Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

In the UK most of the policy attached to supposedly combating climate change is. It's just a convenient mechanism to extract more tax, or for business to fool punters into paying more for services. None of it will make any useful impact on carbon dioxide levels. It just discredits what is interesting and valuable science, and ignores the many useful things that can be done to mitigate disruption that would inevitably one day occur through changing climate whether humans were pumping out greenhouse gases or not.

Some of you might be interested in jonk's offer to debate this topic. He asks:

Sounds like a good offer to anyone who is serious about either learning something of having an informed debate. After several days, he hasn't gotten any response.

Before you ask why I haven't accepted the offer, it's because I find the IPCC trustworthy enough to act on what they say, without more detail than I get anyway from my general science reading. If you don't fall into that category, this is a golden opportunity for a serious debate. Go for it.

If by global warming you mean, "the earth is slowly heating up compared to other documented years previously," I agree that it is real.

However, if you make the assumption that it is humans causing it, and that the solar system does not go through cycles I will disagree entirely.

Humans certainly aren't helping, but the raised temperatures certainly do not correlate to human involvement.

Humans are at best 1% of the reason the earth is rising in temperature.

You see there is a little thing called the Sun. The sun is a giant fire ball...A really really hot round ball of flames and explosions...and did I mention that it was really F***ing hot?

Well, go do some studies/find some studies on how much heat from solar winds the Sun can inflict upon our planet, and how that solar wind just keeps on hitting and hitting...and it never really misses.

Greenhouse gases and CO2 emissions could not even scratch the surface of such a heat. And lets not forget, the sun itself goes through cycles...sometimes it will be hotter, other times it will be colder.

I think you will find your answer.

Global warming is real, but its not humans doing. We may have almost 7 billion on the planet, many of whom use things which create emissions. Calculate the total Area of the surface of the planet. Next calculate Average density of materials, and locate the answers for things such as volume, mass, etc.

Next find the average/equilibrium of air pressure and temperature for our planet and jet stream patterns of our planet, which will help determine how the planet cools and warms.

Next take all those emission variables set by people and calculate how much people must use in a year.

Find an estimate of plants or wildlife that use CO2 and transform it. Or perhaps even simple chemical reactions that occur which transform it.

Take the total emissions of people and subtract from those all the reactions/transformations reduction total. (believe me you will need to consider a LOT of F***ing variables, so if you suck at math you are in fact screwed).

Now take that and make a ratio as compared to the heat the sun produces from solar wind.

You will notice how little human involvement is.

The planet cycles, the Sun is the major source of global warming(or rather the sun cycle, along with the changes of earths own cycle, and the affect outside influences such as meteors, moon and other planets gravity affects earth).

Stop buying into elitist propaganda. Yes the earth is heating up...but we don't know the length of the TRUE cause(the cycle), and how it will cool off.

Whether or not humans switch from current products of gas emissions, or go on using them, will have little to do with that cycle.

The sun weighs around 20000000000000000000000000000000 kg, has a temperature of 5000000 K, and puts off a fair number of calories per second. This should persuade foolish Earthlings that nothing they do can change their body temperature or comfort level. That 0.2 kg insulation blanket they call a coat is insignificant compared to the sun and its immense energy. Variations in body temperature are solely due to the Sun god Ra, and cannot be affected by puny humans.

I'm not interested enough to spend the time to find out or argue from first principles because after reading Bjorn Lomborgs "The Sceptical Environmentalist", 3 years ago, i believe, as he seems to, that there are more important things to worry about, ( eg: poverty, poor sanitation, wars, etc) and other more cost effective ways of reducing the number of deaths in the world, and the amount of damage to property, than by reducing carbon emissions.

I am interested in the subject though because it, the "scare", had me chronically paranoid and guilty for years, and i think it is an interesting psychological phenomenon that rich western countries have developed.

Last edited by ouinon on 23 Feb 2008, 5:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

I don't like mercury in my food, and burning coal is the major source of that. Mercury levels have risen in the oceans dramatically since the industrial revolution. I also am not too happy about sending tons of money to the Saudis, the Venezualans and Iranians to keep our inneficient fleet running. If the US used the amount of money it wastes on Iraq to develop alternative technologies, we would be well on our way to safe, clean energy. Instead, we elected and re-elected big oil to run the country.

There will still come an ice age in the next few thousand years like always.

Global warming is the wrong word for what is happening globally to the environment. Global destruction would probably cover a lot more ground and explain it a lot better.
Water shortage in the coming years is going to be a problem. By trying to find some technological/human anwser to prevent destroying our water supply (those glaciers aren't just there for looks) doesn't seem like a religion to me but human survival. I don't understand why there isn't more concern for a global consenus on trying to save big chunks of ecosystems which in turn would save us.
Also this topic is far from new age. Silent Springs was written over a hundred years ago. People knew that others were destroying the earth for their own selfish sick desires long before Al Gore was born. As for the whole sun angle that doesn't even make any sense. We are trapping poisons in our atmosphere like being suffocated by a large blanket. It has nothing to do with how hot the sun is. When I was about eight I almost suffocated myself in a sleeping bag by zipping it up on both sides. It heated up in there and that heat had nothing to do with the temperture of the outside of the sleeping bag. I don't understand how people can be so arrogant and illogical at the same time.

You are trying to make me look like an incompetent heretic of the Church of Global Climate Control (CGCC). I do not contradict myself at all. Let up on the dogma and review your paradigms.
1 False - I did address each of your points in your previous post.
2 True - My opinion is that global warming does not exist and even if it did it is not a bad thing. This discussion is what is important.
3. False - See number 3. I was answering a hypothetical.
4. False - Having an opinion that is different from yours is not a dismissal.
5. True - See number 4 about our difference of opinion. Opinions are like… Everyone has one.
6. True - See number 5.

What follows is my proof of what I know. If you read these links, you will understand that I do have facts behind my opinions.
You make claims of scientific findings and journals and such. You even throw in the red herring of Exxon profits in an attempt to confuse the issue. Do you have contradictory facts that are up to date like mine? Or are your opinions based solely on your faith in the CGCC?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pb ... 46/OPINION
Thursday, February 14, 2008 News flash: Not everyone apparently is convinced that global warming exists.
Hundreds of the world's leading "skeptics" of the theory of man-made global warming will meet in New York City March 2-4, 2008 to present their case and discuss the latest scientific, economic and political research on climate change. "Hundreds of scientists, many of them with distinguished careers and many appearances in the peer-reviewed literature, believe the Modern Warming is natural and moderate," Bast noted. "They are being censored by the press and demonized by environmental advocacy groups.
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2007/0 ... rming.html
Global Warming Consensus? What Consensus?
Scientists don't accept the IPCC position because, contrary to the myths about the IPCC, it is not a collection of 2,000 or so top scientists - it is a political grievance committee populated by many people who have no background in science at all.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... AE6F3FEBE2
Denis G. Rancourt professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa wrote: "I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 5d0842fed8
An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/200 ... -dare.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 456405.ece
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ... 11/FERNLEY

Maybe not, if you're talking about "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, credited with launching the green movement, which was published at the very dawning of "the new age", 1962.

Last edited by ouinon on 23 Feb 2008, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

actually not a good reference because includes rebuttals/suspicions and supposed debunkings, and the next one isn't so good either.

The next two are better, more credible, if still slightly suspect cos US govt connected :

this one isn't bad though : but the really super one, credible and interesting, is:


Haven't looked at the others yet, but thank you very much for the links.

Last edited by ouinon on 23 Feb 2008, 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oinion, I fully agree with your critique. It is sad that we have to check for spin, or agendas, when facts are presented. I probably went a little overboard illustrating my points

BTW - The first article is just to let people know about the March 2008 gathering of scientists in New York. The scientific debate continues.

The climate has certianly changed where I live over the past few decades - warmer and sunnier during the summer, and more fierce wind storms during the winter. Dunes are eroding on the coast that have been there for decades, due to storm surge, and trees are blowing down (entire hillsides of them) that have withstood the wind for decades or hundreds of years.

My opinion would be political or based on probability based potentially inaccurate date. I might be the most racially pure aspie in site but unless I become an environmental scientist I can’t give you an answer.


CANT HELP YOU MATE

Following on from there I just found a good interview with Denis Rancourt about how the damage being done is direct, hands-on, not something mysterious to do with climate change, and how dangerous/tragic the policy is of advising people to cut back on consumption because it encourages them to concentrate on their identities as consumers and forget about real political activism.
There is also an eye-opening (and detailed) contribution underneath about a vast glacier disappearing as a result of the military building roads, and leakily piping fuel through the area, landing jets on a daily basis etc. NOTHING to do with global warming.

Rancourt sounds very credible to me here.
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110

<del>Grow tits on your buttocks, you arrogant slimeball.</del> If we weren't already aware of this "other side" of the issue, we wouldn't feel that we're compelled to defend our own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q71cMRGXx9o

If you want to have someone else do your speaking for you, at least choose someone who isn't brazenly pedantic, insultingly condescending, and annoyingly long-winded.

You lazy bum.

I don't like "chicken-littlism" anymore than you do, but your persistence in making sure that nothing at all is done to insure the future of our world would be admirable if it weren't so detestably stupid.