The Great Global Warming Swindle

[blackcab]

I bang on about green issues, mentally spit on SUV drivers, quote research at people and so on but being honest, what do I really know? Debating the causes of climate change isn't like debating whether the Earth is flat, the centre of the universe, or created 6,000 years ago, that's easy stuff - it's just facts you can measure. The climate is a large, non-linear, chaotic system, intractably complex. There's nothing I can do to understand the causes of CC myself apart from choosing to accept the scientific consensus, which I do but you have to look at opposing views from credible sources. Human activity is reckoned to account for 0.6% to 40% of global warming or something like that and I don't know who's right.

What I can know and control is my personal action, and I only see good in things like:


* Reducing fossil fuel consumption (just in terms of reducing pollution and support for barbaric medieval regimes if nothing else)

* On-site micro generation (generating my own energy that will continue regardless of what horrors lie in the future? Yes please)

* Just buying and consuming less, for many reasons apart from GW

* Eating local, organic food, from my own garden if possible, just because it tastes so much better than stuff force-grown in Kenya, processed in China, freighted to Tesco, etc.

Anyway. You can change some basic things quite easily that have good benefits that are nothing to do with global warming, and let everyone else focus insanely on the minutiae of GW politics, conspiracies, etc. Grow carrots, walk to the shops and bugger politics

 

[Splitlink]

Hi Blackcab,

Good post and it points out my general attitude to the problem exactly.

There is nothing that can be done, at this late stage, now, except do our bit on a sensible basis.

The US has led the way but we, in the developed world, are close behind in the waste of the world's natural resources. America's whole foreign policy is based on the import of cheap minerals, which can be fabricated and resold as cheap consumer goods, to be used at home or abroad.

US and Western politicians are lobbied and financed by capitalism and will go to any extreme to to screw any nation out of their mineral wealth.

The problem for me is that I do not envy the poor in Asia, Africa and South America and will vote for the government that will protect my interests before those of others. Perhaps that is the tactic of Western leaders i.e. "If we don't watch ourselves, we'll be like them!" What they do not point out is that there is, already, a large number of marginalised people in their own country. The plight of the black people in New Orleans has shown us that.

I am selfish enough to know that I do not want to change my family's way of life so am willing to turn a blind eye on the activities of our leaders, but am bright enough to know,also, that the world cannot keep up this pace with the prospect of 9 billion in less than half a century.

I, also, know that all this is outside my control. The planet will have to solve its problems without me. In the meantime, I shall try to be as sensible as possible in my own consumption of what is left. However, it will do no good, of that I am sure.

Split

 

[fibonelli]

Hi fibonellis,

EU can't even agree on a single common policy without infighting after 50 years and you believe climate controls are all about one World government? Even in the US a single country different states have different laws. I think that is a non starter. Like the federal eu it can be tried but doubt it will get there even after a 100 years.


Regarding third world countries - the reason why Africa and Latin America are so far behind is because for centuries whilst rest of the World was developing they had to endure slavery, explotation and colonialism. Centuries. Are you seriously proposing that they are behind because of the recent attempts to cut carbon emmisions they are being kept down? You gotta be in serious denial to believe such assertions. That's absolute rubbish. Believe me I studied development economics fwiw.



Regarding the research on the Sun and planetary system - which government, body, instititution do you propose carries out this task as you seem to rubbish or disregard just about everybody and everyone. How should they be appointed what should be their brief and how could they be financed? I take it your point is if Venus or Saturn is heating up too then it's not us on earth causing it. But how many years data would we need to collect and at what cost to satisfy your questions? I think this idea is a big time waster. It's almost silly to suggest it. You rubbish whole sets of data already here as some conspiracy yet you are quite ready to embark on some expensive data collection programme to what end - bewilders me. The integrity of that data will be given the same treatment by someone else just like you even then?


If weather modification technology was a serious possibility and no doubt it has been studied the US military or government ( and the Russians and Chineese ) would be on to it like flies to hot ****. They may have had limited success on small areas but at a global scale once again you are talking big studies with big indeterminate impact on weather that could be positive or negative. However, to this idea I would say yes lets learn and test as much as we can.


None of your points comes close to the credable 100s of studies by scientists and conclusive acceptance of 150+ countries minus the USA.


I don't wish to be impolite but this is so silly it's laughable.


I reckon the sceptics idea is there is no GW it's just a tax gimmick and we ain't paying cause we are smarter than you and we are on to your game. Rest of popullations are mugs playing the one World governments game.


Don't know what else to say with due respect I laugh at the sceptics...

Hi Atilla,

I have obviously raised some very controversial and uncomfortable topics which don't resonate with you. Your defence mechanism is to laugh it off as being a bit of a joke which I do understand.

Responding to each of your paragraphs

1. The EU is well on the way to a superstate. The "infighting" over the last 50 years is a natural struggle against this process. Why do you think the EU is expanding its eastern borders?
In relation to the US, which local laws are different in each state? Can local law override US government decisions?

2. Partially Agree. Slavery, exploitation and colonialism continues under the yoke of "man made climate change" (in addition to unpayable debt). Anything to stop self determination particularly in resource rich Africa.

3. What is the purpose of science?

4. Agree; weather modification programmes such as HAARP need to be questioned very critically.

5. Whatever is funded gets researched and papers are published. Simple really. See 3 above.
Can you explain why 25-30 years ago the scientists were scaring everyone about an imminent ice age because we had a few cold winters?

6. What doesn't resonate, the defence mechanism kicks in.

7. You'll find there are believers in Global Warming. But, they are extremely sceptical about man made global warming, where alternative research is either suppressed or ridiculed and where "elites", with their own agenda, use this as a means to a different end.

At the end of the day, like a successful investor or trader, you have to be well outside your comfort zone and in the minority.

Fibonelli

 

[dcraig1]

Here is something practical that can be done with hardly any effort or cost. Donate some spare CPU cycles to

http://www.climateprediction.net/

 

[dcraig1]

You are digging yourself further into a trap of your own making. One that also awaits many of the right wing anti GW bloggers.

For many this anti GW campaign has not really got a lot to do with climate at all, but rather with pushing conspiracy theories - just new variants on the well worn international conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

Faced with the overwhelming body of scientific opinion that GW is happening and that it is highly probable that human produced CO2 is a major factor, the response is not "This could be serious - we really need to have damned hard look at it". Oh no, the response is to peddle conspiracy theories that claim that scientific opinion to the contrary is being suppressed - without providing a schred of evidence.

This stuff is not about climate at all - it's about pushing (far) right wing politics.

Hi Atilla,

I have obviously raised some very controversial and uncomfortable topics which don't resonate with you. Your defence mechanism is to laugh it off as being a bit of a joke which I do understand.

Responding to each of your paragraphs

1. The EU is well on the way to a superstate. The "infighting" over the last 50 years is a natural struggle against this process. Why do you think the EU is expanding its eastern borders?
In relation to the US, which local laws are different in each state? Can local law override US government decisions?

2. Partially Agree. Slavery, exploitation and colonialism continues under the yoke of "man made climate change" (in addition to unpayable debt). Anything to stop self determination particularly in resource rich Africa.

3. What is the purpose of science?

4. Agree; weather modification programmes such as HAARP need to be questioned very critically.

5. Whatever is funded gets researched and papers are published. Simple really. See 3 above.
Can you explain why 25-30 years ago the scientists were scaring everyone about an imminent ice age because we had a few cold winters?

6. What doesn't resonate, the defence mechanism kicks in.

7. You'll find there are believers in Global Warming. But, they are extremely sceptical about man made global warming, where alternative research is either suppressed or ridiculed and where "elites", with their own agenda, use this as a means to a different end.

At the end of the day, like a successful investor or trader, you have to be well outside your comfort zone and in the minority.

Fibonelli

 

[fibonelli]

You are digging yourself further into a trap of your own making. One that also awaits many of the right wing anti GW bloggers.

For many this anti GW campaign has not really got a lot to do with climate at all, but rather with pushing conspiracy theories - just new variants on the well worn international conspiracy of Jewish bankers.

Faced with the overwhelming body of scientific opinion that GW is happening and that it is highly probable that human produced CO2 is a major factor, the response is not "This could be serious - we really need to have damned hard look at it". Oh no, the response is to peddle conspiracy theories that claim that scientific opinion to the contrary is being suppressed - without providing a schred of evidence.

This stuff is not about climate at all - it's about pushing (far) right wing politics.

DCraig

I must say that to be raising serious issues and to be accused of pushing far right wing politics is quite frankly absurd and disgusting. As you may know, a marker of a totalitarian state (and people?) is the absence of alternative thought.

Btw I don't do extreme politics, not my thing at all.

If you want to engage properly in a debate, you need to properly argue against each of the individual points I've made.

If you can't engage with people with differing views then I would respectfully suggest that you avoid this thread and/or avoid communicating with people holding different views from yourself.

Fibonelli

 

[Atilla]

Hi Atilla,

I have obviously raised some very controversial and uncomfortable topics which don't resonate with you. Your defence mechanism is to laugh it off as being a bit of a joke which I do understand.

Responding to each of your paragraphs

Fibonelli

1. The EU is well on the way to a superstate. The "infighting" over the last 50 years is a natural struggle against this process. Why do you think the EU is expanding its eastern borders?
In relation to the US, which local laws are different in each state? Can local law override US government decisions?

EU constitution is out the door and the window. Holland and France. I like to keep parliament thank you very much so put UK in there for moi aussie. :cheesy: 25 states is nothing really. More like 10 or 12. Turkey is an ideal candidate with great opportunities in my opinion but it's popullation is equivalent to 15 of the smaller states. Big headache trying to get the smaller countries to play ball like Greece. It's the tail wagging the dog. Does anybody seriously believe this expansion will continue? No chance. Economic coop & International trade is cool single consitution no chance.

Re US laws one example for you. Capital punishment. Some states have it some don't. Compare that to EU? You have to adhere to some court of daft(eu) human rights. Force you to ban it.

This to me and your one Government idea has been tried over and over again. Another example Soviet Union and communism and the polit bereau. Ban religion and tell people they all work for single state (big mama) and they have to wear size 7 -8 - 9 or 10 shoes otherwise they go barefoot.

You say back up your arguements with facts. The one government rule thing is really so far fetched it's out with planet pluto...

2. Partially Agree. Slavery, exploitation and colonialism continues under the yoke of "man made climate change" (in addition to unpayable debt). Anything to stop self determination particularly in resource rich Africa.

Dissapointed you only partially agree. What's the bit you disagree with. The debt problem is part of the explotation and corrupt governments egged on by the likes of CIA interference as well as the Russians and now perhaps with the Chineese.

Forgive me but this CC doesn't even register on the ricter scale.

3. What is the purpose of science? Progress our understanding of all things that makes us scratch our heads...

4. Agree; weather modification programmes such as HAARP need to be questioned very critically.

5. Whatever is funded gets researched and papers are published. Simple really. See 3 above.
Can you explain why 25-30 years ago the scientists were scaring everyone about an imminent ice age because we had a few cold winters?

I think DCraig provided a scientific explanation for this (See point 3 above) which you decline to accept.

Also, if you were scared about the ice age back then what has changed that you are not scared of GW today. See 3 above.

6. What doesn't resonate, the defence mechanism kicks in. Forgive me but it's all very good and well to criticise but I only reflected on your points and found them really out of this world. It's good to laugh at oneself. We shouldn't take this all too seriously. Just a bit of debate.

I think we are all cool fibonelli and I don't mean offence. I say that to even the people I strongly disagree with to.

7. You'll find there are believers in Global Warming. But, they are extremely sceptical about man made global warming, where alternative research is either suppressed or ridiculed and where "elites", with their own agenda, use this as a means to a different end.

Yep I'm with the ridicule camp unless they can come up with some good substantial scientifically backed up evidence to match the IPCC

At the end of the day, like a successful investor or trader, you have to be well outside your comfort zone and in the minority.


In all honesty when trading I much prefer to be a sheep and follow the trend than go against. :cheesy: Call me contrarian if you must...

 

[laptop1]

The effect of C02 on temperature is highly debateable. Just a few months ago, I heard about new research indicating that CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere. The global warming theory is just classic bureaucratic group think--people in government supported organizations believe in global warming because this expressed belief is good for their careers and their department budgets. I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.

 

[fibonelli]

In all honesty when trading I much prefer to be a sheep and follow the trend than go against. :cheesy: Call me contrarian if you must...

Atilla,

Following the crowd isn't being a contrarian according to the dictionary.

I'd call you a conformist (of whatever you are told to believe in).

Fibonelli

 

[Atilla]

Atilla,

Following the crowd isn't being a contrarian according to the dictionary.

I'd call you a conformist (of whatever you are told to believe in).

Fibonelli

I was referring to your last comment as relating to being of contrary opinion to your trading style.

Equally, I'm happy to conform to the scientific evidence regarding GW. Whatever...





Laptops summary is so well put I don't know if I'm being tickled or slapped. I'll take the smart people side of the fence thank you laptop. Would love to pose this question to a politician. :cheesy:

I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.

Of course on the other side of the equation using algebra

It's amazing how so some stupid people have been able to outsmart the mass of scientists, in denying that global warming is actually happening contrary to consensus of scientific evidence on man produced CO2 levels.

 

[dcraig1]

DCraig

I must say that to be raising serious issues and to be accused of pushing far right wing politics is quite frankly absurd and disgusting. As you may know, a marker of a totalitarian state (and people?) is the absence of alternative thought.

Btw I don't do extreme politics, not my thing at all.

If you want to engage properly in a debate, you need to properly argue against each of the individual points I've made.

If you can't engage with people with differing views then I would respectfully suggest that you avoid this thread and/or avoid communicating with people holding different views from yourself.

Fibonelli

I have put a little thought into trying to understand the agenda of of the anti GW "activists", because their position does not really stand up to reason. Amongst them I find at least the following

1. The out and out agents of big energy companies who feel their profits might be affected by regulatory measures to limit CO2 emission. Their concern is not with climate but with their masters profits.

2. Some variants of so called "libertarians" who seem to think that recognition of global warming and the need for government action to be an excuse for big government. This lot seem to range from the fairly reasonable to the quite nutty who think it's all a conspiracy (by whom I wonder) to bring on a world government. At this end of the spectrum we are getting pretty close to the far right. Again the concern is not to address the issue of climate but in this case to peddle their particular politics.

3. The religious nutters that believe God made the earth as some sort of home for his children and he wouldn't that sort of thing happen, and in any case some sort of judgement day is coming soon so it doesn't really matter what we do in the interim. Again the concern is not climate, but peddling religion.

4. The straight opportunists who want to make a name for themselves.

I'm not including the serious critics of some of the climate science - and there are some and hopefully will continue be some - in any of this lot, but they are remarkably thin on the ground.

If this is offensive to anti GW activists, then tough luck. They are constantly attacking the integrity of climate scientists, claiming they tailor their work to meet bureaucratic requirements, to keep government funding, are the unwitting or even willing tools of some mega conspiracy and whatever. Because they don't like the message they try to shoot the messager - it is after all about the only argument they have.

 

[Splitlink]

The effect of C02 on temperature is highly debateable. Just a few months ago, I heard about new research indicating that CO2 helps to radiate heat AWAY from the earth in the upper atmosphere. The global warming theory is just classic bureaucratic group think--people in government supported organizations believe in global warming because this expressed belief is good for their careers and their department budgets. I've never seen a better example of mass stupidity by smart people than the "consensus" that global warming is actually happening and it is caused by increasing CO2 levels.

I agree with you that a lot of political gain and money is being made out of the GW question. I, myself, would invest in any worthwhile company working in this field. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it is all a ploy to line one's pockets. I believe that the problem is so serious as to be insolvable. GW is a fact. Ice caps , snow on the montain ranges in every continent is disappearing. Whether it is man made or a new ice age is coming may be debateable but should we wait and do nothing about it?

However, if, at this late stage, a viable working solution does come up, will industrial countries be able to put it into practice in the forseeable future?

Split

 

[laptop1]

Hi Splitlink

There seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax you will see this in the coming months to years more and more talk of it. It's difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media. Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.

 

[Atilla]

Hi Splitlink

There seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax you will see this in the coming months to years more and more talk of it. It's difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media. Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'


Oh dear...

 

[laptop1]

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'


Oh dear...

There are no experimental data from the UN to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 'Global warming, an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2.

We agree to disagree. I have my view, its a scam.

 

[Splitlink]

Hi Splitlink

There seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax you will see this in the coming months to years more and more talk of it. It's difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud-the U.N. or our media. Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.

This is not going to happen. There will always be someone who will renege, probably the US or China. Who is going to enforce it?. You are right in that respect, a lot of careers and fortunes will be formed on it.

As far as proof of population growth being to blame , I need no proof of that. It is logical thinking,as far as I am concerned, that population growth is to blame, not only for GW, but for all the world's shortages, of which water and oxygen are the most important.

Split

 

[Atilla]

There are no experimental data from the UN to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 'Global warming, an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2.

We agree to disagree. I have my view, its a scam.

Here is an extract from the article. I've underlined some relevant sections to your comment about there being no data?

The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Science.

This effect had been predicted by climate scientists, and is taken into account - to some extent - by climate models. But it appears to be happening 40 years ahead of schedule.

The data will help refine models of the Earth's climate, including those upon which the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based.

So some scientists predictions seem to be bearing fruit albeit adversely.

So I assume you would like the UN to carry out this study and supply the data. On that have a look at this and tell me what you think... How the UN works!

Now why should you or anybody believe a report by the UN?

 

[laptop1]

I don't believe nothing the UN says about climate change., take a look again, I said the UN uses experimental data The (UN) United Nations is supporting a two-year scientfic mission on climate change in the Arctic, they then send the so called findings to the BBC to fool you in to thinking us humans are doing it...Further the UN scientists are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and corporations) are authoritative and widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.” As usual, the UN will be dictating to us, the squalid and you Atilla believe what they say:cheesy: .

 

[Atilla]

I don't believe nothing the UN says about climate change., take a look again, I said the UN uses experimental data The (UN) United Nations is supporting a two-year scientfic mission on climate change in the Arctic, they then send the so called findings to the BBC to fool you in to thinking us humans are doing it...Further the UN scientists are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and corporations) are authoritative and widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.” As usual, the UN will be dictating to us, the squalid and you Atilla believe what they say:cheesy: .

Ooops got the wrong end of the stick on that one.

So we probably agree on that one. I believe the UN is too skewed in favour of trumpeting US interests.

I do believe scientific studies conducted by independant bodies and governments on the whole. I saw a program on Chineese TV about a study on the ice caps - they set out to do to get the results for themselves and they take it seriously. There are more cyclists in China then in any other country fwiw.

Why would the Chineese lie about GW?

 

[dcraig1]

I don't believe nothing the UN says about climate change., take a look again, I said the UN uses experimental data The (UN) United Nations is supporting a two-year scientfic mission on climate change in the Arctic, they then send the so called findings to the BBC to fool you in to thinking us humans are doing it...Further the UN scientists are bankrolled by NGOs, foundations and corporations) are authoritative and widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.” As usual, the UN will be dictating to us, the squalid and you Atilla believe what they say:cheesy: .

More conspiracy tripe. As I said before, unable to deal with the message you would like to shoot the messager. The problem is there are far to omany of them and they are far too credible. Here is a list of national science academies that support the IPCC findings:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

You can read their statements here

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and here -

http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619



Not enough ? Well here are some more highly credible organizations:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Please explain either how these organizations conspire to dupe the great unwashed, or they themselves are victims of the conspiracy.