Global warming scam?

CNSNews.com - A False Frenzy on Global Warming

Another article that refutes GW....
The way I see GW, it exists, but man's contribution is insignificant.

Having said that, I think it is still very wise to limit our use of carbon fuels based on the expense involved in our wasting of it in the first place, and the further economic impact of the pollution resulting from burning fossil fuels.
Energy conservation by limiting its use, and and my more efficient use where we must use it are essential to a sound economy.
No smart manufacturer hauls its waste to the dump when they might be able to make something useful from it. And no smart manufacturer sticks with processes that generates excess waste when alternate processes are financially feasible.

I have an issue with allowing everyone except the US to fill the skies with black smoke, because somehow we're the supposed bad guys in the world. I don't see treehuggers protesting in third world countries where no attention to the environment exists. Americans are supposed to be all green while other nations are allowed to defecate directly into a river. This intellectual dishonesty is what convinces me of the folly of global warming and the crookedness of the global warming promoters.

CNS News (basically the Onion is probably a more reputable news source) versus every single Scientific Society in the Western World with expertise in Climate............. Hmmmm, gosh after thinking about it, I think I am going to go with The National Academy of Sciences over "CNS News".

I searched John Coleman and found a 40 page pdf file of his comments on Global Warming,


http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf


I agree that there seems to be a political element to the poor countries complaining about the rich countries, and the Liberal Democrats (out of power) complaining about the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrast (In power).

Conservation of fossil fuels is an answer to the man induced extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Conservation is not a bad idea if not done in a "frenzy" or inconvenient regulations or laws.

Nepal does not use much Gasoline, and they pride themselves on being pleasant, happy, well exercised, with good longevity. People in Nepal mostly walk to wherever the need to go.


..

I agree with UtahBill when he says that our contribution seems to be insignificant.

We need to remember that within Earth's atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen make up over 95% of it. Less than 2% is the actual c02 that is in the air.

But as a part of Earth's natural cycle, I think that there is a sort of "global warming" that is indeed happening. The problem is we think we need Kyoto or whatnot to stop this.

However, by trying to ineffectively combat it in itself instead of trying to combat its effects, we are wasting money and making the problem worse. Think about it: take some of the money you could waste on global warming and Kyoto and instead put it in treatment for animals affected by the crisis, like polar bears and penguins.

"Atmosphereic warming does not exceed that of the surface..." Which means that there is no appreciable Greenhouse Warming effect. The Atmospheric increases should be 2-3 times greater than surface temperature warming, if a greenhouse effect was causing the warming of the surface of the Earth.

P, 21

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf


2 May o6

Previously reported temperature increases in Atmospheric Temperatures compared to Surface Air Temperatures were incorrect, and have been revised. There is no appreciable difference between Atmospheric and Surface Temperatures on Earth, therefore Global Warming is not being caused by an increase in the Greenhouse effect, from CO2 or any other increase in greenhouse gasses, from man, beast or the elements.

Press release: Report reconciles atmospheric temperature trends (2 May 2006)



CO2 reported to cause FORCING, causing warming temperatures is based on false calcualtions.

P. 18-21, Media.Kusi


..

Global Warming is one of the biggest scams in the history of humanity. Its ridiculess what the evirmentalist politicians are pulling off

thecheesypig said:

Global Warming is one of the biggest scams in the history of humanity. Its ridiculess what the evirmentalist politicians are pulling off

Click to expand...

I think this is monumental, the news that upper Atmosphric temperatures were incorrect, and that in comparison with Surface Temperatures, the upper Atmospheric temperatures are not significantly higher.

NASA satellite temperature measurements fuel Global Warming debate




..

I have said before that we have too few measurements taken, and one of your links shows that many of the temperature monitoring stations are incorrectly sited in close proximity to man made heat sources.

I have also said before that if you are paying engineers and scientists to come to a conclusion, they will take their sweet time doing so. They get paid by the hour, and if they finish the job too soon, they are out of work.
Don't we all get too comfortable in our jobs at times, and resist change? Completion of a project means having to start another, and there may not be funds for another...

And you don't hear much about volcanic warming of the oceans in these studies.
Most of that heat source is under the oceans, where we can't see or measure so easily. Get the oceans warmed up a single degree and you have a LOT of heat storage that has to go somewhere, and where else but to the atmosphere? But until we got satellites to measure ocean surface temperatures, we were running almost blind in that department. Water stores a lot more heat than air and will have a longer term effect on temperatures over time. But even then, we are measuring surface temperatures, and part of that is from solar. How do we determine where the heat comes from in constantly mixing oceans?
The issue is too complicated for even the best minds using the largest computers, especially if you start the study with preconceived notions....

The linked article is a secondhand account from a political commentator of a speech about a weatherman's opinion, without any quantifiable data. How is it "remarkable" thought in any conceivable way? He criticizes science without producing any himself. *Yawn*

The more subjective level of "alarm", however, is something more reasonable to debate, but unless he actually produces some data to back up a claim, then he really doesn't have much to say.

Is it alarming that some agricultural areas may become deserts? It would depend on the scale of the change and the rate of change. It may also depend on the geopolitical distribution of those changes. What might happen if much of America becomes an infertile desert and Russia became the breadbasket of the world? Russia already has the largest reserves of natural gas and has the second largest oil reserves in the world, - what if they also controlled much of the food supply as well? As it is, even without climate change, American grainbelt aquifers are being sucked dry by overuse.

The rate of those changes are also very significant since people and economies can accommodate to change only so quickly. Even subtle climatic changes can bring sudden changes in weather patterns which can produce dramatic changes in livability and economic viability to large areas. For example, the possible increase and severity of hurricanes might make 100 yr storms come through with 10 yr or less frequency which could eviscerate economies in the areas affected.

Whether the human species will survive is not the real alarm, since clearly we have survived as a species through various climatic changes, the "alarm" is the concern whether humanity will survive with similar economic viability and geopolitical stability. If you are unaware, there are approximately 6692 times as many people living simultaneously today than there were 12,000 years ago, - a population that requires a sophisticated and stratified civilization to perpetuate itself at its current size.

metreon said:

Is it alarming that some agricultural areas may become deserts? It would depend on the scale of the change and the rate of change. It may also depend on the geopolitical distribution of those changes. What might happen if much of America becomes an infertile desert and Russia became the breadbasket of the world? Russia already has the largest reserves of natural gas and has the second largest oil reserves in the world, - what if they also controlled much of the food supply as well? As it is, even without climate change, American grainbelt aquifers are being sucked dry by overuse.

The rate of those changes are also very significant since people and economies can accommodate to change only so quickly. Even subtle climatic changes can bring sudden changes in weather patterns which can produce dramatic changes in livability and economic viability to large areas. For example, the possible increase and severity of hurricanes might make 100 yr storms come through with 10 yr or less frequency which could eviscerate economies in the areas affected.

Whether the human species will survive is not the real alarm, since clearly we have survived as a species through various climatic changes, the "alarm" is the concern whether humanity will survive with similar economic viability and geopolitical stability. If you are unaware, there are approximately 6692 times as many people living simultaneously today than there were 12,000 years ago, - a population that requires a sophisticated and stratified civilization to perpetuate itself at its current size.

Click to expand...

We had the dust bowl years in the central corridor, and we got past that, but the point about having to import food as well as energy is not only valid but scary. We need to find a way to pump some of the excess rains from the mid west to the grain belt, perhaps even recharging the aquifers in those areas. More nuclear power and large pumping stations and pipelines could make a difference.....
Most of the time we have plenty of water, but a lot of it is in the wrong places and at the wrong time, causing flooding in some parts of the USA, and drought in other parts. We need a national water grid.....

metreon said:

The linked article is a secondhand account from a political commentator of a speech about a weatherman's opinion, without any quantifiable data. How is it "remarkable" thought in any conceivable way? He criticizes science without producing any himself. *Yawn*

.

Click to expand...

I searched his ideas and came up with articles to support the concept that the Upper Atmosperic temeratures were incorrectly calculated against he surface temperatures.

Press release: Report reconciles atmospheric temperature trends (2 May 2006)

If you have countervailing articles, after May 2006, I would be interested.

Gladiator said:

I searched his ideas and came up with articles to support the concept that the Upper Atmosperic temeratures were incorrectly calculated against he surface temperatures.

Press release: Report reconciles atmospheric temperature trends (2 May 2006)

If you have countervailing articles, after May 2006, I would be interested.

Click to expand...

Given that the conclusions of the article mostly support anthropogenic global warming, it is not a very good choice to illustrate the validity of the op-ed of the thread, which ridicules the notion. If your intent was to support the opinion of the original op-ed heading this thread, which opposed the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming, then you have just supplied your own countervailing article.

The science article provided summarizes many of the elements I feel are important but glosses others which may be important in the overall system of heat capture. As pointed out in other posts, there are a variety of non-atmospheric components to this issue. For example, the long-term increase in lower tropospheric temperatures over many years is, on a shorter decadal scale, punctuated with declines that are associated with surface events that one would think should immediately respond to such decreases, such as arctic ice cover.

In my opinion, such "conflicts" are best analyzed by finding the way in which the long-term increase in heat in the system is being preserved, rather than look at the short-term conflicts as a means to argue against any conclusion. As we have recently seen in the news, the arctic ice sheet has, for the first time in 125,000 years become disconnected from any continent. All that in the face of a seven year decline in lower tropospheric temperatures.

metreon said:

Given that the conclusions of the article mostly support anthropogenic global warming, it is not a very good choice to illustrate the validity of the op-ed of the thread, which ridicules the notion. If your intent was to support the opinion of the original op-ed heading this thread, which opposed the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming, then you have just supplied your own countervailing article.

The science article provided summarizes many of the elements I feel are important but glosses others which may be important in the overall system of heat capture. As pointed out in other posts, there are a variety of non-atmospheric components to this issue. For example, the long-term increase in lower tropospheric temperatures over many years is, on a shorter decadal scale, punctuated with declines that are associated with surface events that one would think should immediately respond to such decreases, such as arctic ice cover.

In my opinion, such "conflicts" are best analyzed by finding the way in which the long-term increase in heat in the system is being preserved, rather than look at the short-term conflicts as a means to argue against any conclusion. As we have recently seen in the news, the arctic ice sheet has, for the first time in 125,000 years become disconnected from any continent. All that in the face of a seven year decline in lower tropospheric temperatures.

Click to expand...

Global warming is occuring, but is not being caused by man. Greenhouse gasses are teh main theory of why man and CO2 are causing the current global warming. Since greenhouse gasses are not driving the current global warming, then Man is not CAUSING the global warming, and those people still advocting actdon to reduce Global Warming are simply advocating some political agenda.

Man should act on Global Warming, by making plans for the effects of Global Warming in public policy decisions, such as public housing and road building in areas near rivers. River levels will rise as the sea level rises.

Building of roads and highways should be routed to areas at least 60 feet above sea level. The sea level may rise 50 feet, plus 10 feet for storm surge. The New Orleas Katrina disaster relief was delayed becuase no plans had been formulated about which roads to use and what route to take to provide evacuation assistance. The Stadium was cut off by roads that were too far under water. The Convention Center had above water road access. So the Convention Center Could have been used, not the stadium, as a point as a refugee staging area. TheConvention Center was used for hte hurricane prepartion a week or so later, for he next, weaker hurricane.

Flood insurance should be rated according to those properties above 60 feet above sea level, and those properties below 60 feet above sea level, so a public policy incentive is provided, for building and renovating buildings below 60 feet above sea level is disincentivized.






..

Gladiator said:

Global warming is occuring, but is not being caused by man. Greenhouse gasses are teh main theory of why man and CO2 are causing the current global warming. Since greenhouse gasses are not driving the current global warming, then Man is not CAUSING the global warming, and those people still advocting actdon to reduce Global Warming are simply advocating some political agenda.

Man should act on Global Warming, by making plans for the effects of Global Warming in public policy decisions, such as public housing and road building in areas near rivers. River levels will rise as the sea level rises.

Building of roads and highways should be routed to areas at least 60 feet above sea level. The sea level may rise 50 feet, plus 10 feet for storm surge. The New Orleas Katrina disaster relief was delayed becuase no plans had been formulated about which roads to use and what route to take to provide evacuation assistance. The Stadium was cut off by roads that were too far under water. The Convention Center had above water road access. So the Convention Center Could have been used, not the stadium, as a point as a refugee staging area. TheConvention Center was used for hte hurricane prepartion a week or so later, for he next, weaker hurricane.

Flood insurance should be rated according to those properties above 60 feet above sea level, and those properties below 60 feet above sea level, so a public policy incentive is provided, for building and renovating buildings below 60 feet above sea level is disincentivized.






..

Click to expand...

Definitely.....anybody building in flood plains is just asking for it....
those lands are useful, but not for housing. Some of the river beds in the Phoenix area are made into parks but those parks are built with the knowledge that they WILL flood periodically. They are built in a way that the flooding does little damage, and the mess is easily cleaned up. 364 days a year, most years, those river beds are mostly dry, with maybe a trickle of water, a small stream, running down the middle.
Flood plains could also be used for farming, altho there will be some years that crops will be lost. But most of the time, the land will grow crops. Just build the house and barn above the expected flood levels, and the land becomes useful, most of the time.
But under no circumstances build any structure that you want to be permanent in a flood prone area. If you do, no insurance company anywhere should have to insure you. Government backed flood insurance should be stopped.
One of the TV news magazines did a show on flood insurance, John Stossel (I think) admitted that he had a beach house that was sure to be destroyed periodically, but that flood insurance encourages people to build there, and rebuild there after hurricanes. It is a scam that the taxpayers fund....

People who don't 'believe' in global-warming are in denial. It's as bad if not worse than denying evolution.

LeoByte said:

People who don't 'believe' in global-warming are in denial. It's as bad if not worse than denying evolution.

Click to expand...

Clearly evolution has contributed significantly to global warming....
If man had not evolved from the lower creatures, there would never have been an industrial age, and altho global warming would still exist, it could be blamed solely on natural causes.

LeoByte said:

People who don't 'believe' in global-warming are in denial. It's as bad if not worse than denying evolution.

Click to expand...

Many people confuse driving a car with Global Warming.

If everyone stopped using fossil fuels, stopped burning carbon, stop making CO2, would Global Warming continue?

The fact that Global Warming is coccuring while Man burns Fossil Fuesl, making CO2, does not necessarily mean that Global Warming is Caused by Man's production of CO2.

Lies have been told, now disproven claims that Global Warming was being Caused by the Greenhouse effect.

Al Gore's movie makes this claim, but Al Gore has not appologised.

Transcript:

Politics Blog An Inconvient Truth Transcript




..

Global warming suffers from the same syndrome we've seen throughout human history. If you can't see it, and you can't touch it, it must not be real.

Unfortunately, by the time people can see it and touch it, it will be a global catastrophe.

gregleo said:

I agree with UtahBill when he says that our contribution seems to be insignificant.

We need to remember that within Earth's atmosphere, hydrogen and oxygen make up over 95% of it. Less than 2% is the actual c02 that is in the air.

Click to expand...

Actually it's nitrogen and oxygen. 78% and 20.95% respectively. That much hydrogen would be explosive.

Just because Co2 is a small percent doesn't mean it doesn't have a large effect. Methane is a tiny percent but the addition of small amount to a controlled experiment results in drastic temperature changes. From what I've read, Co2 isn't the real threat. It's methane. It's just that Co2 is causing ice to melt which releases more methane.

obvious Child said:

Actually it's nitrogen and oxygen. 78% and 20.95% respectively. That much hydrogen would be explosive.

Just because Co2 is a small percent doesn't mean it doesn't have a large effect. Methane is a tiny percent but the addition of small amount to a controlled experiment results in drastic temperature changes. From what I've read, Co2 isn't the real threat. It's methane. It's just that Co2 is causing ice to melt which releases more methane.

Click to expand...

A great deal of misinformation has been published, and not retracted.

Methan is supposed to be a greenhouse gas, that adds more greenhouse effect than CO2.

However, the Greenhouse effect is not driving the global warming that has been occurring over the last 100 years. So neither Methane or CO2 are causing Global Warming.

Foctors that might be driving Global warming include Solar Forcing, Volcanic heat, and cloud spacing/concentrations.


..

Gladiator said:

A great deal of misinformation has been published, and not retracted.

Methan is supposed to be a greenhouse gas, that adds more greenhouse effect than CO2.

However, the Greenhouse effect is not driving the global warming that has been occurring over the last 100 years. So neither Methane or CO2 are causing Global Warming.

Foctors that might be driving Global warming include Solar Forcing, Volcanic heat, and cloud spacing/concentrations.


..

Click to expand...

Did you see the TV show on global dimming? They make the point that without global dimming, global warming would be worse. Perhaps this is a natural feedback of warming that helps keep temperatures within habitable ranges?

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOVA | Dimming the Sun | PBS

LeoByte said:

People who don't 'believe' in global-warming are in denial. It's as bad if not worse than denying evolution.

Click to expand...

The same amount of denialism is involved as in any of the crank theories - creationism, HIV/AIDS skepticism, antivaccination, 9/11 Twoofers...

It all involves a hilarious denial of published research and evidence combined with vast claims of conspiracy and suppression of information. The tactics used in this campaign are identical to the tactics used by the tobacco industry decades ago when they were trying to convince us smoking wasn't bad for us, primarily because a lot of the same players are involved. Denialists ignore publishing their theories in any journals where real science debate occurs and instead focus on a mass media campaign - publishing books and opeds, showing up on talk shows, making television commercials, and challenge politicians to a throwdown on the science instead of anyone actually involved in the appropriate field. All done in order to sway an otherwise uneducated and ignorant public.

There's a wonderful video detailing the history of AGW skepticism here:
YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming

Heretic said:

The same amount of denialism is involved as in any of the crank theories - creationism, HIV/AIDS skepticism, antivaccination, 9/11 Twoofers...

It all involves a hilarious denial of published research and evidence combined with vast claims of conspiracy and suppression of information. The tactics used in this campaign are identical to the tactics used by the tobacco industry decades ago when they were trying to convince us smoking wasn't bad for us, primarily because a lot of the same players are involved. Denialists ignore publishing their theories in any journals where real science debate occurs and instead focus on a mass media campaign - publishing books and opeds, showing up on talk shows, making television commercials, and challenge politicians to a throwdown on the science instead of anyone actually involved in the appropriate field. All done in order to sway an otherwise uneducated and ignorant public.

Click to expand...

I agree Heretic. Global warming is nothing more than the government telling us how to live our lives. With this it will be a tax, they will have leverage over companies they like and dislike, they can determine which companies fail or succeed, and they can run the businesses.

Global warming is a fraud. There is what I mentioned above and other things to control us as well.

If this climate change was real and going to do what they say, the government could also do the following:

tell us what to eat
what to drive
when to drive
what to bathe with
how much we can drive
when to cut grass
what we have to buy
how much of a resource we can use
how often we can go out
whether or not we do certain recreational activities
what health or beauty products to use
what places to buy from
What type of house we live in

The list can go on and on. All in the name of an unproven theory.

FireFly said:

I agree Heretic.

Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid we don't agree at all, FireFly.