Bam
I'm not certain what agenda 21 is, but it doesn't sound good.
If you are asking if the global warming as discussed by the environmental movement is real, I will tell you no. THAT kind of global warming is NOT real.

Is the planet warming? Maybe. THe best data is uncertain.
Something is happening in our solar system that current science cannot explain. Our sun is getting slightly dimmer and the planets, as well as the space between the planets, is slightly warmer. We are talking micro fractional temperatures...slightly above fractions of absolute zero....the solar system is NOT going to burst into flames.

There are things that DO explain these occurrences but they have nothing to do with CO2 leaking off of Earth or evil corporations looking for oil on Uranus.
Relax dude, if the planet is warming up, there's probably nothing we can do about it other than adapt to warmer temperatures. I suggest air conditioning and ice cubes in the lemonade.

Dawn

Dawn
Thank you for your info. the truth that, we don’t know exactly “is it true that global warming really exist?” because our technology has not been able to determine whether global warming exists and affects our earth.

Did you know that some people say that global warming is just a political issue that used to scare us? There is a rumor that global warming was used because right now terrorist issue is no longer able to frighten the public, so that the most appropriate in order to frighten the public are issues of natural disasters.

I know about this issue because I watch movie “escoteric agenda”. You can watch those movie from youtube. Maybe there are some info that you can get.

Bam

How do u think earth got out of the ice age the answer is natrual global warming there is a natrul form of it but it dosnt mean are thechnolgy has anything to do with it

Its true that our technology has anything to do it. what i mean is that we dont know for sure about global warming because the fact is, our technology has not been able to find the source about global warming, so we must wait for sveral years, then we can know the truth

Thank you, faith. yeah, i will send you an e-mail, but i dont know for sure when i will send you. just hope i dont forget it.

I think u should know that history said that climmate always changes in very near of the end of the period, which every period has its own climmate like an ice age

I don't think you should start to think 'concperacy' about this. Maybe the global warming isue is exaggerated a bit, but perhaps it is also good we are a bit scared about it because only then will we do something about the polution that wrecks our environment. Even if it isn't caused by us (some say it is because of increased activity due to sunspots on the sun, which will peak in 2015) it wouldn't harm to use 'green' technology.

The newest new :
2012 are the end of iron age, and will come to golden age...must be a lot of souls will be sacrified...

(Druid people)

I’ve been working for the last 10 years on Robotic Spacecraft designs for NASA intended to gather planetary data both on Earth and Mars. My colleges at work occasionally discuss the topic of Global warming on an informal basis. The consensus that I have gathered is that not enough scientific data is available to determine if the resent trend toward warming of the planet is man made. Models presented by the environmental voices in the scientific community would have the public believe that there is no longer any question but this is simply not true. Most scientists are very skeptical to say the least but have no desire to weigh in on such a controversial subject. As long as the vocal environmental minority only proposes making the planet less polluted, most scientists simply are sitting it out while our environmental colleagues scare the public into funding programs to “clean up” the planet. Everything is going green so to speak, which is really a good thing so why make an issue about them stretching the truth at this point. Who knows? They may be right. It’s just too early to tell. Warming data over the last 100 years is very questionable. In the past temperature readings were taken at random times of day using various types of thermometers that had a 3% instrument error. Today the half dozen satellites now in orbit are finally giving us reliable data but this has only been true over the last decade. NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory cashed on take off last year (big setback) and OCO2 is now being rebuilt. Aquarius, another satellite in this train, is due to launch this year, which will give real time Ocean Stalinization data for the first time. Once all the satellites needed are launched and a reasonable period of data collection has passed I’m sure the scientific community will give a real consensus. In the mean time if an uninformed public wishes to listen to the media’s doomsday rhetoric, well, whose fault is it? The public at large knows nothing about physics on any level (and has no desire to learn). They don’t even understand what electricity is let alone how to form an opinion on global warming. If they wish to allow themselves to be duped by a media that is constantly reporting the end of the world then isn’t it there own fault? Perhaps they should become better informed so they can make intelligent decisions for themselves.

Thanks for the info. Its true what you say about this doomsday thinking in the media about global warming. They talk about our destruction all the time, and after a while you almost start believing it. We will just have to wait and see what the future brings I think (and hope they got it wrong).

Did u know befor people bleved in global wharming people were more concerned about global cooling isnt that irony not even shakphere chould come up with a better one then that

The 'destruction of the world' is a popular ruse used to control people through baseless fear. People who are just plain scared are like sheep, ready to dash this way or that or buy anything and everything that the 'people in charge' tell them is going to put their fears to rest. Millions can be made off the 'sheeple' factor.

part of the problem is the human lifespan. We don't live long enough to comprehend how the planet works. GLobal time lines are LONG...the numbers involved are huge. You have to have years of advanced schooling to begin to comprehend those kinds of figures. Even with the education, some folks just never get it (though they would never actually SAY they don't get it)
the other part of the problem is that we are living in an extended age of global calmness as far as climate and tectonic activity goes. A certain mindset looks at this age (Holocene, in case you are wondering) and thinks....damn, this can't last...let's freak out about what will happen if it ends while I'm alive!
If the Holocene ends, its going to be rough, but no body knows if it will end. They are willing to worry it might and so...global warming...climate change....the sky is falling...the planet is dying...IT'S ALL OUR FAULT!

sheesh, I wish we'd just get over ourselves

This is exactly the sort of outright lie that is used so often by those who would trick you into believing that climate change is not real, or not caused by human activity, or not a problem.

Even if 'runewraith' were "working on Robotic Spacecraft designs", (which I doubt), that wouldn't make him/her a climate scientist.

Over 97% of climate scientists are over 90% certain that climate change is real and caused by human activity. It is a lie to claim otherwise. Those who claim to be scientists sceptical of climate change are, mostly, not scientists. Others are mostly not climate scientists, but qualified in some other area, so listening to them is like getting your triple-bypass surgery from your car mechanic. The very, very few climate scientists who speak against climate change are mostly in the pay of the oil and coal industry, part of its PR machinery.

Do this: read up on any climate denier. Find papers they've published in peer-reviewed journals (use Google Scholar, not just Google). How many papers do you find? How many are on Climate science? How many are cited by other scientists? You'll be surprised at the low numbers. You'll ask yourself how your politicians could have been taken in by such chicanery.

Do the same for any of the scientists who say that climate change is real. Compare, discuss.

Educate yourself. Learn about the significance of 450 ppm. Then get busy and educate your politicians - time is in fact running out.

But climate change has been hapening for centreys before man what do you think gut us out of the ice age even if global warming is real then man whould just be a catalist and before global warming people belived global cooling was hapening we do need to confront are polution isues nomater if or if not it exesits

On Jan 17, 2003 Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park) gave a lecture at Caltech entitled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”. It’s a must read! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300661/posts.
Here are some passage:
1) You've probably heard that there's a consensus that Global Warming is real

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

2) and about Global Warming models-

"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd."

Runewraith: Thanks for the clear illustration of exactly why Crichton was never a scientist, and could never have been one. He was a science fiction writer, and not a very good one, either.

The quotes prove how little he understood of science, especially climate science.

Toward the end of his life, he chose to join the club of professional climate-change deniers, and was paid very well for that. He ended his days in comfort, spending his oil money, knowing that he would never see the worst results of this climate change catastrophe, even though he helped to stall efforts to reverse the damage we are causing.

Here's a fact: nearly every observation made over the past decade has been worse than the predictions made by the IPCC.

97% of climate scientists agree that there is a better-than 90% chance that the global warming and greenhouse-gas increases we are observing are real and that they are caused by people. Does anyone think that you and a dead sci-fi hack know better?

Kempton: This is a forum and whatever Crichton’s motives or qualifications are he makes valid points about several subjects and has the right to his opinion. We have the right to discuss this subject even if we are not Climate Scientists. I first heard of Global warming in 1984 in my Thermodynamics class where our professor lectured at length on what in those days was called green house effect. He explained that the heat transferred from the earth’s core (which is as hot as the surface of the sun) moves through the earths crust and into space. If not for the geographical balance of heat conduction the earths core would cook the earths surface and all life would end. This same process carries away a much smaller amount of calories coming from our sun. This is a very efficient process and is in fact the reason life can exist on a 75-mile thick rock floating on a 6000-degree ocean of lava. I feel that we still have many decades available to collect data before any action is required. I believe collection of reliable data before acting on this or any issue is vital. A Scientist came to speak at our facility about a year ago advocating that we launch hundreds of mirrored spheres into orbit to reflect back the suns heat and lower temperatures. I think this kind of knee jerk approach to science is irresponsible and a real danger to the plant. I’m afraid that some well-intentioned ecologists, in an attempt to fix things, will truly irreversibly hurt the earth. We shouldn’t experiment terraforming our own planet. Some believe that temperature changes experienced on earth are simply due to the amount of average cloud cover during the year. All I have to say is we need more information to reach an informed conclusion because right now there is no proof. I’ve heard theories, statistics, projections, models and conjectures. I would just once like to see some mathematical verifiable incontrovertible proof from the Climate Scientists before I buy into their theory. If the data is in and the discussion is over then where’s the proof?

Runewraith: Michael Crichton, and you, and everyone else, is entitled to their own opinion. No argument from me on that.

You don't have the right to your own science, though.

Climate-change deniers want you (and everyone else) to believe that opinion matters in this. It doesn't. Would you seek the opinion of a kid with a chemistry set about your latest rocket fuel? Would you get the opinion of an astrologer on the right date and time to launch?

Of course not. Opinions do not matter in these things. There is no opinion or point-of-view on scientific facts and numbers.

Climate-change deniers (and remember - they aren't climate scientists) want to confuse people by making them believe that opinion does matter in science. The more confusion there is, the less public pressure there will be for real solutions, solutions that will hurt the oil and coal industries. Too bad they weren't smarter back in the '80's when you were learning about climate change! They could have gotten onto the issue back then, made some pretty cheap positive changes and come out as the good guys. Sad, really, because we will need oil for a long time - it's really useful stuff for plastics etc. Imagine a BP that was pushing geothermal energy instead of flooding the Gulf with oil and dispersants (or even instead of funding climate deniers and politicians)

Anyway - yeah - terraforming would be nuts! But you know what- we ARE terraforming, by changing our climate each and every day.

To me, the proof is in. I've seen it. And I listen when over 97% of climate scientists agree on it.

The SCIENCE of the situation, bonehead, is that the Earth was warmer than it is now and for a period of several HUNDRED (that's 100's) during the medieval warm period around the 11th and 12th centuries AD. During this time people learned to raise barley, wheat and rye in Europe and that came back to haunt them during the Little Ice Age of the 13th century as those crops are particularly susceptible to damage in cold damp weather.
See how I am...all these facts...troubling isn't it? This combined with the Black Plague nearly wiped the population of Europe during that time. The warm weather EXPANDED POPUALTIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE. dingbat....people do better when the weather is warm, so do animals...(plane eaters eat more prolific plants, meat eaters eat plant eaters etc)
Okay, so if the world was warmer for several hundreds of years that relieves us of a couple of worries.
The tundra melted and no large influx of methane of other troublesome greenhouse gas caused the world to end. The glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica melted to a large degree.
Right?
Okay, if all this happened and we survived, what about today. The truth is that the convenient curve of ALgorefantasylandddrivel showing that co2 rises match warming rises is false. Rising co2 levels actually LAG by about 800 to 1000years behind the warming curve, according to ice cores and sea bed cores.Again, pesky actual science intervening.
Plants LIKE co2. most successful greenhouses close their vents at night to ensure that plants get as much co2 as possible to ensure rapid and healthy growth.
More plants...more oxygen, more oxygen healthier world....
science.....duh.
I invite you to a one on one debate with me about global warming.
take up the challenge. I would love to put you in your place.
by the way, did you know tha tthe whole solar system is warming...in fact the trend shows that Earth is actually warming SLOWER than the rest of the solar system?
betcha didn't know that
by the by...how many ten dollar light bulbs do yo have in YOUR house!
love ya
Dawn

If I'm a bonehead your an idiot. What are you rambling about? The whole theory of green house effect that global warming is based on is crap sold to you by people who want your money! Heat does not BOUNCE off the earth. It travels along the surface trying to get to the cold of Out Space. The mountains on our planet are giant heat sink that dissipates the heat into space. Go to school and take a course in Thermodynamic you dope. This is the last time I'm posting on this because the level of ignorant jerks like you is way too high and I'm tired of being called names for telling the truth. Drop dead and Get a life.

Apparently you can't read either. I am arguing AGAINST global warming being caused by co2 or greenhouse gases. THe earth does seem to be warming but it likely has a lot more to do with the sun than with anything going on here caused by humans.

You are correct with the Sun. Human Development is just a minute fraction of the whole thing.

But to add on is at every end of a Galactitical era a reverse thrust of every disaster is brought back on track Tongans call it- "Recreation" or Restoration.

One shouldn't worry because if you displaced a mountain or river like the 3 gorges in China, the restoration is the Cosmic Pulsive readings from the past comes back to find no river no mountain you know how it will be ....He will be very angry and he is upset and we are doomed- that's development humans call...but I call it disaster next.

Bull