DeletedUser10415
So you're a nihilist. Why even bother to participate in the thread?
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Global Warming is a hoax?
- Thread starter *Arturis*
- Start date
- Status
DeletedUser17759
It's a mankind-caused mass extinction. Something we could have entirely prevented with a different mindset. We can stop it from continuing, if we choose to, too.
DeletedUser10415
Let's see what Cookie Monster has to say about the state of affairs....
https://youtu.be/U5X4N2exOsU
https://youtu.be/U5X4N2exOsU
DeletedUser17558
I prefer the term realist.
I don't think man-made mass extinction is ever going to stop. Man is spreading like a virus across the planet and to think that you are going to get 7-8+ billion people to stop is just crazy. My point is that there have been multiple mass extinctions, some drastic, and some gradual. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Are we having an affect on the planet? Of course we are, it is just my opinion that we are having less of an affect on the temperature that some people want us to believe. There are larger forces at work on this planet than man.
DeletedUser17759
The way to do it is with laws (and force). It isn't like we have to get everyone in the planet on board.
DeletedUser17558
Well, if you can find an ethical way to reduce the population of the planet, which is, IMO, the only way to effectively reduce mass extinction of other species, you let me know.
kandoo212
New Member
Of course there is global warming, but there's also global cooling. The Earth's climate is and has always been in constant change. Ever hear of the ice Ages? There were many. They came and they went. Many occurred way before Man existed on this planet. To say that humans are having a major impact on climate is simply silly and naive. Don't fall for this hoax. I was recently watching the History Channel and they were talking about the "mini Ice Age" that took place around the year 1000 AD. The Vikings that had settled in Iceland had to abandon their settlements and go back to Denmark because it got so cold the grass would no longer grow and all their animals died. The climate changed so quickly and drastically that even the cod changed their migration pattern and would not swim that far North anymore. So who was responsible for that climate change? Carbon emissions? Not likely. Climate change has and will always exist, unfortunately some have chosen to make a political issue out of pseudo-science. All for the purpose of re-distributing wealth, i.e. the Cap and Trade gimmick.
DeletedUser10415
I say again - Bubble. Our atmosphere is a closed system. To think humanity is incapable of altering it is what is silly and naive.
DeletedUser10554
Global warming is true! .................................... happens every summer, then the ice age winter, turn off the stupid boob tube, get a grip. Like the dog owners that look like the dog, so goes the boob tube believers ..AKA suckers.
lemur
Well-Known Member
LOL ... I'll see your Tom Waits and raise you one Doris Day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV5ynRFzrIM
It's time to wind up the masquerade that this social system of endless growth of consumption was ever sustainable. So now the piper must be paid. The party's over....
The horrible thing is that unborn generations will pay the greatest price.
- - - Updated - - -
Like much of the American public, this thread is full of opinions that are ignorant of the scientific evidence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com
Mustapha00
Well-Known Member
Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich?
One difference between past mass extinctions and this theory that man is causing a mass extinction event is that, unlike those in the past, mankind actually has the ability to affect his environment. It was thought, not so very long ago (see Ehrlich's predictions) that, among other things, Earth could not support more than three or so billion people because we could not grow enough food to feed them all. Advances in agriculture and related sciences have proved that we can feed more than double that amount of people on far less land than was used for farming just a few generations ago. That's not to say that we've eliminated famine, but we don't hear about millions starving, so both the scale and the frequency have markedly decreased.
As for the global warming debate, I have little doubt that the Earth is in a gradual warming phase right now. But claims that the Earth has never been hotter or that CO2 levels have never been higher are just flat out false. There are fossils of temperate zone vegetation in far northern Siberia! I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. The methodology is far too imprecise, the data therefore questionable. It was only 40 years ago that scientists were telling us to brace for a new Ice Age. Wrong then? Unquestionably. Wrong now? Quite possibly.
DeletedUser15539
No one denies the earth's climate changes. What has not been adequately demonstrated to me is that human activity is responsible for a significant part of that climate change. And the belief that government, which is incapable of repairing potholes in roads is capable of managing the global climate is beyond belief.
I also do not believe the government could care less about the climate, but it is all a big money and power grab. Please let me continue with a true story. A few decades ago Congress passed a law that anyone who produced their own electricity (photo-voltaic, windmill, micro-water turbine, etc) and made a surplus, the local utility would have to purchase that surplus power at the prevailing rate. This is known as "net metering". Gee, that sounds like the government really cares, right? Well guess what - when they wrote that law they exempted themselves. We live in a rural area, and our only electric service provider is The Department of the Interior, part of the U.S. Government, and exempt from the net metering requirement. We recently put solar PV panels on our roof, and when we asked about net metering we got a snotty "we're not required by law to do that, so we won't". Wouldn't you want to live in a society where everyone had that as their motto? But wait, it gets even better. The way the government had their electric meter set up, we got charged for what we bought from them at night, but we also got charged for the surplus power we produced during the day. We just about had to squeeze blood from a stone to get that fixed. So please, don't bother telling me how much the government cares about anything, with the exception of the government getting bigger and more powerful.
I also do not believe the government could care less about the climate, but it is all a big money and power grab. Please let me continue with a true story. A few decades ago Congress passed a law that anyone who produced their own electricity (photo-voltaic, windmill, micro-water turbine, etc) and made a surplus, the local utility would have to purchase that surplus power at the prevailing rate. This is known as "net metering". Gee, that sounds like the government really cares, right? Well guess what - when they wrote that law they exempted themselves. We live in a rural area, and our only electric service provider is The Department of the Interior, part of the U.S. Government, and exempt from the net metering requirement. We recently put solar PV panels on our roof, and when we asked about net metering we got a snotty "we're not required by law to do that, so we won't". Wouldn't you want to live in a society where everyone had that as their motto? But wait, it gets even better. The way the government had their electric meter set up, we got charged for what we bought from them at night, but we also got charged for the surplus power we produced during the day. We just about had to squeeze blood from a stone to get that fixed. So please, don't bother telling me how much the government cares about anything, with the exception of the government getting bigger and more powerful.
DeletedUser16796
The climate has changed since the beginning of time,. in fact it is why humans are here in the first place!!!
The average temp of the history of Earth is warmer than it is now,.. with or without humans, the chance is, that the planet will be warmer due to this very fact.
The temperature of the Earth has in fact been overall gradually increasing for 2 million years when north and south America collided and changed the oceanic flows
There will always be fluctuations, the global warming/ climate change alarmists are going based on data of last 120-150 years that was able to be measured precisely, while ignoring the rest of the Earth's history. Claiming catastrophe straight ahead, fear mongering, lining pockets due to this,..
There is currently no way to precisely measure what impact natural things have on the environment, (aka volcanoes for instance - many are deep under oceans, under ice packs, etc),.. or to measure the suns involvement especially day to day or year to year, the methane caused by all the ponds, lakes, etc (methane is more of a global warmer than CO2 by far, every clean energy has drawbacks on environment as well),....etc, etc, etc,.. for it is a huge guestimation on all this in fact
Can humans have some impact in the long run on environment in certain ways, sure, is it catastrophe, run away global warming and stronger weather patterns than ever,.. no!!! IT is about hypersenationalism which is what our politicians and media do very well anymore,.. of course since there is also big money involved behind it as well,.. it is quite a motivator
The average temp of the history of Earth is warmer than it is now,.. with or without humans, the chance is, that the planet will be warmer due to this very fact.
The temperature of the Earth has in fact been overall gradually increasing for 2 million years when north and south America collided and changed the oceanic flows
There will always be fluctuations, the global warming/ climate change alarmists are going based on data of last 120-150 years that was able to be measured precisely, while ignoring the rest of the Earth's history. Claiming catastrophe straight ahead, fear mongering, lining pockets due to this,..
There is currently no way to precisely measure what impact natural things have on the environment, (aka volcanoes for instance - many are deep under oceans, under ice packs, etc),.. or to measure the suns involvement especially day to day or year to year, the methane caused by all the ponds, lakes, etc (methane is more of a global warmer than CO2 by far, every clean energy has drawbacks on environment as well),....etc, etc, etc,.. for it is a huge guestimation on all this in fact
Can humans have some impact in the long run on environment in certain ways, sure, is it catastrophe, run away global warming and stronger weather patterns than ever,.. no!!! IT is about hypersenationalism which is what our politicians and media do very well anymore,.. of course since there is also big money involved behind it as well,.. it is quite a motivator
Algona
Well-Known Member
Paul Ehrlich... Yeah, I remember reading that around 40-45 years ago. Scared hell out of a lot of people back then, including yours truly, a rather naive prepubescent. Turned out he was wrong.
Folk, we don't know anything about climate. Whether or not man is causing problems now, you can bet that sooner or later other factors will necessitate that knowledge.
We can't build a model that can predict. We don't have theories that are verifiable. We may not even have the computing power yet.
Only in the last 50 years have we possibly come up with a reasonable way to measure surface temperature over wide regions of the planet. Problem there is we still haven't decided where to stick the thermometer.
If we're gonna waste billions/trillions of dollars, how about we spend it on trying to understand our climate? Good news in that, science always has serendipitous payoffs, something the gov't agencies being erected to battle the coming ice age, I mean, global warming, err, I mean, climate change won't provide.
Oh, and to the poster saying Earth atmosphere is a closed environment, wrong. The interface between Earth atmosphere and the rest of the universe is an active zone with stuff blowing out and falling in. Vulcanism. bioeffects. Water soluble chemical effects. Fires. And who knows? Maybe mankind can get off our collective asses and make that interface even more active.
p.s. Trees don't produce ozone.
Folk, we don't know anything about climate. Whether or not man is causing problems now, you can bet that sooner or later other factors will necessitate that knowledge.
We can't build a model that can predict. We don't have theories that are verifiable. We may not even have the computing power yet.
Only in the last 50 years have we possibly come up with a reasonable way to measure surface temperature over wide regions of the planet. Problem there is we still haven't decided where to stick the thermometer.
If we're gonna waste billions/trillions of dollars, how about we spend it on trying to understand our climate? Good news in that, science always has serendipitous payoffs, something the gov't agencies being erected to battle the coming ice age, I mean, global warming, err, I mean, climate change won't provide.
Oh, and to the poster saying Earth atmosphere is a closed environment, wrong. The interface between Earth atmosphere and the rest of the universe is an active zone with stuff blowing out and falling in. Vulcanism. bioeffects. Water soluble chemical effects. Fires. And who knows? Maybe mankind can get off our collective asses and make that interface even more active.
p.s. Trees don't produce ozone.
Last edited:
DeletedUser10415
I don't recall stating they did. I checked, and I didn't.
Earth's atmosphere is open only in terms of matter being able to enter, and energy being able to both enter and exit. Matter is retained, for the most part however and it is therefore closed in that way. Smoke a cigarette and blow some bubbles. Nuclear Winter, Yellowstone erupting, covering the entire surface of the planet with internal combustion engines - None of these would be a problem otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Algona
Well-Known Member
The ps. was not directed to you, but towards another poster. My apologies.
Matter at the top of the atmosphere is constantly being blown away by solar wind and energetic radiation - tons infall, tons outgas daily. Solar radiation also causes changes to the atmosphere, such as the creation of C14 and ozone.
There are a multitude of geological, biological and chemical mechanisms in the land-air-water interfaces that incessantly act. The earth's atmosphere is in constant flux, the miracle is the long term homeostasis of the entire planetary system.
Matter at the top of the atmosphere is constantly being blown away by solar wind and energetic radiation - tons infall, tons outgas daily. Solar radiation also causes changes to the atmosphere, such as the creation of C14 and ozone.
There are a multitude of geological, biological and chemical mechanisms in the land-air-water interfaces that incessantly act. The earth's atmosphere is in constant flux, the miracle is the long term homeostasis of the entire planetary system.
DeletedUser13838
The solar wind is deflected about the earth well above the atmosphere. There may be some effect during high solar activity and/or at the poles but I'm not sure. As far as I know all Earth loses are small amounts of helium and hydrogen, the lightest elements.
JustKiddingU
New Member
I'm sure I'm an idiot for engaging in the conversation (particularly when I came to the forum looking for a solution to a different problem than wther human civilization will persist) but what the heck.
Climate changes - we all agree there. A point worth considering is that for the vast majority of the Earth's existence (probably upward of 90%) the climate was not conducive to humanity's survival. certainly not to the survival of a heavily populated industrial culture.
Humans change the climate - this is the cause of much debate. Certainly humanity has significantly changed local climates, through deforestation and desertification in some areas. Also through the destruction of large fauna, such as the buffalo on the N. American plains and likely the mammoth at the end of the last ice age. As far as global climate goes? Here's a simple fact that is not subject to argument. Global CO2 has increased by over 1/3 in the last century. While we can endlessly debate the impact of increased CO2 there is little question that human activity is the reason for the change. No other vehicle is present to produce such a significant change (sorry folks, volcanic activity doesn't produce nearly that much CO2). So let's just acknowledge that humans are capable of changing the global atmosphere.
As far as power grabs are concerned, I want to keep this comment on the science but I also want to point out that the question is shifting power from whom to whom? The major energy producing corporations already control a significant portion of the world's wealth. Many major corporations have more financial clout than all but the 20 or 30 largest countries. Shell, Exxon & BP each control more wealth than the government's of Turkey, Belgium, Sweden or Indonesia. There are still many trillions of $ in fossil fuels in the ground waiting to be extracted so there is a significant incentive for these corporation to ensure their ability to extract that wealth.
Therefore, there is plenty of justification that the attempts to control the future of humanity are present on the side that wants to maintain the status quo regardless of the impact on civilization. As David Koch has said on the record; "even if anthropomorphic climate change is real, i'll just build my house where the climate is more suitable." This is a luxury that many humans don't have, but I will guarantee that the folks who have the greatest incentive to delay any potential action are also the ones best able to personally afford buying new homes in more hospitable regions. Every year that action is delayed is another $2 or $3 trillion dollars extracted from the world economy. I really don't believe that any government grants compare.
Back to the science. While there is argument over exactly what percentage of people with actual expertise in climatology believe that humans are causing significant changes to the planet's climate there is little valid argument that the vast majority (between 84% & 97% depending on whose analysis you trust) are in agreement that humanity is changing the climate. The only question is exactly how much and what we should do about it. There is no question that government action is inherently inefficient. But whose actions do you propose? The corporations who stand to lose trillions of $ if we upset the status quo?
We've had technological revolutions before. We no longer use whale oil lamps. Very few of us rely on horses for our basic travel needs. Steamboats are not a significant travel option and very few people rely on the railroads for human transport either. Wood fires are not a primary heating source for most folks. The list goes on. Perhaps fossil fuels should be added to that list.
As I am fond of saying: If we are going to play Russian Roulette with the viability of the only habitable planet most of us will ever know, doesn't it make sense to try and empty some of the bullet chambers?
Climate changes - we all agree there. A point worth considering is that for the vast majority of the Earth's existence (probably upward of 90%) the climate was not conducive to humanity's survival. certainly not to the survival of a heavily populated industrial culture.
Humans change the climate - this is the cause of much debate. Certainly humanity has significantly changed local climates, through deforestation and desertification in some areas. Also through the destruction of large fauna, such as the buffalo on the N. American plains and likely the mammoth at the end of the last ice age. As far as global climate goes? Here's a simple fact that is not subject to argument. Global CO2 has increased by over 1/3 in the last century. While we can endlessly debate the impact of increased CO2 there is little question that human activity is the reason for the change. No other vehicle is present to produce such a significant change (sorry folks, volcanic activity doesn't produce nearly that much CO2). So let's just acknowledge that humans are capable of changing the global atmosphere.
As far as power grabs are concerned, I want to keep this comment on the science but I also want to point out that the question is shifting power from whom to whom? The major energy producing corporations already control a significant portion of the world's wealth. Many major corporations have more financial clout than all but the 20 or 30 largest countries. Shell, Exxon & BP each control more wealth than the government's of Turkey, Belgium, Sweden or Indonesia. There are still many trillions of $ in fossil fuels in the ground waiting to be extracted so there is a significant incentive for these corporation to ensure their ability to extract that wealth.
Therefore, there is plenty of justification that the attempts to control the future of humanity are present on the side that wants to maintain the status quo regardless of the impact on civilization. As David Koch has said on the record; "even if anthropomorphic climate change is real, i'll just build my house where the climate is more suitable." This is a luxury that many humans don't have, but I will guarantee that the folks who have the greatest incentive to delay any potential action are also the ones best able to personally afford buying new homes in more hospitable regions. Every year that action is delayed is another $2 or $3 trillion dollars extracted from the world economy. I really don't believe that any government grants compare.
Back to the science. While there is argument over exactly what percentage of people with actual expertise in climatology believe that humans are causing significant changes to the planet's climate there is little valid argument that the vast majority (between 84% & 97% depending on whose analysis you trust) are in agreement that humanity is changing the climate. The only question is exactly how much and what we should do about it. There is no question that government action is inherently inefficient. But whose actions do you propose? The corporations who stand to lose trillions of $ if we upset the status quo?
We've had technological revolutions before. We no longer use whale oil lamps. Very few of us rely on horses for our basic travel needs. Steamboats are not a significant travel option and very few people rely on the railroads for human transport either. Wood fires are not a primary heating source for most folks. The list goes on. Perhaps fossil fuels should be added to that list.
As I am fond of saying: If we are going to play Russian Roulette with the viability of the only habitable planet most of us will ever know, doesn't it make sense to try and empty some of the bullet chambers?
Mustapha00
Well-Known Member
The fossil record shows that the Earth has been warmer- far warmer- than it is now on many occasions, all of which were absent not only human intervention but human existence. Unless and until warming alarmists can explain how non-existent humans managed to take steps to rectify that warming- in other words, once they recognize that there are natural, cyclical events which have far more effect on the climate than anything humans could ever do (short of a massive nuclear exchange)- then people are right to not only be skeptical but highly so.
It is fair to investigate into and report upon the sources of funding of climate skeptics. If they are being paid large sums from companies which profit from the exploitation and use of fossil fuels, then that should be brought out so that all can decide to what degree such an association might impact their findings.
But it is also fair to investigate and report upon the sources of funding of climate alarmists. If they are being paid large sums of money from governmental entities who strongly support AGW theory, then that, too, should be brought out so that all can decide to what degree such associations might impact their findings. Sauce for the goose.....
If you are not familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, I think he'd be worth your consideration. Lomborg is a believer in AGW, by the way, but he offers a very different perspective on the issue. for example, Lomborg prioritizes global issues on the basis of how much money will be necessary to provide a positive benefit. He believes that, for instance, providing mosquito nets for individuals in malaria-riddled Africa would produce a far larger benefit for its cost than cutting pollutants by some amount (experts differ) as compared to that cost. He also wonders if a slightly warming planet might not be beneficial for humans because far more individuals die from cold than from heat and an extended growing season and expanded fertile areas are similarly beneficial.
On the science of the issue, I merely repeat what I've previously said: weather forecasts 5 days out are notoriously inaccurate (http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/). 10-day forecasts are even worse. So how is it that we take as Gospel temperature predictions 25, 50 or 75 years in the future without question but have serious doubts whether we'll need a sweater 75 hours in the future?
At some point, probably in the very near future, we will be able to replace the highly-efficient internal combustion engine with Something Else. We will be able to replace coal, natural gas and nuclear fission with Something Else. But alternative energy sources are, right now, not ready for prime time. My car gets me roughly 450 miles on a single tankful of gasoline; no electric car comes close (and most of that electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels and will be for some time). Solar power is not consistent. Wind power isn't consistent. Tidal and geothermal are fine where they can be tapped, but that's probably not going to help Iowa. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a push for renewables, but not when it is coupled with purposeful strangulation of current energy sources such as this Administration is doing on a daily basis.
It is fair to investigate into and report upon the sources of funding of climate skeptics. If they are being paid large sums from companies which profit from the exploitation and use of fossil fuels, then that should be brought out so that all can decide to what degree such an association might impact their findings.
But it is also fair to investigate and report upon the sources of funding of climate alarmists. If they are being paid large sums of money from governmental entities who strongly support AGW theory, then that, too, should be brought out so that all can decide to what degree such associations might impact their findings. Sauce for the goose.....
If you are not familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, I think he'd be worth your consideration. Lomborg is a believer in AGW, by the way, but he offers a very different perspective on the issue. for example, Lomborg prioritizes global issues on the basis of how much money will be necessary to provide a positive benefit. He believes that, for instance, providing mosquito nets for individuals in malaria-riddled Africa would produce a far larger benefit for its cost than cutting pollutants by some amount (experts differ) as compared to that cost. He also wonders if a slightly warming planet might not be beneficial for humans because far more individuals die from cold than from heat and an extended growing season and expanded fertile areas are similarly beneficial.
On the science of the issue, I merely repeat what I've previously said: weather forecasts 5 days out are notoriously inaccurate (http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/). 10-day forecasts are even worse. So how is it that we take as Gospel temperature predictions 25, 50 or 75 years in the future without question but have serious doubts whether we'll need a sweater 75 hours in the future?
At some point, probably in the very near future, we will be able to replace the highly-efficient internal combustion engine with Something Else. We will be able to replace coal, natural gas and nuclear fission with Something Else. But alternative energy sources are, right now, not ready for prime time. My car gets me roughly 450 miles on a single tankful of gasoline; no electric car comes close (and most of that electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels and will be for some time). Solar power is not consistent. Wind power isn't consistent. Tidal and geothermal are fine where they can be tapped, but that's probably not going to help Iowa. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a push for renewables, but not when it is coupled with purposeful strangulation of current energy sources such as this Administration is doing on a daily basis.
Algona
Well-Known Member
mustapha, your first paragraph is fallacious. We don't know enough about how climate and weather work to make any judgement on what if any changes may be occurring or what may be causing any changes. You may be exactly right, but we don't know.
We need to find out how the system works. Then we can figure out what is happening, what are the causes, and what needs to be done.
For now, there is way too much credence put in what people 'believe'. Belief is a really crappy basis to decide how to spend trillions of dollars. Instead, let's spend that money on leaning, so any actions we take have some chance of being effective.
It is critical that we understand how the climate/weather system works. Whether or not man can/is changing the system, other unknown causes have dramatically and rapidly changed the system in the past. We need to get the understanding of how to influence, mitigate, or work with those causes and changes.
We need to find out how the system works. Then we can figure out what is happening, what are the causes, and what needs to be done.
For now, there is way too much credence put in what people 'believe'. Belief is a really crappy basis to decide how to spend trillions of dollars. Instead, let's spend that money on leaning, so any actions we take have some chance of being effective.
It is critical that we understand how the climate/weather system works. Whether or not man can/is changing the system, other unknown causes have dramatically and rapidly changed the system in the past. We need to get the understanding of how to influence, mitigate, or work with those causes and changes.
- Status