Is Global Warming a myth?

ptif219 said:

So if the EPA did not use IPCC data what data did they use?

Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Click to expand...

It was explained at the EPA site you linked ~

"Specific information about the U.S. government's role in conducting and evaluating science as well as EPA's role in these efforts can be found on the Climate Change Science Program and EPA Research and Assessment pages in the Policy section." (see below)
Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


"The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is one of the largest components of the U.S. climate program. CCSP is a multi-agency effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its potential impacts.
The CCSP integrates federal research on climate and global change, as sponsored by thirteen federal agencies and overseen by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget."
Climate Change Science Program | Climate Change - U.S. Climate Policy | U.S. EPA

"The planning and implementation of EPA’s climate research and assessment activities are closely coordinated with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP Strategic Plan called for the production of 21 rigorously peer reviewed Synthesis and Assessment reports over a three-year period. EPA was a lead agency on the three reports listed below and contributed to most of the others.
• Report #4.1 Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region.
• Report #4.4 Preliminary reviews of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources.
• Report #4.6 Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems.
These assessments were conducted through an open Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process that strictly adhered to guidelines on information quality assurance and peer review."
Climate Change Science Program - EPA Research and Assessment | Climate Change - U.S. Climate Policy | U.S. EPA

Catawba said:

It was explained at the EPA site you linked ~

"Specific information about the U.S. government's role in conducting and evaluating science as well as EPA's role in these efforts can be found on the Climate Change Science Program and EPA Research and Assessment pages in the Policy section." (see below)
Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA


"The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is one of the largest components of the U.S. climate program. CCSP is a multi-agency effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its potential impacts.
The CCSP integrates federal research on climate and global change, as sponsored by thirteen federal agencies and overseen by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget."
Climate Change Science Program | Climate Change - U.S. Climate Policy | U.S. EPA

"The planning and implementation of EPA’s climate research and assessment activities are closely coordinated with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The CCSP Strategic Plan called for the production of 21 rigorously peer reviewed Synthesis and Assessment reports over a three-year period. EPA was a lead agency on the three reports listed below and contributed to most of the others.
• Report #4.1 Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region.
• Report #4.4 Preliminary reviews of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources.
• Report #4.6 Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and welfare and human systems.
These assessments were conducted through an open Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process that strictly adhered to guidelines on information quality assurance and peer review."
Climate Change Science Program - EPA Research and Assessment | Climate Change - U.S. Climate Policy | U.S. EPA

Click to expand...

Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Many other countries also develop national greenhouse gas inventories, which can be compiled into global inventories. EPA works with developing and transition countries to improve the accuracy and sustainability of their greenhouse gas inventories. EPA has developed Greenhouse Gas Inventory Capacity Building templates and software tools targeting key sources, emissions factors, good practices, institutional infrastructure and use of the latest IPCC guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories.

ptif219 said:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Many other countries also develop national greenhouse gas inventories, which can be compiled into global inventories. EPA works with developing and transition countries to improve the accuracy and sustainability of their greenhouse gas inventories. EPA has developed Greenhouse Gas Inventory Capacity Building templates and software tools targeting key sources, emissions factors, good practices, institutional infrastructure and use of the latest IPCC guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories.

Click to expand...

The EPA description of their methodology list IPCC guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories as just one small part of the research they utilized to make their findings.

Navy Pride said:

There are more and more scientists out there every day that might disagree with you.....Just go to google and type in global warming myth and you will see...........

Click to expand...

Do you check the background of these "scientists"? Many are supported my industry and oil companies.

Regardless of who says what about the climate, pollution is bad. Putting less pollution into the air is good. Wasting finite resources is bad. Recycling is good. There is no reason to not reduce pollution and to not manage our resources better.

Groucho said:

Then the aliens from area 51 who planned 9/11 will join with the Illuminati to shoot control waves into our minds.

Maybe this thread should be moved to the conspiracy board?

Click to expand...

How did you know that was our plan?

Global Warming - as it's being portrayed by and large in the media and by scientists and supporters of say the Al Gore camp, is a myth. Tieing together man-made Co2 emissions with now data that has been shown to be inconsistent at best, and at worst patently false leads investigators to one thing: Follow the money. As with anything, this push for acceptance of global man-made warming politically motivated people to make a lot of money on alternative fuels, power, ecology and other sciences, of which this money helps with pushing the ideology. That ideology is one that has a noble purpose, ie., to stop destroying and degrading our planet, natural resource and animals and to start ecological programs to preserve and maintain our planets balance. As soon as money enters into it where people and companys stand to make billions or trillions of dollars, such noble ideals are coopted and data get's corrupted or misused, people are corrupted and what may have been a sound theory is now a religion, bent on the destruction of the old oil/gas/natural fuels for bio, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Trading one satan for another.

Those who were open minded now have to be brain-washed into believing. Those who were cynical now are more so, and those who had scientific credibility are now struggling to understand what went wrong and what actually is accurate data and what does it mean while trying to understand what is and is not planted data. I think man has at a miniscule level affected the atmosphere but this was made a mountain from a mole hill by science to push an ideology, a view and a noble cause. That noble cause now has backfired and they've blown it. Any man made effect now is doubted while what probably is occurring is a cyclical warming/cooling stage as has been the earths history since the surface magma cooled and water collected on the surface.

Scientists need to look at themselves for they've screwed up their message and their credibility, just like the rest of the populate has screwed up our ecology. Truly they should be self hating for a long time to come, as for all their education and noble deeds they were destined to be just like those they hate. Self loathing 101.

Layla_Z said:

Regardless of who says what about the climate, pollution is bad. Putting less pollution into the air is good. Wasting finite resources is bad. Recycling is good. There is no reason to not reduce pollution and to not manage our resources better.

Click to expand...

Seems to be a very hard concept for some, doesn't it?

Perhaps we should just focus on energy efficiency and cleaning up this dirty freaking planet.

Noise pollution in cities is also pollution.

Global warming is not a myth, but the ridiculous focus on only global warming, is probably created only to avoid facing the ecological disasters we have at all walks of life.

Layla_Z said:

People really need to learn the difference between climate and weather.

The biggest mistake the scientific community made was calling the change in the climate "global warming" instead of "climate change".

Click to expand...

The biggest mistake the pseudo-scientific community made was getting the politicians involved to promote their loony-toon ideas and believing that their hoax would never be discovered.

All scientific hoaxes are found out, it's what real scientists live to do. And while AGW is the biggest hoax ever, it's still just a hoax and it's been found out.

When the devout believers in AGW can explain why the recipe they propose to fix "global cooling" is exactly the same recipe to fix "global warming", they'll have taken the first step towards growing back to reality.

The rest of us are fully aware that the only reason the IPCC and others dropped the phrase "global warming" in favor of "climate change" was that the last decade has been a decade of cooling and the falsity of the AGW crowd was becoming even more apparent than it was anyway.

Maximus Zeebra said:

Perhaps we should just focus on energy efficiency and cleaning up this dirty freaking planet.

Noise pollution in cities is also pollution.

Global warming is not a myth, but the ridiculous focus on only global warming, is probably created only to avoid facing the ecological disasters we have at all walks of life.

Click to expand...

No one is abandoning regulation of other pollutants to put all our marbles on CO2 pollution. C02 pollution is a priority because of its potential to end life on the planet as we know it. Noise pollution does not.

Catawba said:

I submitted confirmation from our own EPA's findings (under both parties), that in addition to the findings of scientists from 180 countries trumps everything presented in your articles from my perspective.

Those EPA findings are the basis of new CAFE requirements and will soon be used to regulate C02 emissions from industry just like other air pollutants, which will not require Congressional approval.

This will represent the biggest reduction in C02 emissions in the history of the US.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know the Lefties have managed to get the EPA to falsely proclaim that CO2 is a pollutant. After all, if CO2 was called a pollutant, the EPA would expand it's power over the nation hugely, and what petty bureaucrat doesn't dream of being able to do just that?

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a source of amusement, as college beer belching contests prove. It's a source of food for photosynthetic plants, as the addition of CO2 to greenhouses shows. It's a natural product of combustion, as everyone who breathes should know.

But it's not a pollutant. It's not even toxic at levels far in excess of anything even the most devout of the devout AGW's claim can happen.

It's just....hot gas, just like AGW.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yes, we know the Lefties have managed to get the EPA to falsely proclaim that CO2 is a pollutant. After all, if CO2 was called a pollutant, the EPA would expand it's power over the nation hugely, and what petty bureaucrat doesn't dream of being able to do just that?

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a source of amusement, as college beer belching contests prove. It's a source of food for photosynthetic plants, as the addition of CO2 to greenhouses shows. It's a natural product of combustion, as everyone who breathes should know.

But it's not a pollutant. It's not even toxic at levels far in excess of anything even the most devout of the devout AGW's claim can happen.

It's just....hot gas, just like AGW.

Click to expand...

All pollutants have an acceptable risk level. And all pollutants are regulated below that level. CO2 is no different, as the new EPA findings have shown.

If you wish to cling to world conspiracy theories suit yourself.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Yes, we know the Lefties have managed to get the EPA to falsely proclaim that CO2 is a pollutant. After all, if CO2 was called a pollutant, the EPA would expand it's power over the nation hugely, and what petty bureaucrat doesn't dream of being able to do just that?

Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a source of amusement, as college beer belching contests prove. It's a source of food for photosynthetic plants, as the addition of CO2 to greenhouses shows. It's a natural product of combustion, as everyone who breathes should know.

But it's not a pollutant. It's not even toxic at levels far in excess of anything even the most devout of the devout AGW's claim can happen.

It's just....hot gas, just like AGW.

Click to expand...

Thats carbon already in the carbon cycle. The paleocarbon being released when oil burns is new carbon being added to the carbon cycle, forcing the atmosphere to increase it's total capacity. Thats the argument that the CO2 being released is bad, because it was previously stored, and is now being readded to the environment, which the environment is not suited to handling correctly.

Catawba said:

C02 pollution is a priority because of its potential to end life on the planet as we know it.

Click to expand...

CO2 has ZERO potential to do this to planet Earth.

This kind of hysteria is incredibly amusing to watch, until one realizes that the con-men have succeeded in wasting yet another human mind.

repeter said:

Thats carbon already in the carbon cycle. The paleocarbon being released when oil burns is new carbon being added to the carbon cycle, forcing the atmosphere to increase it's total capacity. Thats the argument that the CO2 being released is bad, because it was previously stored, and is now being readded to the environment, which the environment is not suited to handling correctly.

Click to expand...

Right.

So what you're saying is that OLD CO2 is nice and friendly, but NEW CO2 is EeeeevillLLLLL!!!!!

Yeah, whatever.

CO2 ain't a pollutant.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

CO2 has ZERO potential to do this to planet Earth.

This kind of hysteria is incredibly amusing to watch, until one realizes that the con-men have succeeded in wasting yet another human mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have made your opinion known. Thanks!

In the meantime............

EPA Moves to Regulate CO2 as a Hazard to Health

Read more: EPA: Greenhouse Gases a Health Hazard; Regulation Coming - TIME

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Right.

So what you're saying is that OLD CO2 is nice and friendly, but NEW CO2 is EeeeevillLLLLL!!!!!

Yeah, whatever.

CO2 ain't a pollutant.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is newly introduced CO2 is bad for the environment, because the atmosphere already has reached a saturation point. While the net effect of this increase in CO2 isn't devastating, it starts a chain reaction. The paleocarbon, which is released from burning fossil fuels, increases the amount of thermal energy stored in the Earth's atmosphere very marginally.

But, this is still a problem, because then this slight increase in energy increases the amount of water which evaporates, because warmer water evaporates faster. This is the problem. By far the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, which starts its own little (metaphorically speaking) chain reaction, warming, and releasing more and more water vapor through evaporation.

This process also starts with minute increases in methane, or CH4. The difference with the methane, largely released by livestock, is that it isn't a paleocarbon. Therefore, the environment is suited to hold the methane, because it is just being transferred from the livestock to the atmosphere, which is readily transferred into plants.

Do you understand now? Its indirectly the increase of paleocarbons that causes global warming, which leads to, in parts of the world, snow storms of unparalleled ferocity. But thats meteorology. Just ask if you need me to explain that as well.

repeter said:

What I'm saying is newly introduced CO2 is bad for the environment, because the atmosphere already has reached a saturation point. While the net effect of this increase in CO2 isn't devastating, it starts a chain reaction. The paleocarbon, which is released from burning fossil fuels, increases the amount of thermal energy stored in the Earth's atmosphere very marginally.

But, this is still a problem, because then this slight increase in energy increases the amount of water which evaporates, because warmer water evaporates faster. This is the problem. By far the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, which starts its own little (metaphorically speaking) chain reaction, warming, and releasing more and more water vapor through evaporation.

This process also starts with minute increases in methane, or CH4. The difference with the methane, largely released by livestock, is that it isn't a paleocarbon. Therefore, the environment is suited to hold the methane, because it is just being transferred from the livestock to the atmosphere, which is readily transferred into plants.

Do you understand now? Its indirectly the increase of paleocarbons that causes global warming, which leads to, in parts of the world, snow storms of unparalleled ferocity. But thats meteorology. Just ask if you need me to explain that as well.

Click to expand...

Just wondering...
How do we know "the atmosphere already has reached a saturation point."

The Mark said:

Just wondering...
How do we know "the atmosphere already has reached a saturation point."

Click to expand...

The atmosphere has been operating at saturation point. If it wasn't already at equilibrium, then more carbon would have been added into the cycle, naturally, from the ocean, or plants, or ground.

repeter said:

The atmosphere has been operating at saturation point. If it wasn't already at equilibrium, then more carbon would have been added into the cycle, naturally, from the ocean, or plants, or ground.

Click to expand...

Can we then assume that, with extra carbon involved, other changes will occur to keep the balance?

The Mark said:

Can we then assume that, with extra carbon involved, other changes will occur to keep the balance?

Click to expand...

The environment will change to match the increase in carbon, however that change is an increase in global temperature as per the explanation I gave in the last page of this thread.

repeter said:

The environment will change to match the increase in carbon, however that change is an increase in global temperature as per the explanation I gave in the last page of this thread.

Click to expand...

And this means?

The Mark said:

And this means?

Click to expand...

Global temperatures will increase, albeit slightly, but this will still have a very real affect upon our daily lives. For example, the recent snow storm on the East Coast was caused because of warmer water, which was warmed because (perhaps) of El Nino on the West coast (again, not sure about that) or because the water in the ITCZ (Inter-tropical convergence zone) has warmed. The ITCZ is where all hurricanes form, because thats where the water is warmest (relative to other areas on earth's surface), and the conditions just right.

Sorry if that is a bit fragmented, and hard to understand.

Catawba said:

The EPA description of their methodology list IPCC guidelines on greenhouse gas inventories as just one small part of the research they utilized to make their findings.

Click to expand...

Where does it say how large a part it is?