Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u ... online.org
this is the page that comes up when you search 'global warming' on the NAS homepage.

http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/de2007.cg ... titlechron
this is the 'climate change' page of the National Academies press, arranged chronologically.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
this one is from 2006.

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html
this one's from 2001.

If you want cutting-edge, 2007/2008 stuff, you'll have to look at primary studies - ie, Science and Nature magazines, etc. (I can compile those, too) because the reviews haven't had time to be written yet.

I like this link. It has more articles than I found in the press releases. This is a lot of reading.
I would not compile any articles right now, unless they have to do with leaks about the March meetings. Source checking is a pain in the rear, but necessary in todays world. I don't trust much from the media anymore because of agenda driven articles.

i think that the reason why belief in "the human-caused climate-change myth"/"Global Warming" is increasingly frequently likened to a religion is that it occupies the place mentally which religion/belief in god used to; that is the cognitive "corner" of our brains where pattern recognition and search for meaning meet.

Whereas some/many people before, ( before the decline in the role of god as a useful and respected cognitive construct, ) would believe in god being behind mysterious or changing or simply random natural events now some people believe that humans are the final "first efficient cause". A belief in manmade global warming is maybe the result of runaway, undirected human tendency to pattern recognition and search for/creation of meaning.

Here is an analysis of last IPCC report. Climate change exists, but it is not the result of human activity.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... mmary.html

Last edited by ouinon on 26 Feb 2008, 3:23 pm, edited 6 times in total.

I think global warming is a bunch of junk science used by the elite to further their agenda. I don't think any real scientists* actually believe the unproven global warming theory.


*I'm referring to scientists who have looked into it. I'm sure there are plently who blindly follow what they have been told.

ahahahahahahahahaha

What do those claiming "human industries aren't contributing to global warming" have to gain and lose from doing so?

What do those who advocate improvement of societal environmental conditions have to gain and lose?

Think about it.

I think "human caused global warming" is approaching the status of religion because of the rabid fanatics that are created from it. It has to much of the fervor that new converts to a religion have. The followers have blind faith in what the priests (spokespeople) say. The spokespeople are acquiring massive wealth from their followers just like like churches and temples always have. Sacrifice your SUVs to reduce pollution. Tithe your money to obtain carbon credits so you can redeem your sins against the environment. The followers emotions run wild with anger at apostates and heretics who disbelieve or have other theories.

Damn, he's onto us. I can feel my blood pressure rising at the thought of those heartless bastards. I assure you, I'm preparing molotov cocktails at this very moment. Where's Captain Planet when you need him?

People who are interested in profits and power create situations that create confusion. They like to play both ends against the middle, so the middle thinks it is doing the right thing. What actually happens is the people are fooled into giving their money and freedoms away.

Power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations have non-democratic control of the economy and they support institutionalized exploitation of the worlds resources. The global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.

Green activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized. They no longer are focused on their goals of:
Finding renewable resources
Preserving natures beauty and habitats
Providing for human shelter, hobbies, and desires
Ensuring sufficient food production and distribution
Supplying effective transportation
Controlling the creation and disposal of poisons (pollution)
Improving everyones freedom, happiness, security, and quality of life.

EXACTLY, theyr pitting everyone against one another, with this right/left paradigm, and theyr orchestrating a depression with the illegal immigration issue. Once they drop the borders, we will be reduced to a 3rd world nation here in America. Once that happens, people will fight such massive battles against one another, America will become a battle ground between the masses.
Once people grow tired of chaos and fighting one another, they'll offer up their rights out of desperation to restore order. And people will be fitted with an RFID chip. They'll get everyone along then on this "we are one, lets stop global warming" thing, to breed a borg-like society; a beehive mentality.
That once again is this masonic system... It's divide, pitt, unite, and that is their formulae for enslaving us all. Sadly, nobody will be of bigger help to them than the people they intend to enslave. The masses will fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.

hear hear ! !
I also think it's possible that a fair number of people are cynically counting on a known aspect of human behaviour, which is that when people are stressed, worried, or scared, ( even about finances) they tend to consume more, spend more, because it is comforting, reassuring, and/OR spend less efficiently/more wastefully because with a shorter short-term perspective.

In a world on the verge of a breakdown it is a pick-me-up to go shopping. And buy foolish things.

Also when people are advised to cut back on anything, or have decided themselves to minimise consumption of something, this often leads to binge-eating/yoyo behaviour, as in slimming-diets, or to compensatory spending/treats to make up for the impression/sensations of deprivation.

Frightening people with stories of doom and gloom, and arguments about whether is true or not, distracts them, as you say, from real problems which could be solved.

Last edited by ouinon on 27 Feb 2008, 9:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yes, i think the virtual impossibility of understanding all the science involved, unless/even when are actually in the industry has the same effect as the use of latin by the christian/Roman Catholic church in the middle ages.

When priests preached in latin, when religious decrees were in latin, when even the bible was in latin, most people had to rely on the representatives of the church for information and guidance. The guides were human, subject to temptation, suffering from partiality and ignorance, from all the usual human weaknesses. Which in the middle ages meant that many of the people elected to lead the flocks were not reliable guides.

(PS: I don't believe that there is any reason to think scientists are more disinterested/impartial/"virtuous"/pure than priests were then, nor that they are more knowledgable in their field than most priests were in religious matters. ).

When the bible was translated into other languages people found that the contents were very far from unambiguous, in fact susceptible of myriad interpretations, being often contradictory, muddled, confused, vague, etc.

Which is the conclusion drawn by some perfectly serious scientists about the research on climate change, when they are being honest. There is no proof. Nothing is certain. The climate is still very largely a mystery.

from the Center For Inquiry (a skeptic's group):
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/advocac ... l_warming/

here's what some real scientists have to say on the issue:

greenhouse gasses from agriculture and sewage

sources and degree of carbon dioxide entry into the atmosphere

anthropogenic changes in water vapor

anthropogenic forcing of the climate

effects of ozone polution on photosynthetic carbon sinking

ice-core records of methane and nitrous oxide

solar forcing cannot account for global temperature change

that's not even the whole first page of a pubmed search on 'anthropogenic greenhouse gases.'
the huge majority of scientists - including myself - agree, based on the available data, that global warming is occuring and that anthropogenic causes are exacerbating or completely causing it. If you disagree, I suggest that you start reading Science and Nature magazines for primary-source information on the topic (Science can be found in most decent-sized libraries if you don't want to dole out for your own subscription.), rather than getting your information from right-wing, Exxon-funded think tanks and cherry-picked inconsistency reports. You're like smokers who read only the tobacco-company's own 'research' on how tobacco isn't carcinogenic or addictive, and reassure yourselves that everything is ok.

If you're too scared to read the whole IPCC for yourself, rather than some oil-industry analysis, at least dare to read the FAQ:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 ... t_FAQs.pdf

here's another interesting article:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/ ... g_deniers/

and another:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

we are currently, by the way, at a solar minimum:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-sol ... begun.html

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/medi ... 071880.pdf

which brings into doubt the idea that the sun could have anything to do with things like the record-low summer ice cover in the arctic.

Thank you for all those links, sojournertruth! I read most of about half of them, ( particularly those relating to whether it is humans that are causing climate change), and i had already read bits of the IPCC's latest reports. ( ps: i never believed the sun theory anyway! ), and I found Joseph Romm particularly impressive, and interesting.

aswell as letters and blogs by him that i went on to find on the net.

BUT.... i STILL don't think humans are responsible for "dangerous climate change"....so

...am now faced by surprising discovery that i don't believe in science.

I didn't realise that belief in science was as much an act of faith/cognitive choice as belief in god; i have been assuming that i believed in science; taking it entirely for granted that i did. Now i suddenly realise that i don't. This is odd. Thank you for "pointing this out to me". I thought one automatically believed in science.

I'm going to think about this. It's very strange.

I've been thinking about it, and have realised that this may account for the distribution of sceptics amongst various disciplines. It is mostly the social scientists, economists, statisticians, retired or ex-scientists, aswell as the "bad"/discredited scientists, who are sceptical of the "dangerous human-caused climate-change" position, and this is not always necessarily a sign of corruption or stupidity or fear as you seem to imply.

It may be that they are refusing to accept science's conclusions because they do not accept/believe in the philosophy of science's premises/first principles. The three most important being as follows:

1) There is an objective reality. Matter exists.

2)The world obeys universal laws, fundamental amongst them being that of cause and effect.

3)The nature of the world can be revealed by asking it questions in the form of experiments; one can measure it.

After finding out that belief in science requires belief in these three axioms/assumptions/a-prioris, I realise why i do not in fact believe in science.

1) I am not 100%, not completely, convinced that there is an objective reality/that matter exists.

2) I tend to believe that there is "room/space" for some other invisible/unpredictable influence/factor in between the measurable cause and effect.

3) And, as Heisenberg showed/theorised with his uncertainty-principle already, but which understanding remains isolated from the majority of scientific theory until they find a "unified theory" to link it with the rest, the event observed is different to the unobserved event/ the act of observing changes the behaviour of the particles being observed. (I know this from personal experience; i behave very differently when i am being observed to when not! )

Anyway, as i do not believe 100% in these fundamental principles of the scientific method/philosophy, it is not at all surprising that i do not believe in the scientific position on "dangerous human-caused climate change".

I am still feeling somewhat stunned by this discovery, but it makes sense of a lot of things, and is also promising to make for very interesting reading, and some exciting discussions/rethinking. So, once again, thank you very much for pushing me here.

Last edited by ouinon on 28 Feb 2008, 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.