Here is a good short video explaining 5 basic scientific principles behind the global warming theory, take the time and challenge yourself.
In this era of discussing fake news which stems from political views is a popular topic these days.
One hugely contested issue is the reality of global warming, especially in America.
It is my view that the anti global warming perspective is really an economic argument that is presented as a scientific rebuttal in nature. I think
the real opposition behind anti global warming are pro business citizens and the global oil businesses. I think the opposition is based upon a DEEP
concern for business and profits, and not out of concern for science or the environment. On the contrary, I think proponents of the scientific global
warming argument is based upon a DEEP concern for the environment and not out of a concern for private business or private industry.
I think much of the problem with the Global warming argument is that one side is advocating for the environment and science, while the other side is
advocating for business and industry. Both sides seem to forget that this argument is not being presented or debated on genuine terms, therefore, it
is impossible to have a scientific argument if one side is secretly trying to advocate for business, freedom, industry or what have you, while
pretending to be concerned with the science of the matter.
The petroleum business is arguably the largest business on the planet AND the American dollar itself is based upon the sale of petroleum. I think
what people do not want to admit or realize is that a validation of global warming would bring about consequences, and these consequences would be a
huge upset for the world order and potentially destroy a massive revenue stream for the most powerful people on the planet. Admitting global warming
is real would not only threaten the US dollar and the profits on the most powerful in the world, it would also probably necessitate huge governmental
action, regulation, public works programs and of course, the potential for new taxes. This to me is a far more obvious motivation as to why global
warming is still in dispute...
Follow the money and you will find the richest people in the world who make their fortunes perpetuating our dependence on petroleum. Also, what
conservative citizen would admit to something that would potentially grow government, increase taxes, diminish private power and impact Wall Street?
These are real economic and psychological barriers that stall this debate more than science, science is not concerned with your feeling or your
affiliations. Science does not care if Al Gore is rich, or if you enjoying dumping your hard earned money into your gas tank for the remainder of
your life. On the other hand, the global elite are very worried that their primary money making scheme is threatened...
This negative economic and political impact for big business, elites, and conservatives seems to be a more reasonable explanation than the idea that
95% of all professional scientists are colluding to ruin America, enrich Al Gore or to initiate global communism, etc, etc ,etc... There is really not
much of a money trail to suggest that 95% of scientists will profit from this narrative, while there is plenty of evidence showing that the richest
people in the world are dependent upon the petroleum based monetary system. I think we can all agree that the most wealthy people in the world have
exponentially more to lose, than scientists have to gain in this debate.
If oil is made obsolete, the Billionaires, elites and their banks will lose the revenue stream that makes them the richest institutions on the planet,
this is precisely why the majority of studies that claim global warming is fake are funded by these elites and researched by scientists who are hired
to promote a narrative that protects oil and banking interests. This also accounts for the fact that such a very small cross section of scientists
claim global warming is fake, these scientists are paid to come up with the answer their employers are looking for.While we are busy arguing about how
rich Al Gore might become from carbon tax, we are completely ignoring how the global and American elite feel threatened by challenging the supremacy
of petroleum based products.
My point is, pro business conservatives do not seem to consider that the world is headed towards a technological revolution, and this technologically
revolution will based upon the development of new sources of energy and the perfection of existing technologies that will eventually make petroleum
products somewhat obsolete. Science and mankind are on the cusp of a new scientific era and pro status quo business forces and conservative
politicians are too busy thinking about the short money and not considering that America will eventually lose it's place in the global order of things
if we are not developing, patenting and pioneering the these future technologies. Other countries that are not embroiled in these kinds of dishonest
political debates, and are more than happy to invest in these technologies, and use these developments to obtain a larger share of the global energy
and technological development.
It is my opinion that the real demise of America might come about from the infantile and dishonest nature of our political system and not the
disappearance of manufacturing. If our country got serious and pioneered to development of new technologies the way we did for , railroads,
automobiles, telecommunications, electrical transmission, computers and every single major technological advancement of the last 200 years,
we might be able to dig ourselves out of this economic slump. But I think if we take the road of shunning undesirable science and continuously
championing 100 year old technology we will eventually reach a point of no return and suffer a real economic decline that will be hard to reverse.
Other countries will take our place, they will develop the technologies and the patents and we will be old news, stuck in the past arguing about the
color of the sky hopefully...
How can America lead in the economy of the future if we are so committed to the economic interests of the past?
edit on 18-12-2016 by superbanjo because: (no reason given)
I was curious to read your OP and take a look at the embedded vid....but it was a wall of text after you suggest to us to watch the vid; I would
advise you briefly summarize the vid and provide some food for thought - maybe even a few questions you would like answered/thought about - and
I'm sure you'll get more feedback and intelligent replies. My $0.02 and hope you edit and it helps with more responses.
The thing is, AGW in itself is a big money machine. Not just the carbn tax, but also the fees and price augmentations being implemented in the name of
AGW. So you point that Oil Corps is the only reason why many scientists deny AGW is fallacious, if not a tad insulting. Saying that all the scientists
who dare deny AGW are paid by Oil Corps is just a Liberal way to silence any opposition.
I am not paid by any Oil Corp, and my electricity is 100% clean (it comes from a hydroelectricity power plant). Yet I haved gone from pro-AGW to a
critic. Why? Because I have taken a deeper look at the data. You've got to realise that it's a theory, with alot of variables - and just like with any
theories, you can say that it has levels of certainty, but you never must say that it's the absolute truth, otherwise you prevent the theory from
evolving when given new data.
Some of these variables are:
- ground temperature cannot be measured directly, for ground thermometers are subject to too much influencing factors such as sun exposure,
orientation of the box housing the thermometer, wind direction, and altitude. To remedy these problems, satellites were sent to space instead.
- Satellites are much more accurate since calibration is simply related to altitude. However there's a major issue: we are now measuring not the
ground's temperature, but actually the heat which has escaped into space.
- CO2 measurement (one of the core ideas in AGW) is actually highly problematic. To measure CO2, scientists use a light with a special frequency to
which CO2 is opaque. However, CO2 isn't the only gas opaque to this frequency - water vapour also is. Differentiating between the two is extremely
- Additionally, methane concentration has already been proven to be directly associated with a local climate. A recent study from NASA found that
Antarctica is actually gaining ice, whereas the Arctic is melting. This directly correlates with methane global concentration. This is a problem for
AGW, because methane production is not directly caused by human (the "A" in AGW means anthropogenic, or "human-caused"). Major methane pockets
naturally occur within the Earth's crust, and they often burst out in geologically active areas. However these cannot be blamed on humans and
therefore would be hard to tax on humans.
- There are two methods to observe Earth's surface in space: IR and microwave. A decline in global reflected IR has been observed by satellites - this
could seem like a proof of AGW (the heat gets "trapped" and so less of it reaches the sensor in space), however it can also be a proof of the contrary
(less heat gets reflected back because the ground itself is cooling off). To solve the issue, microwave is used. It basically only detects water, so
it's great for measuring the atmosphere's heat (not the ground), since the atmosphere is so full of moisture. However moisture content in the
atmosphere is not constant, in fact it is ever-changing with cloud top altitude and atmospheric pressure, making it hard to derive a constant, global
microwave irradiance value.
So, this is actually why I entertain some criticism at those who want us to believe that AGW is an absolute truth. Yes there has been a recent
warming, but these were caused by an El Nino. A change in temperature over a decade or so is not representative of a long-term climate trend, just as
much as temperatures going down in winter doesn't mean we won't have a summer.
edit on 18-12-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)
If I were a manmade global warming believer, I would be even more furious with the folks pushing global warming than I am now... because the people
screaming the loudest are also the most irresponsible and contribute the most to it. For example:
Even more important though, if these folks really really believed in the impending doom of global warming, they would screaming about
industrial hemp from the rooftops and demanding its decriminalization across the world and promoting its industrial uses far and wide.
Hemp products can replace virtually ALL petroleum products, especially fossil fuel products -- and burns infinitely cleaner. It could replace wood as
used for paper, building, and other uses in a far more sustainable manner. It can replace cotton and linen as fabrics -- both of which are high
chemical dependent crops. Hemp would not only go a long way towards cleaning the air, it would result in cleaner water and soils as well. And it
grows pretty much everywhere... it's a "weed" after all.
If manmade global warming is real, they've only themselves to blame for letting greed and their hunger for power and control get in the way.
First sign of trouble came when the words Average Temperature, which will change with the passing of each year, somehow evolved into "normal
temperature" and became a static number that was set by some unknown source for the good of all humanity.
The sun is zipping through the galaxy at many thousands of miles an hour.... pulling behind it a handful of planets that are circling around the butt
of the sun also at many thousands of miles per hour, with orbits that vary each and every time, with a somewhat predictable general path. No 2 days
are ever going to be exactly the same. Little tug of gravity from something is all it takes and the planetary orbit gets tweaked.
To convince yourself that there is some "normal" temperature and then start losing your mind over it is a bit over the top.
Less pollution is a good thing. It doesn't need carbon credits, it doesn't need to make people a profit. Less pollution is the goal we all strive
for. Windmills and solar panels are a waste of time. How many nuke plants have been shelved because of protestors? How many coal fired plants never
got replaced with modern clean nuclear power designs because it will most certainly be the death of us all.
Productive people are coming up with ways to scrub the coal plants co2 emissions and turning it into useful products. This not only reduces or
eliminates emissions, but makes a profit. Everyone benefits from tackling a problem this way and it gives incentive to resolve further issues is
such a manner. Co2 turned to fuel
Bitterness and divisiveness needs to be replaced with something a little more productive
We can all agree that pollution is bad, that having to waer a mask because of the smog simply to walk around like in China is plain wrong. We can all
agree that oil spills and fracking are bad, we can all agree that killing trees and animals to the point of extinction is wrong.
We all know what we've gotta do.
edit on 18-12-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)
And the science deniers are already flooding this thread with the usual rhetoric.
When one uses buzz words like fear mongering, chicken little, carbon credit scamc ect.. they are not here to have an honest discussion.
Can any of you explain the sharp increase of CO2 we are observing? (Hint: it has something to do with burning fossil fuels. )
Is that all you got in reply? That's a rather weak response. And by the way, nobody here is saying that CO2 isn't rising, or that man isn't
contributing to the rise. The question is how large the influence of CO2 is in temperate changes vs. natural variability. That science is all but
edit on 18 12 16 by snchrnct because: (no reason given)
You mean that it has been "debunked" by the website "promoting" sceptical science? If I would have to name one source that is not in any way
"sceptical" about the "official" story (like they claim to be), it's that website. You should really broaden your horizon in that respect and check
out other sources as well. In the end, the truth, if there's one, will be somewhere in the middle.
If you actually check out my link, you will find sources that back each rebuttal.
I have done my homework here. I have looked at this as a skeptic and concluded that anthropogenic climate change is real and will give us numerous
challenges in the future.
Is it a bigger problem than deforestation, over fishing, pollution of our water supply? I doubt it, but I have no doubt that anthropogenic climate
change will be challenge that future generations will have to tackle.
originally posted by: Ohanka
It is quite preposterous to claim the Earth is not heating.
It is also quite preposterous to claim we have any control over this. Unless you are in possession of a ray that controls the temperature of the Sun
I'm all in favour of environmental regulations, because stuff like acid rain and polluted water is bad, but carbon taxes pushed by this global warming
lobby are lunacy.
Your post is quite contradictory of yourself. Laughable. One sentence you say it's preposterous that we humans could have anything to do with a
warming planet, then state that you are concerned about acid rain and polluted water. Do you think acid rain and polluted water are natural
You need to realize that heat does get trapped in our atmosphere regardless of whether the sun is putting out the same amount of "rays"
18-12-2016 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.