you brought to support your words says completely different things:
In the period 2009-1995 there is a warming trend ** with statistical certainty close to 95% **
In the period 2005-2009 there is a cooling trend, ** which has no statistical significance **
It is clear that according to the quote you gave, there was warming in a period of 15 years, although the trend is statistically uncertain.
Ron – You should let the internet replace your brain
Asaf continued..
How did you manage to turn the research on the bears on its head - well done.
Read it again starting from the sentence
There are currently more than 25,000 wild polar bears in the world, and their numbers are growing - not declining
Additionally
The ice at the poles has been expanding in recent years - and now in March it has reached its peak since the measurements in 1979
There is no problem
Asaf.
Mia Nefka Mina? (You made me search on Google 🙂 )
If there is heating, it is not as a result of FDF and certainly not by humans
But there has been no heating for 15 years...
with the BBC
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the center of the row over hacked e-mails.
a question
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming
Answer
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
a question
Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
Answer
no. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Continue to Ron,
As for the polar bears, on the site you gave,
Canadian biologists are publishing data based on observations in northern Canada,
Anyone who understands a little about polar bear biology will conclude from the data that:
Since their habitats are shrinking due to melting glaciers,
Since the melting of the glaciers forces them to look for other means of livelihood (from hunting seals),
Many of them migrate south (to northern Canada) near (human) settlements and search
new livelihoods,
Many more... do not survive,
And so the (entire) population of polar bears is falling!
Then again
"May Nefka Mina"?
To Ron
Unlike my father (who was tired of messing around with you), I took a few minutes
And I went through the sites you brought,
They all show: warming (albeit intermittently) and sea level rise,
But they contain claims and answers about the level of future warming
and - by how much will the sea level rise,
That is, according to your sources, the debate is about the quantities and measurements,
not on the facts,
So "Mia Nefka Mina"?
Father, I really don't care, you have already lost. Time has revealed and continues to reveal your nakedness.
I actually do care. Science has lost the public. And when science loses, it's a loss for all of us.
Michael, your arrogant attitude is ridiculous. I definitely oppose my definition as brash, quoting from studies carried out by leading scientists is not brash by any standard, I am a thinking person who can read and hear and decide for myself, I assure you that I can easily deal with the "complications" in these studies. It is this condescending attitude that prevents you and your friends from accepting criticism. Justified criticism of your wrong work.
D.A.
"Your" scientists are no longer the majority.
Ron, sorry to argue with you, you went past the one comment limit. enough.
I don't even have the possibility today to read all the links and find who is behind them. I trust that if this is what you recommend, then they are not exactly scientific.
The next time WordPress blocks you from commenting on this article I will not let go.
my father
I showed you the Senate report and the number of scientists in the relevant profession who deny man-made warming - over 700 from all over the world (some of them are former IPCC members)
And over 30000 scientists have signed a petition.
The scientific consensus - is not found in anthropogenic warming, this is a fact.
Why do you repeat the mantra "the few scientists" when it is clearly not true?
Look, Bob (I already told Tamir this, but he doesn't understand):
I am not an expert on the climate issue and I have no intention of becoming one in the near term.
I rely on the accepted opinion among the scientific community.
You and Tamir are not experts either and all you have is the audacity to claim that you know better than most experts on the subject.
When Nir Shabib expresses his opinion - other experts should read his words and form a position that takes them into account.
People like you and me cannot do this and all they can do (besides becoming experts themselves) is to continue to examine the distribution of the experts' opinions and act on it.
I tend to believe what most scientists understand.
You do the opposite.
Enjoy.
Hello Max Power.
I will not tell you stories of a thousand and one nights, I will show you facts
The North Pole is losing its ice mass and the Northern Passage over Canada will open…
Really?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
The temperature in Greenland…
really?
http://tinyurl.com/GreenlandTemp
The sea level rose.
Really?
http://tinyurl.com/SeaLevels
The white bears at the pole..
Really?
http://tinyurl.com/PolarBearsThrive
Tamir, as I told you, there is a difference between gossiping in the popular press and writing in scientific journalism. The normal press has a requirement, which often fails it - to balance, and usually it balances between fringe opinions and the mainstream opinion. Science is committed to the truth only, as is evident from the trials on the creationists' demands for equal time with evolution in the USA.
In the second half - I also read Asimov and enjoyed it. I don't think that if he were alive he would agree with your conclusion.
One thing I am sure of is the few scientists who claim the opposite, do it for the zero chance but still exists that they will still be right and then they will come out heroes. What to do when in 99.9999% of cases it doesn't happen?
Michael, the articles you brought do not deal with what I said, they only say that we are responsible for the warming, without checking the temperature cycle. You know what, I stand by what I said, there is no proof (or evidence that suggests) that we are significantly influencing the warming. Yes, it is possible that we influence something, but KA might have warmed in the way that it warms anyway... and everything we (humans) do is minimal compared to the other factors of the sky... and if you want, I can bring you acceptable articles on the subject, but I am sure that you can search alone….
Father, the exposed emails are the mountain. The "problems" in research are the mountain. The "wrong" conclusions are the mountain.
I do not accept the axiom that what is not published in Nietzsche is not serious and irresponsible. Nothing is black and white, neither Neitzer is white nor other publications are black. What matters is the content.
You are absolutely right that the science principles of the audit method are the best and most correct method. But where is the method applied here? Where is the reference to criticism? Where is the disclosure of the research data? Is an answer "I am not ready to send you the data you requested because you intend to write against" an answer that is acceptable to you? Does it meet any critical science principles?
The very answer already invalidates the validity of the study, not least exposing the problems with the research's accuracy. Well, actually if the research was valid there would be no need to hide it. It is interesting that the audit when the study was published did not find the problems, what does this say about the application of the scientific method?
Wow, some question marks...
I have another interesting question, what if the sun were to set once in a thousand years? Wasn't there a scientist who warned against the setting of the sun following the unruly activity of man?
After all, the climate has changed and will change all the time, it's proven and I don't think anyone except the religious would disagree with that. So why are the changes now different than before? They discovered that carbon dioxide and other gases trap heat, voila we have a simplistic conclusion, we are causing warming, but wait, in the meantime they have already discovered that the effect is small with the increase in the amount of gases, already today (and before the industrial revolution) the greenhouse gases capture 99% of what can be captured, and that the previous warmings They happened before Fad changes and not after them, so why doesn't this raise any question marks for you? At least say there is doubt. Did you climb too high?
If I'm not mistaken, Nature published articles by Nir Shabiv.
You have to differentiate between journalistic writing that has no responsibility towards the scientists but towards the readers, and scientific writing. I adopt the method of scientific criticism because it has proven itself for hundreds of years and there is no reason why it should not prove itself now, I can assure you that scientists are not stupid and if there was a mountain the height of Everest they would climb it and not give up to the editors.
Mr. Max, proof is needed that CO2 is to blame.
Father, first-rate scientists with important research that can be criticized failed to insert "denying" articles. The editors there have an agenda. Look at how people like Mann and his friends behave. Denials, hiding information are arrogant and let's not forget the emails and the code, it's hard to hide a mountain as high as Everest, but that doesn't mean you don't try 🙂 . Doesn't that make you a tiny question mark?
Michael, exactly what I'm saying about you.
Global warming is a fact, the North Pole is losing its ice mass, the northern passage through northern Canada will be a fait accompli in the next decade, the temperature in Ginland has risen by 6 degrees Celsius in the last decade, the sea level has risen by 30 cm since the beginning of the last century, the polar bears in the northern arctic Thin and hungry because of a two-month shortening of the ice season that does not allow them to create seals on the ice, what more evidence is needed to be convinced that the globe is warming?
closed To me Mediocre scientists and anti-scientists
tall:
What can I do with the fact that the facts make you laugh and only nonsense sounds true to you?
Abby, there is an oxymoron in your response.
I posted but I warn you that I did not read, and Ron's recommendation is for articles that are against the spirit of the site.
Michael, stop making me laugh, do you want to say that the oil industry is against the lie? I think it's clear, isn't it? Are you saying that the pinatas they donated equals the billions your side robbed from the public? lol
Or maybe you want to say that this delusional committee with insane conflicts of interest did "justice"?
When you go to war don't come with a plastic sword.
Greenpeace used to be green, when they protected whales. Today, Feiglani terrorists took over there. Funny that anyone treats them as a source of information. And as usual, who is it knocking? us! Even if they have a just struggle, they don't invest in it, and their lies and misanthropic behavior create enemies for them who will fight everything they support, even the right things.
Nature and Science is not a closed club by definition. It is indeed closed to mediocre scientists and anti-scientists.
I have an idea, maybe try to post on Australian Beasts ans how to find them?
my father
Please post the link I gave to 450 Pir Review publications
please
450 peer reviewed publications against anthropogenic global warming
http://tinyurl.com/450PeerReviewed
I understand that Schneitzel séance is the new Torah?
Or is it maybe a closed club for whom and who?
Every time I am amazed anew. This issue is managed like the Inquisition (with adaptations for our century).
Actually, when I remember how much money is involved, it is clear that they are willing to do anything.
I don't understand one thing. After all, the delusional predictions of those years have already fallen, and this has caused large parts of the public to stop believing in scientists. Don't you think that in a few years the whole public will abandon you? Where will the public turn then? To priests and rabbis? What are you trying to achieve? Does the parable of the wolf and the wolf ring a bell for you?
As people who are considered wise, you are quite stupid.
Show me one article in Nature or Science and not in fabricated journals,
Father you need a large group of scientists of weight, do you want something official?
Go here to the US Senate website - there was a conference on climate change
Look what it's about
http://tinyurl.com/OfficialUsSenateWebsite
The truth is, I did not see the article that Michael referred to here on the site.
I am convinced.
"The Science Committee in the British Parliament awarded the University of East Anglia"
Wow after one day of testimony - a piece of conference...
Phil Willis, chairman of the committee, said lawmakers were rushing to announce something before Britain's next national election…
In English it has a name - whitewash
http://climategate.tv/?p=911
Regarding interests and money, you can't even begin to compare where the meat pot is -
Who is strong here in the account?
http://tinyurl.com/FundingWhoGetsMore
Bob:
We have not tried to deal with these arguments.
There are enough scientists who do this with great success.
Here is an article by the head of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv:
http://geophysics.tau.ac.il/images/stories/articles/global-warming.pdf
A summary based on the conclusions of scientists in Israel (including Pinchas Alpert and Nir Shabiv)
http://www.actcool.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/GWREPORT.pdf
And another link to a summary of the opinions of several scientists:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/mechkarim/kliot_6-103_1.pdf
To Michael, my father, and thank you for the article...
For the non-skeptics:
You won't be able to deal with the arguments I presented in response 23. Because there aren't any... The fact that you were able to flourish some of the arguments of the skeptics does not make your theory correct. I'm not saying that you should pollute, I'm just saying that you should take things in proportion...
tall:
Of course there are more interested parties on the other side and of course a lot was revealed in it things like that
On the supporting side there are many more stakeholders. All the carriers of the issue are criminally infected. Olmert is innocent compared to them.
Besides Nir Shabib there are many others.
When interested parties prove it is not proof for me. I need an absolute majority in the relevant scientific community, and still Nir Shabiv is a stepson and not the other way around.
Father, I did not say that you received money. I even believe you. On the other hand Mann and IPCC and their friends accepted and accepted. Many billions, much more from the other side (by several orders of magnitude). Ironically, the majority of taxpayers. Funny how politicians manage the waste at the expense of the citizens.
In addition, I appreciate that not all supporting scientists are motivated by money, some are motivated by the desire to be famous, some by illusory utopian green visions (a type of neo-Marxism) and some simply because they do not want to go against the system (I understand them precisely , after what they did to others).
You'll probably be happy to know that I also don't think that the "denier" side is free of deception and deception. I am fully aware of that. That's why I checked and read for several years until I came to a clear conclusion. CO2 does not and will not cause warming. There are enough bunnies to prove it.
I am on the side of truth. If it is proven otherwise I will immediately admit my mistake. It's science. You, despite being proven otherwise, do not do so.
Tamir, those who pay are the owners of the oil companies. Like Assaf, I can also testify that I have never received a single penny for writing in favor of the environment.
Father, there are many scientific articles that contradict these claims, for some reason the believers are unable to see them.
As I already wrote a long time ago, a theory has to deal with every argument that comes against it.
And I'm quoting from Dawkins again. Evolution would fall immediately if the one and only "Precambrian rabbit" was found. Several rabbits were found here. That is, everyone who remains a believer is a religious believer.
D.A. The scammers start paying. Mr. Mann gets into trouble. The lies begin to haunt him 🙂
Shallow article.
I am far from a global warming denier, but the "common arguments" presented in it are extremely superficial, and do not touch the real questions in the issue of climate change.
The comparison with the water sector is fundamentally wrong, and with a minimal investment (Google search) the writer could find "quantitative calculations" regarding the effect of changing individual behavior on carbon emissions.
Usually I am used to higher level articles on the site. Too bad.
Ron, find your kind.
I checked, and Tamir you are right.
Kuta wrote a politician
And it's despicable.
Only the picture that the writer of the article chose shows that there is nothing between him and science-
"The Chamonix Valley in the French Alps. The witness snow is melting.”
What snow until it melts?
From the scientific journal Journal of Geophysical Research
6 researchers from different agencies (French and Swiss) checked the snow and took measurements
Back in 2006 before the heavy winter,
There is no change in the snow witnessed on the mountain peaks in the area throughout the 20th century
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-blanc-glaciers-refuse-to-shrink/
Arya, you actually agree with me when you write that their efficiency is lower: low efficiency = unnecessary energy consumption. All you have to do is touch (carefully!!) the choke after some time of operation and feel the great heat (which is energy) that is wasted.
Yigal c. Again, the bulbs sold today are 36 watt. The thicker 40W bulbs have not been produced for years. But that's a minor detail. The bulbs do indeed consume the power rated on them, and the fact that their mechanism is not ideal does not make them consume more, but that their efficiency is lower.
Tamir, as a serial global warming denier I wouldn't expect a different response from you. But I can prove that I have not come across any reliable scientific article that contradicts these things. By the way, every argument is almost like saying "the earth is square" and therefore the response to these arguments should be accordingly.
Is there any science in this article at all? Or does the writer want us to "believe" him when he says that this or that argument is not true?
Disrespectful.
a politician
In my opinion, the debate about who is right and who is wrong is a bit redundant.
Before I expressed my opinion, but I have to agree with a point.
No one knows what we are going towards. It is enough to change some parameter one by one and the climate will go in a completely different way than expected. We cannot know at all what will happen - there are too many parameters and our brain is too limited.
Regarding results - then there have already been cases where the results were changed to fit the warming model. And recently there are cases of lies and slaughter on the subject. NASA is not a reliable entity, in my opinion, because it is a body that tends to hide a great deal of information and distort important facts (more in the field of space, of course, but if in space, then maybe also regarding the country).
Only time will tell where we are headed. Maybe all the weather will be more extreme and there will be no warming on average? Maybe sometimes it will be hot and sometimes it will be cold? - since we introduced our planet to instability and it fluctuates around the average? And many more versions.
So there is nothing to be done about warming up. Protecting the environment, I'm in favor 🙂 But Rabak, not exaggerating.
Arie, you are right that the bulb consumes only 40 watts (or 36 for those who prefer one) but the entire mechanism of the bulb is not ideal(!!) and therefore consumes much more. The data I provided is checked.
Yigal c. (18) - The efficiency of a classic fluorescent lamp is a little more than 50% (compared to 10% of a classic incandescent bulb) and not necessarily because of the choke whose contribution to the losses is not significant (an ideal choke does not waste power at all). A bulb consumes the rated power regardless of its efficiency, therefore a 40 watt bulb consumes 40 watts and not 100 watts. Apart from that, the fluorescent light bulb that is common today consumes 36 watts and not 40 watts.
And it is important to note that an LED bulb can operate between 45000 and 50000 hours compared to a PL that lasts 10000-15000 hours, which means up to 5 times longer.
For those interested in home LED lighting. There are bulbs like this one from Sharp:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/SHARP_LED_Bulbs_DL-L601N.jpg
which consume 7 watts and produce light like 60 watts. Here's the light bulb it's on:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/SHARP_LED_Bulbs_DL-L601N_switch_on.jpg
Here are the possible colors of light:
http://buildaroo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ces-sharp-led-bulbs.jpg
According to what I understood, the cover that is around the LED spreads the light evenly because the LED itself shines in a focused way.
There are already 6 excuses today. How much will you need next year when the theory doesn't quite fit the facts?
Ron, you need to ask yourself why I'm not filtering you but the WordPress automated system before things even get to me. Sometimes I find them in spam comments, but I have to look specifically and I don't always do it enough.
father. It is not to flood with 20 links, because it flies straight to spam and does not reach the reviewer.
Thanks,
I will try to find.
There are PL bulbs of different strengths (I think up to 11 watts) in "spot" cases and you should also check the bright LED bulbs again, I think this last one (with 39 elements) is new on the market. An 11 watt PL bulb shines quite brightly (not like a halogen, but with much less power and much higher efficiency).
Yigal:
The lamps I tried looked dazzling as well but did not deliver the goods and I would love to hear more details about what you found.
My house was designed at the time by an architect who only thought about beauty and not efficiency and I was not alert enough and let her do as she wished.
The result is that I have 42 (!) spots of halogen (!) at home.
It makes me feel guilty every time I turn on the light and I'm looking for replacements.
If there are good enough spots, I'll buy the factory straight away 🙂
As long as my detailed response is blocked - this is a trending article from the books
Let's see who has mistakes and wrong assumptions (provided you don't block this comment of course)
Argument 1: Last winter
Not only is the winter colder - but it also got longer. See what's happening now in April!
http://tinyurl.com/WinterAround-World
Quote "A distinction must be made between weather, which is local and temporary, and climate, which is the collection of weather events over long periods of time"
Okay, so who is measured when? I'm in favor of seeing as far as possible
The Ice Core Data clearly illustrates this over 10000 years
Let's see when it was hotter and colder than now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0dDlwfnT8w
Argument 2: Climategate
You make a salad between the hacked emails and the misinformation (Himalia without ice in the near future, etc.)
In Climategate
There are no "errors" here, but malicious intent
Here is a news article about the hacker incident and the e-mails that are now called Climategate
Examples shown in the article
The emails:
An attempt to hide the fact that the earth is cooling
A (successful) attempt, silencing and blocking of publication in scientific journals of scientists who show that global warming is pseudoscience
and show that there is a consensus among the scientists
An attempt to delegitimize the honest scientists - to take away the scientist's doctorate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W05apEQ2PrY
Argument 3: There was no warming in the last decade
Climategate proves the opposite
And the head professor of the University of East Anglia after his resignation decided to return to the beneficiary and declared out loud:
There has been no warming in the last 15 years
http://tinyurl.com/ProfPhilJones
Also from Nasa who canceled so many sensors from the cold areas and placed sensors in urban places - their hands are not clean.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/NasaData
Argument 4: "climate change"
What does personal feeling mean?
Most of the glaciers in the world are growing, also as a result of warming... well..
http://tinyurl.com/GlaciersGrowing
Argument 5: PADH
FDF comes due to warming (800 year gain) and not the other way around
(The sea is warming and releasing more COXNUMX into the atmosphere)
We have unequivocal scientific information on the matter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q
Argument 6: If God forbid we don't stop...
There is no problem if it is as demonstrated in section 5.
So why are they pushing it on us, why?
There is no more direct answer than this
About the predatory political agenda against the citizen of the Global Warming agenda
March 2009 President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus who also held the European Presidency at the time in a speech.
One minute clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk0hl4lffDU
See the value of the carbon tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rHURTDNBaI
We must act honestly. point
After all, if you're going to write an article about the global warming skeptics, it's necessary to deal with their biggest argument
The sun and the temperature cycle on the surface of the earth (not for 100 years but for at least 100000 years). If the trending article succeeds in dealing with arguments such as these, then it might be possible to convince the logical skeptics. The problem is that it was not possible to deal with them, so this points to a certain bias in the article.
The article talks about two things that are not necessarily related
global warming
Earth pollution
In terms of the pollution of the earth, there is no doubt that we are influencing..if it is the air quality..toxicants, water for drinking, the animals, entire ecological environments that we are erasing and polluting...there is no doubt at all that we are doing tremendous damage to the generations that come after us.
But none of this has anything to do with global warming
To prove that we are responsible for global warming, then as a basic start a scientist will have to prove that there is a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the rise in temperature.
There is indeed such a correlation..
only
that he
upside down!!!!!
For about 800 years throughout the hundreds of millions of years that have been examined, there is already a gap according to which the CO2 levels rise and fall according to the warming or cooling of the earth.
So what does cause cooling or heating???
The sun..or rather the sunspots that represent its activity and its effect on us without going into too many details that should not interest us either.
There is a whole movie that shows all of this..and also shows how the entire global warming industry includes billions of sorts (who remembers the beloved climate vice president..who "believed so much" in what he preaches that thanks to this he became the first global warming billionaire already because he Invest money in these companies...what a relief)
It boggles the mind... that every senior scientist who opposes this theory no longer works in the world organization, but somehow he finds that his name still appears in the organization's annual report detailing how much the effect of global warming has increased.
Shortened
Working on us
Keep the world clean for future generations...
But regarding the temperature... keep praying that the sun will be kind to us.
Here, two of the three responses appeared.
Father, in the last few hours three of my comments have been filtered, please check!
Michael, my response was filtered a second time, it was addressed to you: there are LED bulbs on the market today. In the "Spot" case, they are really dazzling and suitable for reading.
Michael, I wrote a long and detailed comment before my 9th comment, which for some reason did not appear, and in it I mentioned some things that could be useful. For example, this week I found LED bulbs in a "Spot" package with 39 elements (if I'm not mistaken) and with a really dazzling lighting intensity, which are indeed suitable for reading (because of the small beam dispersion) and not for full lighting of a house. By the way, the power of LED bulbs is around 1.5 watts and not 4 watts as stated in response 1.
And another thing, the efficiency of the classic fluorescent lamps is less than 50% due to the use of a series choke for ignition (the choke is connected in series the entire time the lamp is lit). For example, the commonly used 40 watt light bulb consumes almost 100 watts for normal operation. PL bulbs on the other hand (which have electronic ignition) are much more efficient.
Thank you, Yossi:
Have you tried any of these?
I ask because I have already encountered products that tried to market as if they were suitable for home lighting, I ordered samples, and I was bitterly disappointed.
It's really classic that next to comments that point out that the arguments that are refuted here are not serious and do not represent the global warming deniers well, there are comments that use the very same arguments.
By the way, I was shocked when I saw last week Sefi Ben-Yosef (this one from the trips and the books...) denying the warming in the news, and also using the delusional argument about CO2 emissions from volcanoes.
To Michael Rothschild:
LED bulbs for home lighting are still rare and expensive, but there are, for example, on the following website:
http://www.dealextreme.com/products.dx/category.907~search.led
Investing in green energies is important, but to invest in research and development so that we will reap the fruits in 5-6 years, to be another 6-7 years with solar power programs with a utilization of 30 percent than to install less good systems now.
On the subject of nuclear energy, it is true that it is clean and high-power energy, there is a relatively small chance of a major disaster, but it is still necessary to dispose of the nuclear waste.
I didn't mean to get into an argument, but:
Since there was more than a hint of a "trending article" (for profit?)
I would love to receive addresses and details of anyone who would be willing to pay me for
This article and others on the subject!
Until I start "making profits", the "Gillians" of all kinds are invited to enter:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
British University of East Anglia,
And:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
NASA
and try to explain the data …..?
Ridiculous article. For the fools who think they are skeptics.
The simple fact is that no one knows how a given situation will develop in the future.
An even simpler fact, there are those who make a lot of money from all this, and therefore they try to brainwash the simple and innocent citizen who thinks he is a skeptic.
It has already been said here that the green technologies will be mature for many years to come. I even think it will be sooner than 10 years because they are already half-ripe, and technology is developing at an exponential rate... so there will still be surprises. (optimistic)
The situation created in recent years, the way I see it, is "warming for the sake of cooling later".
So already today, various governments in the world are investing money (perhaps not really enough, because it's a very expensive business) in green projects - simply because they see that it pays off in the end, and not necessarily because of pressure from green organizations.
Maturity should come more from the governments of the world and not from the green technologies. Most governments are afraid to invest in very expensive projects - such as a solar power plant - and prefer to wait for the results in other countries. So as a result a significant part of the world sits and waits... and it's a shame.
But bottom line, us common people, there is nothing we can do about it. Savings on travel, plastic products and all kinds of things like that do not compare at all to the industrial products. So that until that moment when the world moves, on an industrial level, to green technologies, we have nothing to do but recycle - and not at the level of recycling our water ourselves, or stopping the use of plastic products and even replacing the comfortable lighting in the living room with LED lights... this saving will not improve the situation At all, but will only oppress the people.
We as humans do not have the ability to change nature. Not significantly!
In general, warming and cooling is a cyclical thing in nature. So as of today the world is warming, in a tiny part because of us, and in a maximum part because of the cycles in nature. So it's true, today it's very convenient to collect findings about warming (not to mention how much money is involved there) and claim that it's because of us (only because it pays someone at the top to say these things).
Abby, my comment, which was sent before my 9th comment, disappeared (not uploaded). Please check if it can be restored. Thanks.
And one more thing (Lenmrod 7): It is true that the power plants will have to produce more electricity because of the increased consumption of the electric vehicles, but in a large facility like a power plant it is worth investing in complex systems to eliminate the pollutants. In addition, nuclear energy is much cleaner and if they overcome the wrong(!) lobby of the greens on this issue, it will be possible to live in a cleaner world.
(An example of the wrong activity of the greens was their outcry about the radiation of the cellular antennas - until after many years of struggles they realized that more cellular antennas spread less radiation...)
Hezi, if you check on the road, you can see that the off-road vehicles are about 50% of the vehicles on the road, which is really unnecessary.
For 1: The power consumption of LED lights is about 1.5 watts, so the savings are much greater.
Michael, I recently did a test on the market, and there are currently LED bulbs with 39 elements (if I'm not mistaken) in a "Spot" package and they produce a really dazzling light intensity (still with the lowest power - less than 3 watts). It is true that they illuminate a limited area due to low dispersion of the light beam, but for reading without the need to illuminate the entire house they are sufficient. There is no doubt that soon they will add a suitable diffusion element to such bulbs and they will illuminate larger areas.
Now, some facts: common PL bulbs consume 7-19 watts and operate with very good efficiency, meaning the light power they produce is very close to the power they consume (I couldn't find numbers).
The common fluorescent lamps: it is true that they are much more efficient than normal incandescent bulbs (which operate at 10-20% efficiency), but their efficiency does not exceed 50% because of their simple (classic) starting method that includes a choke in the column. For example, a 40 watt bulb that is in common use consumes almost 100 watts for its operation!
In short, you should replace all the lighting in the house with LED lighting (for focused lighting) and PL lighting (for diffused lighting).
We are close to a new ice age
Always after warming comes a sudden cooling in Koda'a
LED bulbs are really a bit ridiculous to light up a house/room, but there is no doubt that the intention is correct, today there are lamps that save 70-80 percent of their electricity consumption with a pretty identical lighting effect.
Regarding pollution, transportation and factories are the biggest polluters of human civilization and China stars in the amount of pollution from the factories it creates without sufficient investment in filtering the emitted materials.
The electric vehicles do reduce the pollution in that area, but don't be confused, the power plants will have to bear the burden of creating energy for the vehicles, that's why we have added a huge amount of pollution in the area of the power plants, therefore, together with electric drive for transportation vehicles, we must invest in clean energy production solutions by Sun, wind, geothermal, tide, etc.
It should be mentioned that in order to generate more energy sufficient for the electric drive of vehicles, a very large addition to the power generation capacity of the electric company is needed, even so they are really on the edge during the winter (and also the summer).
In the end, we are not the main cause of global warming, even if we like to feel that we influence nature to such an extent, the main cause is cyclic weather phenomena and solar activity, so most of the credit for the warming is not ours.
Igal,
"SUVs"
They are a small percentage of the vehicle.
I didn't research how many percentages, but certainly less than 5%.
I am very satisfied with the reduction of air pollution,
But the fact that the month was the coldest I can remember in April in recent years,
Does not support the claim of global warming.
For #1: 4 million watts is 4 megawatts (not 4000).
There is something that can be done by law, very unpopular but not painful and does no harm to anyone and can lead to very significant savings in greenhouse gas emissions: limit the use of vehicles designed for off-road travel, which are large, bulky and consume large amounts of mineral fuel and therefore also emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, the so-called "SUVs". Most of the passengers in them do not really need such vehicles and those who use them for off-road travel for pleasure can do so by bicycle. We have not yet talked about reducing the damage to the natural environment (to the area).
1:
I've been trying to find LED bulbs to light up the house for years.
I haven't found it yet.
Do you use LED lights to light your home?
If so - is your house really lit? (For example - can you sit and read it in the dark hours?)
What is not clear at all, Asaf, is why you would take care of the obvious wrong arguments, taken from some mostly delusional websites, but ignore a number of facts (perhaps on purpose?), including the fact that it was decided to conduct a repeated measurement of the temperatures in the last 50 years, except speaks for itself.
Bottom line - a transparent trending article that may work for lay people, but certainly not for those who know the field and are up-to-date on what is happening in it. sorry…
I do not have the data or the understanding to determine - but the behavior of the environmental protection organizations, such as GREENPEACE or WWF, the choice of the companies they work against and also their economic activity - prove that they are financed by heavy economic interests and this calls into question any of their actions or research. Please look for information on the systematic buying of the jungle areas in South America by WWF and their intentions to sell the "pollution rights" to industrialized countries. This is based on the international agreement that allows countries that preserve the rainforests and do not pollute themselves, to sell their pollution allowance to industrialized countries.
Thanks for the article - trending as it may be.
The problem is that the technology for producing clean energy will be mature at such a level that it will be a substitute for mineral fuel only in at least 10 years. In the meantime, what we can do is energy efficiency and replacement of machines and products that are built to use mineral fuel for electricity. For example: changing cars with internal combustion engines to electric cars (and also in terms of wear and tear the savings are huge) and switching to LED bulbs for home lighting instead of incandescent or fluorescent, an LED bulb that consumes 7 watts produces a light intensity equal to an incandescent bulb that consumes 60 watts or an electronic bulb (EL) of 11 watts (and yes 4 watts is a lot, multiply by a million and that's a saving of 4 million watts which is 4000 megawatts).