Common Climate Change lies

[Pitbull]

I mean stuff like POA, phosphate esters and other synthetic esters.

POA is used as a synthetic motor oil for example.

Synthetic as in "made by man and not pulled from nature".

EDIT: but as you say the natural stuff works too. These sorts of things are able to be manufactured or are renewable. We don't have to pull oil out of the ground to make these sorts of things.

I think we're touching on a very valid point here without even realizing it.

No matter how green you want to be. There is always some kind of "nasty" being used to create this "green devices"

As per examples above. Yes let's make synthetic oils. No problem. But making these oils uses machines that use industrial oil, plastic, copper, electricity and the likes. Now to get those parts you need more machines making other machines making other devices and so on. All of which causes some kind of damage to the earth. So what now?

 

[porchrat]

I think we're touching on a very valid point here without even realizing it.

No matter how green you want to be. There is always some kind of "nasty" being used to create this "green devices"

As per examples above. Yes let's make synthetic oils. No problem. But making these oils uses machines that use industrial oil, plastic, copper, electricity and the likes. Now to get those parts you need more machines making other machines making other devices and so on. All of which causes some kind of damage to the earth. So what now?

I don't know enough about manufacturing to comment on that sort of thing. I was just responding to the implication that we need to pull oil from the ground to get lubricants.

 

[SaiyanZ]

lol,



"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

+1

 

[SmartKit]

It is amazing how something as silly as the sun could possibly heat up the earth or cool it depending on the cycle.

Amazes me every time i think about the sun being the cause of the heat cycle. I sit and wonder but how could the sun be causing the earth to heat? makes no bleeding sense.

They are predicting the sun will start cooling earth from the beginning or mid 2012. So i think all will be answered in 2012. If the earth starts to cool boy would that blow the theory right out the water and perhaps it will show what a big effect the sun actually has on earths temps.

Yes, but is there enough time between mid-2012 and 21 Dec 2012 for it to cool down enough to get in one last "I told you so!"?

 

[w1z4rd]

What a bunch of (generally) great responses in this thread. Other than for one or two nutters, arguments seem to be moving on from the climate change science and focusing more on the climate change solutions.

/wipes a little tear from his eye. You okes rock

 

[porchrat]

What a bunch of (generally) great responses in this thread. Other than for one or two nutters, arguments seem to be moving on from the climate change science and focusing more on the climate change solutions.

/wipes a little tear from his eye. You okes rock

The first page with you throwing the science at people along with those sassy responses had me in stitches.

 

[Pitbull]

What a bunch of (generally) great responses in this thread. Other than for one or two nutters, arguments seem to be moving on from the climate change science and focusing more on the climate change solutions.

/wipes a little tear from his eye. You okes rock

That's the problem ghoti.

Science calls the sceptics denialists and all other kinds of names. In my case however i have nothing wrong with living green. I just don't eat all the bullshyte.

The sooner science moves away from "WE'RE RIGHT ! and know what your mother drinks cow piss" stupidity of them and move to getting the planet to live greener and incentivise it for people, the world will get greener and quicker. Debating schematics won't get us anywhere

 

[w1z4rd]

That's the problem ghoti.

Science calls the sceptics denialists and all other kinds of names. In my case however i have nothing wrong with living green. I just don't eat all the bullshyte.

The sooner science moves away from "WE'RE RIGHT ! and know what your mother drinks cow piss" stupidity of them and move to getting the planet to live greener and incentivise it for people, the world will get greener and quicker. Debating schematics won't get us anywhere

Science gives us testable empirical explanations for the natural world. Its constrained by the scientific method.

The same scientific method that was used to create the computer you are using, the transistors, the hard drives, the memory. Its the same scientific method that gives you the planes we fly, the cars we drive, the fuel we use. If it was not for the scientific method, we would not have the hospitals we have today, things like cat scans, x-ray machines and ultra sound. With it we know how big an explosion we can create with a nuclear bomb, and we know how we can harness that energy to aid us.

Its like asking engineers who build sky scrapers to not say "we`re right" when their buildings dont collapse on completion. Now an engineer would not normally have to say, "we`re right" when his building stays standing as its expected. Unless a bunch of people in mud huts were telling him that it could not be done, or the science was wrong, or that all engineers are not in agreement, etc).

Same goes for scientists. Only reason why they have to work so hard at telling people about the truth is because there are so many people telling them that theyre wrong.

The scientists are looking at the data and are telling us their observations on climate change. They can do nothing else but tell you what they are see`ing because of the constraints of the scientific method. Since the scientific method requires peer review of all your data, the way you worked out your methods, the way the facts lead you to conclusions are all open to other scientists (and you if you want) for scrutiny.

You watch Big Bang theory right? You know Sheldons 'academic based' ego that is stereotyped in it? A stereotype is a stereotype for a reason. There are lots of scientists out there with big ego`s, and there is lots of competition. I promise you, if they find something wrong in someone else's work they often let the whole world know about it. Now you got hundreds of thousands of scientists working on this issue. From many different countries, many different ideologies, many different faiths.... all coming to the same or similar conclusions. There is not one respected scientific body of national or international standing that does not reject AGW. All of them in cahoots?

The climate science here is solid enough to know that AGW is real. There really is enough empirical evidence to make an informed opinion on this. Asking them not to say that AGW is real is like asking doctors to reject the germ theory of disease.

 

[WilD_CaT]

ghoti,

I'm all for having an open discussion about this. But once people or let me say science throws historical data out of the window because it doesn't fit in with their findings, whats the point then? Earth has been hotter before and it has been colder before. So if earth survived back then I'm pretty sure it will do so again.

The planet will survive regardless. Its very arrogant of us to believe it won't. Many species will probably go extinct (I doubt we will) but many species have gone extinct in the past.

If you argue that they aren't going extinct to "natural" causes, then you are obviously EXTREMELY arrogant and somehow believe humans are "seperate" and not apart of the animal kingdom. In nature, when a dominent species exerts itself, other species must adapt or die, so the entire thing is perfectly naturaly from a philosophical viewpoint, and not natural from a subjective one.

Then there is the entire economics argument which is not addressed. This ultimately refutes anything ghoti, any other DA members, and fellow forumites have to say on the subject.

The only thing of relevance is the affect of climate change on humanity and standards of living etc. I for the life of me cannot see why its bad thing, since it will increase crop production on a global scale, reduces overall weather volatility (Less hurricanes etc. but if they do hit, they tend to be bigger than before) which for my money isn't a bad thing, will speed up the "natural" cycle and when the planet does start cooling eventually (Water levels rise and water absorbs heat. So eventually there is so much water absorbing heat the world plunges to an ice age) we will be clamouring for more CO2 to try avoid the ice-age and melt the ice. Not only that but since water absorbs heat and CO2, the increasing water levels will acting to counter the effect of warming, and will most certainly have a large effect.

Whilst I dislike pollution personnaly, I know that many times of actual pollution (CO2 isn't one of those) actual help cool the planet which is why in the 70's it was global cooling (believed it would cool the planet enough), so a potential solution would be to pump certain chemicals into the atmosphere en masse. Radical but logical.

Simply put the best way to "combat" climate change is for us to advance technologically as FAST AS POSSIBLE.

Since every single solution by the greenbugs seems to FORCEFULLY SLOW DOWN economic progress, all the greenies want to do is slow down the process a little and make a few people VERY rich and keep the 3rd world and poor people of the world, poor and in poverty.

Capitalists hate the poor. They hate the poor so much they wish there were no poor.
Liberals love the poor. They love the poor so much they wish we were all poor.

True Story!

 

[Tassidar]

From my limited knowledge of Nuke stations, it's just as harm full if not more so than Coal.
Nuclear waste has a live cycle of up to 10k years. The amount of waste we would have been going through since we started with coal would have already created a problem now where we would have been running out of space to store it safely. And that does leave a negative footprint too.

As I said, my lack of knowledge on this topic is great but it has it's own downside to not so?

Your lack of knowledge is not just great but truly magnificent. I suggest you do a tiny bit of research.

You might find this interesting:

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

[Tassidar]

The planet will survive regardless. Its very arrogant of us to believe it won't. Many species will probably go extinct (I doubt we will) but many species have gone extinct in the past.

If you argue that they aren't going extinct to "natural" causes, then you are obviously EXTREMELY arrogant and somehow believe humans are "seperate" and not apart of the animal kingdom. In nature, when a dominent species exerts itself, other species must adapt or die, so the entire thing is perfectly naturaly from a philosophical viewpoint, and not natural from a subjective one.

Then there is the entire economics argument which is not addressed. This ultimately refutes anything ghoti, any other DA members, and fellow forumites have to say on the subject.

The only thing of relevance is the affect of climate change on humanity and standards of living etc. I for the life of me cannot see why its bad thing, since it will increase crop production on a global scale, reduces overall weather volatility (Less hurricanes etc. but if they do hit, they tend to be bigger than before) which for my money isn't a bad thing, will speed up the "natural" cycle and when the planet does start cooling eventually (Water levels rise and water absorbs heat. So eventually there is so much water absorbing heat the world plunges to an ice age) we will be clamouring for more CO2 to try avoid the ice-age and melt the ice. Not only that but since water absorbs heat and CO2, the increasing water levels will acting to counter the effect of warming, and will most certainly have a large effect.

Whilst I dislike pollution personnaly, I know that many times of actual pollution (CO2 isn't one of those) actual help cool the planet which is why in the 70's it was global cooling (believed it would cool the planet enough), so a potential solution would be to pump certain chemicals into the atmosphere en masse. Radical but logical.

Simply put the best way to "combat" climate change is that is what you want is for as to advance technologically as FAST AS POSSIBLE.

Since every single solution by the greenbugs seems to FORCEFULLY SLOW DOWN economic progress, all the greenies want to do is slow down the process a little and make a few people VERY rich and keep the 3rd world and poor people of the world, poor and in poverty.

Capitalists hate the poor. They hate the poor so much they wish there were no poor.
Liberals love the poor. They love the poor so much they wish we were all poor.

True Story!

No, it isn't a true story. It's just a really badly written half-baked attempt at an argument which makes little to no sense whatsoever. I suggest you read up a tiny little bit about heat cycles in the atmosphere before you post such rubbish.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Erm, ghoti, I certainly don't believe that the scientific method gave anything that you mention to technology. The scientific method is something educationists use to propagate the validity of teaching science.

Newton and Einstein certainly did not use the scientific method.

Sent from my U20i using Tapatalk

 

[w1z4rd]

Erm, ghoti, I certainly don't believe that the scientific method gave anything that you mention to technology. The scientific method is something educationists use to propagate the validity of teaching science.

Newton and Einstein certainly did not use the scientific method.

Sent from my U20i using Tapatalk

LoL. Quoted for life! Man... this made me laugh. Sorry man, really cant take your post seriously enough to expend energy on a response to it. Its just too funny

 

[WilD_CaT]

No, it isn't a true story. It's just a really badly written half-baked attempt at an argument which makes little to no sense whatsoever. I suggest you read up a tiny little bit about heat cycles in the atmosphere before you post such rubbish.

Really, care to ellaborate.

Since the economic side is the crux of my argument, I fail to see how climate cycles address this.

It is a fact that warmer periods in the past co-incided with growth in crops and thus human populations (The higher the population an economy can support the better it is economically).

Carbon credits do not create anything. Only redistribute wealth.

Other "solutions" by greenies impede growth. No solutions by greenies speed up technological advancement, all it does is force people to use more costly less efficient energy sources.

If you dispute this your argument is that business wants costly and innefficient energy. For a bunch of greedy capitalists interested in their bottom line this reasoning is self-contradictory.

I've read plenty on climate change and even promoted and linked to a really good channel operated by a journo who has covered the climate change debate (or warming debate) since its inception and promoted his viewpoint which dispels a lot of climate denialism or disagreement.

But thanks for ad hominem argument which actually doesn't address a single thing I've said.

 

[Pitbull]

Your lack of knowledge is not just great but truly magnificent. I suggest you do a tiny bit of research.

You might find this interesting:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

If you took the slightest care in reading and understanding my point you will see exactly what I said.

The problem isn't with the radiation per-se. It's with the radioactive waste that needs to be stored. These radioactive waste stay dangerous for up to a couple of 100 thousand years. The ash is reused and recycled.

Bananas are radio active as well. this is not the problem. It's what type of radio active materials we're left with.

 

[axelblue]

And so the entertaining debate continues. Reminds me of the "hole in the ozone layer" days. Which has since quietly disappeared out of the media, along with those scientists who "proved it". I love these debates. Everyone becomes scientists and then gives solutions to "the problem" with technology which workings and limits they have no clue about. Worst of it all, the debaters are always split on opinion as for each persons believes and suspicions there is enough "scientific proof", regardless if he believes it as fact or fad, thus making everyone "scientifically" right. Very entertaining indeed. I'm probably going to be flamed for this. But hey, its part of the entertainment.

 

[porchrat]

Wait... despite all the evidence, the direct observations, you don't think there is a hole in the ozone layer?

When I see stuff like this I start to lose faith in us as a species.

 

[w1z4rd]

Wait... despite all the evidence, the direct observations, you don't think there is a hole in the ozone layer?

When I see stuff like this I start to lose faith in us as a species.

I dig how people like axelblue and big-al come and give us advice on science, when its evident from their posts they dont have the slightest clue about what theyre talking about. /sigh humans.... South Africans have an alarming lack of basic knowledge on the topic. I blame our education system. We are not creating enough information based academics. You got half of china wanting to become scientists.... in SA... they can hardly spell science and clearly have no idea about what they are talking about (though they pretend they do).

 

[porchrat]

I dig how people like axelblue and big-al come and give us advice on science, when its evident from their posts they dont have the slightest clue about what theyre talking about. /sigh humans.... South Africans have an alarming lack of basic knowledge on the topic. I blame our education system. We are not creating enough information based academics. You got half of china wanting to become scientists.... in SA... they can hardly spell science and clearly have no idea about what they are talking about (though they pretend they do).

You can't give people knowledge on everything, there just isn't enough time in school. To me when it comes to science, expanded knowledge in specific areas is what university is for.

Still a comprehensive grounding in the scientific method to allow people to make up their own minds when they read up on something would be great. As far as I'm concerned science should be compulsory at all schools in the country (nobody should be allowed to drop it in high school). It is a subject crucial to life in our society, like Mathematics or English.

Without a proper grounding in science we end up with people telling us there is no hole in the ozone layer. When I think of all the work scientists have put in over the last few centuries to get us where we are only to have our society piss all over them with anti-science bullschit... it breaks my heart.

 

[bubbatentoe]

LOL @ "real scientists" Ghoti & Porchrat who "grace us with their presence".