Global Warming a fraud?

[FunkyTown]

You really think that is an accurate fact?

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

I would say that an independant review of 928 peer-reviewed articles showing 75% believing in what was called 'The consensus'(Global warming) and 25% showing neutral on the issue, but rather addressing methodology concerns.... I would call that a fact, yes.

However, it sounds to me like you have a differing opinion. I'm more than willing to listen to a different study. The methodology in this seemed sound. This particular study didn't address if the issue was man-made or natural, but rather if global warming existed.

Regardless, feel free to post a differing peer review of close to 1000 papers that suggests the opposite. I'm willing to believe a margin of error in this. If it turns out to be close to 50%, I will be amazed, however, which is what it would have to be close to in order for the majority of Scientists to believe global warming is a myth.

[FunkyTown]

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.

Now THIS is an argument with weight and merit. The earth goes through climate change: The age of dinosaurs, the Ice Age. To think it would stop simply because it would be inconvenient for us would be absurd.

I would agree, Ana. I don't know if current climate change is man-made or what the future holds. Frankly, I think the horrible lack of fresh water and their destruction via pollution is far more real than a greenhouse effect that we know will occur with or without our help.

If we believe global warming will occur, our only choices are:

1) What will the impact be?

2) Can we effect any meaningful change?

3) How?

4) Will effecting meaningful change cause more damage than it will save?

5) If we can not effect meaningful change, how can we prepare?

I haven't honestly seen anyone even try to answer these basic questions. That's what I, as a person, want to know.

[Vort]

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.

I can't disagree with any of this. Well, except maybe for the "majority of environmental scientists" part, since that is a self-selecting and self-policing group. But otherwise, I find your reasoning solid.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

might be a bit off topic here but personally I don't know if we're experiencing global warming, global cooling, climate change, or whatever. or if we're causing it. but I do think that there's no reason to not be careful with the environment and releasing those gases... in other words, there shouldn't need to be a potential global catastrophe for us to actually take notice that some of the things we do aren't that great and to do something about it.

[FunkyTown]

Are you also aware that the majority of these scientists are funded by DOE/NIST - ie - their paychecks come from our taxes. No carbon tax, no paycheck?

Peer-reviewed articles. Did you read some of the hijacked emails? Freedom of press... sad to know just how much the gov has their claws in the press. If your peers (who are paid by DOE/NIST) do not like your findings, they can refuse to publish them.

I did read some of the hijacked emails. Please have your newspaper of choice pressure to provide all the emails as showing cherry picked emails is not conducive to making a logical assumption.

The funny thing is: Fox isn't guilty of making the leaps that you're making. They're simply pointing out the various things being said - Both in the scientists defense and to his condemnation.

I would also be very interested for you to prove that these people with Doctorate degrees will be unemployable without a vast conspiracy to sell climate change.

[ADoyle90815]

The climate goes in cycles, where at times, there's a bit of a warming, other times, there's a mini ice age. Regardless of what may be causing climate changes, I also think that we should take better care of this planet as I would hate for it to take a major disaster to get us to change, especially if by the time that happens, it's too late to change things.

[FunkyTown]

That's... That's great, Changed. And not really what I was asking. I agreed that some of the emails were suspect, but without being able to see all the emails they hacked, they could have been guilty of cherry picking.

Firstly, since you have a Doctorate, I'm sure you're aware that cherry-picking information that matches what you want to believe is probably not the best methodology for finding the truth. I simply asked they publish all the emails they had.

Secondly, since I don't want to knock you down as a strawman, I'm asking for you to provide any of of what I had asked for in previous postings. To sum up, they were:

1) A fair, balanced poll of papers and/or scientists discussing climate change that show the majority do not believe in global warming.

2) Proof that scientists who simply told the truth about climate change become blacklisted and unemployable(Which would be a travesty, I agree. However, if groups were unwilling to stand up, that would suggest scientists would be less ethical than the actors guild who stood up to McCarthy - And I simply don't believe that).

So far, I have been quite open with my sources. I have quoted studies and provided source for most of what I have said. Not to set up a strawman argument(Well, that's not quite true. That's pretty much exactly what I am suggesting right now), but whenever I have posted anything other than 'Global warming is a lie!!!1!1!one!1!!exclamationpoint!!', I have gotten such gems of responses as:

I have a doctorate degree. I am published. I understand the process .

(Irrelevant, unverifiable and Appeal to Authority logical fallacy)

Are you also aware that the majority of these scientists are funded by DOE/NIST - ie - their paychecks come from our taxes. No carbon tax, no paycheck?

Peer-reviewed articles. Did you read some of the hijacked emails? Freedom of press... sad to know just how much the gov has their claws in the press. If your peers (who are paid by DOE/NIST) do not like your findings, they can refuse to publish them.

(No source providing proof scientists feel pressured to accept this. Just vague conspiracy theory)

You really think that is an accurate fact?

(This isn't even an argument. Simply a veiled attempt to cast dispute on something that I provided source on when asked. And he simply didn't respond to).

Since the pro-global warming side hasn't been any more convincing in this discussion than the anti-global warming side(Although the pro-global warming side was jumped faster than I could.), I can only go with what the majority believes. And that appears to be the Global Warming side.

[Guest]

Now THIS is an argument with weight and merit. The earth goes through climate change: The age of dinosaurs, the Ice Age. To think it would stop simply because it would be inconvenient for us would be absurd.

I would agree, Ana. I don't know if current climate change is man-made or what the future holds. Frankly, I think the horrible lack of fresh water and their destruction via pollution is far more real than a greenhouse effect that we know will occur with or without our help.

If we believe global warming will occur, our only choices are:

1) What will the impact be?

2) Can we effect any meaningful change?

3) How?

4) Will effecting meaningful change cause more damage than it will save?

5) If we can not effect meaningful change, how can we prepare?

I haven't honestly seen anyone even try to answer these basic questions. That's what I, as a person, want to know.

FT, I'm glad you see what I'm trying to say! I would love to end all discussions of whether the climate is changing. I would like for everybody to just take it as a possibility, if not fact, just to clear up the table so we can discuss the "how to deal with it" part of the discussion! One less hurdle and all that.

Your questions are similar to mine. Basically, what I'm trying to get at is contingency planning and preparation.

For example, one of my questions is: Would global warming be bad for mankind? If so, how many degrees of tolerance is mankind able to withstand? And if so, what can we do to protect ourselves from its impacts?

For example, a melting arctic could possibly cause change so that we can start using arctic regions for agriculture. Or, it could possibly cause consistent periodic rainfalls in the Sahara providing good climate for lush flaura and fauna. I mean, the simple welcome change of a white Christmas in the Philippines or finally, a hot summer in Argentina and no more rain in Seattle or London. So, if coho salmon goes extinct, would it then be replaced with lush populations of Caspian Tiger.

Or, climate change could be so that everybody will have to move civilization to the planet's core. Or everybody dies.

These are the types of studies I'm hoping we will see more of.

The thing is, I am putting environmental protection as a given already. This should already be happening on an individual basis - being responsible stewards of this planet. Always looking for better ways to conserve energy, protect animals and plants, and reduce waste. I like the reward system we have now - I just bought a super energy-efficient A/C unit and dishwasher. I expect to receive tax rebates at the end of the year. We shouldn't need some Kyoto-whatever or cap-and-trade stupidity to make man responsible. Just because you "exchanged" your carbon footprint with somebody doesn't make you a better steward of this planet.

[ryanh]

You really think that is an accurate fact?

(This isn't even an argument. Simply a veiled attempt to cast dispute on something that I provided source on when asked. And he simply didn't respond to).

Whoa! Are we having a bad day or something? I can't go a whole three hours without responding without something like this? Sorry, my employer comes first, breaks for my own interest are a far lesser priority. Geesh!

[Snow]

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.

I suppose that what you mean is that your "slams" (in this case - of me) are okay and helpful for the discussion, but my observations are unhelpful.

Feel free to keep your comments to yourself, and I'll feel free to opine as I wish. There's a whole flock of folks that take their science from Rush Limbaugh.

[bcguy]

I dont know who said that elnino is contributing to our missing salmon but its only 1/10 its normal run amount basicly devistation to the coho runs. Its so serios, our prime minister is asking for a inquiry.

[Hemidakota]

Can we recall Al Gore's Nobel Prize?

I wish we could...someone posted his personal home energy usage [bill] over two years ago and it reveals Gore is a hyprocrite to his own advice.

[Guest]

I wish we could...someone posted his personal home energy usage [bill] over two years ago and it reveals Gore is a hyprocrite to his own advice.

Read my posts a few pages ago and you'll see I'm not a big fan of Al Gore. But, this post is not accurate and is a needless slam against Al Gore.

I'll give you a juxtaposition:

Let's say I'm rich and I bought a 5,000 sq-foot house built in 1920. It is, of course, an energy hog as it was not built according to current energy standards. When I bought it, I consumed 8,000kwh of energy every month.

Let's say my friend who is also rich bought a 5,000 sq-foot house built in 2005. Of course, it is a more energy efficient house than mine. When he bought it, he consumed only 5,000 kwh.

Now, we all agree both me and my friend are not the most energy efficient people. So, we both made modifications to our houses so we can be "greener".

After my modifications, I was able to reduce my energy consumption so that I now only use 5,000 kwh. My neighbor made modifications so he now only uses 4,000kwh.

But then, the average (middle-class) folks use only 2,000kwh of energy per month - small houses and all that. So both my friend and I got labelled energy-hogs - me especially because I have a higher kwh than my friend which is really irritating after all the hard work I put into reducing my energy consumption without sacrificing my standard of living...

The way it looks, unless I give up my 5,000 sq. foot house and move into a 1,500 sq foot bungalow, I'll never be "green enough".

I guess that's what they expect out of Al Gore. I'm not in that mindset.

[Hemidakota]

It actually goes further than that....

[Vanhin]

Oh it's going to get really hot, before it's over. No doubt about that.

Vanhin

[Palerider]

According to Al Gore we only have 6yrs left before we burn up...

[bcguy]

Never in my life have I seen it at 104F or 40c in vancouver. It lasted almost a entire week. The high for this part of the world is 98F and that may last a day or two in august.

A few years ago, vancouver and British

Columbia broke out of a 4 year drought record. Entire north shore mountains were closed to the public and the Okanagan was on fire!

Our bark beetles that have a varicose appetite for western pine beetles, were surviving the winters. Normally, 80% of them die off when temps are below -30C in the interior for a week. Well, that has not happened in the last seven years. As a result, they flourished and multiplied to the point, thay wiped out 1/3 or more of our harvestable timber. Now marine scientist are finding dead humbolt squid on the west coast of Vancouver island. Those squid, are normally native to Mexico.

Yes the world is changing and we are feeling the effects!

[JudoMinja]

I happen to be an "environmental scientist" of sorts, having gone to college for an environmental degree, yet I consider myself far from an expert in the matter of global warming. There is too much information out there, all of it suspect, because there are various reasons and motives behind the studies and research. Some are looking specifically to prove global warming and the human factor in it, others to disprove it. Some attempt to do research simply for the sake of doing research, but these are far less likely to get funding.

I've never been one for all the nitty-gritty details as I prefer to look at the big picture. This adds to my feeling of not being a real expert, because one must really delve into the details to be sure of their validity, but this is the conclusion I have come to for myself:

Global warming is, yes, a part of a natural cycle of the earth which occurs very slowly. This explains the heightened overall average temperature of the globe during dinosaur times as well as the ice age. It is something that a small amount of data would have no hope of capturing as there will also be smaller cycles of ups and downs in the average temperature.

As far as the expected Little Ice Age is concerned, this was never experienced because we had already thrown the natural cycle out of wack. The majority of greenhouse gasses being contributed to the atmosphere has not come from industrialization but from agriculture. Tilling the earth, mass production of crops, destruction of the forests, and the mass grazing of cattle have all contributed to an increase in the greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere (one of the major ones actually being methane and not co2).

Global warming IS happening, with or without human influence. Humans HAVE contributed to speeding the rate of global warming. Coral is dying, unable to cope with the warming temperature of the ocean (even very slight changes smaller than a degree celcius have an affect on coral species as they are very sensitive to change). The sea level is rising, leaving many people who live on small islands with smaller and smaller areas of land to call home (eventually they will have nothing at all). Other sensitive species like amphibians are struggling and disappearing. Many places closer to the poles are experiencing shorter, harsher winters. The number of catestrophic natural events, storms, and disasters is increasing as nature seeks to maintain its balance. Ocean currents are shifting as temperatures change.

I do not believe that the earth is in any danger, however. Much of the changes on the planet occur slowly but earth is also no stranger to sudden catestrophic change. The earth will not be as it is now, many species will suffer and go extinct, but this is normal. Nature always finds a balance, new species come into being. Change is a part of life. Nothing is truly lost; it just transforms.

The question is whether the change will be too harsh for humanity to endure. Humanity will, of course, eventually meet its end on earth when Christ comes in his glory to reign and judge us according to our works. But is our influence on the changing climate something we can temper to be sure the world will be more hospitible for a while longer, giving us more time to prepare to meet our God?

Scripture says the day will come that the earth will burn like an oven. This is fact. The day WILL come, no matter what we do. This stands as a testimony that there are several factors contributing to global warming (like the sun) which we cannot control. Eventually, the earth will be too hot for us to endure. Earth will receive its paradisical glory in a baptism of fire and receive its place in the life after, just as we will.

But are we doing our part to care for and maintain the planet? The Lord gave us stewardship over the earth, trusting that we would treat it with the same love and care he expects us to treat our families. Wasteful living will destroy those things we hold dear. Perhaps, scientists' stumble on this phenomenon is simply another testimony of the principles the Lord has already taught us. Live within your means. Impart of your substance to one another. Let nothing go to waste. Care for others as you would yourself. Are we caring for this wonderful gift and home the Lord has created for us? If not, maybe we should rethink the way we are living.

[Over43]

It snowed in San Francisco yesterday, is that a sgin of global cooling? No, it just snowed in San Francisco. Although I do not buy into the "Global Warming" hysteria, I do think we need to practice sound ecological habits. There is nothing wrong with recycling items, using hemp grocery sacks instead of paper/plastic, riding a bike if the distance and weather permit, keeping the oceans clean, saving coral reefs, saving Koho salmon, growing our own gardens, setting aside habitat for preservation: be it ocean or land, etc. What does irritate me is "big" government's need to legislate and tax us into a "greener" world. As stated before, and now added to, if "experts" want to improve our natural world, then they need to lead the way by example, not having their own peronal jet, limo, 10,000 sq ft home, etc.

[Hemidakota]

Not only it will get alot hotter, those who will live in the Terrestrial state will need to have their mortal bodies adjust in order to survive this realm.

Our own Sun is nothing more than a Telestial glorified world and not fitted to shine upon those worlds, which will reside in a Terrestrial state. We do know by research of those stars nearer the center of this galaxy are much hotter than our own star. Yet, is science correct? Perhaps but not on the basis they are approaching this topic.

Now, imagine how it was during the garden when midst was a constant covering and the world resided in a Terrestrial state?

[FunkyTown]

Not only it will get alot hotter, those who will live in the Terrestrial state will need to have their mortal bodies adjust in order to survive this realm.

Our own Sun is nothing more than a Telestial glorified world and not fitted to shine upon those worlds, which will reside in a Terrestrial state. We do know by research of those stars nearer the center of this galaxy are much hotter than our own star. Yet, is science correct? Perhaps but not on the basis they are approaching this topic.

Now, imagine how it was during the garden when midst was a constant covering and the world resided in a Terrestrial state?

Hemi? You need to start quoting sources in things like this. I love you like a brother, but when you say things that aren't doctrine like they're fact, you need to explain where you're getting these things. Otherwise, it just makes you sound like one of the Fringe-ites who come on here!

You've gotta quote source.

[Hemidakota]

Read the D&C...

[Just_A_Guy]

Very thought-provoking post, JudoMinja. Thanks.

I hear a lot about rising sea levels, but see little about particular islands whose land masses are being submerged. Would be interested to see some links on this, if anyone has any particularly good ones they'd care to provide (also an explanation as to why tidal ranges in--say--San Francisco or New York City don't seem to be changing (or are they))?

[FunkyTown]

Read the D&C...

I have, Hemi. Please quote specifics.

[rameumptom]

I agree that we need to take care of our planet. That said, there are effective ways of accomplishing it, and there are "feel good" useless ways of doing so.

If we want to reduce global warming, some scientists have suggested a very inexpensive way of doing so: just emit particles into the upper atmosphere that would reflect some of the sun's heat and radiation away from the earth. It would cost less than a billion dollars to manage this for the entire earth. Instead, we have 15,000 people showing up at a global warming summit right now (how is that for expanding a footprint?) to discuss cap and trade and other methods that even scientists agree will have a dubious effect on warming. The best estimates for the Kyoto Treaty would have reduced the global temperature by less than 1/2 a degree over 50 years!

Wouldn't it be better to spend our time, money and energy where they are more efficient and effective? How about cleaning our air and water? Ensuring wildlife species have sufficient habitat? How about focusing more on green, renewable energy sources, so we can reduce our carbon emissions? How about building more nuclear power plants?

As it is, I'm skeptical about global warming and then that it is caused by mankind. With the recent scandals by one of the leading climate research facilities in the world, it is time we scrubbed the data clean and took a new, reliable and accurate look at the data, to see what it really is trying to tell us. As it is, chaos theory tells me that many things can/could cause global warming or climate change. El Nino is causing climate change as we speak, throughout North America. It may have a bigger impact than any global warming. The Sun's cycles can also cause global warming or cooling. We've just gone through a cycle of warming with the Sun. What if we get global cooling over the next few years? Will scientists backtrack and decide it was the Sun causing most of the warming in the first place? The Sun's warming of the earth, also warmed Mars. No, that was not George Bush's fault, nor any other human that Mars is warming up.

While global warming scientists focus on the shrinking Arctic ice cap, they conveniently tend to ignore the growing ice cap at Antarctica. Global warming should cause both to shrink, don't you think? Twenty years ago, we worried about a hole in the ozone layer. Then found it grows and shrinks annually.

Let's take a new look at the data, ensure it is correct, then have a good discussion on the possible causes. And let's do this before we risk having bad or fraudulent science decide the future of our economies and world? What happens if we reduce global warming, only to find the earth was already going into a major cooling period, as some major scientists predict? Will our efforts increase the cooling into creating a Little Ice Age? How many people and animal species would die in such a scenario? While a little heat can harm the coral reefs, a lot of cold can destroy them.

Finally, let's not forget that creatures adapt to change. There were coral reefs back in the days of the dinosaurs, when the earth was warmer than it is now. They adapted and survived.

Edited December 8, 2009 by rameumptom