Global Warming: Finally dead?

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, Oct 13, 2009.

  1. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    One would think that all the proof you need to disprove the idea of man made global warming was given to use just a few weeks ago. One would think if perhaps THE leading climatologist, a man deeply involved with the IPCC report the UN gave out saying the world is doomed suddenly makes a complete about face about global warming, people would mention it, right?

    Well, most news outlets have buried the story. I can't even find it archived on NY Times, or any other major US newspaper.

    he BBC though, liberal as they are, are also one of the few voices that allow Global Warming skeptics to speak out. For that reason alone I trust them a little more than other sources that have an agenda and hide news.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/09/an_inconvenient_truth_about_gl.html

    Well, there we have it. Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany admits there is FAR larger factors to the earths temperature than carbon emmissions. Like, let's say, ocean curents, sunspots, even the magnetic ionosphere has been blamed for shifts in the earths temperature.

    And this isn't based on forecasted data, they admit going back a decade the earth has ben cooling. It hasn't been warming even though cars are more prevalent than ever before, and an industrial China and India didn't add anything to the warming trend.

    So where's the big fanfare? Where's the big fuss? When Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, the media lampooned Bush for "lying" to us about it. Yet the entire scope of what global warming paranoia could have done to the world would have effected everybody a thousand times over what Iraq was, not just economically, but in developing nations not being allowed to use technologies that aren't "green" enough, despite the suffering of the people there.

    This is like screeching to a halt in front of a big cliff, tires almost off the edge.... yet no one says anything to the driver about being a maniac and almost killing everyone in the car?

    I would hope this is the beginning of the end to what I feel was an enormous hoax, politicians and politically minded scientists trying to dictate to the world exactly how we're going to live. Politicians need to be elected remind you, but people like Al Gore can always bolster themselves with Christ like status by being the Global Warming savior.

    Now, before there is a deluge from the other side, if there is one, of "Oh you capitalists just want to drill for oil and poison baby deer", please. Enough. The idea of what we are trying to present is what we have done has NOT hurt the earth, despite what Global Warming believers say. Pollution, which is what Global Warming believers usually divert to, is not the same as carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Trees need it to breathe. Without it, there would be no oxygen. I agree that a few decades ago, people polluted with wanton abandon and destroyed large sections of the envirnonment. That was wrong. But now we have strict pollution controls and a better understanding of how we react with our environment.

    I have a 550 foot studio apartment. All my appliances are Energy Star. My electric bill is less than $20 a month. I drive a Toyota Yaris which gets nearly 40mpg, and only live about 5 miles from my work. When I can, I bike to the grocery store rather than drive. I actually live a fairly earth neutral life.

    Al Gore on the other hand spends upwards of $2400 a month on his utility bills warming or cooling his massive house, more than two months of my rent combined. This was an email circulated in 2006. Although Al Gore has made changes to his house, it is worthy to note that before people investigated it, this is how he felt about living a carbon neutral lifestyle compared to that oil titan earth killing George W Bush.

    Sigh... I really don't know if anyone will even care. It's sad to see something as monumentally life changing as global warming go down, but almost no mention of it.
     
  2. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    The day I see Justice post a thread about Fantasy is the day I will buy people cyber-beer.
     
  3. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    As I have said before (more than once) this is not the same forum it used to be. If you even lookat my avatar, that was me 4-5 years ago.

    And second, you are very free NOT to reply to any of my posts at all.
     
  4. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    The forum not being the same as it was the time dinosaurs walked the earth doesn't mean it's still not a fantasy forum with hundreds of worthy threads and dozens of good people who are happy to talk and interact with you on matters of pure fantasy and science fiction.

    That's you in the pic?FINALLY!The mystery is solved.I wanted to ask you that for ages!And I won't make any further comments.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  5. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well... temperature yes.

    What about the climate?

    Well... what exactly is the variation and margin of error in which we measure? Is there a definitive breach with the reaches of the former trend of global warming?

    Well, this thing isn't exactly the same as finding WMD's in Iraq. Climate changes take decades to show and indeed prove, especially since no two years are the same - thanks for pointing that out, Justice. Two questions remain, though; can greenhouse gasses influence the climate at the doses at which humanity is emitting it - and what will be the size of the effect. For me, the first question has been sufficiently answered in an affirming way. Now, as to the second, we can only make projections, which range from unnoticable - to catastrophical.

    For now, we're taking the risk of finding it to be unnoticable and, since we simply don't know, also the risk for catastrophical consequences. I find this roulette unacceptable.

    One word: homeostasis.

    I agree that we've gone a long way in the poison category, especially where it's agricultural poison and, for instance, CFCs are concerned. However, we might come to the conclusion that it simply was not enough.
     
  6. SuperToad

    SuperToad New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Nubs don't stand a chance!
    Ratings:
    +38 / 0 / -0
    I've said it for years- carbon is not the cause of global warming. In fact, there have been several major changes to the earth's climate over recorded history, and none have been caused by emissions. I am not saying to be as wastful as possible, just to conserve resourses, and conserve money.
     
  7. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I think this revelation about decreasing temperatures reveals one thing. They don't know. They created thousands of computer models all showing a steady rise in temperatures following carbon output, and the models were all wrong. So many varying factors effect the earths weather, it shows we have absolutely NO control over it.

    The UN's IPCC report, which was a large claptrap of government officials writing opinions rather than scientists, gave us a 2100 deadline for large scale and irreversible effects. This 30 year cooling trend throws literally a 50 - 60 year bump in their estimate as global temperatures need to rise again from their new expected low to reach the levels they felt it would be by 2100.

    Dozens of published reports that show, even from sampling ice cores in the Artic, that carbon dioxide rises AFTER temperature increases from other factors, not before. The Vostok ice core data done back in the 90's even suggested that carbon dioxide increased AFTER periods of prolonged temperature increase and deglaciation, not before like global warming scientists say.

    Not to mention the long time used "Hockey stick graph" has also been debunked as a mathematical hoax.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

    The program used to create the graphs which show a large spike in temperature during human activity was designed ONLY to pull out data that shared in a preconceived conclusion, not in the very least following the scientific method.

    In the end, people like me DO want to wait before we take extreme measures to stop something we may not be able to stop no mater what we do, warming or cooling. Global Warming isn't even mentioned that much anymore, it's now all Climate Change. Well, even a cursory glimpse into the earths past shows us the climate goes all over the map without human intervention, why would now be any different?

    Unfortunately the debate is typified by the two extremes. One side says we are killing the planet at an alarming rate, we're all going to die of starvation and resort to cannibalism, and possibly have to find a new planet to populate (Ted Turner of Turner broadcasting fame believes this). Then there's the extreme right wing who feels the earth is indestructible, pollution laws should be thrown out, and condor eggs make the best omlettes.

    Then there's me. The earth is not going to die, we're not going to die. The earth is a much better place to live in when we aren't polluting it beyond the ability to breathe, and encourage recycling and conservation, but not going so far as to dictate to people they need to live according to what a bunch of politicians and politically minded scientists think.




     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2009
  8. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well, these computer models predict an average global temperature. I don't think I would have to explain that indeed achieving this average in highly unlikely. What I haven't learned so far is whether the temperatures over the last decade is above or below that projection. Maybe 1998 was an extremely warm year. Maybe the following decade was still warmer then the projected model but were colder then 1998 nonetheless. It doesn't say.

    But even with decreasing temperatures, we could still be within the 95% confidence interval.

    Anyway, so much for the technical part. Let's be fair, green house gasses aren't the only factor involved in global temperature. You're right about that. However, green house gasses as produced by the 6 or so billion people we have now might well tip the scales in a very unwanted way. And I will remain at this: they might also not do such thing. The thing is: we don't know. But the risk remains. And where we differ, Justice, is that you assess this risk to be insignificant and not worth the trouble - whereas I judge it as quite possible and I don't want to take that risk if I have anything to say about it.

    Neither of us is provided with a crystal ball, though. In 50 years or so we could be laughing global warming to kingdom come. Or curse ourselves for not heeding the message and not having taken action in a sufficient way.[/quote]

    So it's about libertarianism again heh? ;)

    Thing is: we're not going to die - although it could turn out to be very inconvenient indeed.
     
  9. jake1964

    jake1964 Old enough to be your dad

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +105 / 0 / -1
    Less than 40 years ago, the experts were telling us that we were entering another ice age.

    Just sayin'.....;)

    BTW, The most prevalent "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Well I'm all for people being environmentally minded. I don't know how many jobs will be lost at power stations and logging whatever etc, but having contacted local solar power companies, I was told they ar eputting on new staff coz they can't keep up with demand. So it is possibel that for jobs lost, new jobs will be created in ther sectors. I just don't kno the numbers on losses vs gains.

    I understand that the earth naturally heats and cools over the millenia, not sure if we can quantify what if any impact humanity has on the global weather patterns. Seeing the planet earth doesn't follow strict time-based patterns, noticing a variation doesn't mean much.

    True, but I wonder how many people would give a shit if they hadn't been "scared" into recycling, changing light bulbs, buying a 4 cylinder car etc. Humans re not gentle caring creatures in a global societal sense.

    Doesn't global warming create ice ages? Warm weather melts frozen fresh water, which changes the way the global ocean currents move heat around the planet due to the difering densities of salt and fresh water, so places like Europe get much less warm water, so they get colder, winters more extreme and longer, so we get an ice age.

    Correct? False?
     
  11. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well, that's the thing. I've heared projections that predict global cooling - or local cooling anyway. Global warming would push more water vapour in the atmosphere creating more clouds, leading to cooling. Warmer weather leads to more dust storms in the Sahara, leading to global cooling. Shifting ocean currents leading to global cooling (although, looking at the Earth as a system, that's hard to grasp).

    I will remain with the point that we simply don't know - and shouldn't take the risk for either.
     
  12. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Found this on the net:

    Full article here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Kelmourne

    Kelmourne The Savage Hippy

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,034
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international cyberspace
    Ratings:
    +119 / 0 / -0
    Didn't the article only say that for a brief time the temperatures wont go up but will later resume their rise? This doesn't mean global warming is dead, it just means that it's on hold for a while.
     
  14. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Thanks for posting the article, Mubs - but it sort of proves my point.

    When you look at it, the earth and its global temperature is dependant of only a few things. The strength of the sun; the amount of energy from the sun that is deflected by the magnetosphere; the amount of energy that is reflected by the ozone layer and stratosphere; the retention of energy in that exact same layer - and finally the amount of energy that is reflected by the earth's surface.

    So, the oceanic currents don't really have an influence on the earth's temperature as a system. Locally, though, things could change rather dramatically, as shown being the case for Europe and Northern Amerca. The global temperature can be altered indirectly, though, by the fact that an ice age generally tends to make a large part of the globe white - that is to say - more reflective.

    But it doesn't matter whether the world would cool or warm - both should be considered as untowards reactions of the earth brought (partially) by humans. Resulting in a dramatic shift in habitable lands.
     
  15. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    The entire discussion in the last few years, whether it be Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, The IPCC report on Global Warming, and all the countless news articles, lectures, and academic journals and presentations have all stated the same thing. Humans are putting out carbon dioxide, which they state contributes to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the earths atmosphere, warming it exponentially, to the point where it will cause catastrophic disasters, like rising waters, droughts, disease, etc.

    The Hockey Stick graph, which i posted earlier, was supposed to show human output of Co2 has caused an extreme increase in measurable temperature, blaming human industry as the problem.

    NONE of them however said before this there would be a 30 year halt in warming, then a retread back to higher temperatures. Not even the IPCC report which is barely 2 years old. Either that, or they specifically left out this data to push their conclusion/agenda which is 100% ANTI-scientific. The idea was human output is so catastrophic we need to take drastic measures NOW to stop it from ever happening, or else it will be too late for everyone.

    The point I'm making is these scientists don't know. They came to a conclusion before they had solid facts and went with it. The people jumping aboard trying to make changes are absolutely avowed communists. Van Jones, the "Green Czar" for President Obama was an ADMITTED communist. The fact that Obama let him into his administration is mind boggling. Luckily public pressure forced Obama to fire him. Before he was fired, he spoke many times about the need to force people into following along with the green agenda.

    This entire movement is being used to control how people live. It will forever be mired in a back and forth discussion about "not loving the planet" if you simply disagree with the conclusions of Climate Change scientists (when Global Warming showed itself as an absolute fraud, Cliamte Change became the new monicker). Denying Climate Change is like being falsely branded a racist. It immediately puts you on the defensive, and though the charges aren't true, you are treated with scorn and hisses for not being "open minded". Governator Schwarzenegger called Global Warming skeptics, "Flat Earthers" as if it were plainly obvious and those who don't believe it are idiots. I can only think of those commercials that aired here in California which showed an adult step out of the way of a moving train, only to let his child get hit by it, claiming that this is what global warming deniers are doing. Well, Global Warming ended up being a little sketchy, so Climate Change, which covers all bases, warming or cooling, became the new thing.

    They've created the perfect scenario. If the earth warms, it's Global Warming. if it cools, it's Climate Change. No matter what, they're right. When you create a position like they have, you can't be wrong if everyone believes you. If the earth warms, though completely natural cycles the earth has gone through many times in its past, then we are all in danger, and Al Gore gets more money for his foundations (and himself). If the earth cools, you can claim it's a side effect to the warming, so you're in even more danger if it cools down. Despite the fact we're warming. But then we're cooling. And Antarctica is gaining more ice than it is calving through icebergs due to severely cold temperatures.
     
  16. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Um... wow....I have always made the claim (even in this thread) that Global Warming scientists will always leave out evidence against global warming and only publish evidence in favor of it. Data mining it's called, working to a preconceived conclusion rather than using the scientific method.

    Well...

    http://www.google.com/search?q=glob...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    A few days ago, hackers went into the personal email accounts of many professors from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia. Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth, a few names mentioned, I've even heard of two of them just off the top of my head.

    What they found in these emails were alarming.

    Evidence of data mining, refusing to look at evidence against global warming, intimidating editors of research journals to only publish pro global warming research and threatening to have editors who posted skeptic articles fired, researchers purposely destroying evidence of global cooling, the list goes on and on.

    This is frightening. Very frightening.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=914&filename=1219239172.txt

    This email has back and forth about scientists suggesting how to lie to people about the freedom of information act in Britain. They claim they are exempt fom the FOI when in fact they are supposed to show data that is requested of them.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt

    In this email, rather than sending out files regarding global temperature readings, Mann states, "I think I'll delete the file rather than send [it] to anyone," and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." This email also brings up possible legal prosecution for tampering with government funded scientific research.

    Thousands of emails like this have been found and released, and they paint the same strokes in each one. They seem to admit there's no global warming, but are continuing to find ways to hide cooling evidence and continue to create panic.

    The hockey stick graph was shown as a hoax. The head scientist of the IPCC admits the planet has been cooling for over a decade, and possibly for two decades more. Now we find not just a few scientists, but anentire institute working hard to make sure all cooling data is suppressed, and warming data is presented only. Those who don't fall in line are threatened.

    Everything I've said so far laid bare. Judge it as you will, this doesn't surprise me. The only thing that surprises me is how blatant they are about it. I thought their own prejudice was just getting in the way of true research. No, instead they are FIXING the results, like a rigged card game.
     
  17. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    The Australian government opposition is firmly in the camp of climate-chenge sceptics. So much so that the leader is likely to be turfed out because he agreed to support the prime minister's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.

    I don't profess to know much at all about the proposed ETS, but my basic understanding is that low polluters can sell their "pollution credits" to high polluters who exceed their given quota.

    Now I have to ask - how is that of benefit to the environment? Same pollution levels, just with money changing hands?
    Okay, so the added expense of buying up extra credits may entice polluters to look for greener solutions. But that's "may".

    I'm a fan of science. And I can't find anyone or any way to quantify the actual impact that man has had on the natural cycle of heating and cooling of the earth. I spent $5000 on solar panels on my house to be more environmentally conscious, I believe we shouldn't be pumping poisons into our air or water or soil. So I support environmental policies based on less poisoning of the only planet we have. But I'm just not convinced (nor am I totally sceptical) that humans have caused global warming. No scientist or sceptic has been able to offer the "knockout punch" for me.
     
  18. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    The Global Warming hoax continues.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

    The IPCC report claimed the Himalayas may lose most of their glaciers by the year 2035. The report stated the 500,000 square kilometers would be reduced to only 100,000.

    Shock! Horror! Outrage! Something must be done!

    Well... now they admit this wasn't the case. It should have been the year 2350. So... 340 years in the future, as if we could know the weather then.

    Not to mention the Himalayas are thought to have only 33,000 square Kilometers of glaciers, not 500,000.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=avI11vKKubvI

    This is scientific incompetence at the highest degree. These people are trying to create policies that control all of our lives, and they can't even get dates right. A simple typo sets hundreds of scientists off in a wild direction without even verifying the data.

    This is depressing.
     
  19. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Oh deary deary me......not published and not peer reviewed? My scientist wife is shaking her head as I'm reading that article to her.

    People are people I suppose. Even though science is supposed to be sceptical and happy to be proven wrong, as this would mean a new discovery, scientists themselves are humans who have their own particular barrow to push.

    I'm all for reducing emissions as I like breathing clean air, and not polluting rivers and oceans, and not ripping up the environment if we can find alternatives etc, but I am also starting to smell a big stinky rat with the agenda of certain people.
     
  20. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    And you equally so, Justy :p

    I will have to refer to my earlier statement; it doesn't really change under this :)
     
Search tags for this page

cliamte of j n k