Global warming hoax fools millions

All the human activity on the planet adds one percent to the total atmospheric carbon per year, somehow I doubt it has now or ever had a measurable effect on the earth's temperature. If a Krakatoa happens again it will make human carbons look like nothing at all........ having said that, imo there is nothing wrong with working towards higher energy efficiency and less carbon pollution, I don't like smog at all thank you very much....... solar generation of electricity that is used to recharge a hybrid car's batteries overnight just makes my little engineer heart go pitter patter........

OTOH having ridiculous politicians and their minions raising the alarms and creating yet another crisis from which they can take in more money and gain more power and take away more freedom from me sucks.
 
Thankyou Bigdave. I understand what you are saying about the oil interests, but I don't believe all of the opposition is on the oil payroll. Some are simply educated scientists with a different view or questions related to the warming models. What harm would it do to give them voice in the debate? Let's hear them tell us directly what it is they don't agree with about the models.

I would love to see public debate, even on national television, between the pros and cons. A lot of the science programming is actually pretty unbiased about the warming cause, but I don't think the shows generate much interest from most. (science channel, etc..). Wouldn't a national televised series of discussions with members from all sides of the debate actually make the case more acceptable? I know that would not be the norm for a science related issue, but it might quell the suspicion of other agendas. Maybe it would even reduce the belief that the issue has been hijacked, overhyped, and manipulated to somehow punish America. Take the media bias out of the equation. Pure scientific debate. Probably wouldn't get ratings, but you never know with an issue generating so much controversy.

I myself don't believe countries like China would lower emmissions just because we did, especially at this point in their development. I think that belief adds resistance to dealing with the issue. That's one of the problems I have with it. I also believe this country has made some strides in reducing emmissions from autos and stacks in recent years. If that's true, we are already setting examples.

I don't doubt the CO2 levels, just how much of a greenhouse factor they are. Having said that, I am open to reasonable solutions that reduce pollution. I don't even need global warming for that (you ever lived near a paper mill)?

I wonder how many realize just how screwed we will be if thermohaline collapse occurs should the poles melt just a little too much. That's the scenerio that troubles me the most. Ironic that global warming could result in a mini ice age... or worse. Some researchers think we are well on our way to that already. This is an issue that should not be limited to one side or the other, and finding a way to get both sides to agreement should be the immediate goal (if even possible). If we could get that far, solutions reasonable to all sides might be found. Wishful thinking?
 
Quote from maxpi:

All the human activity on the planet adds one percent to the total atmospheric carbon per year, somehow I doubt it has now or ever had a measurable effect on the earth's temperature.
More...

Really! So over 10 years you're talking a 10% increase in the atmospheric carbon, and over 20 years you're talking 20% of the Earth's atmospheric carbon. 50 years, 50% higher. (Your numbers)

Do you still feel that it's unlikely to have an effect (based on your numbers)?


If a Krakatoa happens again it will make human carbons look like nothing at all...
More...


Actually that's wrong. Mauna Loa, for example, has been measured for 50 years. But even if it were true, which it clearly isn't, Krakatoa affected the world's climate and caused starvation.

..... having said that, imo there is nothing wrong with working towards higher energy efficiency and less carbon pollution, I don't like smog at all thank you very much....... solar generation of electricity that is used to recharge a hybrid car's batteries overnight just makes my little engineer heart go pitter patter........
More...

OTOH having ridiculous politicians and their minions raising the alarms and creating yet another crisis from which they can take in more money and gain more power and take away more freedom from me sucks.
More...

What freedoms are you losing by the US investing in hydrogen?
 
Quote from wjk:

Thankyou Bigdave. I understand what you are saying about the oil interests, but I don't believe all of the opposition is on the oil payroll. Some are simply educated scientists with a different view or questions related to the warming models. What harm would it do to give them voice in the debate? Let's hear them tell us directly what it is they don't agree with about the models.
More...

If it's live debate you want, check out realclimate. But be warned, the vast majority of climatologists, at least 90% agree with the Keeling curve and global climate change.

The reason you have trouble finding the debate is that there aren't that many climatologists who actually disagree. There are some retired professors here and there who are no longer studying, a few paid (seriously) by Exxon, a few dentists and lots of talk radio pundits.

I would love to see public debate, even on national television, between the pros and cons.
More...

Accomplishing what? The public has little knowledge of the high growth of CO2 concentrations, even less knowledge of infra-red absorption, no knowledge at all of tree rings and ice cores and how these are correlated with each other -- the people you want to consult on these matters are climatologists.

I myself don't believe countries like China would lower emmissions just because we did, especially at this point in their development. I think that belief adds resistance to dealing with the issue. That's one of the problems I have with it. I also believe this country has made some strides in reducing emmissions from autos and stacks in recent years. If that's true, we are already setting examples.
More...

Yes, the US is certainly setting an example, but not a good one.

When the landmine ban treaty was supported by almost all countries, the US opposed it.

When the child soldiers agreement which was signed almost worldwide came up the US opposed it.

When the Kyoto treaty was signed and ratified by 178 states, the US opposed it.

If the goal is to become an international pariah, the mission is being accomplished.

Sweden has already exceeded it's Kyoto targets and it's economy is forecasted to grow by 3.2 percent.

I don't doubt the CO2 levels, just how much of a greenhouse factor they are. Having said that, I am open to reasonable solutions that reduce pollution. I don't even need global warming for that (you ever lived near a paper mill)?
More...

I agree, I have worked in a city with one, and it's disgusting.

The problem is that the worst case outcome if we do nothing is far worse than the worst case outcome for the economy if we do something and didn't need to.
 
Ya know, we went from alarmist stories about global cooling [mid seventies] to global warming, now it's about global warming leading to global cooling... I'm sure I speak for a large part of the population when I yawn here......

I would look at the global temperature models if the, oh, the weather models worked, say looking out 10 years... if scientists could predict weather 10 years out I'd start to take interest in the computer modeling of such complex systems... If they could tell us how many hurricanes we are going to have next year for example... Currently they can't predict the frigging path of a hurricane that is already in existence. Does anybody here think that the problem of modeling the global temperature over decades is less complicated than modeling the weather over a few years, or even a few months? They only have computer models to work with really in regard to global temperatures, there is not enough observed history to know doodly squat really, I do know that the polar ice was melted so badly in 1924 that Scientific American reported the same scenario as today regarding the polar bears not having floes to call home... that little factoid is possibly more information than can be gotten from all the computer models...
 
Quote from maxpi:

Ya know, we went from alarmist stories about global cooling [mid seventies] to global warming, now it's about global warming leading to global cooling... I'm sure I speak for a large part of the population when I yawn here......
More...

Except that article you're referring to wasn't in a climatology journal, wasn't peer reviewed, and wasn't accepted by international groups and NASA.

I would look at the global temperature models if the, oh, the weather models worked, say looking out 10 years... if scientists could predict weather 10 years out I'd start to take interest in the computer modeling of such complex systems... If they could tell us how many hurricanes we are going to have next year for example... Currently they can't predict the frigging path of a hurricane that is already in existence. Does anybody here think that the problem of modeling the global temperature over decades is less complicated than modeling the weather over a few years, or even a few months? They only have computer models to work with really in regard to global temperatures, there is not enough observed history to know doodly squat really, I do know that the polar ice was melted so badly in 1924 that Scientific American reported the same scenario as today regarding the polar bears not having floes to call home... that little factoid is possibly more information than can be gotten from all the computer models...
More...

Can you show us the Scientific American article from 1924 that you're referring to? Because I don't believe it exists.

Additionally, although obvious to most I feel it's necessary to point this out: science has made some small, slight progress since 1924.

For example, scientists rarely use biplanes anymore.
 
Dave, what do you think about the climate models, the global warming models, are they more or less complex than predicting weather? This is a stock trading forum, if people could even predict the direction to tomorrow's market, let alone the magnitude of the change, there would not be a forum here at all, we would just shut up and collect our money every day... that is certainly a far less complex problem than predicting the earth's temperature with no history to work from....

And who cares if alarmist krap is peer reviewed or not? LOL
 
Quote from maxpi:

Dave, what do you think about the climate models, the global warming models, are they more or less complex than predicting weather?
More...

I know this answer is going to frustrate you, but that question has no inherent meaning. Is an apple more complex than an orange?

This is a stock trading forum, if people could even predict the direction to tomorrow's market, let alone the magnitude of the change, there would not be a forum here at all, we would just shut up and collect our money every day... that is certainly a far less complex problem than predicting the earth's temperature with no history to work from....
More...

??? Actually scientists have quite a lot of history to work from. They have 50 years of direct CO2 observations from the Keeling curve, they have directly measured temperature information going back to the mid 19th century. Past that temperature can be discerned by tree rings, corals, sediments and so on for about 425,000 years.

Here's a graph showing the increase:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/proxydata.htm

And who cares if alarmist krap is peer reviewed or not? LOL
More...

Your children.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:


The problem is that the worst case outcome if we do nothing is far worse than the worst case outcome for the economy if we do something and didn't need to.
More...

On this we are in agreement. It doesn't have to be a worse case scenerio for the economy, though. If a better economy was the result of solutions to reduce emmissions, there would be no downside. I don't think most people would care about the warming issue if they were to get a better economy out of the deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top