Global Warming? MIT says not caused by humans…

Global warming has become such a political and money making issue..  People who have spoken against it have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena.  No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn’t so.  Below I have some interesting article links.  One is an article from TG Daily stating new info from MIT Scientists who believe that the data they have collected around the world proves that global warming can not be human caused.

Why is this not posted all over the national news?  Politics,Power and Money….  Are we going green for the wrong reasons?

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data 

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas.  It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother natureand not the direct result of man’s contributions.

Cold Weather Breaks 150 Year Record in Florida

According to MeteoNews, the Swiss lowlands received the most snow for any October since records began in 1931.

In London, Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday – the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.

23 thoughts on “Global Warming? MIT says not caused by humans…

  1. I took an introductory Ecology course this year and actually, the professor did say that Methane gas is increased due to human activity because of the massive amount of grazing and herding that’s being done. Apparently, herding cattle causes a huge increase in Methane emission to the atmosphere. There’s no mention anywhere in the article that the Methane increase is not a result of this very man-influenced activity.

  2. I think the issue that proves it for the MIT guys, who are a pretty reputable scientific source, is that the levels are the same all over the world and not more over the more industrialized world……

  3. Umm, no, that still doesn’t cut it. First of all, be the effusion rates for atmospheric Methane as they may, Methane doesn’t stay put. Even if you ignore the recent data, you still couldn’t ignore the fact that commercialized grazing is not something new, and you’d still have to propose a different source for the vast increase of Methane gas in the atmosphere other than increased herding. Also, you’d have to see how much of the of that Methane is due to human activity. It’s quite possible that the increase in Methane in the atmosphere is due to natural Methane synthesis as a result of systematic increase or decrease of readily Methane-producing constituents.

    The biggest problem with anyone who argues against anthropogenic global warming is that huge amounts of methane gas don’t just pop out of nowhere. You would still have to address the question of what DID happen with all the commercially produced methane.

    Listen, I don’t have any qualms whatsoever with the proposition that global warming is caused by natural forces, but the fact remains that human beings have dramatically changed the planet in a very short amount of time, and the ecological interactions of the various ecosystems that humanity has changed with the atmosphere and global climate is rather well understood. Sure, there’s a lot of other factors as well, but I bet you won’t say that something as mind-bogglingly complex as climate change is simple.

    There’s just so much evidence pointing out to human beings changing the climate that I don’t see the point in arguing with it, it’s counter-productive, even in the short-term. I’ve seen the data, I got *tested* on relevant data. We’ve been destroying extremely valuable ecosystems and at the same time, increasing the emission of greenhouse gases tremendously.

    I am totally for the proposition that humans are not causing as much damage to the climate as some might suggest (for example, I’ve heard a lecture by a certain Israeli researcher who proposed cosmic rays from outer space as a possible cause for radical changes in the climate) – but I think it’s absolutely impossible to reject that we have SOME effect on global warming.

    CO2 and CH4 change temperatures and human beings change them. The only relevant question as far as GW activism is concerned is: how much damage are we doing, and how can we change it.

    Regardless of all I’ve written:

    A.That MIT “thinks” and has a reputation for good thinking should mean nothing without solid evidence to back this up. I think using that argument on its own is completely out of order.

    B.Are you really proposing that we simply continue polluting the air and abuse energy sources that way we do? Even regardless to global warming: this is positively bad for humanity due to air pollution and the medical effects it has on the human (and other) population.

  4. Fist of all, your title is misleading–MIT scientists did not find such evidence. What they found was that methane levels appear to have increased at equal levels at varying points throughout the world.

    Even if true (which would debase all the currently accepted literature on the subject by the scientific community), methane is not the only gas believed to be causing global warming. Carbon dioxide, another “greenhouse gas,” (produced mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, wood burning, and various other ways) is in a much larger supply (and increasingly so).

  5. “what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas.”

    People are becoming rich and more rich and companies and government are spending a fortune trying to be green, I believe more for the prevention of political backlash, on a theory that is refuted by many scientists. What if this whole global warming scare is really just a tactic to make lots of money…….

    I don’t believe my title is misleading…..It goes with the findings and the article that is quoted….

  6. A tactic to make lots of money? You believe in that already, or do you have reasons to believe in that?

    Btw, you completely neglected to address both my points and Christopher’s – even if you’re right, there’s still CO2.

  7. I am not an expert and I know from a previous comment you are not either. So I think those of us who are not experts have to look at the arguments coming from both sides. I think for political and economic reasons it has been easy to latch on the “the sky is falling” the world is coming to an end side of the argument. There are always lots of money reasons to use fear tactics. (Buy now or else) Al Gore has used global warning to gain back political power and so have many others. The global warming believers resort to just calling non-believers stupid. But I think to be wise, individually and corporately, we have to look at the fact that there are many legitimate scientists that are not in agreement with the global warming theory. Yes, theory, not fact.

  8. Some people are still dissenting from heliocentrism and evolution. Does this mean that those are theories in crisis? There’s a reason why people cling to the scientific consensus (don’t mistaken that with dogma) – it’s because consensual things tend to be true, or at least, as true as it gets.

    That there are dissenters to something doesn’t perforce mean it’s wrong. You will always find someone swimming upstream.

  9. I don’t know…I am not a scientist….I do know there are many reputable scientist, and the list is growing, that do not believe the evidence is there to prove global warming comes from humans. There is a lot of data that shows it to be cyclical and other data that shows we have actually had global cooling….

    My concern is that without looking at both sides, there is a lot of money being spent on a problem that may not be a problem. Of course, with money being spent, there is a lot of money being made and politicians benifiting from the fear…..and the one’s making the money and recieving the political benefits seem to be the one’s pushing it the hardest….

  10. Pingback: Number of Skeptics on Climate Change Swelling « e-Royal

  11. The word “believe” should not be mixed in science discussions. This is dumb. To find the truth you always have to go back as how it started. Back in the 1970 we had”global icing” :
    Press very fast was advancing apocaliptic scenarios and then in the 1980 it all turned around with the “believe” that that we are now on a “global warming” caused by humans.
    Press is at fault as they just went with this think with no proof and made it bigger more folks giving money to other folks to research it. If you get funds every year to study something and discover you were wrong during the process is more likely you will lie to continue getting the funds.
    Some science guys should make a web site and start researching this to give proof either way. I read a lot of stuff and it seems there is no link between humans and this….
    Propaganda…hmmm and if I think about it I am more a democrat than republican …way more but this stinks…

  12. Propaganda vs Science? The opponents of AGW have the science, the ‘wanna-believe / you will believe’ governments have the money. The politicians will only swing back to reality when the pressure from the people becomes overwhelming in rebellion at what all this replacement Kyoto mess will cost them.

    Man-made CO2, CH4 and N2O are not the ‘smoking guns’ of climate change, they are the ‘scapegoats’ in a political game. How ell politicians and smoking guns with no smoke fit together.

  13. I think that this hase some very good points in it, however I still have some questions about it such as the Carbon dioxide thing. But I do think that the money involved plays a huge part in the ‘Global warming’ issue.

  14. Well.. I tend to agree with the Money grab version for the HURRY or the world will end… Is the temp of the earth warmer than that of 50 or so years ago… YES.. Was it warmer in the 1800 than it is now… YES.. Were the Ice Caps melted then… YES.. did they grow back.. Yes… Amazing since we didn’t have all this CO2 etc causing industry until more recently… But they don’t mention that.

    And they also don’t mention that Mr. Al Gore who made the “inconvenient movie” about how us bad humans are causing our fair planet to have a temp…. is the CO OWNER of the LARGEST – CAP AND TAX… I mean Trade ( Carbon Offset) Company in the WORLD! If He and his little movie can convince the governments from around the world that they should put in cap and trade… which would cap the amount of CO2 a company can expel and – trade tax money for anything above that… He will be given TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars from all the governments and business’ around the world.

    But they don’t tell you about that. It’s kind of Nice (especially if it’s NOT TRUE) to have a move to convince EVERYONE to pay you to become the richest person on the planet… FOR NOTHING – Since it’s probably not true.

    But that’s a truth that is very convenient.


    i would like to point out that a lot of key researchers on that project are also involved in a thinktank that is funded by big oil. Gee i wonder how they came to those conclusions. Do you also know that a lot of climate change debunkers were also involved in the defense of big tobbaco? I think i see a pattern forming here. And so far every source i have found in the scientific community that trys to debunk global warming all seem to have ties to big oil. admit it. its a smoke screen. To preserve the profit margin of greedy corporations lol.

  16. Haylel…Is it possible that the people driving the Global Warming research might have some financial and political motivation?….There are people, Al Gore is a good example, that are getting very rich off of scaring the world into believing the end is near. Why aren’t both sides of the research reported by the major networks or media?……Because there is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained…

  17. If I used your logic Heylel then I could say why would any of the other rich companies who are already rich be trying to get more rich….It is human nature. Rich people want more wealth and everyone wants more power…..You can’t accuse one side of the argument of greed without looking the same at the other…

  18. Al Gore never needed to get rich, but that hasn’t stopped him from becoming even moreso. By an incredible coincidence, he stands to massively profit if cap-and-tax is implemented.

  19. the algore theroy was proven to be a hoax. and yes i do beleve what royal frris is saying is true, the whole global warming is just an excuse for politicians to make some money for example (the algore theroy.) it was tested to be true that the green house effect during the creataceous era when the dinosaurs walked the earth that the carbon levles and the green house gasses where alot higher then the levles are today. they tested it by using fossils.
    in my opinion i believe that the earth has cycles. for example the creataceous era , the little ice age and the medieval warming peroid. thoes are all cycles.

  20. Obama science adviser John Holdren proposed blasting sulphate particles into the atmosphere to block the rays of the sun.
    Support lifestyles that are more environmentally-friendly.

    Vegetables I sometimes grow in the Fall include beets, carrots, cabbage,
    brussel sprouts, lettuce, and broccoli.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s