The Global Warming Swindle

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Haradek Shadowstalker

When Mt Pinatuba(sp?) in the Philipines blew up back in the late 80's it released more greenhouse gasses in that one blast than all the man made gasses of the previous 100 years...

That is unequivocally wrong. Average annual anthropogenic contributions of C02 are about 150x as great as volcanoes here. A large eruption like Pinatubo can temporarily lower this number but on the average volcanic emissions of greenhouse gases are dwarfed by human emissions. Additionally, large volcanic eruptions have a net cooling effect because of the large amount of particulate aerosols released into the air.

[Grumath]

yeah, why would anyone think such an insignificant amount could possibly change the climate?

Because if you look at the actual numbers, its the equivalent of pissing in an olympic pool. If you ask REAL scientists, they will tell you that CO2 doesn't have much affect on things (as seen in that video). And water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas. Why arent we concerned about how much water vapor is in the air?

Explain why nearly every other planet and moon in the solar system has increased in temperature nearly the same amount in the same timespans? You have to incorporate more than one piece into a complicated puzzle like this.

Don't fall prey to panic and sensationalism so easily. Global warming IS a business, as stated in the video. One that feeds off emotion, and not logic. Might as well send your money to the pope...

[...]

Oh i don't have numbers and charts on hand. I'm just not hip to a lot of other places energy is added to the earth from aside from the sun. It's certainly not a point I'd argue. I don't really have a strong opinion on it either way, nor have I researched it hardcore.

[Kugbok_Fennin]

Well first off, Global temp has nothing to do with your town. I don't care what the winters or summers have been like lately. Its about global mean temperature. Now that said, the global mean temp before the American Industrial Revolution was hotter then it is now.

Everyone keeps referring to graphs released by whomever, trying to show a correlation between rise and fall in temp and CO2 levels. Well every graph I have seen (mainly the IPCC report) show that about 800 years after temperatures begin to rise CO2 levels do the same. Further more, about 800 years after temperatures fall so do CO2 levels. Even still, the ICPP admits that their graphs (the ones that attempt to prove CO2 is a major cause of global warming) are based off old and possibly inaccurate data. So go figure.

Global warming is the new mormon religion. This is going to be used world wide to institute further systems of control over the worlds people. We can only speculate what they will try and pass off as solutions to emissions and consumption. Limiting travel, consumption of food, electricity, and other natural resources, all while the global elite sit back and enjoy the fruits we no longer have access too.

[tikkus]

Liberals want to ignore the fact that their godless, moral-free lifestyles are destroying the world and want to pin it on mother nature.

[Grumath]

oops

[Vorph]

Last time I checked, the "global elite" was all about discrediting global warming every chance they get because they fear any talk of exploring alternative energy sources. That's what this is really all about--keeping the world reliant on fossil fuels for as long as they possibly can.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Great piece. I really like how they compare Global Warming to religion. You can't question it or apply science to it or you are called a heretic. Heaven forbid we go through the scientific method and double check our findings, or update them after more observations. Change our hypothesis?! BLASPHEMY!

It's unfortunate in some cases when people with legitimate concerns suffer consequences for their ideas without proper inquiry.

But, when someone submits a study for peer review and they are handily rebutted by the scientific community---yet still hold to their ideas then they are the ones who have abandoned science for dogma.

It's a common theme in pseudoscience to paint the other side of the issue as religious or dogmatic (see here, evolution, a whole array of new age thinking---also one of the scientists in this video is one of those who believes that intelligent design is every bit as scientific as evolution). But in what way are those scientists who advocate global warming being religious? They draw on empirical evidence and make testable predictions. Their methods and conclusions are visible for all to see. If you can make a valid objection to their method or conclusion than do so directly. Resorting to broader psuedoskeptical claims of dogmatism is failure of true critical thought.

[AngryGerbil]

Originally Posted by Soriak

According to this chart, we release about 7 billion tons of carbon every year: (US GOV website)

yeah, why would anyone think such an insignificant amount could possibly change the climate?

Because it really is an insignifigant amount?

[Grumath]

I have seen empirical evidence of the temperature change, and empirical data of what humans put into the atmosphere. I have seen NO empirical data that can link the two. In fact, much of it shows no coorelation. It is up to the proposer of the idea to provide the data, and they haven't. Human global warming has as much data supporting it as a god. Its faith and emotionally driven.

The ideas in that video aren't new, people are just now finally listening a bit. No one has answered many of those questions...

Why did the temperature go down from 1940 to 1970 when the CO2 production was increasing on an exponential scale? Why is .5 C over 100 years "Bad", especially when most was before 1930? There is little to no scientific method or data provided on the side of global warming caused by manmade CO2.

[thunderbunny]

The global warming debate has to be the most pointless debate since pro choice vs. pro life went out of fashion. For one, what every scientist trying to advocate or oppose the level of human involvement in global warming is trying to do is akin to establishing spurious correlations. To my knowledge, no one to date has managed to reproduce a completely unbiased model of our earth's environment in which a variety of factors including Co2 emission could be varied and held constant to see the effects of such changes over time. If you do not have such a model making boisterous claims about XYZ being the definite cause of global warming or not is attention whoring and should result in a public flogging.

That said, I won't deny that human kind pumping out insane amounts of Co2 is bad. But what the fuck do you global warming fanatics think your whining will do about it? The latest raw data I was able to find put India's Co2 emissions at around 350'000 metric tons in 2002, up fron ~50'000 metric tons in 1950. China is at 1'200'000 metric tons in 2002, up from 200'000 metric tons in the 1950's. These countries have seen their Co2 emissions increase 6 and 7 fold while the Co2 emissions of the USA barely trippled in that timeframe.

The bottom line is - even if every global warming fanatic were to switch to a prius today that leaves 2.5 billion people in India and China who are not going to slow down the pace of their countries' industrialization any time soon because of some largely Western concern over global warming.

[Screamfeeder]

Who gives a fuck about global warming.

We have wind/solar power at my parents home/ranch for the single reason of not having to pay the power company.

My parents get to actually sell their excess power back to the power company. I think their last credit was like $43.00 or close to it.

THAT is the way to convince Americans.

Tell them about saving the planet and they are ambivalent.

Tell them it saves money and they will be all for it.

[Taranatar]

Originally Posted by Soriak

According to this chart, we release about 7 billion tons of carbon every year: (US GOV website)



yeah, why would anyone think such an insignificant amount could possibly change the climate?

Because against this, there are numerous natural sources that far, far, far outweigh this amount each on their own.


Disirregardlessly(not a real word, but a fun one) I think there are numerous global warming advocate groups that agree that we've already tipped the balance and are incapable of fixing it.

Personally, I don't give a flying fuck either way. I try my best to use the cleanest, most efficient technology, but if it's gonna warm, I'm not losing sleep over it. After all, the only person who told anyone to take care of the earth was the christian God, if you're athiest, you shouldn't care, or as in my case, I'll be forgiven anyway.

[Eomer]

Explain why nearly every other planet and moon in the solar system has increased in temperature nearly the same amount in the same timespans? You have to incorporate more than one piece into a complicated puzzle like this.

Correlation does not equal causation. I read an op-ed the other day in the local newspaper, the Edmonton Sun. It's somewhat to the right of Hitler. There's at least one or two op-ed's about global warming a week in it. This particular one went to great lengths to talk about how Pluto and Jupiter are in fact warming at the same time as Earth, so obviously the Sun is causing it. Nowhere did I see it mentioned that, whoops, Pluto has a stupidly elliptical orbit as compared to most other planets, and so far as I recall from unrelated articles, it's more or less hitting spring/summer right now (all hundred or so years of it) as it makes it's closest approach to the Sun. No shit Pluto's warming, it's getting closer to the Sun. Jupiter has an orbital period of what, 60-80 years? Most likely a similar situation is happening there too, although there could be other factors as well.

You're right in some respects though; I was surprised to read a year or two ago that scientists don't have a particularly accurate idea of just how much energy the Earth receives from the sun. But that's because it's an incredibly difficult thing to figure out, when you take into account cloud cover and all that happy crappy. And that's precisely the issue with global warming and it's root causes: it's incredibly complex and difficult to understand, and simple debunking methods such as "BUT THE SUN IS HAWTER" really don't do any side any good.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Grumath

Because if you look at the actual numbers, its the equivalent of pissing in an olympic pool. If you ask REAL scientists, they will tell you that CO2 doesn't have much affect on things (as seen in that video). And water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas. Why arent we concerned about how much water vapor is in the air?

Natural C02 emissions are locked into the carbon cycle. They are effectively and efficiently recycled in an ongoing process. Human contributions from the combustion of fossil fuels are liberating massive amounts of carbon that had been removed from that same cycle for millions of years. Water Vapor is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas, but it's manifest through forcings. C02 isn't a powerful greenhouse gas in the sense that it absorbs a relatively small band of radiation. N02 and CH4 are much "better" greenhouse gases. The problem with C02 is that it has a variable and potentially extremely long atmospheric residency time ranging from the low hundreds to thousands of years. Unlike most other greenhouse gases the more C02 there is the longer it takes for natural processes to get rid of it.

Originally Posted by Grumath

Explain why nearly every other planet and moon in the solar system has increased in temperature nearly the same amount in the same timespans? You have to incorporate more than one piece into a complicated puzzle like this.

Where are you getting this from? Because of the cyclical glaciation and retreat of Mars's southern polar cap? Reported changes in Pluto's temperature...despite the fact that we haven't even known about it long enough for us to see it make a full revolution about the sun? To bring up this contention shows that you cast doubt on a relatively very well supported idea of climate change on Earth but jump on data that is sketchy at best for climate change on other systems. This is a failure to equally apply criticism to all evidence and another key indicator of pseudoskeptical thinking.