Global Warming a fraud?

[rameumptom]

As you can read more indepth at my blog, global warming is a creation by some international scientists seeking to push their personal agenda. Data, including emails, are now out showing how some of the top global warming scientists have been involved in cooking the data.

Can we recall Al Gore's Nobel Prize?

[Wingnut]

*gasp!*

Really?

[bytor2112]

Great big money making scam....Obama still wants to perpetuate the lie. Go figure.

Edited November 24, 2009 by bytor2112

[Maxel]

Isn't it possible that the earth is getting warmer, but that humans aren't wholly (or mostly) to blame? I like what you said on your blog about remembering the 1970's fear if Global Cooling, and that the Earth goes through natural changes.

[bcguy]

Global warming is not a fraud. It is happening because of the massive buildup of greenhouse gasses, in particular CO2. If you look at some of the charts of the start of the industrial revolution, you will see that a corosponding buildup of industry increased the co2 count. It also showed a slow but gradual climb up until the 1970s that it climbed even a higher amount untill today. What also is happening, is that methane is being released from the melting permofrost in the arctic. Methane is 100 times stronger in trapping heat then co2.

Last year, was a all time record breaker heat wave. I have NEVER in my LIFE ever seen tempatures exceed 100 degrees F in seattle or Vancouver BC. This went on for days! Our winters are getting shorter. I remember winter storms in Portland most years in the 1970s. That was portand of all places! Those storms came from Canada. We dont get storms much anymore.

When the artic ice is gone forever, expect to see massive heat waves and droughts in the summer on both the pacific and atlantic coast. You may say why? because the atlantic and pacific recieve the cold waters from the artic, which in turn regulate the moderate tempetures on both coast weather paterns. The arctic sea ice is basicly the airconditioner of the US.

Our coho salmon were almost wiped out last year a all time low. very little of the Coho returned to spawn. Most of there deaths are suspected to have occured simply because the pacific ocean is warming up. This happened a few years ago when the fraiser river was exceedingly to warm, and most salmon died.And now whats even more amazing, Humbolt squid are showing up off the coast of Vancouver island dead. What the heck! that is a south american spieces. The humbolt and other tropical fish spices are traveling further up north in the pacific as the waters warm up.

Edited November 24, 2009 by bcguy

[Vort]

Global warming is not a fraud.

This is the topic under discussion. Making an assertion is not the same as providing evidence.

Last year, was a all time record breaker heat wave. I have NEVER in my LIFE ever seen tempatures exceed 100 degrees F in seattle or Vancouver BC.

I have.

Our coho salmon were almost wiped out last year a all time low. very little of the Coho returned to spawn. Most of there deaths are suspected to have occured simply because the pacific ocean is warming up.

It is far more likely that habitat destruction from river damming and usage is behind the coho problem than some phantom global warming.

[ryanh]

Bcguy, I could pick apart each and every part of that post. I appreciate you posting your thoughts, and don’t wish to single you out. But it does need to be pointed out that you have been fed many fallacies – fallacies that many many people have believed without verifying.

What you need to do is listen to

[DigitalShadow]

This is the topic under discussion. Making an assertion is not the same as providing evidence.

I agree, but I also think this applies to the OP as well. I have seen a lot of people lately asserting that these hacked emails prove not only that a particular organization manipulates data but that global warming as a whole is a fraud, but I have yet to see any direct references to data that have been manipulated or evidence to back up such large assertions.

[ryanh]

Thanks for that graph Changed.

Your post reminds me of an interview of John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel I heard earlier this year. In no uncertain terms he calls CO2 induced global warming a hoax, and points out that solar flare activity more closely aligns with trends in global temps. An archive of his interview is available from the Utah radio station KSL.com - Interview with John Coleman The interview starts in the 8th minute of the podcast.

How many here are aware of the Report of Over 700 Dissenting Scientists? That is far more scientists than the very limited number that actually had input into the UN's report on climate change.

[ryanh]

but I have yet to see any direct references to data that have been manipulated or evidence to back up such large assertions.

Then listen to

. Those emails regarding 'hide the decline' are insignificant. There is plenty of other evidence out there that fraud has been perpetrated to mislead people.

[DigitalShadow]

The Global Warming Scam

please read the above link. Temps are now in decline .

The problem is that DOE/NIST etc. etc. fund science projects (I know, NIST funded one of mine ). They fund projects that cater to gov propoganda. Gov wants taxes - excuse to get more taxes, carbon tax, the gov used fear mongering = global warming lie, to collect taxes, promote NWO UN global takeover. Look at the data, look at the graphs. CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.

I could post plenty of graphs and sites that say the complete opposite, but I'm sure if you did some googling you would find them too. In fact you probably already have found some graphs and sites that say exactly the opposite of the one you posted but you also probably simply ignore the ones you disagree with and bookmark the ones that you do agree with to regurgitate in threads like this.

In short, you call their stuff propaganda supported by fallacies and they say the same back to you. I'm not sure how that really solves anything besides making both sides more sure that they are absolutely correct so I will leave you to that.

My only interest in this thread is that there are serious accusations against an organization that appear to be backed by little more than a few suggestive phrases in stolen emails. When/if people post more incriminating evidence I would change my mind, but as it is all I've seen is media fluff catering to people who already think global warming is a hoax.

[dedge]

Everyone knows that global warming is a scam, don't they? Really, don't you all remember the big scare over acid rain, back in the 80's everything was going to die due to acid rain, now all the ice on earth is going to melt and flood all the land...whatever!?!

[Moksha]

I agree, but I also think this applies to the OP as well. I have seen a lot of people lately asserting that these hacked emails prove not only that a particular organization manipulates data but that global warming as a whole is a fraud, but I have yet to see any direct references to data that have been manipulated or evidence to back up such large assertions.

You are speaking of validated evidence. What does that have to do with

this discussion? It is unlikely that any significant changes will occur in

US policy one way or another. Energy stocks will still go up. Try not to

worry. If things do heat up then so what? If things remain the same we

can still enjoy outdoor recreation. When things do cool off (no use denying

that) humans can move to the tropics.

[Snow]

Now is the time when uninformed types come out of the woodwork and do the very thing that they they accuse the CRU researchers do... jump on a bandwagon and get all frothy about their pre-decided point of view, regardless of what the reality and science is.

[Hemidakota]

I am always curious when we think science is the answer to all of our problems or tries to explain things to us that is already given.

Again, we can remove mankind from life or simple anything that pollutes. The earth must prepare itself for the next phase of its probation; with us or without us. It really doesn't matter...it is not science who stated this but had by those who seen it since the days of Adam.

[FunkyTown]

Well, let's analyze this from a pros and cons perspective, since many scientists(The majority) still believe in global warming. As someone who is not an environmental scientist, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Evidence for global warming:

"Heat islands" of cities - Cities can sometimes show 16 degree temperature changes from the surrounding area. Always warmer. Cities have certainly exploded in size the last century.

Arctic ice bay shrinking - Makes sense. If it's warming, the Arctic would shrink.

Environmental changes - We know that several species of coral are disappearing and declared endangered while several long-extinct poisonous algaes have come back. Is this due to rising temperatures or poisons?

Evidence against global warming

Antarctic cooling - The largest part of the Antarctic has a growing ice sheet. Since most of the world's ice is in the Antarctic, this would seem to be far more important than the arctic issue.

Oceanic heat sinks - 71% of the earth is covered in water, which is one of nature's most effective heat sinks. There are clearly no cities on water, so that definitely makes one wonder if the natural heat sinks outweigh the development of cities

Honestly, my biggest concern is that calling global warming a hoax is still a fringe-belief, with the vast majority being stalwart conservatives who bring up monetary concerns. Until we get a majority of scientists talking about this as a hoax, I think we need to take it seriously.

[rameumptom]

Global warming is not a fraud. It is happening because of the massive buildup of greenhouse gasses, in particular CO2. If you look at some of the charts of the start of the industrial revolution, you will see that a corosponding buildup of industry increased the co2 count. It also showed a slow but gradual climb up until the 1970s that it climbed even a higher amount untill today. What also is happening, is that methane is being released from the melting permofrost in the arctic. Methane is 100 times stronger in trapping heat then co2.

Last year, was a all time record breaker heat wave. I have NEVER in my LIFE ever seen tempatures exceed 100 degrees F in seattle or Vancouver BC. This went on for days! Our winters are getting shorter. I remember winter storms in Portland most years in the 1970s. That was portand of all places! Those storms came from Canada. We dont get storms much anymore.

When the artic ice is gone forever, expect to see massive heat waves and droughts in the summer on both the pacific and atlantic coast. You may say why? because the atlantic and pacific recieve the cold waters from the artic, which in turn regulate the moderate tempetures on both coast weather paterns. The arctic sea ice is basicly the airconditioner of the US.

Our coho salmon were almost wiped out last year a all time low. very little of the Coho returned to spawn. Most of there deaths are suspected to have occured simply because the pacific ocean is warming up. This happened a few years ago when the fraiser river was exceedingly to warm, and most salmon died.And now whats even more amazing, Humbolt squid are showing up off the coast of Vancouver island dead. What the heck! that is a south american spieces. The humbolt and other tropical fish spices are traveling further up north in the pacific as the waters warm up.

The problem is, these data you are claiming are now all suspect. Last year was NOT an all time high, but the last few years have shown a global cooling from the actual/real/complete data.

The Pacific Ocean is warming up not because of global warming, but because we are entering into another El Nino phase. These happen periodically without any global warming. And yes, it would definitely affect the salmon. El Nino will be around for the next few years, and will locally affect the environment. In fact, it will change weather patterns everywhere in the USA. However, globally, last year was cooler, not warmer. And this year was cooler still.

Let's not impute to global warming things that have nothing to do with it. That is bad science and bad politics. If we spend trillions of dollars on cooling the earth, only to find it is already cooling itself, we could set the stage for an Ice Age. Ice Ages are tougher on life than warm periods.

The "warming" that has occurred since the industrial revolution is considered by many scientists to not be manmade. Why? Because we were going through a natural warming period over the last 150 years. It has occurred in the past. Before the mini-Ice Age of the 1300s, the world warmed enough so that grapes were grown in England, rivaling the wine crops in France. It allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland, only to be forced out when the mini-Ice Age hit. During the last cool period, people were going through starvation periods. It led to the riots in France that led to the French Revolution (yes the last cooling period was just over 200 years ago), later followed by a natural warming period that is now ending.

[rameumptom]

I am not calling global warming a hoax. I am calling into question all of the data. And until we get the data scrubbed and reviewed, it is all suspect.

As for Snow's uncalled for slam on the "uninformed types coming out of the woodwork", please keep such comments to yourself, as it does not promote discussion.

[Hemidakota]

Concur...from what has happened since this has hit the main stream media, as to topic global warming, I am striving to do my part in cleaning up my nasty habits of the past that I may have caused. :)

But, I have to keep my carbon footprint allotmment when it comes to my greatest weakness - fast car that requires oil or refine gasoline.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Vort]

Honestly, my biggest concern is that calling global warming a hoax is still a fringe-belief, with the vast majority being stalwart conservatives who bring up monetary concerns.

When you claim they bring up "monetary concerns", you make it sound as if their only concern is paying off the boat or updating the Beemer. What we are talking about is potentially destroying the economy of our society, resulting in untold misery. Of course, if it's a choice between destroying our economy or destroying our ecosphere, I'll choose the former. But so far, I have not seen convincing evidence, just endless wind.

Until we get a majority of scientists talking about this as a hoax, I think we need to take it seriously.

Let us pretend for a moment that a significant number of environmental scientists in fact disbelieved anthropogenic global warming. Let us also pretend that these scientists were human beings, with spouses and children and a concern for status within their own society. Then let us suppose that these all-too-human scientists found themselves in a system that in essence provided them a choice: Fall in with the "global warming" crowd or be marginalized and prohibited from doing research (because of lack of grant funding).

What would be the result? I will tell you: The result would be one of two things:

• They would fall in with the "global warming" crowd despite their personal views.
• They would be marginalized within the scientific community and their funding would dry up, thus effectively destroying their ability to continue in the scientific arena.

Now, what do we see?

[FunkyTown]

What would be the result? I will tell you: The result would be one of two things:

• They would fall in with the "global warming" crowd despite their personal views.
• They would be marginalized within the scientific community and their funding would dry up, thus effectively destroying their ability to continue in the scientific arena.

Now, what do we see?

Vort? The problem with this frame of thinking is that it's presumptive reasoning.

I could also say:

The vast majority of scientists believe in Global Warming. If you disagree with global warming considering the evidence, you must be crazy. Now, what would happen if someone were a crazy scientist?

• They would rant about Global Warming being a lie and granted a disproportionate amount of publicity simply because their views are so lurid. For examples of this, see the Westboro Baptist Church.
• They would be marginalized within the scientific community and their funding would dry up, thus effectively destroying their ability to continue in the scientific arena.

Now - What do we see?

Your list doesn't actually prove anything. It doesn't even suggest the truth. Until "Global warming is a hoax" becomes the truth, we have to assume global warming is real. Otherwise, we're just believing what we want.

[Vort]

Vort? The problem with this frame of thinking is that it's presumptive reasoning.

I could also say:

The vast majority of scientists believe in Global Warming. If you disagree with global warming considering the evidence, you must be crazy. Now, what would happen if someone were a crazy scientist?

Yet this is not at all parallel to what I wrote.

Until "Global warming is a hoax" becomes the truth, we have to assume global warming is real.

Why?

Otherwise, we're just believing what we want.

Not at all. We are questioning the status quo.

Or do you think it was simply paranoid delusion to question Bush's Iraq involvement?

[FunkyTown]

Yet this is not at all parallel to what I wrote.

Why?

Not at all. We are questioning the status quo.

Or do you think it was simply paranoid delusion to question Bush's Iraq involvement?

Not at all. I think questioning the status quo is important: The truth must out, as the saying goes.

I'm concerned, however: I think the 'Global Warming is a hoax' people raise some good concerns, but I worry because most people who believe that it's a hoax state it as absolute fact when the majority of environmental scientists disagree with them.

I'm pleased that people question it. Not so pleased that the answer has already been decided that we will only listen to the scientists we want to believe.

[ryanh]

majority of environmental scientists disagree with them.

You really think that is an accurate fact?

[Guest]

Not at all. I think questioning the status quo is important: The truth must out, as the saying goes.

I'm concerned, however: I think the 'Global Warming is a hoax' people raise some good concerns, but I worry because most people who believe that it's a hoax state it as absolute fact when the majority of environmental scientists disagree with them.

I'm pleased that people question it. Not so pleased that the answer has already been decided that we will only listen to the scientists we want to believe.

Funky and everyone else in the pro-global-warming crowd. I cannot speak for anybody else, but I can say this... I am not in the global warming crowd even if I can believe that the earth is warming. The ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE EARTH IS WARMING/COOLING. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER MAN CAUSES IT. And that, FT, contains ZERO VERIFIABLE, QUANTIFIABLE PROOF in any of the research I have found. NONE. WHATSOEVER.

So, yeah, the arctic ice could possibly be melting. The earth got out of the ice age, didn't it? Question is, when Obama makes a speech after the New Hampshire primary (or was it Iowa) and state, "I will stop global warming" (you can find the transcript of that speech using google), you kinda have to stand up and say, "Bull!". And that goes for Al Gore as well.