Global Warming Fraud?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Nono Sources please.

Check out Scientific American, Science News and Science.

Starboy

[Sonart]

Quote by: Pooeypant At the cost of our way of life? What makes us more important than all the other life out there?

Quote by: Pale RIder What makes us less important?

We have a much greater capacity to analyze and adapt.

.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder What makes us less important?

No less, which is my point. Why can't we have a balance? What makes our life worth so much? After all, for some humans you recommend execution with bullets covered in pig's blood.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Beavoid This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9 - 10, 1995

No one has mentioned the subtle fact that Beavoid's source is nearly ten years old. Has there been any progress in the science of climatology and human influence on our ecosystem in the last decade?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Sonart Temperatures fluctuate, Prometheus, but not that wildly and certainly not on cue. Check the records and you'll see that fluctuations are fairly cyclical. But more significantly, the current rises were predicted 25 years ago, based specifically on man-made causes. Now, 25 years later, those computer models -- based on the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming -- are proving to be accurate. The climate is warming on cue, as predicted, based strictly on human produced greenhouse gases.

The fact, sonart, is that there has yet to be a computer model produced that works when run in reverse. You claim the can accurately predict the future, yet when run backwards, they can not accurately describe the climate as we know it has been. The data is being massaged to produce the results that the masseurs seek.

Quote by: Savant Then you're not paying attention. Look around you... humans are influencing all kinds of global systems. We're eliminating much of the globes biodiversity in a anthropogenic mass extinction event. We're depleting the seas of once boundless fish, with 3/4 of the world's fisheries collapsing due to overexploitation, over cultivation and deforestation are leading to desertification affecting 70% of the earth's drylands, the destruction of vast coral reef systems worldwide, the depletion and salinization of water tables worldwide and the human induced chemical thinning of the very ozone layer that caps our atmosphere.

I never said that we could not have an effect on nature, I said that we could not have an effect on the global climate. And mass extinction...Please. Give me a break. If you want to see mass extinction, then look to the end of the Permian period. Your CO2 and temperature charts are specious as well. They only go back about 450,000 years. Do you know why they only go back that far. The records are held in the ice at the poles. If you go back much further than 450,000 years, there was no ice to hold the record because there was no ice.

And ozone? I asked you once before about ozone and you left the conversation without answering a very simple series of questions. So tell me now, how thick do you suppose the ozone layer is and how do you suppose that it got there? The ozone argument is one of the most bogus arguments that the environmentalists propose. Lets talk about ozone for a bit so that we can at least expose that hoax for the fraud that it is.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Check out Scientific American, Science News and Science. Starboy

Dates, issues, volumes???

[Wonderblob]

This is such blatantly obvious corporate government complex propaganda that anyone should be ashamed to consider it. The assumption that economic prosperity directly correlates with energy usage is just irresponsible. The economic superpowers in the future will be the countries that are not bound by this correlation

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Wonderblob This is such blatantly obvious corporate government complex propaganda that anyone should be ashamed to consider it. The assumption that economic prosperity directly correlates with energy usage is just irresponsible. The economic superpowers in the future will be the countries that are not bound by this correlation

Explain why nearly all Governments of developed nations take Global Warming to be a serious issue. Why does the US keep denying it? Just what exactly do they know that the others don't? Why won't they share this information?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Explain why nearly all Governments of developed nations take Global Warming to be a serious issue. Why does the US keep denying it? Just what exactly do they know that the others don't? Why won't they share this information?

These governents that take global warming seriously...they are for the most part socialist in nature. Do you really need more information than that?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder These governents that take global warming seriously...they are for the most part socialist in nature. Do you really need more information than that?

Yes, I do. Do you really believe that the Cold War persists? Likewise, I could say that capitalists will lose out if they had to help tackle global warming. So what? At the end of the day we should be working together for a better future, one where our ancestors may enjoy the wildlife and environment we have had. Fact is, we don't need to pollute the way we do, there are alternatives but people are afraid of change and loss of profit. If profit is worth more than lives than why do you hold it at such high regards?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Yes, I do. Do you really believe that the Cold War persists? Likewise, I could say that capitalists will lose out if they had to help tackle global warming. So what? At the end of the day we should be working together for a better future, one where our ancestors may enjoy the wildlife and environment we have had. Fact is, we don't need to pollute the way we do, there are alternatives but people are afraid of change and loss of profit. If profit is worth more than lives than why do you hold it at such high regards?

I agree that we need (no...must) cut back on the pollution. And as our technology imporves, that will happen. The amount of pollution created relative to our industrial output has been declining for decades and it will continue to decline. But technology is where the improvement lies. Environmentalists seem to want to curb the very thing that is best equipped to decrease the amount of pollution that we produce.

I am all for a clean environment but global warming is not something that we can influence. The earth warms and the earth cools. We are on the tail end of an abnormally long cool period in the earth's history. It is time for the earth to warm up and there is nothing we can do to either slow the process down or speed it up. We are just along for the ride.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder I agree that we need (no...must) cut back on the pollution. And as our technology imporves, that will happen. The amount of pollution created relative to our industrial output has been declining for decades and it will continue to decline. But technology is where the improvement lies. Environmentalists seem to want to curb the very thing that is best equipped to decrease the amount of pollution that we produce. I am all for a clean environment but global warming is not something that we can influence. The earth warms and the earth cools. We are on the tail end of an abnormally long cool period in the earth's history. It is time for the earth to warm up and there is nothing we can do to either slow the process down or speed it up. We are just along for the ride.

We don't know that, what we are seeing at the moment is a correlation between our carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature rise. We know the atmosphere has an equilibrium but what if we can affect that balance? Can we really be sure that the millions of tonnes of CO2 won't make a difference? I believe for something of this scale, prevention is for the best and even if say the Kyoto Treaty won't affect Global Warming.

With regards to our new technology, I know that we've gotten better but that doesn't mean we're immediately using it. Or that people are willing to change; the US car industry is still pushing people to buy large, uneconomic SUVs when there are smaller cars that will suffice.

[SteveA]

Though I recognize that there are some legitimate concerns over pollution, I think much of the environmental laws are merely a tool for government to get its foot in the door controlling private industries. CO2 itself can't be the source of global warming because it's a small fraction of a percent of the composition of the atmosphere, and you'd need a large percentage change to change things significantly. Besides, if CO2 increases, vegitation grows faster to consume it, so there's a natural balance to the system. Greens should thank the oil industries for recycling organic material by bringing up old carbon compounds that had previously been under the ground, so new life can use it. We're adding to the carbon cycle, and if it was really an issue, we could always bury a few forests to remove the carbon from the system.

I've heard there are more trees in the U.S. now than a couple hundred years ago, and looking around at many of the cities with trees that were created in the middle of a semi-desert, or considering the ability of humans to stop forest fires that would otherwise spread very far, I can believe it.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: SteveA Though I recognize that there are some legitimate concerns over pollution, I think much of the environmental laws are merely a tool for government to get its foot in the door controlling private industries. CO2 itself can't be the source of global warming because it's a small fraction of a percent of the composition of the atmosphere, and you'd need a large percentage change to change things significantly. Besides, if CO2 increases, vegitation grows faster to consume it, so there's a natural balance to the system. Greens should thank the oil industries for recycling organic material by bringing up old carbon compounds that had previously been under the ground, so new life can use it. We're adding to the carbon cycle, and if it was really an issue, we could always bury a few forests to remove the carbon from the system. I've heard there are more trees in the U.S. now than a couple hundred years ago, and looking around at many of the cities with trees that were created in the middle of a semi-desert, or considering the ability of humans to stop forest fires that would otherwise spread very far, I can believe it.

I don't know where you've gotten your misinformation from but I think you need to look up the facts; we're losing huge amounts of Trees in the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure we can trust NASA when it tells us that Global deforestation is a problem.
Just what exactly do you mean by burying forests to remove the carbon? Where will you move all the wildlife? How about instead, we use less fossil fuels instead?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Pooeypants I don't know where you've gotten your misinformation from but I think you need to look up the facts; we're losing huge amounts of Trees in the rest of the world. I'm pretty sure we can trust NASA when it tells us that Global deforestation is a problem. Just what exactly do you mean by burying forests to remove the carbon? Where will you move all the wildlife? How about instead, we use less fossil fuels instead?

Well, you don't need a satellite to see this, just fly across the U.S. sometime and you'll see the increased vegitation in otherwise arid areas where people have settled. Nevada and Arizona are good examples.

Of course people use lumber, but we also plant trees and grow many things as well. We've turned areas of land that were basically desert into vegetated areas. Lumber companies replant behind the areas they've harvested etc. and though we cause some fires, these don't generally become huge because we limit the spread. We redirect and water and save much of it from becoming runoff into the ocean, and use that water to grow food or just for people waternig the plants around their house. Arizona and Nevada are very arid and generally don't have much vegitation, except where people have settled. If oil deposits were due to decomposed organic matter that was trapped under the ground, then bringing it up is not too far off from recycling it.

Sure, there might be fewer areas of old vegetation but there are plenty of newer ones as well. So, yes, there are areas where trees have been or are being cut down but there are also new places where they are growing or being protected from fire or artificially planted and cultuvated.

[Pooeypants]

I think you're missing the point, deforestation is a global problem; just because nature is recovering in a developed nation such as US doesn't mean it's the same for the others. If you'd follow the link and read a bit more you'd see how it explains that certain places such as the Amazon may need 50 years to recover due to the deforestation methods. This is still happening and will continue to do so in the near future.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, you really do buy this doom and gloom "Man's the cause of all things wrong" aren't you?

Do you know the Native American's used to burn THOUSANDS of acres of trees? Just curious on that one really. I was a bit shocked too.

Do you know that the Earth is coming out of a 10000 year long cooling period? (That started well before SUV's hit the pavement)

Do you realize there is far more going on then what you are told to believe?

[oranged]

Quote by: Pale RIder This graph shows pretty clearly that the present is quite cool relative to the rest of the earth's history. For much of the earth's hisory, alligators swam in the marshes in Europe...it would have to get a whole lot warmer than it is now in order to support alligators again...

Please note that for 500,000,000 years, the earth was made made entirely of 15,000 degree lava. Also, if it can support Alligators, can it support humans? Let's think about where those "marshes" were, maybe now their major cities wating to get flooded like New Orleans did. Then they'll be marshes again. I know that earth was much warmer, then it cooled off, thus killing the dinosaurs and making room for humans. If it heats back up, it will kill off humans, and make room for something else.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Pale RIder The fact, sonart, is that there has yet to be a computer model produced that works when run in reverse. You claim the can accurately predict the future, yet when run backwards, they can not accurately describe the climate as we know it has been. The data is being massaged to produce the results that the masseurs seek.

So what! Anthropogenic global warming models have been confirmed.

The US National Academy of Sciences

American Meteorological Society

NASA

the American Geophysical Union

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Even George W. Bush now concedes the reality of human induced global warming. You couldn't be more behind the scientific curve if you were flat earthers.

.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Two words, Heat Islands.

But hey, believe what you want.