Latest findings on global warming

This article was put out today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm

 

Global warming is not caused by mans CO2 and other green house emissions. Anthropogenic global warming climate, ie change is a frightful and deceptive ploy by certain groups with an eye on harming western civilizations and sometimes well meaning chicken little grant vested environmental scientists seeking use Anthropogenic global warming to line their pockets. As repulsive these minions are they pale in comparison to the fat assed, severely hypocrite Al Gore who travels around in a hydrocarbon devouring private jet while viscously violating good hearted little al gore environmentalists who see him as near god like.

.Protest and write your elected officials telling them you are against the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Save your money and your gonads and the most importantly the virginity of your nether regions by rejecting the foolish nonsense coming out of the flapping jowls attached to the leaders of the truly dumb, boorish anthropogenic global warming farce.

Rev A

 

A) then please give me an alternate explanation - and one that does not have some weird conspiracy theory to support it

Rev - tell me this

1. How many people do you think are "in on this"
2. How did they manage to convince so many people of this?
3. Is it also happening outside the USA?

 

To all those people out there calling global warming a scam...think about it.

Before modern man existed, how much CO2 was there? After modern man started to burn fossil fuels at an increasingly drastic rate, how much CO2 is currently being released by the millions of cars burning fossil fuels?

If you have half a brain you can understand that the CO2 emissions are growing. Look at LA, city is covered in smaug.

 

Just knowing that we are burning more than 80 million barrels of oil per day should be enough - but it isn't

It is the dirty bedroom syndrome "But Muuuuuum! I didn't make this mess in my bedroom - it was a dinosaur that came through the window and made it! So I don't have to clean it up!!"

 

I doubt anybody argues against localized air pollution, but thats not global warming. In history volcano's and forestry fires would have at times dramatically increased the atmospheric CO2 during previous milleniums. Apparantly plants grow much better with a much higher atmospheric CO2 so its not all doom and gloom even if it is true.

 

I'm not a science denier. I realize there is global warming.

But I'm not willing to destroy the Western Economy to stop it.

 

Oh! Dear! The same old same old fallacies and myths keep coming out.

Not all plants do well in a higher CO2 environment and those that do need a climate they can flourish in. One of the reasons why an early depiction was to call what is happening "climate change" was the realisation that as the globe warmed areas would experience extremes of drought and rain. Can't grow plants if 3/4 of your country is underwater, as happened in Pakistan

 

Hi Ms Bowerbird, well, I can tell you WHY I 'feel it', to use slang, as in 'do you feel it' or when someone asks 'do you feel me'? Ha ha I kinda’ like that...anyway to answer number one; My beliefs pretty well mirror those on this site;

(1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

The site has both pro and con views. If you would rather me describe in my own words I could. That said, I am not rabidly sure of the conspiracy. I look at it as a sliding scale from 1 to ten, one being our facts are simply not accurate concerning global warming, to a '10' which is a vast conspiracy theory with evil sorts plotting to destroy our way of life. I am somewhere around a '5'. (I hope that helps)

(2). The problem is that not enough people accept it! The way that most people come to the conclusion anthropogenic global warming is not valid is by education, and of course we have a dose of what I call healthy paranoia i.e. suspicion. The other way is by education by various venues. Additionally the anti global warming people write articles, especially effective are the anti anthropogenic global warming scientists (at their own peril) write articles against global warming until the pressure becomes too great to row against the current and the contemporary status quo of their peers.

(3). Yes its a world wide movement but not popular, for the green stuff is traditionally more appealing to youth etc. I was a dedicated tree hugger in my younger days and even 'spiked' a few trees in my ignorance. At least we put notices that the trees were spiked. (spiking is the act of driving hard steel nails or spikes into trees to destroy chain saws and heavy equipment). In Europe its not too popular. The reason is, because Europe is so close to the countries that desire the rich economic advantage that a global warming policy will bring to their countries.

Thanks for your reply and feel free to ask for clarification etc.

Rev A

 

Haven't read the Stern Review or the Garnault Report have you? The cost of doing nothing is going to be higher - much much higher.

Take here in Queensland as an example - until a couple of months ago, thanks to last years floods and cyclones, Banana's were $14 a kilo!!

Agriculture - relies on the weather, the weather is part of the climate

I don';t know about you but I like to be able to afford to eat

 

Its important to note that although volcanic activity can result in massive releases of CO2, catastrophic volcanic activity results in global cooling due to the large amount of particulate matter that eruptions put into the upper atmosphere. Large fires can have a similar effect. Ultimately, both massive fires and volcanic activity are very different mechanism than the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.

The debate about anthropogenic climate change ACG has become hyper political. Interest groups on the right have tried to portray ACG as a massive fraud while interest groups on the left have tried to portray ACG as an impending apocalypse. If you take an objective look at the actual science there really is a consensus that anthropogenic CO2 sources are affecting global climate. At present, the current scientific debate is centered on to what extent human activities will change our climate not if human activities are impacting the climate.

 

I meant it the other way around actually Rev - but that is alright because I can work with your answer and thank-you for answering me

A little about me first - I am not a scientist but I AM a science geek and have been reading science and science reports since about second grade (told you I was a geek!!) I am also in all probability MUCH older than you realise and I have known about the scientific concerns in relation to Global warming for the last forty odd years.

I have, over the last seven or so years been reading everything from BOTH sides of the argument and have found very little to support the denialst stance and an awful lot of misinformation,cherry picking, fairy stories and downright lies to make a whale puke.

Meanwhile the scientists, with a few exception have conducted themselves with aplomb and have simply continued to collect data and answer the underlying questions.

And when I am talking scientists I am talking about ALL the disciplines involved here

Archaeologists
Astronomers
Biologists
Climatologists
Chemists
Ecologists
geologists
Hydrologists
marine scientists
Mathematicians
Physicists

To name but a few disciplines - and that is why the Academies of Science have come out in support of the theory - because so many of the different disciplines were involved and were concerned

And remember the more people you have the harder it is to form and hold a conspiracy
Palaeontologists

 

Oh PLEASE, come on already!

Even the most ardent Global warming scientist will tell you that there is absolutely no way possible to prove that any single climate event, even short term pattern of events is related to Global Warming/Climate Change.

For you to use that excuse is particularly lame. Better come up with something better because you blaming Global Warming for any one particular event, or even short term pattern of weather phenomena is merely your opinion and not scientifically verifiable.

I'm willing to meet you halfway on Global Warming but you talking this nonsense is exactly the kind of paranoid alarmism that turns people off to the movement. I offer you a fig leaf and you turn around and spout scientifically unsubstantiated paranoia.

 

I dig older women ha ha that’s because I am not a young thing either! Actually, I prefer the company of women over men almost in every instance! I just love the way they think look move ...ahhh I had better stop there! You will think I am a man dog~

Anyway~

I too am a science geek! I enjoy all of the sciences, however my science fav is astronomy and cosmology. I consider myself a serious amateur astromoner. I received an unexpected windfall today and plan on spending it not on party favors nor my Harley which is a heap of parts, nor red lobster etc….no I am buying a new telescope, a Dob or maybe a standard reflector. I crushed my last one camping (ran over it).

(sorry for bunching up your reply but my WPS did it!)

I agree that one must read and learn each side of an argument or debate etc to form a well informed opinion. To redress your statement of dishonesty of anti-anthropogenic global warming proponents I would only agree that lies, deception and worse are evident on both sides of the issue. Maybe more so in the anthropogenic pro-climate change movement.

http://www.climategate.com/

Ha ha, ehhh... maybe shouldnt visit that site!

Anyway~

I do not deny that the majority of Climate Scientists (and others) parrot the party line as I call it, its mandatory to access grant money. I do know about fund raising through grants, because I make a living off grants etc via two Christian humanitarian non profits. So that many (but not all by far) scientists support that AGW is a fact is not disputed. I simply do not agree due to the past amounts of greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere have been many times what they are today while the earth was enjoying an ice age. An ice age with the greenhouse gases as high as 14 times the amount present in todays atmospehre !

Here is one story I agree with, I reduced the size to see the article full size go to;
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/se...warming-preceded-increased-co2-in-atmosphere/

From “When Scientists Confuse Cause and Effect:”
When in 1999 Antarctic ice cores revealed carbon-dioxide concentrations and temperature marching in lockstep over 400,000 years, many—including me— found this a convincing argument for attributing past climate change to carbon dioxide. (About 95% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is natural, coming from the exhalations of living things. In the past, carbon-dioxide levels rose as the earth warmed at the end of ice ages and fell as it cooled at the end of interglacial periods.)
Then four years later came clear evidence from finer-grained analysis of ice cores that temperature changes preceded carbon-dioxide changes by at least 800 years. Effects cannot precede their causes by eight centuries, so temperatures must drive carbon dioxide, chiefly by warming the sea and causing carbon dioxide dissolved in water to “out-gas” into the air.
That should have led the scientists back to the drawing board. Instead, they tried to make lemonade out of lemons:
Climate scientists fell back on a “feedback” hypothesis, arguing that an initial change, probably caused by variations in the earth’s orbit that affect the warmth of the sun, was then amplified by changes in carbon-dioxide levels. But this made the attribution argument circular and left the reversal of the trend after a period of warming (when amplification should be at its strongest) still harder to explain. If carbon dioxide is still driving the temperature upward but it falls instead, then other factors must be stronger than expected. Some climate scientists see cause-effect confusion at the heart of climate modeling.
They shouldn’t have “fallen back” on anything but looked for new hypotheses. But that would have deleteriously impacted many political agendas that depend on GWH as their pretext, cost scientists a lot of grant money, and reddened many faces. We have our story and we’re stickin’ to it!
—-
Al Gore’s bellowing should just be ignored. He apparently told some young activists today that the Pakistani floods of last year were an example of the impact of global warming–when it has been determined that it was an El Nino/La Nina-related phenomenon that was within “natural variability” of weather events for that area. Never let an extreme weather crisis go to waste!

I suppose! The conspiracy will be here when our children pass away I would wager (if the problems still exist). Anyway, I would do things differently that the arm twisting that’s going on these days. I feel technology will stop greenhouse emissions in their tracks within 50 years without the third world and UN attempting to extort money from our more affluent nations. Well they are more affluent now, if they are forced into a compliance based on ignorance, fear or both, that affluence will not last long.

Rev A

 

I want this printed on a Tshirt.

 

Cyclical variations of temperatures that have occured between successive ice ages that have repeated for millions of years.

 

Why have there been cyclical variations in global temperatures?

 

For the same reasons there have been cyclical variations in global temperatures for millions of years.

 

What are those reasons?

 

Variations in the earths orbit and changes in the output of the sun, just to name two. Is there a point here? Are you ever going to get around to making it?

 

It's a liberal, Marxist plot to steal money from the neo-cons, according to them. But they won't tell you that of course; they'll just feed you the anti-science line and quote reams of stuff in an attempt to bolster their position.

 

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer-
"Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War...
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

 

^^^^

Just how are we supposed to stop (*)(*)(*)(*)s like that when so many people around the world agree with him?

 

Exactly. The rebuff to truthers was that this sort of secret could not be kept, but here we are with the same people now claiming that here's a secret that can be kept.

 

Don't worry: if the Western (and Eastern - China has already overtaken the US as a major pollutant) economy keeps exploiting the planet as if resources were endless and there was no tomorrow, it will manage to destroy itself all on its own. It's just a question of time.
Of course in an economy that's set out for short term profit nobody cares what will become of our children and grandchildren and whether they'll curse us or not.