GLOBAL Warming THE SCAM

[FX Bandit]

The memberships of the national academies is composed of the most eminent scientists of their respective nations generally with distinguished careers and significant research achievements for example being award a Nobel Prize. National academies are the organizations governments draw on for scientific advice for example in establishing an advisory committee on a specific scientific issue and for more general issues of science policy. They are the peak bodies of science around the world.

It is a fact that no scientific organization of international standing disputes AGW. You are flinging around accusations of "gross distortions of the truth" without a shred of evidence to back them up.

I'll be charitable and assume you're just brainwashed or have a financial interest in the propagation of the global warming lie and not being deliberately obtuse.

When I say "What of the memberships of these groups" I am not casting aspersions on said memberships. I am pointing out that the official position often does not reflect the opinions of the membership - rather neatly we have just been supplied with a fairly spectacular example from APS.

 

[jefftheripper]

Hi dcraig1. surely you don't think humans can actually change the weather by burning less coal, turning off light switches etc. It is our responsibility to take care of our planet, reduce polution etc. But it is absolutely rediculous to think us human can control the weather of our planet. The earth has warming and cooling cycles. And shrinking ice caps on mars aren't caused by gas guzzling vehicles.

Please don't be offended by opposing views, debate is good. But, you state things as fact that are ...well, FALSE!. I live near Dallas, Texas. It gets very hot and snow is a rare thing here. We got 14 inches of snow (in one day) at my house this past winter. It snowed I believe 4 different times (usually maybe once a year.) This is a FACT, because I live here, I saw it, I measured it. It was a cold winter. The solar cycles are probably causing the earth to warm, but you wouldn't know that here in Texas last winter. And man definitely isn't causing it.

Let's agree to take care of our planet. But have an open mind and find out the REAL facts.

 

[Splitlink]

Hi dcraig1. surely you don't think humans can actually change the weather by burning less coal, turning off light switches etc. It is our responsibility to take care of our planet, reduce polution etc. But it is absolutely rediculous to think us human can control the weather of our planet. The earth has warming and cooling cycles. And shrinking ice caps on mars aren't caused by gas guzzling vehicles.

Please don't be offended by opposing views, debate is good. But, you state things as fact that are ...well, FALSE!. I live near Dallas, Texas. It gets very hot and snow is a rare thing here. We got 14 inches of snow (in one day) at my house this past winter. It snowed I believe 4 different times (usually maybe once a year.) This is a FACT, because I live here, I saw it, I measured it. It was a cold winter. The solar cycles are probably causing the earth to warm, but you wouldn't know that here in Texas last winter. And man definitely isn't causing it.

Let's agree to take care of our planet. But have an open mind and find out the REAL facts.

You are, probably, right. but I tend to side with dcraig1, though, because our greatgrandchildren have to live here. Man will overpopulate the planet and die out, anyway, sooner than we think- Factories are helping to overheat our planet. We have almost used up our fossil fuels and other minerals in 100 years- No fish left, rubbish bags floating around all the oceans, No forrests left, to speak of. Man is ruining everything else, why cannot he be overheating the planet?

 

[beandork]

Just in case the point hasn't been made enough already, the claims of scientific consensus are false: http://www.petitionproject.org/

No matter your position on global warming, whether it exists, what its cause is, and what the motivations or qualifications of the petition-signing 31,487 scientists are, this patently makes anyone claiming scientific consensus a bit of a fibber.

Anyone over the age of 30 will have seen during their lifetime various crusades and scares - overpopulation, energy crises, ozone layer, millenium bugs, and so on. Any student of human history sees groups of people cry apocalypse like clockwork, and whip up a frenzy. Any student of earth's history has seen greater fluctuations in climate, with and without the presence of people. And those are the basic reasons I'm dubious of anyone pushing the theory of manmade global warming.

 

[Splitlink]

Everything that you say, above, with the exception of the millenium bug is, at present, with our present resources, a fact for which we have no answer only to keep adding to the mess.

We have developed our economic system until it has become a way of life. No politician dare do what needs to be done, because there would be a revolution. Copenhagen proves that.

The massive immigration that we are experiencing in the developed world is because the immigrants cannot live in their own countries. This is going to continue.

This is not scaremongering on my part. It is a fact of life not, in itself, an argument for the global warming debate on this thread but, certainly, part and parcel of the same problem.

Tell me how we are going to reduce the growing population and you will have resolved the problem of man made global warming. Climate change exists, of course it does. We must face the facts, but we should make a more serious effort to ascertain that it is not us that's doing a large part of it.

I am 78. I am not beating a drum for my sake but for you younger ones and our grandchildren.

 

[beandork]

And why is a growing population a bad thing? At the population density of New York you could jam the world's current population into Belgium. The ozone layer hasn't disappeared as predicted in the 80's. Immigration is largely aspirational, not because countries are rendered unfit for human life. Energy technologies always have and will adapt to human's needs at any given period in history. Oil is expensive not through a shortness of supply, but for political reasons. Climates have changed before the brief blip of human history in world, and will continue to change afterwards.

And Copenhagen got nixed because when you start presenting people with quotes, they tend to pay more attention to what they're getting for their money. An easily-rorted carbon trading system and ineffective emissions caps to make Canute-style gestures based on stifled debate and far-from-conclusive science was always going to be a hard-sell, especially during a curiously cold snap in the weather.

I'm always for a cleaner, less damaged world (a more optimistic perspective reveals big changes underfoot now which are resulting in that), but I'm not sure exactly what needs solving here?

 

[forker]

And why is a growing population a bad thing? At the population density of New York you could jam the world's current population into Belgium. The ozone layer hasn't disappeared as predicted in the 80's. Immigration is largely aspirational, not because countries are rendered unfit for human life. Energy technologies always have and will adapt to human's needs at any given period in history. Oil is expensive not through a shortness of supply, but for political reasons. Climates have changed before the brief blip of human history in world, and will continue to change afterwards.

And Copenhagen got nixed because when you start presenting people with quotes, they tend to pay more attention to what they're getting for their money. An easily-rorted carbon trading system and ineffective emissions caps to make Canute-style gestures based on stifled debate and far-from-conclusive science was always going to be a hard-sell, especially during a curiously cold snap in the weather.

I'm always for a cleaner, less damaged world (a more optimistic perspective reveals big changes underfoot now which are resulting in that), but I'm not sure exactly what needs solving here?

just to add to the topic of oil while it has been brought up. There is a growing number of scientists that study the subject have determined through studies that oil isn't a by-product of ancient fossils but rather a by-product of naturally occurring elements + heat + pressure deep within the earth. The whole story of oil shortage could very well be a lie.

i invite you to read the following article: http://climateresearchnews.com/2009...t-victim-of-green-hysteria-by-peter-j-morgan/

also research for yourself the subject of oil wells being replenished. There are a number of occurrences where oil wells that have been pumped almost dry have replenished over time.

 

[Splitlink]

And why is a growing population a bad thing? At the population density of New York you could jam the world's current population into Belgium. The ozone layer hasn't disappeared as predicted in the 80's. Immigration is largely aspirational, not because countries are rendered unfit for human life. Energy technologies always have and will adapt to human's needs at any given period in history. Oil is expensive not through a shortness of supply, but for political reasons. Climates have changed before the brief blip of human history in world, and will continue to change afterwards.

And Copenhagen got nixed because when you start presenting people with quotes, they tend to pay more attention to what they're getting for their money. An easily-rorted carbon trading system and ineffective emissions caps to make Canute-style gestures based on stifled debate and far-from-conclusive science was always going to be a hard-sell, especially during a curiously cold snap in the weather.

I'm always for a cleaner, less damaged world (a more optimistic perspective reveals big changes underfoot now which are resulting in that), but I'm not sure exactly what needs solving here?

Basically, the real problem with the planet is humanity. If we are 6 billion in 2000 and are going to be 9 billion in 2050, what are we going to be in 2100? It is no good telling me that we are going to level off. That is just wishful thinking, as far as I am concerned, until I see actual proof of leveling off right now, and that is not happening, Our food and energy resources must increase at the same rate. At present, all I hear is what is "going" to happen. What is happening is that we are desperately trying to find more resources and the Chinese are buying into everything they can in places like Australia and Africa. Even water is becoming a problem.

If climate change is not caused by humans that is a cause for everyone to start shouting "You see, it's not us. We can go on living in the same way and are justified because we cannot do anything about it". I'm afraid that that is not the case, it is simply an excuse.

 

[Mornington Crescent]

yea, the real problem is that there are too many of us

play as you will, until there is the political will to do something about that, matters can only get worse

anyway, if all the ice is melting then sooner or later it will turn off the Gulf Stream

at which point the current diaspora will reverse and we will all be moving to Monaco

 

[beandork]

OK, when people start talking about humanity being a problem and how there needs to be less people around (who, exactly? your friends? kids? parents?), I file that under 'sinister green talk'.

That is an unhealthy direction to head in. I don't buy "we must get rid of people to save humanity". I find the warming movement sometimes has, at its core, misanthropist tendencies.

 

[Splitlink]

OK, when people start talking about humanity being a problem and how there needs to be less people around (who, exactly? your friends? kids? parents?), I file that under 'sinister green talk'.

That is an unhealthy direction to head in. I don't buy "we must get rid of people to save humanity". I find the warming movement sometimes has, at its core, misanthropist tendencies.

It is not pleasant, at all, and I do not subscribe to anything sinister or Hitlerian because it, simply, would not work, although I am sure that genicide will be pracised in the future in the same way that as it has been, relatively recently, in Bosnia and Africa.

All I intended was to put a finger on the problem.

What I am afraid is going to happen will be done by the planet's inability to cope, already made apparent by photos of Africa's starving millions. In the, so far, rich West the change will be fought off by democratic process but will be inexorable in its attack on our quality of life ie. deteorating NHS, education and policing, inability to provide clean water and electricity.

Will humans try to combat climate change because of its desire to improve our quality of life or by a more practical one of, simply, not having the money to spend to do it?

 

[dcraig1]

In regard to the Lewis/APS malarkey, lets see what Lewis said in his book "Technological Risk":

"The GCMs (Global Climate Models) in use nowadays do a pretty good job of calculating the effect of a potential doubling of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, but more research is truly needed... The details of the impending changes of climate are still beyond our grasp, though the broad outline is clear."

"All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business."

"Yet, despite the complexity, the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that warming could conceivably approximate the climate at the time of the dinosaurs. It seems likely, but not certain, that sea level will rise accordingly, conceivably by several feet or more. We are doing this to ourselves."

In general tone and intent, it is difficult to distinguish this from the APS statement. So where is the published research that lead Lewis to radically change his position? Answer: there isn't any. There is a rat to be smelled here, and it's not the APS leadership.

 

[dcraig1]

Hi dcraig1. surely you don't think humans can actually change the weather by burning less coal, turning off light switches etc.

If humans cut their net GHG emissions and in particular CO2 emissions to between 0 and 20% of current emissions, the current warming trend will cease when equilibrium is reached in the climate system in possibly a few decades. The new equilibrium temperature would probably be something like 1.5C above pre industrial levels. Not too bad. If current emissions trajectories are maintained, then a rise of the order of 4-6C is likely by the end of the century. The higher end of estimates would almost certainly be disastrous. The lower end might not be too pleasant either.

No matter how many clowns talk nonsense on internet message boards no credible scientist disputes the greenhouse effect of CO2. That's right - none. The only vaguely credible skeptics suggest that the climate is self regulating and rise in temperature will only be minor. They are in the tiny minority. Climate models and paleoclimate studies both suggest that doubling of CO2 will cause around 3C warming when feedbacks such as increased absolute humidity in the atmosphere and change in planetary albedo due to loss of ice cover are taken into account. Both of these feedbacks are already being observed. The science is telling us this and no amount of bluff and bluster is likely to change it.

Please don't be offended by opposing views, debate is good. But, you state things as fact that are ...well, FALSE!. I live near Dallas, Texas. It gets very hot and snow is a rare thing here. We got 14 inches of snow (in one day) at my house this past winter. It snowed I believe 4 different times (usually maybe once a year.) This is a FACT, because I live here, I saw it, I measured it. It was a cold winter. The solar cycles are probably causing the earth to warm, but you wouldn't know that here in Texas last winter. And man definitely isn't causing it.

Texas is not the whole planet and while some sections of Nth America and Western Europe had a cold winter other parts of the northern hemisphere had an exceptionally warm one. It is almost certain that the mean global temperature will in 2010, establish a new high since measurements began. Something like 18 countries recorded new absolute high temperature in 2010. The Russian heat waves were unprecedented. 99F was recorded in Finland!

There is no credible evidence that solar cycles are causing the earth to warm to the observed extent regardless of whether you think it is probable or not.

 

[forker]

clean transport for sale, buy 2 pushcarts and get a free survival kit for the coming disaster.

 

[Shakone]

dcraig, you are too certain when there is actually no certainty.

I read that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that they are 90% confident that humans are mostly to blame for rising temperatures. This thing that you think is certain, even those who believe strongly in it are only 90% confident (and that's only 'mostly' meaning other factors could be warming up the earth regardless of us). That statement means they are saying there is 10% chance, humans are not mostly to blame for it. Think about that for a while. Then when someone tells you they don't believe in global warming, realise that some of the latest research states there is a 10% chance that person is right and you are wrong. Yes probably man is responsible, but don't be so arrogant as to think you're definitely right.

 

[Splitlink]

dcraig, you are too certain when there is actually no certainty.

I read that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that they are 90% confident that humans are mostly to blame for rising temperatures. This thing that you think is certain, even those who believe strongly in it are only 90% confident (and that's only 'mostly' meaning other factors could be warming up the earth regardless of us). That statement means they are saying there is 10% chance, humans are not mostly to blame for it. Think about that for a while. Then when someone tells you they don't believe in global warming, realise that some of the latest research states there is a 10% chance that person is right and you are wrong. Yes probably man is responsible, but don't be so arrogant as to think you're definitely right.

I believe that both are causing global warming. If you believe that man's contribution is not worth considering, so be it. I believe, myself,, that man is the cause of the polution in the world. Latest "newsworthy" item is Hungry and the Danube. I've, also, heard from the BBC that a baby dies of diarrhea every 20 seconds because of drinking contaminated water. None of this can be blamed on natural climate change. It is done by humans. If we deal with these problems, whether we cause global warming, or not, we will, at least be tackling the main problem. ie. that man is wiping out all life on the planet.

 

[dcraig1]

Shakone,

If you go to a doctor with some problem and he tells you that you have a 90% chance of dying unless you have a specific medical procedure, what do you do? Either have the procedure or seek a second opinion but not any old medical opinion, but an expert opinion a third etc. They all tell you the same thing. You then have the procedure.

The situation is the same with climate science but every clown including the bunch of dentists, doctors, general BScs etc that signed the infamous 30K partition, retired geologists etc is held up by deniers to equal that of active researchers in the field. It's like going to a podiatrist for heart surgery. Expert opinion counts.

On the issue of certainty there is never 100% certainty in science because it is based on evidence not just on logical deduction (or induction) as is mathematics. Some new evidence can always potentially come along to unseat any piece of science. Not so for mathematics - Pythagoras' theorem will be just as true in 1000 yrs as it is today.

The 90% figure from IPCC reflects this uncertainty that is always inherent in science, not that they believe that there is any known viable alternate mechanism for the observed warming.

 

[dcraig1]

Shakone,

Here is an example of an unexpected uncertainty. Recent research suggests that contrary to what one might expect, the Sun has a greater warming influence at the bottom of the short 11yr solar cycle due to different spectral composition of the solar radiation.

Gavin Schmidt from NASA GISS discusses it here is a reasonably non-technical way. What is noticeable is the absence of jumping to conclusions. Unlike deniers who jump up and down waving the latest paper suggesting that it invalidates all previous research in the area. Such things do happen, but very, very rarely.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/solar-spectral-stumper/

 

[Shakone]

dcraig, I don't disagree with you on that, (in an earlier post I wrote "If you asked my opinion, I'd guess it was human caused too. But it is far from guaranteed.", but I was dismissed as an internet clown). I'm simply saying, you shouldn't be so dismissive. There is a chance you are wrong. There IS expert opinion that sits in the 10% camp.

If I go to the doctor and there is a 90% chance I'll die, I get a second opinion etc. If they all say that, then I probably take the treatment, even if the treatment is potentially dangerous or unpleasant, because it is my body and that is my right. And also because this 90% figure is researched from what has happened to other patients in similar situations.

With global warming the difference is twofold. You have no other evidence of what has happened to 'earth's' in this situation, so it is much more of a guess. A medical community who has seen cancer a million times and knows the survival rate can give you an accurate figure. A doctor who sees a new disease cannot be nearly so accurate. Think of the scares about birdflu or swine flu, or Mad Cow's disease etc. All were overrated by scientists. All were used to scare the public/ They couldn't give accurate figures and they had to guess. This is why many in the public now have a distrust of the accuracy of these estimations. And when it is something new, the public is correct to distrust, because it IS just an educated guess. They almost always guess on the overcautious side. I believe the same is true with Global warming.

Also, when you are deciding things for others, that may change their lifestyles, you ought to be very certain, and 90% isn't. It is one thing to decide for yourself and another to impose on others. Even in statistics you look for 95% or 99% confidence intervals. 90 isn't good enough to convince everyone. Especially as I mentioned when scientists are known for erring on the side of catatrophe.

 

[forker]

Global warming is an industry worth half a trillion dollars (fact). Research funding is provided by corporations so that they can profit from it. The financial industry has even created an index for speculators to bet against global temperatures, governments profit from the additional tax, even AL Gore helped found "Generation Investment Management" (carbon trading) and earns an income as the investments prosper. careers and income is at stake and hence the predilection towards proving and sustaining the "man made global warming scam".

The science behind it is skewed and moulded in a fashion to exhibit the tainted tones of destruction by mankind. Yet the science that proved otherwise is ignored, but why. Again we come back to funding. The articles that the world reads biased towards global warming is written by correspondents that are employed to focus on the subject matter. if they wrote the truth they would be out of work. The scientists that study the subject have to hide the details so that their research gives a semblance that's in-line with their funding. Lastly the large corporations\financial institutions and governments all reap rewards from this falsely created market.

Scientists around the world that are not connected to the funding or have their careers at stake have come forward. Studies and evidence has been brought forward about the link to the sun and it's own cycles affecting ours and the planets around us. Here is a national geographic article that discusses warming on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html).
There has been research put forward regarding the lagging factor of c02 and global warming. AL Gore didn't mention the details of studying ice samples he only stated it is complex. His chart were twisted to show an exact correlation of c02 to temperature ratio when in fact this is incorrect. The research behind this leans towards a lag of around 800 years in the findings. see (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;299/5613/1728). Why would Al Gore disregard that information? the answer is always money.
in recent times the C02 levels increased rapidly before mankind was even pumping c02 into the atmosphere. The post world war economic boom (1940's to 1970's) manufacturing + transport began pumping C02 into the air, during that time global temperatures dropped. The current global warming trend began 18 000 years ago. the data was obtained from ice core sample analysis, you can find more details at (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html) which references the studies and exhibits the data.

The correlation of mankind and global warming simply isn't there. Scientists around the world have stepped forward to discredit the scam and still naive people like dcraig1 still believe the bull**** being fed to him.