Human Impact on Climate Change?

Exactly. Co2 increases are only 100ppm (parts per million) over the last 100 years. That's just a scant 1 molecule of co2 for every million other molecules. How can that make any impact.

Climate changes are natural. The climate is never static.

We have the greatest impact on our own local environment. "Global warming" is nothing more than a scam to raise taxes.

This earth has continually swung between very hot to the very cold.

I think we have over estimated our impact on this and of course govts use this as a way to increase revenue.

But facts show things to be slightly different and these are cold hard facts not theories.

I would like to share some of these with you

1) The earth even a few thousand years ago warmed dramatically and quickly-

Evidence

a) The discovery of a polar bear skeleton at Inchndamph, Sutherland Scotland (not a fossil an acutal skeleton) dated to approx 8,000 years therefore the North of Scotland must have resembled the Artic for polar bears to live here

b) The creation of the North sea which is only a few thousand years old, This flooded a massive tundra and skeletons etc where pulled from the sea bed and still are on a regular basis discovered, this water came from melting of the poles.

2) Volcanic activity

Volcanic activity has had a dramatic effect on the climate causing tempratures around the world to plummet and also releasing massive quanities of C02 into the atmosphere (starvation of US farmers directly after Krakatoa after snow in summer and crop failures throughout the US.

3)Methane (the following is an excerpt from earthslave.org)

By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane

My conclusion global warming yes of course

Influenced by us Sorry in my opinion no, certainly not to the extent that has been potrayed my goverments and the media

I'll put it this way; carbon has been building up underneath the surface of the earth for billions of years. Humans have effectively taken a large percentage of this carbon out of the earth and into the air within a matter of about 100 years in the rise of the Industrial Revolution. This is not normal.

Al Gore's film has been discredited, below is a report from The UK papers.

The UK department of education has been taken to the high court by a father claiming that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush.

The presiding Justice Burton will make a final ruling within a week but has already stated that the film does promote partisan political views. This is resulting in the government education system having to amend their Guidance Notes to make clear that:

1.) The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2.) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1966 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The eleven inaccuracies are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests evidence from ice cores covering the last 650,000 years proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases. The court found that the film was misleading due to the fact that the actual evidence from those ice cores demonstrate that the CO2 rises actually followed temperature increases by 800 to 2000 years and so could not have been causative.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Even though CO2 has increased over the last decade, temperatures have fallen or stayed stable.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo...

These measurements have been made by the official organisations that monitor global temperature, not GW sceptics or oil industry people, so they cannot be dismissed.

It demonstrates that the effect of CO2 on our climate has been grossly over exaggerated, it is a factor, but only one in many.

the claim that there is scientific consensus is simply propaganda. The many scientists that have expressed doubts about the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis have been systematically excluded from the mainstream media, committees, advisory panels and international conferences for the express purpose of maintaining the fiction that there is consensus.

Many environmental scientists, including myself, do not consider the AGW hypothesis to be correct. I worked in cooperation with the Arctic research institute in Russia for some years, and the Academicians there do not accept the AGW. They have not been exposed to the hysterical propaganda that we have in the west, and rely on the data and their own vast knowledge and experience.

Among climate scientists there is a very strong and enduring concensus that humans are causing the majority of the warming and that this is a serious problem. That's all you need to know because these people are really the only ones who understand what they are talking about.

Its good to know that you are environmentally conscious.I would advice you to see the film "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore.He explains all your doubts regarding climate change in the best way.Its so simple.I would also like to add that those people who say that climate change is a load of rubbish and all that stuff are SIMPLY IGNORANT.These are the people who are the main contributers to the problem.If you still have any doubt contact me.

If people think Al Gore is not an expert in this field,then have a look at "The day after Tomorrow",the producers of this film are no politicians.

There's plenty of evidence. It's important to recognize that Global Warming has been established scientific fact for a very long time. The DENIER/skeptic movement on the other hand is a political strategy that has come into existence recently, mostly since 2000, and entirely since 1970. It is supported by a set of laughable urban legends circulated by political hacks on the internet in an effort to simulate respectability. If you familiarize yourself with these and learn to screen them out you will be shocked and somewhat angry at the situation the world is facing.

"Is there actually and scientific study that provide compelling evidence that human activity is having an impact on the climate as opposed to the normal climatic shifts that have occurred for millions of years."

No, there isn't.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

This scientifically researched paper will show you ALL the data proving our lack of influence on global warming regarding CO2 emissions. This paper is supported by over 19,000 scientists.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/ 910

This article is written by Gore's "co-Nobel prize" winner stating that he and many of his peers disagree, on scientific grounds, w/ Gore and the IPCC. Even shows how they distorted the facts about the real results of the "research".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

Here, you can see how the rest of the planets are going thru a warming cycle just as we are...so how can global warming be man made when it is the sun that is responsible for the temperature of the planet(s)?

From the same site, "Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”.

Also, "Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, wrote that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”.

Lastly, regrading Gore and his movie...

"Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. "

Did you know that the alleged "2000" scientist supporters of Gore's crap included the names of scientists who disagreed w/ Gore's "findings" and research but he chose not to omit them from his list because it may reveal the sham that it is.?

Human impact on climate change is equivalent to a fly's impact on a windshield. Scientists can guesstimate the minute force exerted on the car, but one wouldn't regulate human activity to avoid future automobile collisions with insects.

All major scientific organizations worldwide supports the AGW theory. (Do a research for it yourself and you'll see).

There is still some disagreements and studies on to what degree our emissions will impact future climate but the main principle that our greenhouse gases is having an impact is denied by very few. If it is it's almost always by "specialists" within other areas than climate research. Mostly by some private funded think tanks with economic interests in refuting AGW.