Nobody's ever said there hasn't been warming before, or even that previous warming hasn't been greater than what we're seeing now. What they are saying is that current warming is being driven by humans. Now it's worth noting the timescales we're talking about here - previously, temperatures rose over thousands of years. We're doing it over decades/hundreds of years. This is a very short time to force a lot of changes on a lot of people, and it's likely that for many people around the world, life is going to be rather unpleasant as a direct consequence of this warming.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
Global Warming Scam Exposed?
- Thread starter Fieldy
- Start date
Nobody's ever said there hasn't been warming before, or even that previous warming hasn't been greater than what we're seeing now. What they are saying is that current warming is being driven by humans. Now it's worth noting the timescales we're talking about here - previously, temperatures rose over thousands of years. We're doing it over decades/hundreds of years. This is a very short time to force a lot of changes on a lot of people, and it's likely that for many people around the world, life is going to be rather unpleasant as a direct consequence of this warming.
Pitbull
Verboten
But how does anyone reach that conclusion then?
It's been warmer before, without human Co2 imprints. However, we are seeing the world getting warmer now because of Co2 left by humans
How does this even make sense BCO?
Think about it for just a second
No need to quote or prove anything. Sit and think:It's been warmer before, the oceans have been 200 feet higher before. But now since we had a warm cycle not even remotely close to that it's caused by humans?
It might have a very minute effect yes. But does that now qualify as mass histeria? Global warming is nothing more than a natural cycle. Does Co2 have an influance on this ... OFC. Do we know to what extend? No. Do we have proof that the earth has been warmer even without our Co2? Yes. Do we know if our constant Co2 being pushed into the air will have a greater effect on the natural cycle of weather paterns? Perhaps.
The Co2 is but a drop of water in a bucket when one looks at the extremes of the natural cycles. We're not even close to reaching Natural extremes so why all the fuss?
But how does anyone reach that conclusion then?
It's been warmer before, without human Co2 imprints. However, we are seeing the world getting warmer now because of Co2 left by humans
How does this even make sense BCO?
Think about it for just a second
It's been warmer before, the oceans have been 200 feet higher before. But now since we had a warm cycle not even remotely close to that it's caused by humans?
It might have a very minute effect yes. But does that now qualify as mass histeria? Global warming is nothing more than a natural cycle. Does Co2 have an influance on this ... OFC. Do we know to what extend? No. Do we have proof that the earth has been warmer even without our Co2? Yes. Do we know if our constant Co2 being pushed into the air will have a greater effect on the natural cycle of weather paterns? Perhaps.
The Co2 is but a drop of water in a bucket when one looks at the extremes of the natural cycles. We're not even close to reaching Natural extremes so why all the fuss?
Pitbull, a lot of very intelligent and highly qualified people have sat and thought about what you mentioned above. There are vast resources online to explain it. Here's two links:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-2.1.html
Pitbull
Verboten
You keep missing the point to highlight your own. Just as many of these intelligent and highly qualified people disagree with exactly what you posted above
Please substantiate that claim. I strongly disagree - there are a number of studies that indicate that the VAST majority of climate scientists agree with the the IPCC position.
I challenge you to produce these thousands of scientists who say otherwise.
Pitbull
Verboten
Search for it, it's all over the net
Your and their claims is nothing but an educated guess with no data to fall back on, they can't even prove the impact of it. They know it contributes but not by how much. And if it's even to a degree everyone is making it out to be...Like I said, you are closed to your opinion and have locked out any other claim. Thus I suggest you go search for it yourself it might open your eyes a bit
Pitbull
Verboten
31 486 (In the USA alone) signatures I think should be more than enough to back up my claim
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
These are all educated in the field of science as indicated on that petition
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
These are all educated in the field of science as indicated on that petition
Last edited:
Kalvaer
Expert Member
Do you notice though, that the guy/gal never once puts there cock on the block. Everything is maybe, and most likely. Everything is assumed. The other post there as well also states that the reasoning for the wording was because of the legal reasons. Which is exactly as I said earlier with regards to the "hoax". If they didn't change and delete certain data, people would find holes in the theory. Which these emails that have been hacked are now doing.
That personally I think is mankinds stupidity. A 1000 years ago, they would of just picked up and moved, or died. Its the same with people who build houses below the flood planes of rivers in Alexandra for example, When the river floods we all sit back, shake our heads and ask WTF causes some "idiots" to do the same thing every year. The raising oceans is the same thing, except instead of happening every year with the annual floods, its happening on the warming cycle. Are we speeding it up. Maybe, can we slow it down by decreasing our carbon footprint, maybe, But the fact remains that the water is going to increase sometime regardless of our human intervention.
What if scientists found a way to reverse the cycle in say 5 years and stop the ice caps from melting? Would it be a good thing or not? It might save a few million lives now, But what will the end result be 2000 years from now? Could we not inadvertently be killing billions instead of the few "idiots" sitting below the seas flood plane? Of course things like this are going to happen anyway. One day we are going to have to "terraform" planets for humans to live on, Maybe this will teach us all how to do that?
The data we have is from MAYBE 1-2 hundred years. We are trying to use this information on a planet that what, 4 million years old? You cant do that, its impossible to calculate. What happened 2000 years ago, 4000years ago, or even 1 million, never mind the 4 million. The Klip river floods every year, We know this because it has for the last 100 years almost every year. When last did the oceans "flood" We don't know because its not recorded. What we do know however is that it DID happen.
Also with our CO2, How many millions of tons of the gas did Volcanoes pump out 2000 years ago? What we are doing now is the tip of the iceberg, which is exactly why the one guy posted on the physics forums. If they never stated the "ambiguous" readings in the IPCC report, people in Hawaii who have an active volcano, would of told them to take a long walk of a short pier. Of course this again poses the question of what are we doing to mess up the normal cycle, just like refreezing the ice caps would do? But if we don't interfere, what will happen to mankind 2000 years from now. Maybe we are infact saving the human race by PREVENTING an ice age
+ 1x10^1000000
I certainly don't think so, Caution maybe, but not the way it has been through out of proportion.
I also need to check and confirm, but the figures posted by the one guy on the physics forums with regards to the solar heating I believe are based on the current suns output.
Astronomers are only now learning about how the sun spots and its activity are changing and how they effect us, never mind what a massive solar flare could do to us. That at least however, is the most complete set of data we do have. The sun, being the biggest thing in the sky has been studied and recorded for longer than anything else Al Gore could dig up. Of course the problem was people who did it in Egypt for example never knew what effect it had on people in South Africa. So while the Nile might of risen a few meters that year due to the suns activity, Cape Town might of flooded. It should be very interesting to see what they find out. But even so, the data we do have will be a small drop in the pond because unless we can compile data from the beginning of the suns existence, your errors bars are going to be minute. They will however be bigger than the 100 years the IPCC are using
Last edited:
You guys are all wrong.
Global warming is caused by us now... just like it was created by the dinosaurs making camp fires , sitting around them and smoking exotic plants .
On a serious note though.
What the human species should remember is that we are much more vulnrable than what the earth is to change.
If the human race get wiped out because of whatever reason (globa warming , asteroids , sickness bla bla bla ) life will carry on . All it takes is one survived cell to start evolution and life all over again. Will that cell be human ... probably not.
Global warming is caused by us now... just like it was created by the dinosaurs making camp fires , sitting around them and smoking exotic plants .
On a serious note though.
What the human species should remember is that we are much more vulnrable than what the earth is to change.
If the human race get wiped out because of whatever reason (globa warming , asteroids , sickness bla bla bla ) life will carry on . All it takes is one survived cell to start evolution and life all over again. Will that cell be human ... probably not.
Kalvaer
Expert Member
I think 99.8% of true scientists would agree that it exists, But 90% of them would not agree that its all that Al Gore tries to make it out to be. Of those, I'd say about 70% are not even sure if it will even have any effect or if we could do anything about it over and above the earth's normal cycles.
*Figures pulled out of my ass, but you get the point*
31 486 (In the USA alone) signatures I think should be more than enough to back up my claim
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php
These are all educated in the field of science as indicated on that petition
Take a look at who's on that list... the list defines "scientist" as someone who holds a degree in science. Any degree in any science. So somebody with a BSC in mechanical engineering could be on there. If you need legal advise, do you visit a dentist? If your car breaks down do you take it to an accountant?
Go on, randomly pick some names off there and see if any of them are even climate scientists, much less published climate scientists.
Why not take a look at some of the studies that have been done to attempt to quantify this? Oreskes (2004) is a good place to start. Less pulling stuff out of asses and more proper studies...
Pitbull
Verboten
erm...
Did you read the Questions section of that petition?
Just a question
What about the questions (I'm assuming you mean the FAQ)? Coz there were a couple of real gems in there - like the fact that less than 1/3 of the signers even have PhD's.
And the real bombshell - it's an OISM project. Class.
Why not read the article linked in my Denial Machine thread that every single one of you skeptics has been conspicuously absent from?
Kalvaer
Expert Member
LOL.. dude.. think about that. My Wife is currently a part time physics lecturer, she is teaching Engineering students mostly. They all have to take physics and pass it. So they actually understand much more than most people here. OK, well I will admit after hearing her screaming her lungs out after marking their year end exams, 2 weeks ago, she believes that some dung beetles might know more than them. But those that do fall into that catagory, all have to redo the course again next year.
Now lets move on to the all might "Al Gore". The person everyone believes is right. He started off his studies writing a novel, He took a "course" in Climate Science and Political science. The course in Climate science was by one of the men who can be considered the Father of GW, Of course saying that he was influences by an activist would be so wrong, But the point is he has a BA Degree. NOT a BSC.
Those people who signed it know more about science than somebody who took a single course. Of course he did finish his dream of writing a novel though.
Pitbull
Verboten
semiautomatix
Honorary Master
That I can agree with!
Can we please leave Al Gore out of this... I don't give a **** what he says - he's not an expert on this subject. Using Gore as one's authority on GW is the same as linking a lame list of "scientists" compiled by a guy whose last business was a Y2K scam.
@ Pitbull, your list includes almost no QUALIFIED scientists. You know, people who can actually talk from a position of authority on the issue of climate change.
Come on guys, you keep talking about THOUSANDS of qualified scientists who oppose AGW, when in actual fact there's simply a massive spin machine and a HANDFUL of peer reviewed papers. It's grasping at straws in the most pathetic way possible.
semiautomatix
Honorary Master
No, global warming isn't a scam.
Do you mind telling us why the Antarctic glaciers are increasing, and why the climate is cooling in many parts of the world?
There's a negative correlation between ENSO and SAM being in their positive (warmest) phases and there being less snow melt. When ENSO and SAM's positive phases happen at the same time the effect on snow melt is most drastic. In other words, when ENSO and SAM cause ocean water to be warmer, snow melts are less. On the rare occasions that ENSO and SAM are in the positive phase at the same time, (like summer 2008/2009) snow melts are even less.