Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

[skunkape]

If too much CO2 is the problem, couldn't we just launch a massive tree planting program and fix it? For those who forget, plants eat carbon-dioxide and poop oxygen. There were points in the early stages of this planet's developement where there was so much oxygen, and not enough critters to breathe it, that stuff just burst into flames at the slightest spark.

 

[TClaeys]

They just sponsored another Conference on Climate Change in New York City that ended yesterday. Oh, you didn't hear about it? That's kind of strange, isn't it? You would think the media would cover a major conference in New York, especially considering the speakers there, who presumably, spoke willingly and don't mind having their names used. None of them are going to insist their names be taken off the list since we have video of them speaking.

I did know about the conference even though it didn't get much publicity. I do keep my eye on any news or relevant information on the topic. And this goes to why I even posted this thread in the first place. There is a lot of confusion about this topic, even if you try to keep yourself informed.

I have found a few problems concerning this stuff as I've stated, but I don't want to come across as some fundamental religious AGW proponent. And I know that is how I'm coming across. And while I still look at the other side, a few things just continue to bother me. I'm not out for a fight, I'm just trying to weigh the science versus everything else.And it isn't easy.

Let me ask this. Does it bother anyone else that the Heartland Institute misrepresented data by other climate scientists?? Because they did, and that is just a plain lie. I think it is relevant. You saw the quotes from the other scientists. Not just one, but scores of them saying they were misrepresented.

And let me ask this. Lindzen, who appears to be the poster child for the other side. What has he had peer reviewed?? Peer review is the checks and balances for science. And I can't find anything he has had peer reviewed. And further, he has been wrong numerous times. If you do a basic search for him you will discover the things I'm talking about. If he and others would spend more time doing research than writing articles and books it might help. Books don't convince the scientific community, peer review does.

And this. Does it bother anyone that vast majority of the 31,000 people and scientists that signed the petition had no business weighing in on this topic??

I'm just asking if these things bother anyone else?? And I know there are things on the AGW side that bother me as well. Gore being number one.Gore and the IPCC bother a lot of people. But every major science organization around the globe tells us the same thing (that AGW is true to whatever degree). Every one. It's hard to imagine a scenario where they are all in some conspiracy to ..... what I don't know.

I can't imagine the alarmist doomsday being true. So maybe it is somewhat of a "Lets prepare for the future" mentality.

If AGW is a farce as people have said, then, fine. Lets get the relevant studies peer reviewed and go from there. Its the only way to go about testing for the truth. And if that is the case, then why aren't people like Lindzen filling hundreds of pages to be reviewed?? Meanwhile, hundreds of peer reviewed studies with CO2 implications have been in this process and have been found to hold true as far as I can tell.

I don't want to make rash decisions for our planet when it is based on a falsehood. For christ sakes, I certainly don't want to pay for it. If it is bunk, it should be simple enough to get the science out there. Until then, and I know I'm gonna sound like a complete ass, this conference is more of a protest or picket line.

Please point out where I've gone off the trail. I know I'm sounding more and more like an alarmist, but I'm not. I'm just a concernist I guess.

 

[Schuyler]

Here's a pretty dense article on the Hockey Stock controversy from Wikipedia. I actually read through the whole thing, though I don't claim to understand every last detail. It seems to me to be fairly even in its approach letting both sides have their say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

One of the points that kind of jumped out at me was the concept of 'peer review,' which seems to be an issue with some of the papers on this topic. Most published academic papers, no matter what the subject, go through this process. It goes like this: Professor submits paper to prestiegous journal like Nature. Nature sends the paper to known experts in the field. Experts judge the paper. If experts like the paper, it is published. If experts do not like the paper, it is NOT published. The original professor never finds out who reviewed the paper and the reviewers do not know who wrote the paper before it is published. At least, that's supposed to be how it works.

As an aside, I've had a couple of papers published via this process myself, on subjects no one here cares about and also a couple hundred articles that went strictly through editors. I will say that you have to watch editors very carefully. They all think they are smarter than you are and they will change your meaning to opposite of what you meant in a heartbeat. I'd much rather go through peer review than just an editor.

Having said that I prefer it, peer review still has some issues, including the stranglehold the publishers have on the process, slowly being broken by the Internet and academics themselves. (It's a racket, but a story for another time.) The good thing about peer review is that it helps prevent boneheaded mistakes by having your work reviewed by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. The bad thing about peer review is that it tends to favor the status quo and stifle innovation. That's what happened with the Plate Tectonic Theory I mentioned in one of my first posts. Unfortunately, it is not confined to just refusing to publish a paper. the guy who figured out quarks was ridiculed and denied an academic appointment for suggesting such a 'foolish idea' by proponents of atomic theory who thought atoms composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons as a fine view of reality.

Kind of related to peer review is the idea of social networks. An academic discipline can be a tight-knit group. People tend to know each other. There is a strict protocol to scientific papers in terms of how you put your name as an author of a paper, for example. Seniority rules. Some papers have dozens of authors, most of whom didn't contribute much, but they then get to list the paper on their c.v. This creates a 'social network' of people across the country, or even world, which has an effect on the direction of research. In other words, some 'independent' research isn't and tends to be self-verifying.

What is evident is that in this 'Climate Change' issue (note the subtle change from 'Global Warming' in a lot of the literature, this academic name-calling continues. In the hockey stick issue, the proponents have gone from postulating an alarmist extreme to couching their conclusions in much broader and less strenuous terms.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

If too much CO2 is the problem, couldn't we just launch a massive tree planting program and fix it? For those who forget, plants eat carbon-dioxide and poop oxygen. There were points in the early stages of this planet's developement where there was so much oxygen, and not enough critters to breathe it, that stuff just burst into flames at the slightest spark.

massive tree planting campaign... we have lots in South America, the rain forest, supposed to be our last barrier to desert conditions and catastrophic climate change...

I heard that forest is going at a rate of more than a hectare a day.

yup, let's all plant trees to fix the problem that cutting them down is contributing to.

sorry for the sarcasm, but until we fix our mindset of being 'entitled' and therefore others need to sacrifice or fix this, nothing we do will be permanent.

I think for major changes to take place, major deaths need to occur. That is basically what it takes for humans to adapt to a different behaviour, and given that WWII is still in memory of a good percentage of our global population, even that is not a guarantee of permanent behavioural changes.

oh well.

 

[mike]

We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet’s life-forms—an estimated 8,760 species die off per year—because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources.

eight thousand seven hundred and sixty......... per year....

meanwhile the woman in the US who recently gave birth to her 20th child smiles and says "children are like flowers..... you cant have too many......."



edit : it may have been this woman in which case its only 18 kids but the parents can be quoted as saying....

And Mr Duggar the newborn may not be the last for him and his 42-year-old wife.

"We both would love to have more," he told the Associated Press.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24823366-38198,00.html?from=public_rss

 

[musictomyears]

Does it bother anyone that vast majority of the 31,000 people and scientists that signed the petition had no business weighing in on this topic??

What are you saying - that only those people and scientists that are approved by YOU, are entitled to voice their opinions? Ever heard of freedom of speech?

"Scientists" gave us Thalidomide, Agent Orange, Bhopal, Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Shock-And-Awe. I don't trust scientists more than regular people. From my own experience with the scientific establishment, it is corrupt to the core.

 

[TClaeys]

What are you saying - that only those people and scientists that are approved by YOU, are entitled to voice their opinions? Ever heard of freedom of speech?

This doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. If thats the case then lets just take a vote on what to do about climate, if anything.

I guess I just have this crazy idea that the scientists who study climate should be the ones that should weigh in. But no, I suppose we should just let Joe the Plumber decide what to do.

I don't trust scientists more than regular people

You mean the ones that have extended your life and given you really useless things like medicine, electricity, powered vehicles, and a computer to voice your opinion?? Those scientists??

 

[Stillborn]

From my memory. Politicians have been late to chime in on the scientific data. So late, that the scientific stuff they use, might have changed since the new books and research has came out. I mean no disrespect to Mothra, and I realize I could be wrong. But politicians ignored the issue for a very long time. They were last on the boat from my experience. Not first. They were busy hugging babies and kissing trees... no, the other way around. Whatever. I learned about global warming as a kid. There have been some reason to question it these days. Good. Politicians have nothing to do with the data on it. Only the parroting of it MUCH later in ways that might suit their purpose.

In short, questioning global warming is fine. With me at least. So's being safe rather than sorry.

So I drink milk when I feel like it, realize I could get the runs from it, or not. In the end, kinda up to a larger scheme perhaps than us. Or chance. Which still may be greater (chance that is). Hard to measure chance since we came from it (if that assumption is true). I try and enjoy the ride as much as I do try and be right about issues though, so I only have a moderate interest a moderate amount of time in a moderate amount of things/issues/topics.

 

[Stillborn]

Musictomyears. First, I have not watch what you posted (all those vids). Second, I'm pretty sure I will like them when I do since I don't really have a position in these matters. I do wish to point out to you, that I once posted a documentary and or a lot of articles about an issue to make my point, and you got on me saying, "just because you post a lot of links to a documentary doesn't mean anything!" Or words to that affect. This is Aaron LeClair btw and it was probably under that account, or Paranormal Packrat. Just wanted to mention this in case you come back by that thread someday. Maybe you'll relate more to me in that thread and look pass any wrong doing on my part. I assume this, because you seemed to have done the same. Posting a lot of links that is.

 

[Schuyler]

I guess I just have this crazy idea that the scientists who study climate should be the ones that should weigh in. But no, I suppose we should just let Joe the Plumber decide what to do.

I actually agree with you that this is ideal. Joe, the Plumber should not be involved unless he can show he has actually studied the issue, knows statistics cold, and brings some insight into the argument.

The thing is, we've got climatologists of all sorts who are suggesting the opposite approach. Should we listen to George H. Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University; Tim Ball, Ph.D., Environmental Consultant, Former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg, Canada; Joseph D’Aleo, Meteorologist and Climatologist, Executive Director, Icecap; Tim Patterson, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada; David Legates, Ph.D., Climatologist and Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System, University of Delaware, U.S.; David Bellamy, OBE, Ph.D., Botanist and Special Professor of Geography, University of Nottingham, England; Stan Goldenberg, Meteorologist, Hurricane Research Division/AOML/NOAA, Miami, Florida, U.S.; Fred Michel, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ontario, Canada; Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, U.S.; William M. Gray, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado?


I deliberately picked these guys, of course, but precisely because they held academic positions and didn't appear to be a 'Research Fellow' for some shadowy 'Institute' that might have a political agenda or nefarious ties with the CIA, Big Oil, or Big Tobacco. But every one of these guys publicly says Global Warming can be explained by factors other than AGW or that it doesn't exist at all except as a result of natural variation.

So, to the quandry. I know that anyone here can develop a list of scientists who are absolutely convinced, based on the evidence, that AGW is true. Yet we have the list above, who are not the only ones, who have just as much experience, just as much expertise, just as many PhD's, who say the opposite. How can any well-informed citizen (and by well-informed I mean someone who is not entrenched into one answer or the other, but considers both points of view) tell the difference?


I consider myself fairly well-informed and fairly well-educated. My biggest bias is that I have a severe mistrust of extremist positions, both Left Wing and Right Wing. because of my training in paleontology I also tend to take a long-term view rather than react when one winter is colder than the last one. I simply can't tell the difference here and I maintain that most of us here don't know either. Are you arguing from a position of authority or are you arguing because of your political beliefs and sense of conspiracy? I have yet to see a sound argument that can account for the vast number of experts on both sides of this issue coming to different conclusions. All I can come up with is:


Red Alert!

 

[musictomyears]

Musictomyears. First, I have not watch what you posted (all those vids). Second, I'm pretty sure I will like them when I do since I don't really have a position in these matters. I do wish to point out to you, that I once posted a documentary and or a lot of articles about an issue to make my point, and you got on me saying, "just because you post a lot of links to a documentary doesn't mean anything!" Or words to that affect. This is Aaron LeClair btw and it was probably under that account, or Paranormal Packrat. Just wanted to mention this in case you come back by that thread someday. Maybe you'll relate more to me in that thread and look pass any wrong doing on my part. I assume this, because you seemed to have done the same. Posting a lot of links that is.

Well, I went through the trouble of first finding those links, then posting them. I tried to save some time for folks that are interested in hearing dissenting voices. That's all.

I just don't accept the concept that a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere is supposed to cause global warming, when it has never done so in the past. Human contribution of CO2 levels is less than 0.01%. Think about that for a moment.

The sun regulates our climate, always has done, always will - and things like clouds (i.e. water vapour) and vegetation.

The whole manmade global warming idea is a scam to extract carbon taxes from us. I think that's pretty obvious.

 

[0uterj0in]

I just don't accept the concept that a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere is supposed to cause global warming, when it has never done so in the past. Human contribution of CO2 levels is less than 0.01%. Think about that for a moment.

I thought about it for a moment, and I wonder what your threshold is for a specific gas to have an effect on the climate. If .04% is not enough, how much would it take? You seem to know all about it, so please explain this.

The sun regulates our climate, always has done, always will - and things like clouds (i.e. water vapour) and vegetation.

Such confident certitude! It must feel wonderful -- I'm green with envy.

The whole manmade global warming idea is a scam to extract carbon taxes from us. I think that's pretty obvious.

Since it is so obvious, then you won't mind explaining how this scam actually works? You're saying the scientists falsifying their evidence and lying to their peers? Can you identify a single scientist who is lying about AGW?

 

[Ron Collins]

I thought about it for a moment, and I wonder what your threshold is for a specific gas to have an effect on the climate. If .04% is not enough, how much would it take? You seem to know all about it, so please explain this.

Such confident certitude! It must feel wonderful -- I'm green with envy.

Since it is so obvious, then you won't mind explaining how this scam actually works? You're saying the scientists falsifying their evidence and lying to their peers? Can you identify a single scientist who is lying about AGW?

Actually, Carbon dioxide has only increased by 31% since the industrial revolution. Methane has increased by 150%. Methane is produced both by industrial processes and farming and is probably more of a catalyst for climate change (greenhouse gases) than CO2. Methane is also (and mostly) produced by livestock. Notably cattle and sheep.

We focus on CO2 because it is by far the most man prodced gas as a result of industry.

However, populations world wide have also increased steadily since the industrial revolution. Technology is making it easier to live and medicine is extending life and preventing the high infant mortality rates from the past. Thus, we need more livestock to feed the population increase.

The CO2 argument exists because it is seen as one gas we can easily eliminate not because it is the "cause" for the supposed "Global Warming".

 

[Tommy Allison]

Yeah, methane. That stuff that's frozen on the sea floor that happens to be warmed up due to volcanic activity. Yep, More proof of man made global warming.

Methane levels are NOT the direct result of Man Made Climate Change. We have vents opening up all over the planet, that are melting the frozen methane on the ocean floor. When that happens, where does the methane go? Up, out of the oceans and into the atmosphere.

There are some gases that are created due to industry, but considering just how much of the methane gas we actually extract from the atmosphere, and then re-burn in order to power some of our power plants, you would think that there would be even less.

There are days when I realize that the Goebbels was right. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes the Gospel Truth.

 

[Ron Collins]

Yeah, methane. That stuff that's frozen on the sea floor that happens to be warmed up due to volcanic activity. Yep, More proof of man made global warming.

Methane levels are NOT the direct result of Man Made Climate Change. We have vents opening up all over the planet, that are melting the frozen methane on the ocean floor. When that happens, where does the methane go? Up, out of the oceans and into the atmosphere.

There are some gases that are created due to industry, but considering just how much of the methane gas we actually extract from the atmosphere, and then re-burn in order to power some of our power plants, you would think that there would be even less.

There are days when I realize that the Goebbels was right. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes the Gospel Truth.

I think you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I dont think that methane levels are a cause of climate change. I dont think that global warming is happening and I am not convinced that there is a climate change occuring. I was really just saying that if you are going to point a finger at a gas, methane is far more suspect than CO2.

Basically to say, stop with the CO2 is the devil arguments. Nothing more.

 

[Tommy Allison]

I can tell you this. Eating Sesame Chicken is like your own methane factory.

I plan to leave a window open.

 

[Ally]

I can tell you this. Eating Sesame Chicken is like your own methane factory.

I plan to leave a window open.

Ever hear of activated charcoal? Your wife might want you to buy some!!

 

[Tommy Allison]

If you mean so I can set it on fire, No problem.

Just kidding. It doesn't exactly work for me.

 

[Ally]

If you mean so I can set it on fire, No problem.

Just kidding. It doesn't exactly work for me.

Then have a fun night farting away and try not to keep the neighbors up!

 

[musictomyears]

I dont think that methane levels are a cause of climate change.

Oh yeah? Governments around the world are gearing up to tax methane emissions from livestock.

Google "New Zealand fart tax".