The best part about global warning is that most of the eastern US will disapear and Iowa will be on the coast. Think about it, instead of going to Davenport we'll go to the beach! :biggrin9gp:
Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.
- Thread starter Wesley
- Start date
The best part about global warning is that most of the eastern US will disapear and Iowa will be on the coast. Think about it, instead of going to Davenport we'll go to the beach! :biggrin9gp:
Huh?? So anything that has happened in the last 100 years or so is now cataclysmic and the end is near?? You can't have it both ways.
By the way, what exactly are "proxies for temperature measurement".
Anything that is "UN sponsored" is dubious at best.
I would submit that those pushing the Global Warming agenda have the most "extreme biases" in this debate.
Actually, there are many "things anyone can know for certain". Global Warming is just not one of them. It is only a theory that has been concocted in the last 25 years or so.
I live near the Gulf of Mexico. Many environmental "scientists" have fought to keep oil companies from drilling in the area because of all the potential environmental damage. Guess what, the best place to catch fish is near an oil platform in the Gulf...they seem to love those areas. The same thing has happened in Alaska. When I was a kid the experts all said that building the Alaskan pipeline was going to wipe out all kinds of wildlife. The reality has been totally the opposite. Many species flock to the warmth of the pipeline and they are procreating in record numbers.
I think you need to remember two things:
Man is not powerful enough to change the earth.
Man is part of the earth and should not be assumed to have only a negative impact on the earth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all the doomsday talk about coastal flooding must be incorrect it the icecaps melt.
The reason for this is; Doesn't water expand when frozen? I remember from classes it is one of the few materials that display this property.
If water does indeed expand when frozen, wouldn't it take up less space when melted, therefore lowering the ocean levels?
Like I say, I could be completely wrong!
The reason for this is; Doesn't water expand when frozen? I remember from classes it is one of the few materials that display this property.
If water does indeed expand when frozen, wouldn't it take up less space when melted, therefore lowering the ocean levels?
Like I say, I could be completely wrong!
My friend, humans are not making the environment unpredictable and uncontrollable...the environment is unpredictable and uncontrollable all by itself! That is my point. As humans there is little we can do to impact or control our environment. I know that is tough for some to believe but It is true.
Thought it was melting off Greenland and above agrade ice caps and then dropping into the oceans - so you would raise the seas. The good news is it can only go so high if all the ice is melted. Iowa would be safe in worst case scenario. Thought the giant meltdown was woirth about 20 ft. Could build giant levees around new York City. Retirees in Florida can move to tennessee.
that might be one of the most common sense things i've ever heard that i haven't thought of mysefl!!!:biggrin9gp:
I really have no clue where you got that from.
Proxy (climate) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The above website said:
Feel free to produce any evidence of your own.
I would submit otherwise. Will I win the argument if I type it in caps?
Some examples of such things please.
Can you find any peer reviewed studies where people said that building the pipeline would wipe out all kinds of wildlife? My guess is no. The second-hand whining of the few extreme environmentalists is not the same as "the experts."
Wrong. Iowa used to be primarily swamp land until we tiled everything. There are many cities in Asia where the very air people breath is hazardous. You can tell what year the Clean Air Act was implemented by looking at Antarctic ice. A nuclear war could easily make large portions of the planet uninhabitable. Assuming that human activities cannot have global impacts is absurd.
Why does it matter? Al Gore could be burning babies to heat his home and it would not change the evidence one bit.
The biggest problem is that we have invested so much on the assumption that the climate will stay the same. A huge portion of the world's population lives on the coast (I think somewhere around 70% of the U.S. population lives in the coastal states). Areas have developed according to their agricultural niche, whether that is growing grains, fruits, or other crops. The amount of desert land would also increase.
The climate has changed and will change. Hell, Iowa had glaciers before man was even around.
Had to add my opinion to this never ending thread.
You are. :wink0st: Your theory makes some sense with regards to floating ice, such as most polar ice. However, land based ice does not contribute at all to sea levels. Most land based ice is found in Antarctica and Greenland, and if all of that ice melted sea levels would rise dramatically.
Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the above website said:
There is more land mass in northern hemisphere with real forests and then there is the southern hemisphere. Unfortunately we have Argentina and Chile and Australia tree void for the most part. It is their fault the CO2 goes up in the winter. They need to grow zillion more trees to balancve oput the graph and make us feel better.
Reading this thread, I can see why the words global warming is slyly being replaced by the words climate change. If we could control cloud cover, we could better control the climate change. Yeah,, that woild be a big proiject.
Reading this thread, I can see why the words global warming is slyly being replaced by the words climate change. If we could control cloud cover, we could better control the climate change. Yeah,, that woild be a big proiject.
Kyle-
So, a temperature proxy is nothing more than a guess. That proves it for me!
How about this for a couple of dubious things from the UN...in the past they had a Secretary General that was a former Nazi (Kurt Waldheim)...more recently they showed their colors with their Weapons for Food program. The UN is a useless body that should be disbanded.
Here are a couple of things we know for certain...gravity exists and we cannot predict the weather.
Dude, I read about us killing wildlife with the Alaskan pipeline in my Weekly Reader back in 2nd grade. I suppose you consider anything on Wikipedia to be a "peer reviewed study". Well, everyone in my class read the Weekly Reader so I guess it was "peer reviewed".
"Wrong. Iowa used to be primarily swamp land until we tiled everything. There are many cities in Asia where the very air people breath is hazardous. You can tell what year the Clean Air Act was implemented by looking at Antarctic ice. A nuclear war could easily make large portions of the planet uninhabitable. Assuming that human activities cannot have global impacts is absurd."...WOW...so Iowa was swamp land when? What did humans do to change this? Really terrible...I'm sure most Iowans (especially farmers) wish the area was still swamp land. Sounds like you Global Warming activists need to move over to asia (China) and get them to adopt the clean air act. Just our one country passing the clean air act has made a huge impact on Antarctic ice? What about all the countries with no clean air act...aren't they hurting our efforts here...you and all your Global Warming buddies should go work on them. Our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki really made them "uninhabitable"...nearly 2 million people live in these two cities combined. Any impact humans have on the earth is small and short-lived...to assume we are so powerful as humans to dramatically change the earth...NOW THAT IS ABSURD!!
Al Gore's credentials matter because he has been given expert status by those on your side of this argument.
I still think that if global warming was actually occurring it would be a good thing...giving us more usable crop land. I'm not sure what would happen to water levels but let's assume they would increase...that would be great, it would give us something to irrigate with (especially in those areas that would become desert land with the increased temps).
chadm is right...I also remember being taught that a glacier once covered Minnesota (hence all of the lakes) and came down into Iowa (probably the reason for Okoboji). What was it that man did to warm the earth to the point that these glaciers receded? Where was the coastline then? I'd like you to go check Wikipedia and report back to us.
So, a temperature proxy is nothing more than a guess. That proves it for me!
How about this for a couple of dubious things from the UN...in the past they had a Secretary General that was a former Nazi (Kurt Waldheim)...more recently they showed their colors with their Weapons for Food program. The UN is a useless body that should be disbanded.
Here are a couple of things we know for certain...gravity exists and we cannot predict the weather.
Dude, I read about us killing wildlife with the Alaskan pipeline in my Weekly Reader back in 2nd grade. I suppose you consider anything on Wikipedia to be a "peer reviewed study". Well, everyone in my class read the Weekly Reader so I guess it was "peer reviewed".
"Wrong. Iowa used to be primarily swamp land until we tiled everything. There are many cities in Asia where the very air people breath is hazardous. You can tell what year the Clean Air Act was implemented by looking at Antarctic ice. A nuclear war could easily make large portions of the planet uninhabitable. Assuming that human activities cannot have global impacts is absurd."...WOW...so Iowa was swamp land when? What did humans do to change this? Really terrible...I'm sure most Iowans (especially farmers) wish the area was still swamp land. Sounds like you Global Warming activists need to move over to asia (China) and get them to adopt the clean air act. Just our one country passing the clean air act has made a huge impact on Antarctic ice? What about all the countries with no clean air act...aren't they hurting our efforts here...you and all your Global Warming buddies should go work on them. Our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki really made them "uninhabitable"...nearly 2 million people live in these two cities combined. Any impact humans have on the earth is small and short-lived...to assume we are so powerful as humans to dramatically change the earth...NOW THAT IS ABSURD!!
Al Gore's credentials matter because he has been given expert status by those on your side of this argument.
I still think that if global warming was actually occurring it would be a good thing...giving us more usable crop land. I'm not sure what would happen to water levels but let's assume they would increase...that would be great, it would give us something to irrigate with (especially in those areas that would become desert land with the increased temps).
chadm is right...I also remember being taught that a glacier once covered Minnesota (hence all of the lakes) and came down into Iowa (probably the reason for Okoboji). What was it that man did to warm the earth to the point that these glaciers receded? Where was the coastline then? I'd like you to go check Wikipedia and report back to us.
I was also taught the glaciers were what caused the Mississippi and Missouri River valleys (not just the rivers, but if you actually go to places like Dubuque, Quad Cities, Burlington, etc., there's a definitive valley through which the river runs).
As far as what melted the glaciers, it was probably due to the carbon dioxide emissions from all of the trees that man burned in order to keep themselves warm... (and knowing how I'll probably get raked over the coals for this last statement not being realistic - IT'S CALLED SARCASM!!! :angry6wn
Do you know for certain that gravity will exist tomorrow? How do you know you are not just dreaming?
Clearly a peer reviewed study...:rolleyes5cz:
I was going to just copy and paste the list of references from one of the pages I cited, but it doesn't seem to like that. So, here are a few of those references which would be considered "peer reviewed studies." A peer review study is one which is published in a reputable journal that requires peer review prior to publication.
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before we put tile in. We farm land that would otherwise be a swamp. I never said the change was for the worst, just gave that as an example of human impact on the environment.
Is this an argument?
You can't irrigate with salt water.
1. Nothing.
2. I'd like you to actually cite ANY evidence in support of your position. So far you have just made unsupported assertions based on your "uneducated opinion."
Cyclone#1:
If we wanted to, we could completely destroy the planet in a number of minutes. All life would end. If the US, Russia, etc. just started launching nukes, EVERYTHING would be destroyed. To say that we CANNOT alter the environment is ridiculous. In a matter of months we could chop down every tree or burn every forest. You don't think that would have an effect on the environment? Of course, we would never do these things (at least I hope the nuclear war doesn't happen). But the point is that we COULD destroy the planet right now.
Iowa WAS a swamp before we tiled it. Here is a source from the Iowa DNR:
"It is estimated Iowa had four million acres of wetlands in the mid-1800s (includes oxbows, floodplain wetlands, and natural lakes). As humans realized how rich soils under wetlands and prairies were, these areas soon were drained or filled and converted to cropland, urban areas, housing complexes, industrial areas, railroads, and highways.
Iowa has lost approximately 99 percent of its original wetlands. Wetlands were, and still are, considered by many to be waste areas. Until recently, drainage of wetlands for agriculture was promoted by state and federal programs.
In 1990, approximately 27,000 acres of wetlands remained in Iowa. Since the mid 1980s several programs have emerged to assist in the protection and restoration of wetlands. From 1987-1996, nearly 27,436 acres of land were acquired through the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture in a 35 county area of Central Iowa. Acquisitions included 2,651 acres of existing wetlands and 4,449 acres of restorable wetlands. For information about other programs to restore wetlands see People, Land, and Water."
Iowa's Waters
4 million down to 27,000 acres of wetland.....sounds like a pretty significant impact we humans have had on the environment. Clearly this hasn't resulted in any "doomsday" scenarios.....but the fact is that we can do it.
If we wanted to, we could completely destroy the planet in a number of minutes. All life would end. If the US, Russia, etc. just started launching nukes, EVERYTHING would be destroyed. To say that we CANNOT alter the environment is ridiculous. In a matter of months we could chop down every tree or burn every forest. You don't think that would have an effect on the environment? Of course, we would never do these things (at least I hope the nuclear war doesn't happen). But the point is that we COULD destroy the planet right now.
Iowa WAS a swamp before we tiled it. Here is a source from the Iowa DNR:
"It is estimated Iowa had four million acres of wetlands in the mid-1800s (includes oxbows, floodplain wetlands, and natural lakes). As humans realized how rich soils under wetlands and prairies were, these areas soon were drained or filled and converted to cropland, urban areas, housing complexes, industrial areas, railroads, and highways.
Iowa has lost approximately 99 percent of its original wetlands. Wetlands were, and still are, considered by many to be waste areas. Until recently, drainage of wetlands for agriculture was promoted by state and federal programs.
In 1990, approximately 27,000 acres of wetlands remained in Iowa. Since the mid 1980s several programs have emerged to assist in the protection and restoration of wetlands. From 1987-1996, nearly 27,436 acres of land were acquired through the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture in a 35 county area of Central Iowa. Acquisitions included 2,651 acres of existing wetlands and 4,449 acres of restorable wetlands. For information about other programs to restore wetlands see People, Land, and Water."
Iowa's Waters
4 million down to 27,000 acres of wetland.....sounds like a pretty significant impact we humans have had on the environment. Clearly this hasn't resulted in any "doomsday" scenarios.....but the fact is that we can do it.
Who c-cares about Live Earth?
May 19, 2007
JUST when it looked like every rock star on the planet was jumping aboard AL GORE's green bandwagon, there’s a backlash already underway.
THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.
The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.
But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.
Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.
"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.
"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.
"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”
The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOF’s equally scathing views.
Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?
"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."
A Live Earth spokesman said: “People are aware of global warming but millions are not doing anything about changing their lifestyles.”
But before Sir Bob thinks he has found an ally in Roger, the legendary British singer also admitted he feels badly let down by Live 8.
Ten concerts were held simultaneously in July 2005 with the goal to Make Poverty History.
Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.
Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.
"Who were we kidding there?
"At least with Live Aid, Bob Geldof was willing to work the trenches and they did save a lot of lives.
"We could see what we achieved at the end of it."
Roger also confirmed that he and PETE TOWNSHEND will not be performing at this summer's other big charity music event, the Concert For Diana.
He said: "It would be wrong of us to play. It should be for those two boys, the show that they want.
"They obviously want Elton John, as he holds memories for them, but it would be a joke for us to play.
"Not unless they are real Who fans, which I very much doubt."
You can see The Who very soon though, as the band are playing a number of shows and festivals in England as part of the European tour.
May 19, 2007
JUST when it looked like every rock star on the planet was jumping aboard AL GORE's green bandwagon, there’s a backlash already underway.
THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.
The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.
But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.
Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.
"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.
"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.
"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”
The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOF’s equally scathing views.
Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?
"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."
A Live Earth spokesman said: “People are aware of global warming but millions are not doing anything about changing their lifestyles.”
But before Sir Bob thinks he has found an ally in Roger, the legendary British singer also admitted he feels badly let down by Live 8.
Ten concerts were held simultaneously in July 2005 with the goal to Make Poverty History.
Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.
Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.
"Who were we kidding there?
"At least with Live Aid, Bob Geldof was willing to work the trenches and they did save a lot of lives.
"We could see what we achieved at the end of it."
Roger also confirmed that he and PETE TOWNSHEND will not be performing at this summer's other big charity music event, the Concert For Diana.
He said: "It would be wrong of us to play. It should be for those two boys, the show that they want.
"They obviously want Elton John, as he holds memories for them, but it would be a joke for us to play.
"Not unless they are real Who fans, which I very much doubt."
You can see The Who very soon though, as the band are playing a number of shows and festivals in England as part of the European tour.
DiCaprio bites back over eco 'hypocrisy'
May 19 02:44 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1&image=large
Leonardo DiCaprio hit back at charges of hypocrisy Saturday as he unveiled an eco-documentary he wrote, produced and narrated at the Cannes film festival.
Asked after the premiere of "The 11th Hour" whether he had taken a fuel-guzzling jet on his way to the French Riviera, the "Titanic" star spat back sarcastically: "No, I took a train across the Atlantic."
When the British journalist followed up, saying that many stars used emission-heavy private jets while touting environmental protection, a testy DiCaprio countered that he had taken a commercial flight from New York.
"I try to travel commercial as much as I can," he said.
DiCaprio later came back to the reporter, saying that he was irritated with the media for going after prominent environmentalists such as former US vice president Al Gore (whose own film on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up an Oscar this year) for supposed inconsistency in their private lives.
"We're all trying the best we can, truly, we really are," he said.
"Attacks on Al Gore for example I think are misdirected. Don't shoot the messenger, you know what I'm saying? If you're going to attack somebody on the way they conduct their life, let's talk about the big picture, let's see what big oil companies are doing.
"This person is truly trying to relay a message to the public and the way he travels and the way he leads his life should not be splayed out like that."
DiCaprio, who described himself as an environmentalist for the last decade, got into hot water in 2000 when activists charged that part of a Thai national park was damaged during the shooting of his film "The Beach." The crew denied the accusations.
"The 11th Hour" presents a dozen experts arguing that human society will be wiped out if global warming continues unabated.
The film picks up many of the themes of "An Inconvenient Truth," which was also an unexpected box office hit. DiCaprio credited the picture with pushing the environment to the top of the US agenda.
"Certainly in the United States we are the ones that should set an example for the rest of the world. We are the most powerful democracy on the planet and we're also the largest polluters simultaneously," he said.
While Gore's film was an engaging account of his personal crusade to change American public opinion about the urgency of the pollution crisis one audience at a time, "The 11th Hour" attempts to tackle even bigger questions.
DiCaprio brings in British physicist Stephen Hawking, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Kenyan Nobel peace laureate Wangari Maathai to argue his case that Western society should "consume less and live more."
Spliced between the interviews are apocalyptic visions of gurgling volcanoes, massive mudslides and clubbed baby seals -- all set against images of America's insatiable consumerism.
DiCaprio said, despite the film's tone, he was optimistic about humanity's fate.
"I'm happy to be a part of this generation that talks about an issue that affects so many generations after us like global warming does. It's probably the biggest movement in human history, if done right," he said.
"The 11th Hour" premiered the same day as another high-profile US documentary, Michael Moore's "Sicko." The scathing attack on the American health care system and its powerful insurance lobby drew several rounds of loud applause during an early screening for 2,000 guests.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1&image=large
Asked after the premiere of "The 11th Hour" whether he had taken a fuel-guzzling jet on his way to the French Riviera, the "Titanic" star spat back sarcastically: "No, I took a train across the Atlantic."
When the British journalist followed up, saying that many stars used emission-heavy private jets while touting environmental protection, a testy DiCaprio countered that he had taken a commercial flight from New York.
"I try to travel commercial as much as I can," he said.
DiCaprio later came back to the reporter, saying that he was irritated with the media for going after prominent environmentalists such as former US vice president Al Gore (whose own film on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up an Oscar this year) for supposed inconsistency in their private lives.
"We're all trying the best we can, truly, we really are," he said.
"Attacks on Al Gore for example I think are misdirected. Don't shoot the messenger, you know what I'm saying? If you're going to attack somebody on the way they conduct their life, let's talk about the big picture, let's see what big oil companies are doing.
"This person is truly trying to relay a message to the public and the way he travels and the way he leads his life should not be splayed out like that."
DiCaprio, who described himself as an environmentalist for the last decade, got into hot water in 2000 when activists charged that part of a Thai national park was damaged during the shooting of his film "The Beach." The crew denied the accusations.
"The 11th Hour" presents a dozen experts arguing that human society will be wiped out if global warming continues unabated.
The film picks up many of the themes of "An Inconvenient Truth," which was also an unexpected box office hit. DiCaprio credited the picture with pushing the environment to the top of the US agenda.
"Certainly in the United States we are the ones that should set an example for the rest of the world. We are the most powerful democracy on the planet and we're also the largest polluters simultaneously," he said.
While Gore's film was an engaging account of his personal crusade to change American public opinion about the urgency of the pollution crisis one audience at a time, "The 11th Hour" attempts to tackle even bigger questions.
DiCaprio brings in British physicist Stephen Hawking, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Kenyan Nobel peace laureate Wangari Maathai to argue his case that Western society should "consume less and live more."
Spliced between the interviews are apocalyptic visions of gurgling volcanoes, massive mudslides and clubbed baby seals -- all set against images of America's insatiable consumerism.
DiCaprio said, despite the film's tone, he was optimistic about humanity's fate.
"I'm happy to be a part of this generation that talks about an issue that affects so many generations after us like global warming does. It's probably the biggest movement in human history, if done right," he said.
"The 11th Hour" premiered the same day as another high-profile US documentary, Michael Moore's "Sicko." The scathing attack on the American health care system and its powerful insurance lobby drew several rounds of loud applause during an early screening for 2,000 guests.
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is? "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
