Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

[TClaeys]

I can stomach scientific error. As I've said, climate is an unbelievably complex thing. So things like poor data collection, wrong conclusions, modeling, bias, and so on are certainly an issue as science matures. Hopefully we accept our error and advance our knowledge base.

And, as we've seen from history, it only takes a single rogue scientist to be right and change the paradigm we live in. I have no problem with that, in fact, that is the one cool thing about science. It may take years to accept such ideas, but generally, eventually, they make their way into the empirical scientific realm. This may be the case here.

But as Chrichton said, science needs to be apolitical. Politics just fucks everything up. It turns so-called science into religion. We should always question authority on many different levels, science not being exempt. I do find a certain amount of vanity plays into it as well. Do we really have a handle on everything we say we do?? I don't think so. We are barely into a technological reality. We flew an airplane only 100 years ago. And now we have a complete understanding of how our climate works and all the drivers responsible??

It may seem I'm backpedaling, but I'm really not. Just trying to highlight some of the problems so far as I can tell. I still haven't seen any evidence to believe that there is some grand global conspiracy to suck money from all of us. But I suppose it could be true. But it flies in the face of all the scientists involved. I just cannot accept that there are no honest hard working people in this field. They may be in error (or not), but again, it is quite difficult to imagine this wordwide sinister organization that exists that pulls the strings of their puppets.

Either way, I have a lot to digest. And even though I may disagree with some of you, I appreciate the comments and will take something away from this. It isn't as if we are going to decide whether AGW exists or not despite our opinions. It's all going to end in 2012 anyway.

 

[musictomyears]

So, now it should be right up your alley.

Not really.

For decades, the mass media has lulled us into a sleep state, with regard to the environment. Everything was supposed to be fine and dandy.

What I'm observing now is that the environmental movement has been highjacked by governments and corporations, in order to sucker us into some kind of eco-fascist New World Order. Just alone the thought of taxing the farting of livestock reflects INSANITY. Animals and people have been farting for millennia, and IT WAS OK. The planet did not die, the sky didn't fall.

I'll tell you what we need to do:

#1 Get rid of the banking elite that's bankrupting our economies.

#2 Introduce sustainable, i.e. organic farming methods around the world.

Failing to deliver on those two points, we will go down the plug whole, I have no doubt.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

Wrong. If this were true, ice wouldn't float. I recall learning this in junior high -- ice is less dense than water.

so, checked out water displacement yet?

 

[mike]

#2 Introduce sustainable, i.e. organic farming methods around the world.

some say this it no longer viable, due to the overpopulation problem

Synthetic fertilizers now supply 40 percent of all the nitrogen used by crop plants. Without this artificially produced fertilizer, farmers would simply not be able to grow the crops necessary to feed the world's population. Organic sources of nitrogen, such as animal manure and leguminous plants, would supply only about a quarter of the nitrogen needed. (The remainder comes from rain and lightening.) Other inventions, such as high-yielding crop varieties and modern farm equipment, have also been vital to boosting food supplies. For example, when farm tractors arrived after the 1920s, they replaced draft animals that consumed a quarter of the crops grown in the United States.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34820.html

 

[musictomyears]

I just cannot accept that there are no honest hard working people in this field. They may be in error (or not), but again, it is quite difficult to imagine this wordwide sinister organization that exists that pulls the strings of their puppets.

Of course there are honest scientist, some of them were interviewed in the docu I linked to. However, what do you do when honest scientists get marginalised at every turn?

Exactly: Start doing your own research.

 

[TClaeys]

Not really.

For decades, the mass media has lulled us into a sleep state, with regard to the environment. Everything was supposed to be fine and dandy.

Just alone the thought of taxing the farting of livestock reflects INSANITY. Animals and people have been farting for millennia, and IT WAS OK. The planet did not die, the sky didn't fall.


#2 Introduce sustainable, i.e. organic farming methods around the world.

.

The methane thing isn't from farting. It is from breathing and stomach gases that go through the mouth to my understanding. Either way I see what you're saying. With an insatiable appetite for cow, I wonder how the population of livestock has changed over the decades. It must be considerable.

And also, why organic??

 

[TClaeys]

Of course there are honest scientist, some of them were interviewed in the docu I linked to. However, what do you do when honest scientists get marginalised at every turn?

Sorry, asking you a lot of questions.

But why do you think a guy like Lindzen isn't involved in the peer review system?? It seems to be the only way to prove yourself as a respectable scientist. He writes books and does lectures, but why not the universally accepted method of peer review??

 

[0uterj0in]

so, checked out water displacement yet?

Yes. Volume, not weight. And yes, frozen water is less dense than liquid water.

 

[musictomyears]

some say this it no longer viable, due to the overpopulation problem



http://www.reason.com/news/show/34820.html

With all the nitrogen, we are KILLING the soils and lakes around the world. One example: In clean/green New Zealand, all major lakes are DEAD. Why? Nitrogen runoff from the farms, which has formed a toxic, metallic-white cover on top of the lake beds.

Organic agriculture is the THE ONLY chance of long-term survival.

Stopping to breed like rats would help too, mind you.

 

[mike]

The methane thing isn't from farting. It is from breathing and stomach gases that go through the mouth to my understanding. Either way I see what you're saying. With an insatiable appetite for cow, I wonder how the population of livestock has changed over the decades. It must be considerable.

And also, why organic??

its been said one third of the problem is meat production............

According to a study published in Animal Science Journal last August, creating a pound's worth of beef releases the same amount of greenhouses gases—the equivalent of 36.4 pounds of carbon dioxide—as driving a car 155 miles at 50 miles per hour. And that's an underestimate of the industry's total impact, since the study didn't account for emissions from farm equipment or the fuel expended on transporting product from killing floor to supermarket.

still theres hope.....
http://www.slate.com/id/2191705/

 

[AnnetteMarie]

not arguing the density, but the displacement of the ice that is already on/in the water. when it melts, it doesn't raise the water level anymore than is already there because of its weight. seriously. place a few ice cubes in a cup, add water, mark the level, then let the ice cubes melt. no change in the water level.

 

[Ron Collins]

So, whenever science weighs on on anything environmental, then it is shit. Right??

Because energy companies seem to be the ones funding any kind of research suggesting otherwise. Are you saying they have nothing to gain?? I'm not even saying that is neccessarily true, but you seem to think whenever we would need to take action against a potential threat, then it is bullshit.

What about the ozone layer?? What about the dust bowls?? We had to take action in those areas because of our actions did we not?

Dude, the hole in the ozone layer closed because it was cyclical. Not because CFC's magically floated up there. Plus, the atmospheric layer is constantly being destroyed and created by solar radiation. We, humans, did absolutely nothing to help or hinder it. It is the perfect example of a knee jerk "the sky is falling" argument.

Here is a good article for you.
Ozone Layer Mythes debunked.

 

[Ron Collins]

not arguing the density, but the displacement of the ice that is already on/in the water. when it melts, it doesn't raise the water level anymore than is already there because of its weight. seriously. place a few ice cubes in a cup, add water, mark the level, then let the ice cubes melt. no change in the water level.

I specifically mentioned glacial ice, not floating icebergs.

 

[Ron Collins]

Fair enough. So what's your background? Why do you think the scientists aren't looking at enough data? How much data would be enough?

If you are asking if I am a climatologist, the answer is no. If you are asking to point out that I am not an expert, then I would concede that point. However, I am certainly able enough to educate myself on the subject matter.
My answer to your last question is simple, there is not enough data yet collected to make an accurate prediction or to have more than the most rudimentary understanding. We really only have "accurate" weather records for the past 200 years (super accurate for only the last 80). Thats it. Before then we have a serious problem getting to anything more granular than seasonal or monthly data. Even then the collection method and accuracy of the measurement are highly suspect. Climatologists are now talking about changes in the tenths of a degree. Prior to 200 years ago you were lucky to record a temperature with a 3 or 4 degree variance. Kinda throws off the averages a bit.

 

[Mexicola]

I've taken a few climatology / paleoclimatology courses in my undergrad so I feel like I can add a few relevant bits of info to this debate.

1. Global Warming is really Climate Change and climate is defined as weather (some kind of average) over a period of ~30 years. Everyday weather events cannot be attributed to Climate Change.
2. The only thing constant in the history of the Earth is that climate changes.
3. Recorded weather data on some parts of the earth extend back over 400 years (England).
4. Some other sources of historic climatology data include dendrochronology (tree ring cores), varves (glacial lake sediment layers), and glacial ice cores. The information gleaned from these data paints a picture of Earth's past climatic regimes very far back - this link reports on an ice core that goes back 1 million years.
5. Ice core samples contain air bubbles of ancient earth atmospheres. These bubbles show historic atmospheric gas concentrations and rates of increase (CO2 and Methane as greenhouse gases being the study focus) giving us something to compare current conditions. This link shows that CO2 levels as of 2005 were 30% higher than any other time in the past 650,000 years and Methane is 130% higher. The current rate of increase is 200 times faster than any other increases.
6. Most of the world's glacial ice rests over land masses - such as the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Greenland, and the entire CONTINENT of Antarctica. Take the melting ice cube in a glass theory and shove it... I once heard a conservative shock jock promoting that crock and so many of his callers corrected him that he gave it up after a segment. Pretty bad when you can't even sell it to the converted.

 

[skunkape]

I'm sure Canadians can grow corn just fine. I'm gonna start prepping some land in Arizona for bananas.

 

[TClaeys]

Dude, the hole in the ozone layer closed because it was cyclical. Not because CFC's magically floated up there. Plus, the atmospheric layer is constantly being destroyed and created by solar radiation. We, humans, did absolutely nothing to help or hinder it. It is the perfect example of a knee jerk "the sky is falling" argument.

Here is a good article for you.
Ozone Layer Mythes debunked.

OK, OK. For every link like this, I can find another 10 that say it did happen and that we were the cause. So again, I'm looking at the major scientific organizations for my information. Like NASA and NOAA and EPA and so on. I don't mean to get into it on this topic. I was trying to illustrate that humans can be responsible for affecting the Earth in negative, or at least, measurable ways.

So Ron, or anyone else, let me ask a more useful question. Where does the average person go to keep on top of these types of scientific questions?? I have a few blogs and I try to keep on top of certain subjects as best I can. And I pull resources from numerous areas. But what would you recommend as far as getting to core truths regarding these topics?? I ask this because as I looked at your link concerning ozone, the only places I can even find that "ozone is a hoax" is places like junkscience and Rush Limbaugh's site. Again I don't want to debate it or anything, but would welcome any recommendations concerning this.

And I picked up a copy of State of Fear to read as well. Thanks.

 

[skunkape]

If ozone is created by solar radiation hitting oxygen molecules, how strange is it that there isn't much where not much sun happens?

 

[Schuyler]

Well, folks, we have 119 posts on this thread now. There have been extensive posts with lots of data along with the smaller contributions. We've had links to other information on the subject, a debate about legitimacy of data and the scientific method. We've questioned 'agendas' and what constitutes real science versus inherent bias. We've examined 'consensus science' and whether that leads to legitimate conclusions. We've had people clearly on both sides of this issue and people in the middle.

Has anyone here actually changed their minds or moved their position on this issue? Or is everyone firmly convinced he or she is correct no matter what else has been said or what additional data has been brought to bear on the subject?

 

[pixelsmith]

i always try to disprove what i believe to be true.