In helping a friend do research on a presentation about "Climate Change: Myth or Real?" I came across a couple eye-popping pieces of real science.
The first is a graph showing the last 800,000 years of climate (they can do this by drilling ice cores). It shows that there is a natural cycle of heating and cooling for all 800,000 years -until now. Now the temperatures are spiking off the 800,000 year chart -- way above the average.
In other words, this is not a natural cycle... The second is a Google Earth video showing today's earth and how it will look in 90 years (in the year 2100), based on current temperature increases. Notice how it goes from a nice light green color to a dead, dark brown...
Think about this: If the climate skeptics are wrong, the planet dies, which is not good for either our grandkids or business. If the climate change proponents are wrong, we end up with cleaner, renewable energy, cleaner skies and more water - not to mention new jobs created by these new industries. Which scenario is worse for our kids' future?
4 comments:
Give me a break! Have a brain and look at the graph, people! You are being deceived once again by this guy--the vertical axis is CO2 concentration, not temperature, or "climate" as this guy states. CO2 concentration has not increased worldwide temps to a great degree, in fact, global temperatures were much higher (as proven by isotope work from these same ice cores) during the Roman empire, and the world didn't die then, did it? The ancient port city of Ephesus in Turkey is now 6 km from the sea, because sea level are much lower now than 3000 years ago--check it out. Just go outside on Saturday morning and tell me global warming is real--more than 1500 weather records set in the US during the last week. Of course this guy will probably "moderate" me off this blog, just like his hero Al Gore does with anyone who dares to question him.
Actually I allow all people comments through regardless. I have to moderate this to reject the spam that comes in (along with yours I found two computer ads trying to get in as a comment).
For your benefit I am posting another graph showing both co2 AND temperatures spiking together way over the natural cycle - proof that things are getting out of control. I will also post the entire study which was presented today to the Seabrook rotary.
If I'm wrong, we act and get cleaner energy. If your wrong, the planet dies. Which is worse?
For the benefit of anonymous. There is a world of difference between weather and climate. Oh, sure, I klnow how clever it makes you feel to make trite little comments about 'global warming' and to ignore the numbers on the graphs that are freely available witha minimal amount of research. The head-in-the-sand group of denyers (sic) have little in the way of data, but a whole lot of scornful comments which they would pass off as scientific arguments. The things they simply cannot refute are the numbers shown on the graph in question, the decreasing average thickness of Arctic ie, the retreat of glaciers over virtually the entire globe, the total loss of the snow cover of Kilamanjaro, the increasing desertification of central China and North Africa, and many other examples. Much easier to spout talk-radio soundbytes and ignore reality.
One other thing, anonymous, I took your advice and I did 'check it out'.IN actual fact the relative sea level in teh Mediterranean Sea has risen over the last 4000 years, becoming relativey stable about 1500 years ago, but now once agin rising. The seeming change in the Ephesus has to do with, not the changing seal leavel, but the silting in of the harbor by the Cayster River caused by earthquakes in the early 700's the town died, the silt kept piling up and now it is what it is.... an archelogical ruin several kilometres from teh current seashore, 3 kilometers, not the 6 you claimed. Id on't mind a discussion, but do the research, and don't stretch your numbers. Yhey are far too easy to check. You can't just throw out a comment and assume people won't at least do a cursory search on your claims. I don't hold that you have to have a source to justify your opinion, just a source to justify your claims.
Post a Comment