Global Warming: A swindle?

[Lantigua]

Here is a link to a very interesting video. It's quite long, but very interesting. I hope everyone takes the time to at least watch parts of the video.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aspx)

So my question is this, do you think humans are causing global warming?

[Rudy]

Here's the deal. I'm not 100% sure that human beings are behind global warming. I think it very likely, but I'm unconvinced.

However, this is a situation where a false positive is a lot less damaging than a false negative. If we assume human beings are at fault, work to correct it, and find out we're wrong, we will have lost some economic progress. This is bad, true. It would be much worse, however, if we were to assume that we were not at fault, be wrong, and allow the problem to continue to escalate.

[Monte314]

Pascal's Wager for Gore's Disciples?

[Rudy]

Pascal's Wager
Clever analogy, but it's doesn't quite work. As far as global warming, I have seen evidence, and good arguments, to support both sides of the debate. When it comes to God, I find one side of the debate conspicuously lacking.

The other problem with the analogy is that Pascal's Wager requires, not that you act as if God was real, but that you actually believe it. In my experience, belief is not something one can simply will, because it might be a good idea. I'm not suggesting that we all believe in global warming, only that we act as if it were happening due to human beings until we know more definitely, one way or the other.

Gore's Disciples?
Now, that's just insulting. ;)

[Monte314]

OK, I give. You are right on all counts.

Sorry about the Gore thing. (Hee! Hee!)

[LaoTzu]

The problem is... that we are talking about a living breathing ecosystem.
The idea that there is going to be a linear decline is just ... stupid to say the least.

The environmental changes are going to be more like the tipping of a canoe on still waters.... you list one way, you list the other way, back again, then splash... you're soaked.

Why mention it? Well... it seems when it gets very very cold, people immediately say 'damn, i could go for some global warming about now'.... and it really puts a crimp in the debate.
I have seen first-hand the seasons shifting, and changing since I was a boy. Not to mention, the extremes are greater. Maybe normal? I don't recall it being 15C in the middle of January....for a week.... thats just one example of many for me.

Rudy, you might enjoy this vid (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[chitownarchy]

In my mind, it seems to make sense that there are consequences for every action big or small. On that note, I think that humans do affect the environment that we live in to some degree. The industrial revolution seems to be the catalyst of this warming progression. Though I wonder if any pre-industrial societies can be linked to any warming trends? Has anyone seen the animation of the melting of the Arctic ice caps lately? I know this the poster child for the global warming argument, but the footage is pretty dramatic. I am not well read in the area, but I don't think that the occurrence is completely normal. I do think that some of the potential impacts are pretty interesting, if potentially improbable.

If anything, I think global warming could be used as a good excuse to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil in advocating more sustainable energy practices :)

[Rudy]

No one, with any knowledge of the issue, is still arguing that global warming isn't happening. The issue up for debate is whether humans are the primary instigators. Natural cycles of weather do occur, look at ice ages for the most dramatic example. Whether the current global warming is not a natural cycle is not entirely clear.

All that being said, I repeat that it is best that we assume that we are the cause, until we can conclusively demonstrate otherwise.

[Tyrant Soup]

However, this is a situation where a false positive is a lot less damaging than a false negative. If we assume human beings are at fault, work to correct it, and find out we're wrong, we will have lost some economic progress. This is bad, true. It would be much worse, however, if we were to assume that we were not at fault, be wrong, and allow the problem to continue to escalate.

Several objections.

1. Is global warming actually bad? Maybe it's good.

2. Suppose it is bad, but not man made. We would have expended all our efforts on carbon minimization instead of making preparations for surviving the inevitable climate change.

3. Suppose it is bad and is man made. Is the prescribed solution actually going to make a dent or is it just going to enrich a bunch of corporations.

[NZPixie]

Well, I think it is safe to assume we are the cause (rightly or wrongly) because it IS happening. We are too late to do anything much about it, it is going to happen. We should start to fix it now so it can be fixed (if it is our fault) sometime in the future. We should also focus on how we are going to survive it, because it appears highly likely to occur, and is occuring.

That way we really don't lose much of anything (we are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually anyway, whats the big deal about ditching them sooner?), and we come up with solutions to both fix the problem if it is fixable, and to survive the effects.

Doing anything else is madness. But most people seem to like madness alot.

[maxpot46]

One of the best, clearest and most concise arguments against global warming comes from Michael Crichton: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zombicide]

Do you think humans are causing global warming?

Yes, I'm fully convinced.

No, I'm not convinced.

I simply don't know... yet.

You wouldn't happen to be trying to guide people's opinions / answers would you by any chance, Lantigua?

Why is the option "Yes, I'm fully convinced"? I mean, you have an option for "I simply don't know. . . yet" even though knowing is not the poll question. The seemingly most reasonably written option happens to be the one supporting the proposition of the link. One might think you were attempting to divert people away from the conventional option by making it seem like something only appealing to unreasonable extremists, not to say that one's being fully convinced necessarily makes them so but in comparing the options "I simply don't know. . .yet" the ellipsis of which btw makes it look like you're covertly saying voters need to make up their mind between the only other options "I'm fully convinced" and the seemingly reasonable "No, I'm not convinced" or choose the third because it, like the second option; sounds significantly more open minded than the first option. Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

Anyway, most of the real scientists (No, not the ones on some ridiculous bible site) seem to believe global warming is largely caused by humans, which isn't surprising considering there are literally billions of us thriving on polluting industries. Have you seen our cities, freeways, livestock, deforesting etcetera? They're overwhelming. Just as other species have caused the Earth's atmosphere to significantly change in times past, yes, I believe humans are changing the planet in such ways as global warming, I just don't much care. On a side note about the demographic, when people say things like "Global warming has already been disproved by science" it sounds an awful lot like the creationists who say/posit "deruh, well evilution has already been disprovened bi scientis, so therefor teh old testiment is obvosly the most scientifically ackurate descreption of how we came tuh be".


May everything wither and die. . .or maybe human assistance in global warming is just my wishful thinking. :thumbsup: to global warming

[Monte314]

"Swindle" is such a harsh term. I prefer "fraud", "sham", or "trash science".

[Pandemonium]

The permafrost in Siberia is beginning to melt. I assume as temperatures rise, the melting of the permafrost will release millions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere and we will notice that the world is one hot place.

Whether or not are humans contributing to global warming is not an issue in this case. However, the data is there the extrapolations allude to a relationship. Through mitigation of climate change we will start to use more efficient/sustainable systems which are of benefit to ecological, social health.




A few years ago we were warned about this impending financial crisis but no one seemed to acknowledge the warning.



I must ask a question 'How can you not heed the warnings?' Not a single professor of science or engineering I have met has doubted the realities. Most people who doubt the relationship have absolutely no credentials relating to the subject. After all it is in the best interests of many large corporations to doubt the science.

[MaxDandy]

Golbal warming shmobal warming...I agree with Monte "Trash Science"

Statisticians can't even agree on a base line as to what is normal...and anybody can skew a graph to make it look anyway they want, like say a hocky stick.

Besides I have yet to see a convincing argument that explains either the Roman warmming period or the Medievil warmming period...Vikings farmed on greenland people...can you farm on greeland today...I rather think not.

and how do you explain the fact the Global temperatures have dropped for the last two years in a row? Fluke years? and if it contiues will you next try and convince me that the world is getting colder?

or that the Antartic Ice shelf is at its largest extent ever recorded.

Yes, I am all for cleaner energy and recycling and taking care of the enviroment...but I would hope we are above using outragious scare tactics to acomplish it!

on final Note....Consensus does not make something true...at one time everyone believed that the world was flat too!

[Lantigua]

You wouldn't happen to be trying to guide people's opinions / answers would you by any chance, Lantigua?
As an INTJ, wouldn't I be more direct?

Something like:

A) I'm gullible, so I believe humans are responsible for GW and the extinction of the dinosaurs.

B) I can see through the fluff, humans are not responsible for GW or the destruction of the rainforest, the desertification of Africa, or even the radioactive contamination of the Ukraine.

C) I'm slow especially when it comes to understanding complex problems, so I don't know.

;)

And no, I'm not trying to guide people's opinions or answers. If that was the case, I would be deeply involved in the argument trying to convince people one way or another and this thread would had been over 50 pages long by now. :laugh:

[Matty37]

Where did the money come for the video? There are more than a few landfills full of junk science around the world.

[maxpot46]

Anyway, most of the real scientists (No, not the ones on some ridiculous bible site) seem to believe global warming is largely caused by humans, which isn't surprising considering there are literally billions of us thriving on polluting industries.I think it is QUITE surprising, given the minute scale of human beings on this world. Here is a thought experiment to give it some perspective:

The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter; the oceans are (say) 5 miles deep, a ratio of 1,600 to 1. So imagine a globe 8 feet across; the oceans are 1/16". One sixteenth of an inch!!! Yet to our perspective, the oceans are deep, vast and full of more resources than we could use in a millennium.

Now on that same 8 foot globe, take a pin and make a scratch. Call that the Grand Canyon. Understand that EVERY PERSON ON EARTH COULD FIT INTO THE GRAND CANYON.

Now take that pin and barely touch the planet -- don't make a scratch or even a dent, just the slightest slightest impression. Call that a hole 50 miles x 50 miles x 60 feet deep. Every drop of oil ever taken out of the ground would fit into that tiny little hole. Light it on fire and think about the "impact" such would have on the vast size of the planet and atmosphere.

Now imagine the Washington Monument. Imagine 1/3 of that being gold. That represents every bit of gold ever taken out of the ground.

Frankly, once one goes through a thought experiment like this, the assumption that humans are somehow having a significant effect on this planet (or, tangentially, that we are running out of resources like food and oil) are mind-boggling.

[HeyZeus]

mass hysteria in my opinion. I'm not a scientist. I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't buy oceanfront property either. that's my hedge.

With Al Gore as its most visible proponent, his proud proclamation of his purchase of carbon offsets to balance his $10K per month energy usage at his Tennessee mansion, and his apparent failure to understand the excessiveness of his lifestyle, I'm afraid I cannot subscribe to his rolls of supporters on much of anything. I think he's a well meaning shill that thinks globally and bumbles locally.

[lisakki]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Everything you ever need to know about global warming, from one of the most prestigious centers of oceanographic study on the planet.

In summary:

If we define global warming as the increase in Earth temperature due to the greenhouse effect from human CO2 emissions, there is no doubt that this is occurring.

The question that does remain is whether or not the Earth will actually warm up as a consequence of this. Temperature increases from the greenhouse effect is counteracted by things such as the melting of the arctic ice, and is amplified by the decrease of reflective surface that results from the melting of the ice. Nobody yet knows what the net change that results from all these variables are, so nobody can conclude whether or not the Earth is warming or cooling.

There are hundreds of different variables that determine the climate of the Earth, and scientists do not even yet know every single factor available to make an accurate model for climate change. However, to say that humans are not increasing global temperatures via the greenhouse effect is plain ignorant, because this is one of the few variables that is easily provable and testable.

[Jinxu]

Here's a book arguing against Global Warming causes predominately by man. It argues that man-made CO2 emission compose a small percent of the overall emissions. The largest cause is due to natural phenomenon:

Food Climate and Carbon Dioxide: The Global Environment and World Food Production
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's a preview:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[maxpot46]

If we define global warming as the increase in Earth temperature due to the greenhouse effect from human CO2 emissions, there is no doubt that this is occurring.There is most certainly doubt. That's a pretty loaded definition, for one -- how about we define global warming as an increase in global average temperature (probably because, by that standard, global warming ended in 1998, but let's not go there)? In any case, it's my understanding that it's been discovered that CO2 levels are a lagging variable, not a leading one, compared to global average temperature.

[lisakki]

There is most certainly doubt. That's a pretty loaded definition, for one -- how about we define global warming as an increase in global average temperature (probably because, by that standard, global warming ended in 1998, but let's not go there)? In any case, it's my understanding that it's been discovered that CO2 levels are a lagging variable, not a leading one, compared to global average temperature.

Can you define what you mean by global average temperature?

I think part of the problem with global warming is the term itself. The reason I defined global warming before I made a case for it is because I don't agree with the greenhouse effect defined as "global warming", because it is just one variable. The problem with the definition is that while the greenhouse effect is without doubt occurring: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , a net increase in global temperatures is not. For example, in some parts of northern Europe, temperatures are actually becoming colder due to changing weather patterns.

"After years of investigation and in consultation with thousands of scientists, the IPCC was able to write, in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, that climate has changed over the past century and that the twentieth century had a mean temperature “at least as warm as any other century since 1400 A.D.” Their report noted that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 376 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects and concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Their models predicted a rise of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the global mean surface temperature during the next century, with sea-levels expected to rise by 6 inches to 3 feet by 2100. (IPCC 1995)."

[Jinxu]

There is most certainly doubt. That's a pretty loaded definition, for one -- how about we define global warming as an increase in global average temperature (probably because, by that standard, global warming ended in 1998, but let's not go there)? In any case, it's my understanding that it's been discovered that CO2 levels are a lagging variable, not a leading one, compared to global average temperature.


The sunspot activity of the sun also has an influence on global warming. Mars and other planets has been warming along side with Earth for the past few decades; which corresponded with an increase in the solar activity of the sun. Unless you want to blame it on Martians, in that case you will agree with me on extraterrestrial intelligence life.

[WayBehind]

Are we causing global warming on other planets in our solar system as well? Hey, wait a minute, maybe the SUN is responsible!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Search this blog for "global warming" to see some other relevant entries with sources.

[Bobert]

Global warming is a fact. The earth constantly goes through temperature swings. Are people the cause of the current warming trend, we may never know in our lifetime.
Whether we started it or not, people contribute to it. Farts contain methane, which is a greenhouse gas that is much more devastating than CO2.
The Audubon Society reported recently that birds have adjusted their seasonal migratory routes by 400 miles because of the warming earth.

[WayBehind]

Global warming is a fact. The earth constantly goes through temperature swings. Are people the cause of the current warming trend, we may never know in our lifetime.
Whether we started it or not, people contribute to it. Farts contain methane, which is a greenhouse gas that is much more devastating than CO2.
The Audubon Society reported recently that birds have adjusted their seasonal migratory routes by 400 miles because of the warming earth.

Yes, CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases, but their effects are dwarfed by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas by a wide margin (see the 2nd link in my other post). So our impact on global temperatures is minuscule at best.

I'm definitely not saying pollution isn't wrecking the planet, just that our greenhouse gas emissions are not causing the current climate change.

[Tyrant Soup]

Climate change has been around since the beginning of time. The sky is not going to fall down. Sending money to carbon corporations will do nothing except make executives very wealthy.

[phantasma]

It's reasonable to say that we contribute greenhouse gases, but we are by no means the cause of global warming. Like others have mentioned, climate change is a normal thing. Yes, we do contribute to it in the form of greenhouse gases, but so do plants, grazing animals, farts, and many other sources.

I hate how the government talks about global warming like it's something the human race can stop, or that it will lead to disasters of apocalyptic proportions.

[Bobert]

I hate how the government talks about global warming like it's something the human race can stop, or that it will lead to disasters of apocalyptic proportions.

That's because it is happening. It won't lead to the apocalypse, but to believe that humans have little or no effect on the climate is ludicrous.

[Delarge]

The fact that global warming is occurring is not contentious, whether or not the source of this trend is anthropogenic, is. I'm personally unconvinced that our contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide, coupled with the destruction of certain natural sinks, is significant enough to produce such a profound effect. One should consider also that CO2 accounts for only 9% - 26% of total greenhouse gases.

As was mentioned before, planetary warming appears not to be limited to Earth.

[simple mind]

If we are a part in it is irrelevant, what is important is how the changes in Climate are being interpretet to the common Sheeples, if the Facts, i mean the Data which is undoubtly there, is presentet as we see it everyday in the Media, then the effect is as desired by the Manipulators of our Society.
It inflicts Fear!

[Freedom Geek]

I by mistake clicked on the humans do not cause it option when I meant to click on the other.
Global warming being cause by man however in no way means we should implement anti-freedom/technology laws to combat it.

[dragonsscout]

I think your poll is probably off. It probably should have asked "Do you think humans are the primary cause of global warming?"

Yes, humans are causing global warming. That is not to say that humans are the primary cause. That said, I agree with Rudy and would like to add that who or what is causing it is largely irrelevant. Supposing global warming is not caused by people, this does not change the fact that the planet is warming up and that this could have catastrophic consequences. I don't know exactly how it would be 'fixed' but I am distrustful of carbon companies.

I really don't know enough about it to feel that I can make a call though.

[Prunesquallor]

It's clearly cows farting.

[Apocynum]

I'm certainly not convinced that mankind is causing global warming. I do believe that we are becoming populous enough that we are capable of impacting the climate.

But climate studies also show that the earth has had times in it's past when it was even much warmer than it is now (before mankind was around). Also times when the CO2 was much higher. If you look at the really long term information, the last few 10ks of years have been anamalously stable climate wise. The year to year variations used to be much much greater.

Regardless, I am more afraid of the unncessary hysteria that is distorting the issue. Hysteria that I believe is being driven mostly by power hungry folks who well know the tactic that fear is best to convince the average idiot to give turn over control/money/decision-making to the first folks who can convincingly appear to have a solution.

And in all this hysteria, I'm afraid of what solutions will be implemented. Some of the 'solutions' are scarier than the problem - for instance, seeding the oceans so they'll absorb more CO2. What a lousy idea!

I don't think we're advanced nearly enough at all to be able to comprehend the complexity of the issue, let alone analyze the issue itself to any reasonable understanding. I'm with the folks that go for "benefit of the doubt", lets do reasonable steps to reduce our contributions as we see them - even if it does nothing for the climate, it'll at least make our environment cleaner.

[Brittle]

I'm with the folks that go for "benefit of the doubt", lets do reasonable steps to reduce our contributions as we see them - even if it does nothing for the climate, it'll at least make our environment cleaner.

Agreed. I think we (humanity) probably contribute to the problem, but to what degree I couldn't say. In the meantime, I am happy to live as "environmentally responsibly" as I can (collecting/recycling rain water, using solar panels, growing my own fruit/veg, etc.) since I don't see that it will do any harm, whereas the jury still seems to be out on the alternative.

[Tyrant Soup]

It's not a given that the action to reduce carbon dioxide will have only positive effects. For example, your standard of living could drop substantially. We could end up switching to nuclear energy.

[Tranquillity]

Yep, it is a fact for me too that human causes global warming. Seems the controversy is mainly driven by US media backed by the oil corporations.

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Doppelbock]

One of the best, clearest and most concise arguments against global warming comes from Michael Crichton: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, see Warren Meyer's Climate Skeptic blog (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), in particular his A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


Note that Warren, and many others like him, are not a "skeptics" in the sense they do not believe that humans are contributing to global warming -- they are just skeptical that humans are the only cause, and they are skeptical about the more alarmist claims being made.

[Nomadofthehills]

I am a student at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. My professors are biologists. The term global warming is rarely used here, we prefer global climate change. This is crucial, as some areas will/are getting warmer, some will/are getting colder. Some are/will get drier, some are/will get wetter.

The key is not the cause, I think it is arrogant to say humans are the cause of global climate change. Are we a catalyst? I doubt you would find many scientists to disagree.

[Undead Bonzi]

Macro climate change is a very iffy subject. There are so many factors and the system is so huge you could never isolate the components enough to get rock solid evidence.

Micro climates on the other hand can be seen and affected by man. Mexico City, Beijing, Los Angeles...in all of these cities we can find the effects of poor environmental control/management. The results can be studied through rises in respiratory diseases and allergies (just to mention the two prime areas). These maladies equate to billions of dollars of healthcare costs. Is it such a bad thing to be proactive in the problem rather than wait for the results and spend far more money correcting the byproducts of the problem?

The human race must be one of the very few species that shit in the same place they live and get food and don't see a problem with it.


As to the matter of if 'Global Warming' is a swindle and are people getting money out of it...that is both a true and false statement. Of course there are people who are going to make money off of it in both honest and dishonest pursuits. That does not automatcially make it bad science or a lie. Quack doctors made untold fortunes for centuries selling false cures to diseases. Their actions did not make the diseases killing people a lie. Nor did their actions mean that finding a real cure was not possible. Since the dawn of civilization there have been people who turn any event into an opportunity to make money I hope people keep that in mind when they try to dissmiss such arguments by saying 'but someone is making money!'

[Marduk]

The interesting part of the human CO2 caused global warming theory is it's birth. The guy who stands behind popularising it, named Al Gore, happens to own a foundation... selling carbon credits.
And the people pushing the idea the most (and fixing it by carbon taxes as the best fix) happen to be politicians, not scientists.
I am studying physics, and i have talked with some people from this and related sciences about ths issue. And the sure thing is, that there is nothing even near a consensus, at least among scientists (these is one, but among politicians, at least the more socialist ones). Of course, many scientists agree with the human CO2 theory, and there is nothing strange in it, as there are countless, well paid jobs for them, that require them to do so.
The only sure things are that Earth is actually warming, and we can either have a global warming, or a global cooling, as climate always changes. We can't say how long will it keep warming, how much will it warm, and why is it really warming, how good\bad is it for us, without at least a bit of speculation.
As today, the theory with sun activity (and some factors influencing it's effect on Earth) seems to be the most sound one. Especially when you look at other planets of the solar system, that just happen to have thier own global warmings at the same time, absolutely without influence of industrial CO2 emissions.

The whole issue is an example of what happens, when the big politics with billions of $ to spare (and many times that to gain) start playing with science, and change it into something, that would help certain movements to advance their agendas.
One similar case of similar involvement of politics in science is the case of Lysenkism. The problem with it was the same, the science involved was different (biology), and the consequences were at least equally harmful.

[INTJohn]

It would be much worse, however, if we were to assume that we were not at fault, be wrong, and allow the problem to continue to escalate.

This arguement presumes that any Human influence is the worst case cause when in fact there MAY be other causes that are worse than Human influence and if we focus on ourselves (dah - imagine that; humanity only focussing on itself) then we may miss a more important cause as well as its solution.


A few years ago we were warned about this impending financial crisis but no one seemed to acknowledge the warning.

A few years ago anyone with half a brain could predict the "impending" financial crises as one dosen't need to be an Astrologist; err Economist to know that no one is going to be able to ride the crest of a 20 +/- year long economic boom forever.


Where did the money come for the video? There are more than a few landfills full of junk science around the world.

totally agree: "follow the money" - the trail wil lead you to religious BS & psuedo-science.

1. Is global warming actually bad? Maybe it's good.

i.e., I own a helluva lot of land in Mich. If GW makes Mi. climate abit warmer I'll enjoy the winters more and enjoy the boating on the Great Lakes more with a longer & warmer summer. Also, with an ever rising sea level AND an ever increasing human population it will mean more people that will have less land; hence the value of my property will increase greatly.

So, why should I give a damn if florida gets inundated and some effing polar bears croak? :)


Global warming is a fact. The Audubon Society reported recently that birds have adjusted their seasonal migratory routes by 400 miles because of the warming earth.

We all know the Autobahn Society has no agenda. How did they get their data? Were they like "up there" inna hover craft or a helicopter conducting a poll?
AS: "Hey birds why ya flyin over here?"
Birds: Cuzz its to hot over there, man and you c**ks**kin, f**kin humans are the effing cause of it!!!!!"

The Autobahn Society is just a veritable potpouri of objectively verifiable scientific data.

[Trenchant1]

I notice that a lot of politicians have changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change', since the temperature on the earth has not risen for ten years. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The whole things seems to me another method of gaining control over the middle classes. Most people can not now be controlled by references to God or the Bible, so 'climate change' is the new religion, the new morality by which we must measure our actions - "You don't recycle? Shame on you!" It appeals to the self-righteous, the busy-body, the worrier and the follower of authority. It appeals even more to those applying for grants for research - just put a green spin on your application and there's a good chance that you'll get the money. Don't and you're virtually guaranteed not to get it. There is great self-interest in finding results that confirm climate change as a fact. It means that the next piece of research, designed to find some way of combating the climate change, will also qualify for grant support. Great, eh?

Of course there is climate change. There always has been and there always will be. I think we probably do have an effect on it, as does everything else in the world, but I'm not sure how great that effect is. I would go along with the, what seems to me reasonable, view that the best thing to do is to do whatever we can easily do to improve things. (I don't believe that should involve the banning of 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs, as has happened in the UK. We are now expected to use low powered fluorescent things that give off a strange glow and contain powdered mercury. If they break, you are supposed to wear protective clothing, a mask and visor to clear away the debris. Does this make sense to anyone?)

If governments really wanted to improve things, they would stop the production of tetra-paks, the things that fruit juice often comes in, as they are made of a combination of cardboard, plastic and metal foil. Recycling them is difficult and costs a lot. If they were banned, it would make recycling a lot easier. All glass containers could be made to standard sizes and shapes. Then producers would have to compete on the quality of their goods rather than on the prettiness of their packaging and they would be easier and cheaper to recycle. The governments of the world would, if they really, really wanted to, find some way of stopping the destruction of the rainforests. This leads to vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released each year and decreases the ability of the earth to absorb it. It is like cancer eating away at the lungs of the earth. The thing is that the governments don't really mean it. They pick on the little guys. They tell us that we must stick different types of rubbish in different bins and they fine us if we don't (a great way of taxing us). They take away our perfectly good light bulbs and order us to use potentially poisonous ones. They push up the taxes on fuel, using the excuse that it's for the benefit of the environment.

Climate change caused by humans may be a fact. I doubt it myself. Either way, those in power are using it to control us and they don't really want to get rid of the ostensible causes because then they would have nothing to whip us with.

[maxpot46]

Another thing to consider is the economics of the issue. Even granting that climate change is man-made through CO2 emissions (which I don't agree with), what can be done about it? How much will it cost and what kind of return can be expected?

Well, as it turns out, there is little that can be done, but it will cost a fortune to accomplish that little. Current political plans to address "climate change" are estimated to cost $20 trillion over 20 years (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The effects will be neglible (I recall seeing estimates of around a .1 degree reduction, but can't seem to readily find the source). That is a LOT of money to spend on something that ranks last amongst all of our various societal concerns (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Phalanx]

I actually read the IPCC methodology report from cover to cover and I am shocked and horrified that people actually believe that nonsense. My engineering specialty is actually in modelling complex feedback systems, so I am probably more qualified to judge the accuracy of their computer models than most of the "global consensus" scientists who specialized in something else, and I can tell you that there is so much error built into their climate models and predictions that they are meaningless as tools to inform policy-makers. It is completely amazing that people are seriously considering trashing the world economy in this ridiculous fit of mass hysteria.

[Vagrant]

Global warming is fact.

The question is as stated though: Are we really causing it?

We know the Earth has gone through several global warming and cooling events, in a cyclical fashion, well before humans. We also know the Sun causes the majority of heat on the planet. Yeah, we contribute some to the heating effect with greenhouse gases. But the truth is, we are only expediting a normal cycle, that we can never completely prevent.

My biggest problem is not what will happen to humans -- it's what's happening to other species. We are at a record extinction rate on the planet. Like, worse than asteroid-hitting-the-Earth rate.

[Tough Love]

opinion from a believer in God (from religion):
in my belief, the world will go back to the beginning as does everything else e.g: by nature, human starts incapable ends incapable. world starts out a mess of matter - ends a mess of matter.
i do believe that global warming is an issue but i dont belive it is a result of humans and dont actually care because in my belief the end is nigh!





Tough Love added to this post, 5 minutes and 7 seconds later...

It's clearly cows farting.

Prunesquallor you talk sense!:laugh:

[Marduk]

My biggest problem is not what will happen to humans -- it's what's happening to other species. We are at a record extinction rate on the planet. Like, worse than asteroid-hitting-the-Earth rate.

It is probably not that bad. It seems high, because the modern era is the era from which we have the largest percentage of species documented. We can only wonder how many species about which we don't even know, went extinct.

I actually read the IPCC methodology report from cover to cover and I am shocked and horrified that people actually believe that nonsense. My engineering specialty is actually in modelling complex feedback systems, so I am probably more qualified to judge the accuracy of their computer models than most of the "global consensus" scientists who specialized in something else, and I can tell you that there is so much error built into their climate models and predictions that they are meaningless as tools to inform policy-makers. It is completely amazing that people are seriously considering trashing the world economy in this ridiculous fit of mass hysteria.
It is not the worst thing about IPCC. In 1996 there was a scandal, where IPCC was accused of corrupting the basic idea of peer reviewed report. The short story is, that they made some little, but meaningful changes in the peer reviewed report, and coincidentaly (yeah, right), the changes caused the report to sound a lot more for the theory of human caused global warming.

The 20 trilion $ for a little of supposed slowing of the global warming is a bit too expansive too. I am pretty sure that if half (or even a quarter) of this sum was spent on adapting to the effects of the climate change, it would be many, many times more effective in preventing the bad consequences of it. And even more, it would give effects no matter if the human CO2 cause theory is wrong or right. The sum is slightly bigger than the whole world's spending on R&D over the same time, and it is supposed to be spent over a probably nonexistent danger, and even if it exists, it would addres it in a fairly ineffective way.