Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 33 to 40 of 45

Thread: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

  1. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,406

    Exclamation There is a fascinating article in the July issure of Discover Magazine

    It is an interview with a Danish scientist, Hernrik Svensmark who has found a correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. When the sun has a lot of solar wind activity cosmic rays from space are prevented from entering the atmosphere of our planet. More cosmic rays mean more cloud formation and more clouds mean more of the heat from the sun will be blocked from warming the planet. So when there are fewer cosmic rays the Earth gets warmer. He believes this cosmic ray cloud connection has a lot more to do with gobal warming than CO2 in the atmosphere.

    It is a whole different way of looking at climate. Usualy we think clouds are caused by changes in climate rather that the climate changes are caused by clouds. Sort of a reversal of usual thought. One of the problems with most climate models he says is that these models do not have clouds factored into them at all so any predictions thse models come up with may be very wrong.

    He says his work is part of a whole new emerging field he calls 'cosmoclimatology'. It is the idea that processes in space and what is happening here on Earth are connected. Rather than the Eath being a closed system isolated from everything else, its location in the Milky Way galaxy and and all kinds of activity in the whold cosmos affect the planet.

    It was a fasinating article and being that it was in Discover Magazine and not a high brow hard to read science journal, an ordinary lay person like me could understand it. By the way his research was not funded by oil companies. He got most of his financal support from a Danish beer company that supports lots of science research.

  2. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    thank you Kathy... keep in mind these are facts... coming down on corporate America makes us feel good though... and those are more important than facts...

  3. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    507

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    I see a lot of people who are on the global warming bandwagon making money. I for one dont buy any of this junk. There are just so many other, more logical explanations then industry for climate change. The sun, the clouds, volcanic activity etc. There are even some scientists who say more greenhouse gasses is what the earth needs, not less. After all, increased plant activity is better then less. As for what the pentagon says, I could care less, Im from Canada. I dont care what any political (bowing to public pressure) switch in policy says.
    As for "all the top scientists" well, thats simply not true. But I have heard a lot of scientists saying that if they decent from this policy, they are demonized. But of course if Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio say the earth is doomed, I guess they have the credentals for me to take thier word for it. I mean really Reines, have you given any thought at all to the opposing view, or do you just buy this hook line and sinker?
    As for cleaning up polution (not greenhouse gasses, seeing as 2 of the bigest are co2 which plants need to survive, and water vapour) I have no problem with that, as long as it does mean that our economy is not being crippled, and countries that are not doing thier part dont profit (India, china etc) Make better fuel efficient vehicles, great, make cleaner burning fuel, great again, recycle, fantastic. Tax carbon, no way.

  4. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,406

    Post You make good points Ridrfan

    Just because one is skeptical about human caused global warming it does not mean one cannot be an environmentally responsible person. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable natural resource. Conserving petroleum and/or finding alternatives for it are good idea. My husband and I both drive hybreds. We are a two Prius family. Recycling, conseving and cutting down on polution are, of course, ideas that make sense. But latching on to unproven theories and taking on a political agenda that has the potential to wreck havoc upon our economy is a totaly different matter. I think it is political correctness and not scentific common sense that is driving many of the greenies.

  5. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    good points guys... and for the record, the tap water here in N. Texas SUX the big one.. natural gas drilling and what not..awful... I'm all for clean water and clean air.. that deal they did on Beiging (sp?) in China was awful as the # 1 source of energy is coal and it burns freely with no restricitons...GOD Awful....

    I've been to South America where the 3rd world countries don't have unleaded...it STINKS...

    we ARE doing our part and BIG changes have been made here in the USA...instead of being trounced upon, we should be applauded....still need to do more about my tap water though..

    global warming is nothing more than the world coming down on the US to tap into our back pockets....wealth redistribution on a global scale

  6. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    thank you Kathy... keep in mind these are facts... coming down on corporate America makes us feel good though... and those are more important than facts...
    Who's "coming down on corporate America"? Fact is, there are huge amounts of money to be made in alternate sources of energy. It will be the next area of enterprise. I don't know why you act as if changing our addiction to fossil fuels automatically means the end of the world as we know it.
    The writing is on the wall- it's inevitable. Smart companies are already getting on the bandwagon. And that's also a "fact", bigeasy.

  7. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Posts
    1,947

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    Great post Cats. While I'm not into the hysteria of Global Warming, ICAM that we have one planet and there are tiny things we can all do to help out with preserving natural resources.

    I'm more concerned with how China and India are affecting the global climate. They output far more than we do in greenhouse gases and they have far more people who are growing out of their third world lifestyles.

    All I know is that I see the weather patterns changing in my own backyard. No matter what's causing it, I'm paying attention. Turning off lights, recycling materials and turning off running water when I don't need it.

  8. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Posts
    1,947

    Re: What top scientists think (and shouldn't we listen?)

    I was in Hong Kong the end of April and up on Shen Zen province that same trip. The smog and pollution over HK is atrocious. Beats LA ANY day of the week, times 2. Its horrific to think about what China is outputting and how fast they're growing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •