Global Warming

[Nik]

It definitely is.

Look how disingenuous it is, even its marketing is dishonest. The "green" movement if it has it's way with stated goals -- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly especially life-giving CO2 -- will see not a green planet at all, but a brown one. A colder one where plant life struggles. And they know it!

Ever given any real thought to any of this? In actual greenhouses, they keep the CO2 level to 1500ppm or better at all times. That's around three times atmospheric concentration. Why? Because it's good for plants, all plants. And oddly enough, it never gets very hot in there, it just feels that way because of the #1 greenhouse gas by far -- water vapor. Humidity.

Two, if one truly wanted to reduce mankind's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, the first thing you would do is outlaw manufacturing of same! We manufacture billions of tons of CO2 for things like water treatment, fire fighting, beverage carbonation and hollywood special effects!

But these aren't counted in the AGW Church, because they're not the result of fossil fuel combustion! So it's like there's "good" CO2 and "Bad" CO2! The "bad" CO2 is caused by Americans ONLY burning of fossil fuels, and the "good" CO2 is caused by the rest of the world's combustion and mankind's manufacturing of CO2 for use in water treatment, fire fighting, beverage carbonation and hollywood special effects!

It's simply as dishonest as the "hockey stick" was proven and later admitted to be. This is why the AGW church and its idiot followers like you wish to stifle debate and destroy those who don't agree, or simply dishonestly dismissing them by saying they're paid for by "big oil" which, you moron, is one of the biggest financiers of this "go green" idiocy!

Science is showing us, once again, our folly caused by vanity. You need to start paying attention to actual science instead of the popular, bought and paid for, science fiction of the AGW religion which is agenda driven and simply a lie, and cannot stand in the shitstorm of free and open debate and scrutiny.

I didn't know they have Oceans, or Polar ice caps, or currents in greenhouses....

Oh wait. Analogy fail.

Your cherry-picking fails. You cannot assail the facts, so you erect a strawman. Keeps you from ever needing to actually think.

What say you to this guy?

"Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem.

To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence. - Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles.

I have about 200 more such quotes, from actual scientists who aren't funded by anyone. Some of them even used to be members of the IPCC and some of them even originally wrote the opinions there, WHILE they WERE getting funding.

Honesty seems to creep in when they're off the AGW tit!

Umm, no. Actually I assailed the facts. You claimed that if it got warmer, it would all be A OK cause thats what happens in green houses. I'm not going to get into a debate about which scientists say what, but that statement about green houses is just prima facie an idiotic argument.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You claimed that if it got warmer, it would all be A OK cause thats what happens in green houses.

Liar. Find where I said anything like that.

I'm not going to get into a debate about which scientists say what,

Obviously you cannot debate, because you rely on outright lies and cherry-picking. You address and lie about information about CO2 in actual greenhouses, but dismiss the rest of the post.

but that statement about green houses is just prima facie an idiotic argument.

How so? It wasn't even an argument, it was just a tidbit of fact. Which demonstrated ONLY that we KNOW what's good for plant life. And we know this because science told us so.

 

[Nik]

You claimed that if it got warmer, it would all be A OK cause thats what happens in green houses.

Liar. Find where I said anything like that.

Look how disingenuous it is, even its marketing is dishonest. The "green" movement if it has it's way with stated goals -- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly especially life-giving CO2 -- will see not a green planet at all, but a brown one. A colder one where plant life struggles. And they know it!

I'm not going to get into a debate about which scientists say what,

Obviously you cannot debate, because you rely on outright lies and cherry-picking. You address and lie about information about CO2 in actual greenhouses, but dismiss the rest of the post.

I didn't "dimisss" the rest of the post, I just didn't address it. I can find just as many scientists to counter what you are saying. But I really don't see the point. I just found it amusing to point out that bit of abject stupidity.

but that statement about green houses is just prima facie an idiotic argument.

How so? It wasn't even an argument, it was just a tidbit of fact. Which demonstrated ONLY that we KNOW what's good for plant life. And we know this because science told us so.

[/quote]

CO2 isn't good for plant life at unlimited quantities, just as Oxygen isn't good for humans in unlimited quantities. Everything in moderation, after all.

 

[code1211]

What is the concern about global warming? That we are going to have lots of hot days? NO.

The problem is that global warming will lead to rapid and unpredictable climate change.

1) What will we do when the great plains, America's bread basket becomes the great desert or the great swamp?

2) Oh yeah, the science denying right wingers have found a handful of 'scientists' paid by the oil and coal companies who say the science is wrong.

3) And besides the 'creation scientists' tell us that god will take care of the 'believers' so not to worry.

1) We find another bread basket which according to science will move to another location, big deal.

2) You really don't pay attention, science is what many of us are using to counter the scam of global warming, and many of us are not right wingers. Hi, I'm an independent liberal.

3) Also not a christian .... not by a long shot, and I know for a fact that global warming is a scam. Nice try.

Climate changes happens, change happens, that's what nature is, constant change. The natural world changes all the time, it drive species extinct when they cannot survive the change, and science says the only constant in the universe is change. Trying to stop change is against nature and science, not for it.

Yeah that's it we'll just go to that other place in our country that is covered with milleniums of built up topsoil with the same perfect weather and conditions for growing grain.

Oh, that's right, there aren't any.

What science are you talking about? Every major scientific organization in the world concurs that global warming is real, is at least in part caused by human activity and is a real threat to human existence.

Who is this scam being run by, which you know for a fact exists? And why would anybody want to run a scam about this? What's to be gained? Are NASA scientists part of the scam? Are they getting paid to make stuff up?
I can understand why the oil and coal companies would want to convince people that it is a scam, they have money to lose if we change our ways.

Real scientists will always fill their predictions of doom with ifs and buts. Do NASA scientists get paid to say these things? Well they say these things and they are getting paid at the same time. You make the call.

50% of the electricity in the USA comes from COAL. If we replaced all of that generating capacity with wind and solar, do you know how many coal burning generators we could shut down. Here is the answer in round numbers: None.

If the wind stops blowing at night, you still need electricity. This is a scam and it's being swindled upon those with no information, no common sense and no critical reasoning.

No offense inteneded.

 

[code1211]

Well, Kitten, you are wrong on all points. Not that anything that I can post or point out will change your mind. Not even when the predictions of the scientists come true far sooner than expected.

That is the problem, though, isn't it? The predictions are not coming true and the longer we wait after the prediction is made, the less accurate the prediction becomes.

 

[Sinatra]

In regards to this thread:

Common Sense: 1

Global Warming: 0

 

[code1211]

So, apparently global warming is just a big scam. Thousands of scientists around the world are in on it. These people who are some of our most educated have no ability to resist peer pressure and no moral compunctions against conning the whole world into believing in climate change due to global warming. Why are they doing it? Because they want to help Al Gore get rich. What's in it for them? Nothing. That's right, these people who have dedicated their lives to pursuit of knowledge are willing to abandond all principle and ethics just so they can help Al Gore make a buck.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

It is not, for the most part, the scientists that are conducting the scam. It is the politicians and the snake oil salesmen who contort the science to "reveal" what they frame.

The climate has warmed only 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. The climate has cooled for the last 5 years. The climate has stayed within a 2 degree range for about 10,000 years. We're almost exactly at the mid point of that range right now. The climate is 2 degrees coooler than the peaks of previous interglacials. The climate has been generally cooling for about 70 million years.

CO2 concentration has for the last million or so years always, in every case, been a result of warming and cooling. In this way, CO2 and global ice coverage are the same. When it's warmer, the result is a change in both and when it is cooler the result is a change in both.

By the reasoning of Global Warming Science, melting ice causes warming. It is the exact same logic used to show that increased CO2 causes warming.

 

[code1211]

Funding for scientists come from a miriad of sources from governments to industry to univerisities. Are we to believe that all these sources and all the scientists are on the take? What evidence do you have for any of this?

You are just trowing out wild speculation and conjecture.

On the other hand the funding for global warming denying 'scientists' comes almost exclusivley from the fossil fuel industry. Who's really compromised?

The funding from the fossil fuel industry that is often cited is laughable. Exxon is one oil company that shows profits of billions of dollars annually. AGW proponents cite monies said to finance Junk Science to mislead the public. It amounts to about 1 penny per 100 million dollars of profit. Does this sound like serous effort?

Given the value of oil, why would there be a need for this? If the oil dries up, the countries of the world will kill each other to get it. That's the truth. Why spend a dime to show that it doesn't do something that can't be done?

 

[Hillbilly]

1) We find another bread basket which according to science will move to another location, big deal.

2) You really don't pay attention, science is what many of us are using to counter the scam of global warming, and many of us are not right wingers. Hi, I'm an independent liberal.

3) Also not a christian .... not by a long shot, and I know for a fact that global warming is a scam. Nice try.

Climate changes happens, change happens, that's what nature is, constant change. The natural world changes all the time, it drive species extinct when they cannot survive the change, and science says the only constant in the universe is change. Trying to stop change is against nature and science, not for it.

Yeah that's it we'll just go to that other place in our country that is covered with milleniums of built up topsoil with the same perfect weather and conditions for growing grain.

Oh, that's right, there aren't any.

What science are you talking about? Every major scientific organization in the world concurs that global warming is real, is at least in part caused by human activity and is a real threat to human existence.

Who is this scam being run by, which you know for a fact exists? And why would anybody want to run a scam about this? What's to be gained? Are NASA scientists part of the scam? Are they getting paid to make stuff up?
I can understand why the oil and coal companies would want to convince people that it is a scam, they have money to lose if we change our ways.

Real scientists will always fill their predictions of doom with ifs and buts. Do NASA scientists get paid to say these things? Well they say these things and they are getting paid at the same time. You make the call.

50% of the electricity in the USA comes from COAL. If we replaced all of that generating capacity with wind and solar, do you know how many coal burning generators we could shut down. Here is the answer in round numbers: None.

If the wind stops blowing at night, you still need electricity. This is a scam and it's being swindled upon those with no information, no common sense and no critical reasoning.

No offense inteneded.

I had the idea that one of the better storage methods we could use for wind electricity would be to use it to power pumps to pump water into storage tanks which power hydroelectric generators which are connected to the grid. Sure, you'd lose 75% of the power, but it'd be consistent.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I didn't "dimisss" the rest of the post, I just didn't address it. I can find just as many scientists to counter what you are saying. But I really don't see the point. I just found it amusing to point out that bit of abject stupidity.
CO2 isn't good for plant life at unlimited quantities, just as Oxygen isn't good for humans in unlimited quantities. Everything in moderation, after all.

Once again, you're lying about what I said and couldn't back up your strawman argument. Probably because you have a reading comprehension issue.

 

[wihosa]

Many on this thread have called global warming a "scam" or a "con". Their evidence? Al Gore has made money.

This is what the preeminent interdisciplinary science journal 'Nature' has to say from it's April 30 cover story

Nature 458, 1077-1078 (30 April 2009) | doi:10.1038/4581077a; Published online 29 April 2009
Time to act
Top of page

"Without a solid commitment from the world's leaders, innovative ways to combat climate change are likely to come to nothing.
It is not too late yet — but we may be very close. The 500 billion tonnes of carbon that humans have added to the atmosphere lie heavily on the world, and the burden swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year (see page 1117). If present trends continue, humankind will have emitted a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere well before 2050, and that could be enough to push the planet into the danger zone. And there is no reason to think that the pressure will stop then. The coal seams and tar sands of the world hold enough carbon for humankind to emit another trillion tonnes — and the apocalyptic scenarios extend from there (see page 1104).
Nations urgently need to cut their output of carbon dioxide. The difficulty of that task is manifest: emissions have continued to rise despite almost two decades of rhetoric, diplomacy and action on the matter. But that unhappy fact should not be taken as a licence for fatalism. Governments have a wide range of pollution-cutting tools at their command, most notably tradable permit regimes, taxes on fuels, regulations on power generation and energy efficiency, and subsidies for renewable energy and improved technologies. These tools can work if applied seriously — so citizens around the world must demand that seriousness from their leaders, both within their individual nations and in the international framework that will be discussed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December."

Let me guess, the editor of Nature is part of the conspiracy to fool the world into believing that global warming is real because of their desire to help Al Gore make money.

Some people have adopted a science based belief system. Others cling to myth belief, choosing to believe things because they choose to believe things.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, apparently global warming is just a big scam.

It definitely is.

Look how disingenuous it is, even its marketing is dishonest. The "green" movement if it has it's way with stated goals -- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly especially life-giving CO2 -- will see not a green planet at all, but a brown one. A colder one where plant life struggles. And they know it!

Ever given any real thought to any of this? In actual greenhouses, they keep the CO2 level to 1500ppm or better at all times. That's around three times atmospheric concentration. Why? Because it's good for plants, all plants. And oddly enough, it never gets very hot in there, it just feels that way because of the #1 greenhouse gas by far -- water vapor. Humidity.

Two, if one truly wanted to reduce mankind's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, the first thing you would do is outlaw manufacturing of same! We manufacture billions of tons of CO2 for things like water treatment, fire fighting, beverage carbonation and hollywood special effects!

But these aren't counted in the AGW Church, because they're not the result of fossil fuel combustion! So it's like there's "good" CO2 and "Bad" CO2! The "bad" CO2 is caused by Americans ONLY burning of fossil fuels, and the "good" CO2 is caused by the rest of the world's combustion and mankind's manufacturing of CO2 for use in water treatment, fire fighting, beverage carbonation and hollywood special effects!

It's simply as dishonest as the "hockey stick" was proven and later admitted to be. This is why the AGW church and its idiot followers like you wish to stifle debate and destroy those who don't agree, or simply dishonestly dismissing them by saying they're paid for by "big oil" which, you moron, is one of the biggest financiers of this "go green" idiocy!

Science is showing us, once again, our folly caused by vanity. You need to start paying attention to actual science instead of the popular, bought and paid for, science fiction of the AGW religion which is agenda driven and simply a lie, and cannot stand in the shitstorm of free and open debate and scrutiny.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Royal Society is the oldest and one of the most respected scientific societies in existance. Here is what they have to say on the controversies concerning global warming.



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Climate change controversies: a simple guide

 

[code1211]

Yeah that's it we'll just go to that other place in our country that is covered with milleniums of built up topsoil with the same perfect weather and conditions for growing grain.

Oh, that's right, there aren't any.

What science are you talking about? Every major scientific organization in the world concurs that global warming is real, is at least in part caused by human activity and is a real threat to human existence.

Who is this scam being run by, which you know for a fact exists? And why would anybody want to run a scam about this? What's to be gained? Are NASA scientists part of the scam? Are they getting paid to make stuff up?
I can understand why the oil and coal companies would want to convince people that it is a scam, they have money to lose if we change our ways.

Real scientists will always fill their predictions of doom with ifs and buts. Do NASA scientists get paid to say these things? Well they say these things and they are getting paid at the same time. You make the call.

50% of the electricity in the USA comes from COAL. If we replaced all of that generating capacity with wind and solar, do you know how many coal burning generators we could shut down. Here is the answer in round numbers: None.

If the wind stops blowing at night, you still need electricity. This is a scam and it's being swindled upon those with no information, no common sense and no critical reasoning.

No offense inteneded.

I had the idea that one of the better storage methods we could use for wind electricity would be to use it to power pumps to pump water into storage tanks which power hydroelectric generators which are connected to the grid. Sure, you'd lose 75% of the power, but it'd be consistent.

On the old AOL Boards, there were a few folks who seemed to know what they were talking about who thought that maybe there might be a capable battery in the future usable at the individual residence level that might work. They were talking in terms of residential generation of power and feeding it back into the grid or storing it.

Of course, the infrastructure will plenty of tweaking to allow this. The obama Administration is fond of saying that there are millions of jobs in green energy which is French for saying that this is going to bleed us white to get it done.

 

[wihosa]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

 

[WillowTree]

so, apparently global warming is just a big scam. Thousands of scientists around the world are in on it. These people who are some of our most educated have no ability to resist peer pressure and no moral compunctions against conning the whole world into believing in climate change due to global warming. Why are they doing it? Because they want to help al gore get rich. What's in it for them? Nothing. That's right, these people who have dedicated their lives to pursuit of knowledge are willing to abandond all principle and ethics just so they can help al gore make a buck.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

ge

 

[code1211]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unfortunately all the people who have bought the fossil fuels industry's propaganda will never listen to the vast majority of the world's scientists who agree that global warming is real, is at least in part man made and is a threat to human existence as we know it.

Also unfortunately, by the time that the negative impact of global warming is manifest, it will be too late to do anything about it. The results will have been 'baked in the cake'.

These people are the ones who really think that Fox News is fair and balanced and somehow think they are 'macho' when they ignore the warnings of the scientific community. They are the myth believers, always sure that evolution is a hoax and therefore global warming is also a hoax.

Our only hope is that the fence sitters will stop listening to them, stop being intimidated by them, stop being embarassed to speak up when as usual they attempt to shout down those of us who are not afraid to admit that maybe just maybe US industry doesn't have their best interests at heart, only their bottom line.

If someone accepts Evolution as a reasonable explanation of the developement of a spcies, rejecting Anthropogenic Global Warming as the cause of Climate Change would follow logically. Evolution is supported by proof, provides predictability and has results that once tested support the theory. Anthoropogenic Global Warming is not supported by proof, has no record of successful prediction and all of the results, when tested, fall apart.

As a science, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke.

Total bullshit, and you know it. The science of global warming was settled before the year 1900. Svante Arnnhenius, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, did the work in 1896. Here is a summery of the develoment of the history of the science of GHGs.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is from the American Institute of Physics. And, for those that would like a more complete history;

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

 

[wihosa]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

 

[code1211]

Please Old Rocks, he's made up his mind, don't confuse him with facts.

There will always be someone who will tell him what he wants to hear.

The 'Creation Scientists' can prove that the Earth is six thousand years old and that evolution is a hoax!

I am not adept at pulling up quotes in this forum, but I'll assume that you can read Old Rocks statement. Please note that the lynch pin of his argument is is science from BEFORE 1900. This would be the same science that blamed malaria on BAD AIR, measured bumps on the head to determine personality traits and concluded, scientifically, that white people were superior mentally and psychologically to all other races.

The Global Climate has risen by 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. In the first millenium of that 2000 years it rose by about 4 tenths and in the second millenium, it rose by another 3 tenths. Does that seem more like it's speeding up or slowing down?

The rise in Global Temperatures started before the Industrial Revolution. One would think that this might be cause for a question. Are you asking it? do you know what it is?

Accepting things that you don't understand is superstition. I am merely questioning it. You are denying any other possible cause, and there are many, for results that you do not even care to research.

About 3 to 5 years ago I became aware of Global Warming and started to look into it. I was, as you are now, sold on the idea that Mankind was destroying th planet. We prabably are. However, in this particular area, the proof just isn't there. Sorry. I am willing to be convinced. Just show me the proof.