20 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming

Below is the link to an article I put together that lists 20 scientific reasons as to why we should be skeptical of man-made global warming, perhaps just to initiate some good discussion on this forum about the science behind AGW and why we should all be extremely skeptical of it: chipstero7.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Nathan-D

There is a lot of evidence around leading to questions about global warming.
Not sure why it's a black and white issue for so many people.

Worldwide Coral Bleaching and entire reefs dead in recent decades? It's warming that could be blamed on... climate change I guess

DP

DP

a reply to: Bluntone22
Agreed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's a black & white issue for so many people because for the global warming/climate change camp, as I understand it, the reason for it happening (or most of it) is because of human beings on planet earth.
Do we contribute to climate change? Definitely. Are we solely to blame? Why? What are the facts?

The number one reason in my list is Al Gore, the inventor of the internet.

Yes Greenland is melting and man made warming is from cars, cutting down trees, radiation spills, recycled plastic and trash
in the ocean and numerous other ways.

The native people who love the trees have been protesting corporate rich elite destroying these trees. The elite will pay millions to destroy us. Look at China air pollution, the chinese have so much of a problem from man made warming they are now investing green tech.



You say man made warming isn't true? Get off your computer and go see the trash in the ocean! Japan Fukushima radiation killed millions of marine life.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I think burning so much gasoline is pretty much the problem.

a reply to: Kinghonor1
Aren't you even curious why the semantical blurb global warming changed to climate change?

originally posted by: Kinghonor1
...and man made warming is from cars...

Transportation is responsible of 14% of the emissions & cars is a small sliver of that, air & marine is a much bigger sliver than cars but for some reason you made it sound as if cars is THE biggest offender.

If you gonna be an advocate for something, atleast get the very basic stuff right instead of just regurgitate your own misguided thoughts.

Also, people like you seem to not be able to differentiate "global warming" with pollution, you think they are the same thing, they are not, sure, one thing can affect the other but they are NOT the same thing, for instance: dump 10cu3 of mercury in a pool and that pool would be considered polluted but it had no effect on "global warming" or "climate change", trash in the ocean can be considered pollution too (kinda) but has no affect on "man made warming" as you claim.

China has a problem with pollution & thats why they invest in green tech, not because they have a problem with man made warming as you claim.

Your last sentence is absurd, neither the garbage patch nor the damage Fukushima achieved is due to their "man made warming", marine life died because of the radiation (doh), not because of "man made warming"

Ofcourse we should be aiming to reduce pollution and our effects on the environment but those efforts are purely for those causes and NOT for "global warming" or "climate change"

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Kinghonor1
Aren't you even curious why the semantical blurb global warming changed to climate change?

I am! Yes...why?

The social fascist cult on the new left becoming the driving voice behind the politics of climate change is bad for the science behind climate change and all of us as a result. It has become scientific illiteracy in the name of the religion of science. You only have to have the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity to debunk their myriad asinine claims. As well as their tactics like using children as human shields which is straight out of the playbooks of some of the greatest forces of evil in the 20th century.

Do humans need to start taking their impact on the environment and climate more seriously? Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean letting your brain be hijacked by a doomsday cult that does nothing but spew vitriol and psychobabble and undermines the efforts of the reasonable minds concerned with the matter. Look it up, there are a great multitude of simple cost-effective measures we can be doing to solve the problem such as afforestation and embracing technological innovation that doesn't involve waging a pyrrhic war with the past and giving totalitarian levels of control to an overzealous social fascist regime.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Nathan-D

I think burning so much gasoline is pretty much the problem.

Then why would you continue supporting it ?

Perhaps global warming is to divert attention away from other types of air pollution as well as pollution of all types.

There are many air born compounds considered pollution, CO2 is just one of a number of gases in a long list of air polluting substances. The first half dozen or so of the following list of pollutants are so called greenhouse gases. Keep in mind that one of the main greenhouse gases is water vapor, something that is not considered a man made pollutant.

Carbon dioxide, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Ozone (O3), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Methane (CH4), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Sulfur dioxide, Sulfur trioxide, Hydrocarbons (HC), Chlorine (Cl2), Gas Pb, Particulate Dust (TSP), Tin, Ammonia and a few others.

So why the emphasis on carbon dioxide, and to a lesser extent methane, as the main cause of man made climate change? All that crap causes environmental damage and harm to human health. Why is CO2 the main air pollution concern these days? No one is talking about the hole in the ozone layer or forest decline anymore, has that stuff gone away? Now it seems sea level raise, coral bleaching and extreme weather conditions are the big threat.

a reply to: KansasGirl

The Bush administration started this trend.

www.ucsusa.org...

www.forbes.com...

The terminology shift has political ties. It is well-known by those that have done the research that President George W. Bush’s administration preferred the term “climate change” over “global warming.” I was an Earth system scientist at NASA during this administration so I am very familiar with how things were unfolding at the time. A political strategist wrote a memo in 2002 urging Republicans to use the term “climate change” because it was less scary than “global warming.”

a reply to: jrod

Both terms have been used for decades. They are two different but intimately related things.

Global warming induces climate change. Claims about the politics of it are specious.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

CO2 is not a pollutant, it's what plants crave!

a reply to: KansasGirl

I am! Yes...why?

Could there be recent indications of global cooling around 1998? Is the semantic shift a strategic PR decision to avoid facing an inconvenient truth, hence, climate change? If they are absolutely sure that there are solid evidences of global warming why change it to climate change? From a PR point of view global warming sounds more dire than the lame climate change. A dire blurb is more effective way to sell an idea.

What is the major contributor to greenhouse effect? Water vapor, not C02 or other particulates. Can we control the amount of water that evaporates around the world all the time? We know that the sun has cycles of active and relatively inactive phases, can we control the sun? What can we control in practical terms? Deforestation, dumping garbage and toxic chemicals to lakes, rivers and the sea, etc. How about starting with that?

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

What is the major contributor to greenhouse effect? Water vapor, not C02 or other particulates.

Yes. And atmospheric water vapor content is dependent up temperature.
Is water vapor content rising? What might be causing that, do you think?

a reply to: Phage
What do you mean? Forgive me, I'm a bit slow today from lack of sleep... do you mean the polar ice caps melting?