Global Warming Scam Exposed?

[Bismuth]

I am.. I don't however think those answers given there are all that "solid" Nothing is, not my theory (mindless ramblings more than theories), not theirs. For everything thats up there, others have given valid responses in certain other papers and things, But because its not the IPCC its taken with a pinch of salt. As to the IPCC, right now until climategate is sorted, I take everything they have up on their sites with much less than a pinch of salt.

I think Bismuths response to my post would be exactly how I would respond now since I don't fully believe the graphs and models the IPCC make at all.

The answers you will be given will never be solid, consider the so-called "evidence" they based on. Especially if it's from the IPCC.

I have looked at the "evidence", from both sides, and made my decision on the validity of global-warming based on that. This was long before "climategate". I asked my questions, and get statistics and graphs, and the same "RealClimate" website given to me as the so-called proof. I have read the stats, viewed the graphs, and visited "RealClimate" and other sites, amongst others.

After that, I have come the conclusion that it is indeed a cycle, and whatever affect man may be having on global-warming, or whatever you want to call it, is negligible, if at all. So far I have not seen any concrete proof to the contrary. So my decision stands. What evidence has been coming through more often recently, is that the whole man-made "global warming" thing a hoax. I find this intriguing, and cannot wait until this pans out. Because for it to be wholly proven that it is not a hoax, will mean a re-consideration of my position on climate change. If it's indeed proven to be a hoax, that will merely reinforce my position, then.

If you want to see a complete opposite view to the "RealClimate" site, try this site. While I haven't done a fact-by-fact comparison of the two sites, they seem to have opposing views on climate change.

B

 

[Kalvaer]

If you want to see a complete opposite view to the "RealClimate" site, try this site. While I haven't done a fact-by-fact comparison of the two sites, they seem to have opposing views on climate change.

B

Ohhh.. I just saw something on that website:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Switzerland_snowfall_two_to_five_times_normal.htm

Woot! I'm heading over there next week.. Snowboard here I come

PS: Sorry for the quick distraction, But I think my views are pretty much the same as yours Bismuth. I don't completely think GW is 100% a hoax, but I dodoubt the seriousness of its arguments

 

[Kalvaer]

But surely if there's a chance that what's going to happen is going to casue human deaths, suffering and ecological devastation and there's a chance that we can mitigate this, then we are morally obliged to attempt this mitigation?

But surely if there's a chance that stopping the CO2 levels will bring on an ice age sooner in 10000 years, which is going to cause human deaths, suffering, and ecological devastation, we should...

You get my point, Its all what if's...

What if GW is wrong, do the turn around in 5000 years and say.. Oppps sorry we stuffed up. Here are all the TAXES back that bankrupted your great great x 5000 grandfather, Please note though we will now be taxing you for using any products that DON'T produce CO2

 

[BCO]

But surely if there's a chance that stopping the CO2 levels will bring on an ice age sooner in 10000 years, which is going to cause human deaths, suffering, and ecological devastation, we should...

You get my point, Its all what if's...

What if GW is wrong, do the turn around in 5000 years and say.. Oppps sorry we stuffed up. Here are all the TAXES back that bankrupted your great great x 5000 grandfather, Please note though we will now be taxing you for using any products that DON'T produce CO2

There's a lot more evidence to indicate that an ice age is several thousand years away than evidence to suggest it's around the corner. It's not ALL "what ifs". I'll repost what I said earlier:

When talking about climate science, I'm really not sure how much more solid you can get than having a proven physical theory (GHG theory, proven well over 100 years ago), observed measurements, and computer models that all corroborate each other. You're basically saying that climate is something that can't be studied because all the methods we have of studying it are unsatisfactory.

 

[BCO]

The answers you will be given will never be solid, consider the so-called "evidence" they based on. Especially if it's from the IPCC.

I have looked at the "evidence", from both sides, and made my decision on the validity of global-warming based on that. This was long before "climategate". I asked my questions, and get statistics and graphs, and the same "RealClimate" website given to me as the so-called proof. I have read the stats, viewed the graphs, and visited "RealClimate" and other sites, amongst others.

After that, I have come the conclusion that it is indeed a cycle, and whatever affect man may be having on global-warming, or whatever you want to call it, is negligible, if at all. So far I have not seen any concrete proof to the contrary. So my decision stands. What evidence has been coming through more often recently, is that the whole man-made "global warming" thing a hoax. I find this intriguing, and cannot wait until this pans out. Because for it to be wholly proven that it is not a hoax, will mean a re-consideration of my position on climate change. If it's indeed proven to be a hoax, that will merely reinforce my position, then.

If you want to see a complete opposite view to the "RealClimate" site, try this site. While I haven't done a fact-by-fact comparison of the two sites, they seem to have opposing views on climate change.

B

Where did you get your climatology degree?

 

[Kalvaer]

There's a lot more evidence to indicate that an ice age is several thousand years away than evidence to suggest it's around the corner. It's not ALL "what ifs". I'll repost what I said earlier:

Remember what I said much earlier in this thread. You cant take 100 years of data and try and model something for a systems that's 4 million years old.. It isn't going to work. Adding in Tree data from 13 trees and 21 ice cores, suddenly doesn't make it any more accurate either

Where did you get your climatology degree?

The same place Al gore got his Yes I know you said don't mention Al gore.. BUT, You cant shoot somebody down and suddenly say that only somebody with a PHD can have a valid theory. Haven't we been through that discussion already were it was mentioned that even people with PHD's Can/Do lie and be wrong?

Seems we are going in circles.

 

[BCO]

Remember what I said much earlier in this thread. You cant take 100 years of data and try and model something for a systems that's 4 million years old.. It isn't going to work. Adding in Tree data from 13 trees and 21 ice cores, suddenly doesn't make it any more accurate either

The tree ring and ice core samples are extensive and able to provide statistically significant data - that's why tree ring and ice core studies get published in reputable journals, because they're using sound science.

The same place Al gore got his Yes I know you said don't mention Al gore.. BUT, You cant shoot somebody down and suddenly say that only somebody with a PHD can have a valid theory. Haven't we been through that discussion already were it was mentioned that even people with PHD's Can/Do lie and be wrong?

Seems we are going in circles.

The point is that Bismuth claims to have looked at the evidence from both sides and come up with his own opinion. What makes him qualified to evaluate data from either position and come up with an informed understanding of the situation? Unless you have a thorough knowledge of climate science, it's very likely that you will misunderstand, misinterpret or simply overlook key arguments and information.


I am saying that unless you have a relevant qualifaction, your opinion on a scientific subject doesn't really matter. *edit* before anyone jumps the gun here - the previous statement includes myself. My opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

As I have said repeatedly (and been ignored every time it seems): the OVERWHELMING majority of qualified climate scientists endorse AGW. There have been numerous independent studies that support this statement as well as on-the-record statements from all major scientific bodies on earth endorsing AGW. If you do not have a qualification in a relevent field and then choose to simply ignore the views of 95%+ of climate scientists wordwide based on your opnion, then I'm afraid that all you have is a personal opinion and no actual evidence at all.

I have asked before for any of you guys to present one plausible alternate theory that presents a stronger argument with more evidence. I'm still waiting.

 

[Kalvaer]

Its has to be much less than 95% of the scientists. If it was 95% I can promise you that there would not be so much debate about it. The 5% would be ignored by anyone with bit of common sense. I'd say that 95% of scientists agree that global warning exists, but only about 50% of all of those say that its a problem, while the other half disagree. Its the only logical thing I can think of which would explain why this is a topic thats still being discussed so much.

As to the plausible theories, I have given which appear plausible to ME. But just as I don't believe some of the things you have stated and am waiting for CONCRETE proof, I am sure you don't believe my theories (even if there are 31k other scientists who agree), So both of us will be waiting forever

 

[BCO]

Its has to be much less than 95% of the scientists. If it was 95% I can promise you that there would not be so much debate about it. The 5% would be ignored by anyone with bit of common sense.

That's correct. There's no debate outside of the manufactured debate created by the likes of ExxonMobil and their shills.

I'd say that 95% of scientists agree that global warning exists, but only about 50% of all of those say that its a problem, while the other half disagree. Its the only logical thing I can think of which would explain why this is a topic thats still being discussed so much.

See my comment above. There have been studies to examine this "consensus". The most known is Oreskes (2004).

an analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’”.[2] The essay stated the analysis was to test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75 percent of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

As to the plausible theories, I have given which appear plausible to ME. But just as I don't believe some of the things you have stated and am waiting for CONCRETE proof, I am sure you don't believe my theories (even if there are 31k other scientists who agree), So both of us will be waiting forever

Care to hazard a guess about how many of the 31000 "scientists" on that list are published climate scientists? Would you trust a biochemist's opnion on aeronautical engineering?

 

[Bismuth]

Where did you get your climatology degree?

What on earth does that have to do with the price of tea in China?.

I looked at the information available, and I made my decision based on that. I have never claimed that it is anything more than my opinion, in any case, which I am fully entitled to express, and be disagreed with, and disagree with others on their opinions. Which is what I am doing here.

What a joke, now that the evidence appears to have been refuted, you start getting personal. Luckily I have been on the Internet long enough not to care.

B

 

[BCO]

What on earth does that have to do with the price of tea in China?.

I looked at the information available, and I made my decision based on that. I have never claimed that it is anything more than my opinion, in any case, which I am fully entitled to express, and be disagreed with, and disagree with others on their opinions. Which is what I am doing here.

What a joke, now that the evidence appears to have been refuted, you start getting personal. Luckily I have been on the Internet long enough not to care.

B

I'll paste what I just said:

The point is that Bismuth claims to have looked at the evidence from both sides and come up with his own opinion. What makes him qualified to evaluate data from either position and come up with an informed understanding of the situation? Unless you have a thorough knowledge of climate science, it's very likely that you will misunderstand, misinterpret or simply overlook key arguments and information.


I am saying that unless you have a relevant qualifaction, your opinion on a scientific subject doesn't really matter. *edit* before anyone jumps the gun here - the previous statement includes myself. My opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

As I have said repeatedly (and been ignored every time it seems): the OVERWHELMING majority of qualified climate scientists endorse AGW. There have been numerous independent studies that support this statement as well as on-the-record statements from all major scientific bodies on earth endorsing AGW. If you do not have a qualification in a relevent field and then choose to simply ignore the views of 95%+ of climate scientists wordwide based on your opnion, then I'm afraid that all you have is a personal opinion and no actual evidence at all.

I have asked before for any of you guys to present one plausible alternate theory that presents a stronger argument with more evidence. I'm still waiting.

Now care to show me where the "evidence has been refuted"?

 

[werries2]

um, killa. Carbon Dioxide does not equal pollution. I hate to have to point this out to you... but Carbon Dioxide actually exists naturally in the atmosphere. In fact, do you know that trees actually breathe Carbon Dioxide? The more Carbon Monoxide, the more the trees can breathe easily!

I think what you are referring to is actual Carbon or Carbon Monoxide... besides many other chemicals such as CFCs which can destroy Ozone.

Carbon Monoxide is a poisonous gas, and not even trees can breath it

Photosynthesis uses Carbon dioxide.


And as a few others have commented as well Carbon dioxide is naturally occurring. But the issue is the concentration of it. Yes volcanoes also produce CO2 and nature then remove it over some thousands of years. But unfortunately we are here now, we cant wait for nature to take care of our emissions over a few thousand years. We simply dont live that long
But personaly I dont see a reason that humanity will not survive a 10C jump in temperature or even an ice age. (We may loose 80% of our population in the process but we still may survive it.)

 

[Kalvaer]

Care to hazard a guess about how many of the 31000 "scientists" on that list are published climate scientists? Would you trust a biochemist's opnion on aeronautical engineering?

I would trust a Biochemical Engineer over an aeronautical physicist, if we were talking about the chemical compound structure of the heat shields on a space craft.. so YES. You need to put things into context. Just because somebody doesn't have a PHD in Climate science, doesn't mean he/she don't know what they are talking about.

Let take these Climate scientists, now for an example. Who taught them? Was it other Climate scientists, I would think so. It not to hard to think that you would have the same views as somebody who TAUGHT you what was right and wrong. Of course all "Climate Scientists" will argue the point, Does it make them RIGHT though? Ask yourself that?

When I was in School I was taught that the Boers were ravaged and attacked by the Zulu's. Their children and wife's were raped, so the Boers retaliated. I picked up a history book of my nephew recently and nearly gagged at what I read. Its all changed and paints the exact same picture, yet in reverse. Why was I so disgusted, because its what I was taught. Its what I learnt to believe as fact. Does it make it right.. who knows.

History as we all know is not written by who is right or wrong, but by who won the wars. This GW debate is nothing more, and nothing less than a war between scientists as far as I am concerned, and right now, the team with the most money is winning.

Only time will tell, and maybe 3000 years from now my Great Great X10 grandson will look back and laugh, asking his mother, WTF... How did they believe that?

 

[Kalvaer]

(We may loose 80% of our population in the process but we still may survive it.)

I know I might be called an idiot and a whole lot of other nasty words.. But maybe that's what we need.

 

[Leostar]

I
Only time will tell, and maybe 3000 years from now my Great Great X10 grandson will look back and laugh, asking his mother, WTF... How did they believe that?

Lets hope that mankind will still be here and able to read and say WTF? LOL

 

[Bismuth]

I know I might be called an idiot and a whole lot of other nasty words.. But maybe that's what we need.

Dinosaurs were the dominant species until they were wiped out/went extinct. Now humans are the dominant species until we are wiped out/go extinct. Yet again, I reckon it's a cycle. Oh, btw, I do not have a degree in archaeology or palaeontology.

Homo sapiens will go the way of the dinosaur eventually.

B

 

[Kalvaer]

Dinosaurs were the dominant species until they were wiped out/went extinct. Now humans are the dominant species until we are wiped out/go extinct. Yet again, I reckon it's a cycle. Oh, btw, I do not have a degree in archaeology or palaeontology.

Homo sapiens will go the way of the dinosaur eventually.

B

HEHE, well There I disagree. We are slightly more advanced than what dinosaurs are, and are much more able to adapt. Dinosaurs were dominant because of their size, We are now because we can think. Of course thats another debate about just what we think we are doing is correct again or not. Mankind has always done his best in times of war and crises, maybe we need half of our population to die out and give us a crises to advance again

 

[Bismuth]

HEHE, well There I disagree. We are slightly more advanced than what dinosaurs are, and are much more able to adapt. Dinosaurs were dominant because of their size, We are now because we can think. Of course thats another debate about just what we think we are doing is correct again or not. Mankind has always done his best in times of war and crises, maybe we need half of our population to die out and give us a crises to advance again

OMG, someone who disagrees with me on the Internet, woe is me!



Yes, we do not dominate for the same reasons that dinosaurs do. I think that while dinosaurs and other creatures adapted to their environment, we adapt our environment to our needs.

Anyway, I do agree about the need for a population reduction, which is exactly what nature is doing at the moment. You can reduce your carbon footprint all you like, but there will probably still be a natural reduction of the human population. If we don't do it ourselves of course, then again, some say we are already. Whatever, it's going to happen either way, I think.

Disclaimer: I do not have a degree related to any of the above, it is wholly my opinion.

B

 

[Kalvaer]

ROFLOL.. You know what I meant though Just that I think us humans are way to stubborn to die out like the Dino's

 

[Pitbull]

All stars have a life span.

The sun is a star. It will one day burn out and then earth is done for. How long that will take is anyones guess. But earth will never last for eternity. Best we just enjoy the ride while we can