1. Changelog 1.161

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.161 will take place on Wed, Sept 18, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Global Warming is a hoax?

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by LacLongQuan, Feb 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brisco804

    Brisco804 Guest

    Nobody wants to destroy the environment in the name of progress, but there seems to be no end to the folks that want to destroy progress in the name of the environment.
     
  2. shrekgreen

    shrekgreen Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    "Now OTHERS NEWS for Today......China week long smog disappears after a storm came through.............Oil company shut down refineries due to over production. Expect a drop in oil prices, maybe till the mid or end of 2016, mean while a Geologic discovery a large vast under the southern border of Alaska that will provide enough oil for hundred of years ...........Rain Forrest are coming back with vengeance..Many small town that were developed in the last decade are fighting back brush, vines and bugs that making their way back in..........Water temp in the Antarctic drop dramatically, trapping Green Peace, NOAA and other Science vessel from other countries in ice, rescue ship also got trap several miles away from the sites......................Environmentalist destroyed a private company property causing The Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Team to show up. The Company said that the Environmentalist thought his company make insect repellent. When it actually produce soda water. The carbon dioxide facility was ransack and that when a supply line was cut on purpose..........Al Gore's Zinc mine fails inspections twice.................." These were just in the last few months. Some of them, believe it or not, happen twice. For example, Ships getting stuck. It happen last year and this year.
     
  3. Spittybug

    Spittybug New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Some great debate going on....with one thing in common; nobody knows for sure. So here's an idea, why don't we spend the money that the "sky is falling" folks want to control, on meaningful public works projects that will put people to work, brace for "climate change" and improve everyone's standard of living. Instead of trying to make the whole world change, California could decide humans are more important than little fish and build some dams and reservoirs. City planners could STOP building in cities like New Orleans that are below sea level. Insurers could continue to equilibrate risk and put up premiums for people that build on the coasts. Building codes could be tightened to combat more extreme weather. Flood plains could be off limits for new construction. Etc, etc, etc. We can't yet diagnose the disease, contrary to the belief of those that want to CURE it with YOUR money, so let's prepare for the SYMPTOMS. Jobs, infrastructure, preparedness... Seems a lot more bankable than anything out there.
     
    shrekgreen likes this.
  4. Algona

    Algona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2015
    What the hell are you doing, spittybug? Bringing common sense to a political argument?

    Pffft. Like that could work.

    Good post, but can I borrow a Trillion Dollars of the 17 Trillion they want to spend fighting the coming ice age, err, I mean, global warming, oops, climate change, yeah that's the ticket, climate change! to do some research?
     
  5. ITown

    ITown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2013
    I encourage everybody to watch the documentary "Merchants of Doubt"

    It's an excellent documentary about how the tobacco industry manufactured doubt about whether or not tobacco was harmful to your health, even though their internal scientists had conclusive evidence in the 1950s that clearly linked smoking tobacco to lung cancer.

    Then a link is drawn to the climate change debate.
     
  6. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    But that argument can- and does- go both ways.

    You can claim that scientists who are AGW 'agnostics' might have their opinions influenced by those who pay their salaries. You might even be right.

    But I then can also argue that scientists who believe AGW is real and a critical threat, whose salaries and grants are paid for by politicians who themselves believe AGW is real and a critical threat, might have their opinions influenced too.

    Sauce for the goose, after all....
     
  7. bobodoc

    bobodoc New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    The earth is warming especially since "The Little Ice Age" which was from 1300-1870 and peaked from 1645-1715. It has also been warming since the last ice age which occurred during the Pleistocene period and ended about 12,000 years ago. During the last ice age temperatures were about 12-15 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the average today. After an ice age there is an "Interglacial Warming Period (IWP)", like the one we are in today. They last 15,000 to 20,000 years. Generally in these IWPs there is, overall, a gradual increase in temperature, but there are many periods during this time where global mean temps increase and decrease. We have a somewhat accurate "general idea" of global mean temperatures during different ages. We have a less than good understanding about atmospheric CO2 levels during previous time periods. Global mean temps are related to cosmic factors we can predict mathematically; earth's position in the orbit around the sun and relative to other planets which alter the orbit very slightly but contribute to the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth. We do not know the amount of "extra" solar radiation hitting the earth due to variabilities in the amount the sun emits (solar flares, sunspots, changes in the solar wind, etc.). Scientists have calculated what the CO2 was in the earth's atmosphere using ice core data, which is calculable, but there is some disagreement on it's accuracy. Other ways of predicting CO2 are less empirical (comparing stomata in fossilized leaves to current times and deducing what CO2 levels were based on these similarities) and have confounded scientists. It is interesting that these data do not support the idea that CO2 is at it's highest levels in the earth's atmosphere today: these data, if believed, would counter the man-made (anthropogenic) contribution to todays (at least since 1870) global warming, which is about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius). Is it possible that man made increases in CO2 contribute to mean global temperature increases? Of course it is. How much? Incredibly hard to say. What do I mean? The IPCC's final public statements issued periodically over the last 3 decades, which are based on many scientists data and are stated by, mostly non-scientists in the U.N., have varied considerably. The amount of global mean temperature increase predicted has fallen each time the new data are predicted as have predictions in sea level rise (compare what Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" warned us of to subsequent predictions by the IPCC and the facts. None of Gore's catastrophes came true). The term "Global warming" has been replace by "Global Climate Change". Why? In the period from 2002-2009 there was no increase in global mean temp despite large increases in atmospheric CO2 occurring at rates deduced to be faster than at any time in human history. But then since 2009 temps have increased again. Who do we believe? Al Gore and others in the "movement" panicked and vastly overstated the facts and their predictions. The IPCC's statements are constantly changing in the direction of lessening the amount of change predicted. So naturally people begin to question their model. It doesn't change the fact some of it may be true. It just makes many stop listening and stop believing there is "some" truth behind it. We need to keep an open mind, but we have to stop making public policy decisions based on data that seem to be true in the general ("the globe is warming"), and false in their accuracy (the exact increase in temps or sea levels). Like everything else which "side" you take is related to one's overarching belief system which can define a movement's Zeitgeist; it then becomes, not a search for truth, but a fight against enemies that are against one's core beliefs. Dialogue becomes emotional, irrational and inflammatory. The arguments become ad hominem and, in the end, counterproductive. It took over one thousand years to disprove Ptolemy's (and others) geocentric model for the solar system which was based on mathematics. Slight inaccuracies were rationalized away by scientists for over one thousand years, until more accurate science explained them and "proved" the heliocentric model (via Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo). We need to be cognizant of this as it could relate to any of today's scientific hypotheses that are "based on science" yet be open-minded enough to still consider the hypotheses to be true. I, personally, am skeptical of the anthropogenic contribution to "Global Climate Change", as you probably have guessed. I am arrogant, but not so arrogant to believe I may be wrong.
     
    shrekgreen likes this.
  8. sir muley

    sir muley New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    it is an obvious hoax. that said...

    even if human life on earth was in peril due to human activity then why not make that case instead of forcing everyone to take care of the danger with taxes/regs/etc.?
     
  9. Walrusking001

    Walrusking001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    If the planet continues to warm the prison for the evil Mechawalrus will melt and the power of the 8 walri sages who put him there has been lost for 2200 years. I doubt even my power could stop him.
     
  10. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Why not, indeed.

    One might come to the conclusion that 'saving mankind' isn't really the goal....

    Aaaannnnnd...one would be correct!

    It is said, and not with a racial overtone, that the radical environmentalists resemble watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. "Red" meaning "socialist/communist".

    After the fall of the Soviet Union and the concurrent discrediting of communism as an economic system, the socialist/communist elites had to find a new movement to hijack, and they selected radical environmentalism as their vehicle for massive wealth distribution.

    Not their wealth, of course, but the wealth of the proletariat of the West, chiefly the United States. We pay, the world's poor get even poorer (because fossil fuels are the cheapest and most reliable form of energy production the world has ever known)- and the elites profit. Al Gore has done pretty well for himself, don'cha think?
     
    Walrusking001 likes this.
  11. sir muley

    sir muley New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    And seedy...
     
  12. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Do you have any evidence to back what I interpret to be your claim that the vast majority of scientific consensus is part of some massive communist plot?

     
  13. sir muley

    sir muley New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    besides green initiatives invariably including measures which violate private property and individual freedom?
     
  14. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Are you saying every single "green initiative", whatever that is, contain measures which violate private property? If so, that's quite a claim and requires evidence.

    Since every single government regulation violates someone's individual freedom (what do you mean I'm not allowed to rob a bank!), I'll let that slide.

    Regardless, your answer hardly answers my question.
     
  15. sir muley

    sir muley New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    well, yes, i kind of am saying that. these 'green initiatives' are not recommendations, sir. they are implemented with force due to their disruption of peaceful and consensual behavior.

    since very single government regulation violates someone's individual freedom (what do you mean I'm not allowed to breathe!), i can't imagine why you'd pimp for them.

    regardless, your answer says all i need to know.
     
  16. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    The environmental movement is rife with corruption on a massive scale.

    From the email scandal at East Anglia University (in which 'scientists' agreed to manipulate the data to show a warming trend that is not there), to Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" hoax (another instance of data manipulation in which Mann edited out both the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period in order to make his case), to the UN IPCC admitting that the real goal of their efforts is to transfer wealth from the West, particularly the United States, to developing countries, there are myriad examples to cite.

    Does that mean "every" environmental movement is corrupt? No, but enough are so that the entire movement should be viewed very, very skeptically.

    There are allegations of conflict of interest and corruption towards the AGW skeptic movement, and Progressives seize upon those mere accusations to impugn the entire movement. But there is quite a bit of actual proof of conflicts of interest and corruption in the AGW supporter movement, yet that proof is roundly ignored.
     
  17. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    The problem I have with most political debate is that fact that issues are "framed" by people with an agenda. This works both ways. This is all too common in politics which is why I really don't pay attention to any "politics talk" - I can't believe anything said with regard to facts. People always seem to think the worst of anyone who doesn't think like them and don't admit the possibility of any rationality in their views.

    So even if there was some fudgery in some papers the amount of corroborating evidence is staggering. Of course if you just assume that it's all part of a massive conspiracy then there's no point of a debate. Maybe we didn't land on the moon. Maybe Elvis is still alive and living in a Motel 6 with JFK and the 2nd shooter. ;)

    So let's stick to facts. Here are some very basic, back of the envelope, calcs. I'll avoid metric units but this will lead to differences in some numbers you might see in print.

    Atmospheric pressure ~ 14.7 PSI (1 sq mile ~ 4 billion sq inches)
    Radius of earth ~ 4,000 miles
    Surface area of Earth (4πr²) = 4π*4000^2 ~ 200 million sq miles

    Weight of atmosphere = 14.7 pounds/sq inch * 4*10^9 sq inch/sq mi * 200*10^6 sq mi ~ 1.2 * 10^19 pounds

    The atmosphere is roughly 80% N2 (mass 28) and 20% O2 (mass 32) - everything else is about 1% of the atmosphere. So the avg weight of a gas molecule in the atmosphere is about 29. CO2 has mass 12 + 16*2 = 44 or about 50% heavier. CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere and currently is about 400 parts per million so about 600 parts per million by weight.

    Mass of CO2 in atmosphere = 1.2 * 10^19 pounds * 600/10^6 = 7.2 * 10^15 pounds or 3.6 trillion tons (this is off a bit but close enough).

    Global CO2 emissions in 2014 were about 36 billion tons. This is about 1% of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere (emissions 40 years ago were about 20 billion, 4 billion 80 years ago, etc. ie it's a lot more now than before).

    This is a source of CO2 that didn't exist 200 years ago for the most part. There are natural sources and sinks for CO2 (plants, animals, oceans, volcanos). If CO2 levels were stable at the time (ie source = sink), why shouldn't we expect CO2 levels to rise with an additional (or rather accelerated) source of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?

    If we're ok here we can talk about the impact of CO2, if any, on global temperatures.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2016
  18. caveman64

    caveman64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Actually, the primary source of oxygen is the amazon region. It is and always has been since we first started studying that aspect of our global climate.
    Global warming is no hoax...2 degrees celsius is significant. The only question is whether or not our greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause. For all we know, it could be a long term climactic cycle that has occurred throughout the history of the planet since the atmosphere was established. We do now know that the northern regions that are primarily arctic now, were once lushes temperate zones where dinosaurs flourished.
    I'm no scientist, but I find it hard to believe that all our pollutant production is not affecting the conditions to some degree.
     
  19. shrekgreen

    shrekgreen Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2015
    The only part I see is the different between Country and City life. I lived in 4 major cities growing up. Chicago, Tampa, Cleveland and Milwaukee. It always hot, smokey and stinky. Now I live on a plateau with woods as far as eyes can see. Cool, Clean and very Clear. I can actually see Stars and Nebula.
    I drive 30 miles a day to work with no 2 hour traffic jam. Cost me at most 30 dollars a month in gas. Until they come up with something "at reasonable price" that can drive up a 20% grade mountain side, with a 18 foot trailer dragging behind using only electric. I will not change my "Bad Habits". I will burn woods for heat. I will use diesel for my backhoe, skid-stir, tractors, front-end loader, finishing mowers and bush mowers. I will use gas for my log splitter, chainsaw, weed-eater, leaf-blower, utility cart, hedge trimmer, ditch-witch, augers, trash pumps, generators and my trucks. The company I work for spend at most 1500 in diesel and 1000 in gas, A Year. We are not the abuser, but are treated like one.
    Global Warming is the last thing on my worried list. Every time the "Government" screw something up that going to cost tax payers more money on really, really stupid things. Somebody will always find away around it. I did.
    It cost me before the coal plant closer about 150 a month in the winter to stay warm. After closing down some of the coal plant it cost me 400 dollars a month. I got a wood stove and a whole mountain of trees in tight groups. The highest this last winter was 134. Which about year round cost. Cut up about 18 rick of woods with about 2 1/2 gallon of gas. Including the log splitter.
    Oh, I don't need Air Conditioner.
    So, EPA, Green Peace, Climate Scientist and any BS environmentalist group. This finger for you. Peace Out.......
     
  20. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Atmospheric O2 dropped by about a third over the past 100 million years or so which is why the megafauna died out (or so I understand). Yes the rainforests as a source of O2 is one of the reasons behind their preservation but there is massive deforestation as the people there are clearing space to make farms. We also need to feed 7+ billion people and people aren't termites. :)

     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.