It has long since been a popular opinion that we are the cause of recent global increases in temperature. However, evidence shows that this is wrong. The reason why it has never been publicised as much as the theory for it is because of the jobs and money that lies in that field of research; unemployment would rise quite a lot if it were proven wrong. Here's why it is wrong:

---

Recent Cooling

The argument here is that temperatures are constantly rising and falling without our help. Between 1940 and 1975 when most of industrialization was taking place, global temperatures were cooling ¹ and it wasn't until later when temperatures started rising again.

There was a mini-ice age around the 1500s in Britain when the Thames froze and there was also a Medieval Warm Period. This could be just another in the long line.

Lack of Proof

If greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming then there would be lots of warming going on in the troposphere where the greenhouse gases are. The would be evidence from both satellites and weather balloons to support this but there is none from either source. ²

Natural Carbon-dioxide Emitters

Finally, greenhouse gases are produced from so many other natural sources in the world. Decaying vegetation, oceans and the world's volcanoes all outweigh our own production by several times. Human produced C0₂ can only account for a small fraction of what is currently being produced. ³

---

The information was acquired from the television programme The Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast only a few days ago. Various climate scientists were interviewed, whom are professors, along with people such as a co-founder of Greenpeace. This is their website:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html

The question is who are the people behind this campaign?

What are there motives to say tha we are jus doing fine, that pollution caused by CO2 from cars and manufacturing company is no to be blame and even suggest that there is no such thing as Global Warming?



a very funny thing to say... who will be unemployed? the researchers? how many of them? this is just plain attact to the group rather than the issue by that it is very suspicious.

I saw that show and got to admit it completly changed my mind. Many people forget that only 20 odd years ago they belived we would be in a new ice age. So whats to say that Global warming isn't just another Suggestion to the earths future gone wrong. Noone can predict the future.

Leading independent scientists, who could only dream of being paid by oil companies.



The climate is changing; our environment is getting warmer. However, there say that there is no evidence that this is caused by Greenhouse Gases. The trouble with the theory is that it does ignore the fiery star in the sky that controls our environment day-by-day, the Sun.

If you are adamant that CO₂ is the cause of warming, why is it that during the post-war economic boom, where industrialisation was high, temperatures were falling?



Most people who work for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change); all the people who work for the government in research into the problem; people who are working on ways to resolve the problem; people aiming to promote the use of energy-efficient lights/resources; people who manufacture energy-efficient products; the list goes on. There are literally thousands of people in these jobs and if the theory is disproved then that's it, they've got to all be found jobs. Would YOU want that task?

Btw, what does "attact" mean?

Regardless of whether people like to admit it, we are all zombies of the media. When they tell us things time and time again, regardless of how preposterous the idea may seem, we give in.

I'd also like to draw your attention to where the theory arose. Margaret Thatcher was very adamant on using Nuclear Power. She didn't trust the coal miners, whom recently went on strike and didn't trust the Middle East to provide Britain with oil. When some Swedish (?) scientist suggested the theory, she went up to some other scientists and said, "There's money on the table if you can prove this" and guess what, they proved it and she added it to her list of arguments. Then, the anti-capitalist environmentalists (who recently helped to destroy the Berlin Wall so had nothing to whine about) and the media had a field day promoting the idea. And here we are today.

One of the sickening points that everybody has to agree with, is that it is inhuman to force the poorest continent in the world (Africa) to develop using the world's most expensive and poorest yielding electricity generators.

Well it is pretty obvious that global warming is happening. No real scientist tries to argue that it isn't happening.
I do agree with you though that it's not our fault. Just because old Bob down on the corner forget to turn his light switch off, doesn't mean we're all going to die.

Ice cores show that there have been natural ccarbon dioxide fluctuations as far back as 10,000 BC and even further. That's a bloody long time. Indeed, around 8000 BC CO2 levels were higher than they are now.

So why is everybody so obsessed with all this green b*llocks? Because of oil. Estimates vary but the rough consensus is that we will be out of oil by 2080. And I tell you, without oil, the West is in trouble. House-burning-down-with-baby-asleep-in-flame-wreathed-cot-trouble. A baby who is covered in oil. So his Blairness, the Spotty Scottie and future PM's need to ensure that Britain won't grind to a halt in 2080. And of course all the oil is in the Middle East, so it gets scarcer, the Middle East gets more powerful. So they blame it on Bob and his light switch.

Curse you Bob! You are the bane of us all!

So we may still freeze to death, but at least we can rest safe in the knowledge that it wasn't our fault. Or maybe we'll just get bombed by Iran.

Well now, global warming as well as global cooling has been happening cyclicly since the beginning of the earth. However, mankind has certainly contributed to the hastening of the phenomenon of global warming. Maybe it would happen anyway, but it is happening faster considering all the junk mankind is pumping into the atmosphere. Let's get real. There are always those people who will pooh-pooh the evidence and campaign against anything. The glaciers' recession is proof enough to me. I evidenced this on a recent trip to Alaska.

Agreed.



Wrong. I've proved that global warming is not caused by Greenhouse Gases by reiterating the words off Channel 4's programme but maybe I should tell you the REAL cause of global warming - the not so exciting cause with not so exciting effects.

The Sun.

Believe it or not the fiery ball in the sky that controls our temperatures in the short term is also causing a long-term rise in temperatures. It is a well-known fact that, over the last several hundred years, solar activity correlates very well with temperature. The Earth's atmosphere is being constantly hit by omnipresent cosmic rays. As rising water vapour from the ocean hits them, clouds form. Clouds shield the Earth from the Sun's rays and cool the Earth. When solar activity is high, there is more solar wind and less cosmic radiation hits the Earth, so fewer clouds are formed. Therefore, warming is beyond our control so we can't predict life in 50 years time, at least not until we can control the Sun.

It would be wrong to say that this is the real cause of our planet's warming because, like the greenhouse effect, this is still a theory, which seems to be the one fact people are ignoring for the sake of a more interesting life. People are changing their lives just in case the POTENTIAL threat of using this means comes true, whilst ignoring the KNOWN advantages of it.

And, yes, the glaciers' recession might serve as proof of global warming but not proof of its cause.

I like how what you said and what they say in that broadcast do not disprove global warming. They are just more ideas, good going.

---------------------------------------------

There are many more ideas supporting global warming than just greenhouse gases and cutting down trees. Yes we have more trees now than what we did before and yes we cut down on pollution now but you also have to include in on another factor.



Pollution that was caused 10-20 years ago is just ending it's damage now. Meaning if you stop pollution, the results won't come into effect until around 10-20 years later, so filters on giant factories, less pollutant cars? It doesn't matter much to the planet yet, only to our health. Obviously we don't get damage starting the factories, especially since factories then were not only smaller but they had 1% of the factories we have now.

And how do you have a mini-ice age? You either have an Ice Age or not, you cannot declare a mini-era. It was just a time when things were cold for them, which also was a time win little to no polution from us occured.

And yes the sun can causes changes but the thing is over 4billion years old, changes in the universe don't happen drastically within lifetimes besides the start of a star explosions (even the full explosion effects take longer than a lifetime to occur), they happen from hundreds to billions of years.