The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Slim]

You rule. Do you shit in your own bed too?

[Lurkah]

If you're not interested in the subject and all then fair enough. It's hard, however, to see how you end up getting to a position of saying "I'm tired of you talking about it so I'm just going to do anything I can to make things worse!". Yer classic toys out of pram, smashing the chess board type thing I guess.

 

One can only hope that in larger numbers of people some sort of common sense prevails.

[Chinahand]

This is one of the main points of the argument. I am precisely saying... to use your own words above that: "The Global warming hypothesis predicts current warming is caused by CO2" and "Historically, rises in CO2 levels lag behind a rise in temperature" implies "The global warming hypothesis is wrong"

 

Current CO2 levels are consistent with historical (-800 yr) instances of warming. You are talking half a degree difference in a massive range, but the overall upward and matching trend is there, identified in numerous ice cores from the past - that clearly illustrate that CO2 rises follow temperature rises but lag by around 800 years. Current propaganda puts the cart before the horse insisting that CO2 leads temperature and assumes from the past (currently unknown and non-presentable by G-W propagandists) that supposedly kicked this process off.

 

This is the science versus religion (reason v faith) argument that is currently stifling debate. Help me Jeebus!

 

Let me just check here - you are saying that the current period is the same as a glacial termination - that about 800 years ago a natural process started warming the earth and that now, 800 years later, a natural process is driving CO2 levels higher?

 

Albert you are either mad or a troll. In a similar challenge to the VinnieK-say-whether-you-agree-or-disagree-with-the-Riemann-Hypothosis-challenge can you show a shread of evidence for your latest theory. AND can you also please disprove the research which clearly shows that the CO2 being added to the atmosphere has the same carbon nucleotide signature of Brent Crude, Texas Sweet and Australian coal. Believe me Texas Sweet isn't a part of a natural cycle - its mainly owned by Dubya and his mates.

 

You seem to be fixated on the fact that (as I've said before) "because CO2 has not been the cause of a (part of a) climate change in the past it does not mean it is not a part of a climate change today." And claim climatologists are using some previous 'magic CO2 x-factor' to explain glacial terminations ... HUH?

 

Do you understand what a green house gas is?

 

Do you understand that other processes other than green house gases can change climate - previously you've gone on for pages about Sun Spots, Orbital eccentricities, Volcanoes etc - there is little evidence these factors are significantly changing today - but there is alot of evidence they changed during Ice age cycles.

 

Do you understand the concept of feed back and reinforcement?

 

Do you understand that when the sea is Iced over part of the CO2 cycle is surpressed due to the failure of plankton to be able to interact with the sun and so give zoo-plankton a food source.

 

Do you understand that if an area of the sea melts this cycle starts - releasing CO2 which starts a minor green house effect, which allows a bit more warming which melts a bit more ice.

 

Plus do you understand that the capacity of the ocean to hold CO2 is strongly related to temperature - as, or maybe before, or maybe a bit after, any of the above is occurring if the ocean starts to warm it in itself will start to release in a stongly reinforcing manner adding to the green house effect and adding to the warming - positive feed back.

 

As has been pointed out multiple times before by multiple posters you have this incredible tendency whenever science disagrees with your world view to start throwing around the words "psuedoscience" and "bunk" and claiming that the researchers involved are all blinded by a quasi-religious faith.

 

You are being willfully blind to the large and important body of research examining these issues - check out this or this or this or this.

 

Are you really telling me this type of research "assumes some previous 'magic CO2 x-factor' from the past that supposedly kicked this process off".

 

You are being willfully blind Albert.

[Dr_Dave]

You are being willfully blind to the large and important body of research examining these issues - check out this or this or this or this.

 

Excellent post mate.

[Chinahand]

I have said that I'm a sceptic - and that applies to both sides of the argument. Much of the scepticism comes from a lifetime of seeing Scientific and technological wonders often that turn out to be nightmarish blunders - detergents that make dishes gleam but kill rivers, dyes that make food look good but may cause cancer, pills that make sex safe but can dangerously complicate health. Then add, DDT, cyclamates, thalidomide and oestrogen as some of the mixed blessings that leave the layman to feel that science and technology often come with hidden worms.

P.S. I have, however, forgiven Newton for thinking that the sun was populated.

 

Lonan3 - As far as I am concerned you are close to the heart of the argument here - a trust in science and technology.

 

My point is that you still use detergents, food dyes and who knows, use pills to make your sex life safe - hey you raised it not me!

 

And DDT, thalidomide etc are still used in more appropriate situations today.

 

We've learned about these dangers and changed/adapted.

 

How did we do that - via science.

 

The ozone hole is closing - we saw a problem and used our technological know how to phase out CFCs. That was extremely controversial at the time - I can remember programs very similar to the Channel 4 documentary saying we were taking away the third world's ability to refigerate cheaply by abolishing the production of these chemicals - guess what the world has found technical solutions to these problems (and limited smuggling/treaty breaking has filled the gap - I am a realist!).

 

Will the science of global warming change in the future? - definitely.

 

Will our understanding of this issues improve? - ditto.

 

Should we wait until then before doing anything about global warming? In my mind NO - the consensus of the science is now so overwhelming that policy makers cannot ignore it. I definitely see the arrow of causality going in that direction - a scientific worry, growing to a serious concern which forces policy makers to take the concerns seriously.

 

Many sceptics put the causality the other way round - quite why they think it is like this, and why they think scientists would fabricate/distort their research I don't understand.

 

I don't feel the measures we are taking now are irreversiable - if we find a way of scrupping carbon out of aircraft emissions, making flying carbon neutral through technology - then the taxes should be reversed. Currently this isn't technically possible - so there should be a mechanism to attempt to decrease their carbon emissions - ie changing the cost of flying.

 

So my view - I don't think the scientists are lying to me. I do think there is a problem; though I understand the full consequences are not fully known. I do think we should do something about it, but if the science changes we can change/reverese what we have done previously.

 

I'm reasonably concerned that we will NOT be able to reverse the problems quickly enough and sea level changes etc will bring misery to millions if not billions of people - mainly the worlds poorest. But apart from needing a stronger roof - I doubt if I will be materially affected by the changes: cos I live in the developed world and so have the resources to adapt.

[Lurkah]

CFCs. That was extremely controversial at the time - I can remember programs very similar to the Channel 4 documentary saying we were taking away the third world's ability to refigerate cheaply by abolishing the production of these chemicals

 

This is a good point actually and worth remembering in the context of the current debate although of course what needed to be done then was a bare fraction of what has to be done now. It does however give us some hope through examples of what happened there.

 

You're right, back in the day pro CFC groups argument basically hinged on expense compared to CFC-based chemicals. However when industry geared up to produce CFC-free alternatives, the cost issue was neither here nor there in the end. This sort of thing is indicative of what we can expect of industry in general. When energy in on the consumer radar, suddenly people manufacturing electronic equipment will give thought to power consumption where it simply was not a design criteria before.

Which is a good thing.

 

Unfortunately can't be helped entirely by what products end up being on the market but hopefully with a double whammy of tax hits on industry and tax-cut initiatives etc, we'll end up with the requisite multi-pronged approach. I'm optimistic about that although it does not help, quite frankly, when the allegedly green proponents in the UK are ironically doing everything they can to scupper nuclear which is something of a lynchpin in being able to hit the ambitious targets laid out.

[stevie]

Between 1930 and 1940, while CO2 levels were going up, the temperature of the Earth dropped. Clearly the correlation

is not as simplistic and obvious as you would like. And let us not forget that methane has ten times the greenhouse effect that CO2 does, with the vast majority of methane coming from non-human sources including deep-crust microbes, termites, cattle flatulance, etc.

 

The problem with the global warming cultists is they want a simple world. They want a world in which man = heat = bad, where man changes his ways and the world is saved. But the real world is far more complicated. The Earth's orbit changes over time. Solar output increases. Cloud formation is directly affected by the density of cosmic rays. These are all factors that affect climate, but which are ointedly ignored by the global warming cultists to declare humans bad and in need of salvation. Even if man totally vanished from the world tomorrow, the Earth would STILL be getting warmer due to the aforementioned methane, solar output and orbital fluctuations, etc.

 

CO2 makes a great political PR word, but the fact is that plants NEED carbon dioxide before they can make oxygen for us humans to breath and food for us to eat. And the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster and taller plants, INCLUDING FOOD CROPS, will grow. Now, do you want to tell a starving village in Africa that they must continue to go hungry so that you can feel good about lowering the pertcentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

The problem with the manufactured global warming hysteria is that it reminds me of the global ice-age hysteria we had to go through back in the 70s. It was bad science but good politics and more to the point, good fund-raising.

The world is not a simple place. Earth is ALWAYS getting colder or hotter. There are no simple fixes that will lock the Earth to the temperature that it is now. It is very naive for man to think this is achievalbe. And Man is not to blame for every butterfly that falls from the sky.

[Lost Login]

Er no! You are referring to Artic temperatures and not Temperatures of the earth. A slight difference and the contect of those studies is important the context for those studies is important and was well covered in the Arctic Climate Impact Assesment. In particular, natural variability in the climate system is particularly large in the high latitudes, such as the Arctic. This implies that temperatures from any one or two years may not be very representative of a long term trend. Arctic temperatures did indeed have a peak around 1940, but the decadal mean temperatures are now (1995-2004) warmer than the mean over 1935-1944.

 

That is the trouble with you liar, idiots etc, well if I am a cultist, who are trying to put the alterantive point of view you pick a "fact" which you either amend, alter or distort to try and prove a point.Try posting honestly and you might a modicum of respect. Next you will be arguing that Global Warming is natural as millions of years ago the earth was warmer than now and man did not exist. In fact the earth was molton. Sorry you wont be arguing that is it is true!

 

 

Between 1930 and 1940, while CO2 levels were going up, the temperature of the Earth dropped. Clearly the correlation

is not as simplistic and obvious as you would like. And let us not forget that methane has ten times the greenhouse effect that CO2 does, with the vast majority of methane coming from non-human sources including deep-crust microbes, termites, cattle flatulance, etc.

[VinnieK]

Between 1930 and 1940, while CO2 levels were going up, the temperature of the Earth dropped. Clearly...

 

Pretty much everything you just wrote has already been addressed, multiple times in some cases, and you know what? It turns out that the guys with the doctorates already thought about those things when they were coming up with their hypothesis long before you stumbled accross them on the internet!

 

Seriously... I get it, I really do: Government = bad, individual = good.

[Slim]

The problem with the global warming cultists is they want a simple world.

 

Oh the irony is killing me. This sentance coming from a conspiracy theory nutjob is just too funny to be true.

 

Why not actually read some of the posts here instead of TEHREALANDTERRABLETROOF.COM or whatever the fuck sad place you lurk and you may learn something.

[RC-Drift.com]

I know one thing, being a global warming lemming certainly makes you aggressive, someone dares to post an alternative to 'the earth is doomed if we don't change' then all of a sudden replies are littered with filth and public toilet art

[VinnieK]

I know one thing, being a global warming lemming certainly makes you aggressive, someone dares to post an alternative to 'the earth is doomed if we don't change' then all of a sudden replies are littered with filth

 

Actually, it's more exasperation than aggression, and it's more at the tendency of a select few to insinuate that global warming is some kind of conspiracy that can be upturned with nothing more than three paragraphs of basic science than it is at differing opinion.

 

public toilet art

 

I thought little could be more inexplicable than the warmongers comment, but there it is!

[Chinahand]

The trouble with Stevie is that everything he ever posts is either directly copied of What Really Happened:

 

For example his posts on this thread can be found:

here: http://alaskafreepress.com/msgboard/archive/2007/3/13

and here: http://alaskafreepress.com/msgboard/archive/2007/3/5

 

Or linked to it: guess where most the the unconnected bull he trawls up to annoy us on the 911 thread comes from: you guessed it: What Really Happened: check out here.

 

Stevie - try to formulate your own ideas, it is very easy to detect plagerism (don't they teach people at school not to do that nowadays - google, or in one case MSN will catch you out!) - or are you as articulate as tamelf and so have to cut and paste everything you put on this site? Now there would be a coincidence?

[tameelf]

its a con mike profits moved into it

 

such venom lmao holacaust denial .911 denial next and now global waming denial and that famous bbc banned footage timeline denial . i think history needs renvestegated

 

and all the same people swearing now safety in numbers?

 

 

weres the mods to clean these threds up all in the rosie gettin bladded or sorted

[VinnieK]

L0LlZ0R5 2 rite! LOLZ what nxt? first BBC warms planet but. but jo0z say gas but I noes theres no warming because EARTH IS NOT A GAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 besides CO2 cant melt steal and NO GREENHOUSE _^**$$EVER$$**^_ COLLAPSED BY GAS!!!!!! who knoes? I agree!!!! USA call oil. gas but Iraqi has oil who j0os pwn for CIA who told us its ok because gas KILLS like WMD! Coincidence?! NOES!

 

What are you doing here? I thought you lived in the counterstrike smacktalk dimension and that your name had to be uttered three times in rapid succession before you could be conjoured up from its hellish depths.