Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
After all the media time dedicated to Global Warming and the new proposals to stop such apparent threat, little is often heard about voices that have tried to explain logical inconsistencies inside the IPCC Man-made Global Warming theory. This is why Eco Wanderer wishes to present its readers with the other side of the argument, and ultimately let the readers make their own logical conclusions from analysis of the information.
The article will now present 4 pertinent arguments that point out inconsistencies in the current widely accepted theory that Man is responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.
The notion that “debate time is over” and that we should base our opinions on the opinions of scientists without readers looking at the data themselves is not only unscientific but misleading.
Water Vapor, the most relevant greenhouse gas, is accountable for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among certain interest groups, governmental groups or news reporters such fact is not mentioned and ends up ignored.
Old Rockhead and Kirky Lewinsky will be on soon to tell you how stupid you are for challenging the agenda of St. Albert. And also that any scientist you quote who denies that global warming is man-made is no scientist at all.
CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
Once again CO2 has a diminishing effect on the retention of heat, the more you add the less increase you get. Further as was pointed out WATER VAPOR not CO2 is the main warmer.
You are dishonest to the core, You argue the Sun had nothing to do with warming and then turn around and butcher the report on LOWEST Sun activity since 1928 with a claim that by 2013 we will all be dying in a new heat wave. Created, BY THE SUN. And Old Rocks agrees with your ignorance.
Talk about your bullshit.....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
Talk about your bullshit.....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
The Earf is not in a bell jar, therefore it's impossible to take into account all organic and inorganic variables.
That willfully misleading 40% number is in reference to a variable gas that amounts to a mere .04% of the mix.
The magnetosphere is at its lowest strength in decades.
"On record" extends back, reliably, no more than a century.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Anthropogenic global warming junk science fails standard scientific acid tests that have been accepted for centuries:
1) It is not physically reproducible.
2) It has no static control model or group.
3) It fails falsifiability
Talk about your bullshit.....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
The Earf is not in a bell jar, therefore it's impossible to take into account all organic and inorganic variables.
That willfully misleading 40% number is in reference to a variable gas that amounts to a mere .04% of the mix.
The magnetosphere is at its lowest strength in decades.
"On record" extends back, reliably, no more than a century.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Anthropogenic global warming junk science fails standard scientific acid tests that have been accepted for centuries:
1) It is not physically reproducible.
2) It has no static control model or group.
3) It fails falsifiability
In fact there is a control group. The CO2 levels of the last 600,000 years are recorded in the Antarctic ice cores.
Do a little reading.
That's no control group at all....The same organic and inorganic variables have existed for eons.In fact there is a control group. The CO2 levels of the last 600,000 years are recorded in the Antarctic ice cores.
Do a little reading.
CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. CO2 is now at its highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.
The Sun is going through its lowest level of activity in 96 years.
These are the facts. Everything else is just bullshit.
Once again CO2 has a diminishing effect on the retention of heat, the more you add the less increase you get. Further as was pointed out WATER VAPOR not CO2 is the main warmer.
You are dishonest to the core, You argue the Sun had nothing to do with warming and then turn around and butcher the report on LOWEST Sun activity since 1928 with a claim that by 2013 we will all be dying in a new heat wave. Created, BY THE SUN. And Old Rocks agrees with your ignorance.
Why do you lie about what I said?
I never argued that the Sun has no effect on climate.
Likewise I never said we would be "dying in a new heat wave."
The effect of the rise in CO2 will always work in conjunction with the Sun's level of activity. The Sun will heat up by 2013 because of the Sun's cycle. How hot will it be? No one knows.
The one I love is Editec. He comes on and claims since none of us are climate scientists we can not POSSIBLY understand any of this BUT he ALWAYS agrees with the man made global warming guys.
So which is it? We can not get it, or just those that do not support his point of view don't get it?
This is an issue that plain confounds reason. Why is it in the political arena?
If global warming is real, exaggerated, or just natural can anyone tell me why we still shouldn't be concerned with mother earth? And with cleaner energy sources?
For anyone 40 50 or 60 and older who has lived in the same geographic area for much of that time, weather change is obvious. I commuted by bicycle for nearly 25 years, year round.
People argued all sorts of things until proven otherwise, how many would bet big money GW isn't made man or affected by man. How many would not long ago in earth time have argued the earth is flat.
What is the benefit if we stop taking care of our mother, if we are old maybe we just don't care or don't have the moral courage to say I don't know but I still care.
"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit
What you're invoking here is a variaton of Pascal's wager....It's a question dealing with religion, not science. Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis is an issue that plain confounds reason. Why is it in the political arena?
If global warming is real, exaggerated, or just natural can anyone tell me why we still shouldn't be concerned with mother earth? And with cleaner energy sources?
For anyone 40 50 or 60 and older who has lived in the same geographic area for much of that time, weather change is obvious. I commuted by bicycle for nearly 25 years, year round.
People argued all sorts of things until proven otherwise, how many would bet big money GW isn't made man or affected by man. How many would not long ago in earth time have argued the earth is flat.
What is the benefit if we stop taking care of our mother, if we are old maybe we just don't care or don't have the moral courage to say I don't know but I still care.
"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit
That's no control group at all....The same organic and inorganic variables have existed for eons.In fact there is a control group. The CO2 levels of the last 600,000 years are recorded in the Antarctic ice cores.
Do a little reading.
Do a little critical and analytical thinking.....for a change.
This is an issue that plain confounds reason. Why is it in the political arena?
If global warming is real, exaggerated, or just natural can anyone tell me why we still shouldn't be concerned with mother earth? And with cleaner energy sources?
For anyone 40 50 or 60 and older who has lived in the same geographic area for much of that time, weather change is obvious. I commuted by bicycle for nearly 25 years, year round.
People argued all sorts of things until proven otherwise, how many would bet big money GW isn't made man or affected by man. How many would not long ago in earth time have argued the earth is flat.
What is the benefit if we stop taking care of our mother, if we are old maybe we just don't care or don't have the moral courage to say I don't know but I still care.
"It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit
