Why do people conspire that global warming is fake?

Originally posted by TheRedneck

And, as you pointed out MH, the factories that provide literal clouds of pollution are going unfettered, while my personal use of a vehicle is questioned.

I think that's evidence enough for me that we don't have the whole story...

What produces more pollution? A factory with scrubbers, or the 10 year old cars that the employees drive to work there?

My personal Opinion

It's the herd mentality!! when alot of people think something then it becomes

unfashionable not to believe what everybody else is believing.

"Global Warming" is whats fashionable to believe in these days and if you

actually think for yourself your uncool for not believing the hype.

ya'll have a great day

reply to post by Miishgoos


Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with you isn't thinking?

my personal opinion

Yes everyone who disagrees with me is not thinking LOL

I am the most intelligent person in the world man!! I am completely infallible

man.

I am completely right all the time and everybody else is wrong all the time

man.

So like I am like the self declared smartest person of all time man.

LOL

Anyway to answer your question No I don't think anyone who disagrees is

not thinking, just many people follow the herd mentality as was plainly said

in my last post.

anyway everybody have a great day.

reply to post by The Good Reverend Roger

2 is a partial number... nice move, take an example and extrapolate a totality from it alone. Duh... I have three dogs. Therefore, there are only three dogs left on the planet and they are an endangered species.

"SAVE OUR DOGS FROM EXTINCTION!"

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by The Good Reverend Roger

 

2 is a partial number... nice move, take an example and extrapolate a totality from it alone. Duh... I have three dogs. Therefore, there are only three dogs left on the planet and they are an endangered species.

"SAVE OUR DOGS FROM EXTINCTION!"

TheRedneck

Then perhaps you can provide a better example?

I mean, if you're going to make a statement about what a "large number" of climatologists (as opposed to a few tame ones owned body and soul by Exxon), you might consider having your facts at your fingertips.

Just saying.

reply to post by The Good Reverend Roger

What produces more pollution? A factory with scrubbers, or the 10 year old cars that the employees drive to work there?

10 year old cars... that would be 1998 models. Therefore, taking into account the fact that there have been precious few major environmental changes in the automotive industry over that time span, I would say the factories.

Also, taking into account the fact that a factory, through the purchase of a 'carbon credit' can legally sidestep all environmental restrictions, I would say the factory.

Also, taking into account that few people are still driving cars that old, as well as the fact that we do not know how far they are driving, nor do we know from the question exactly what type and how much pollution is being produced by said factory, I would say the question itself is ultimately unanswerable and irrelevant.

C'mon Reverend, you can do better than this...

TheRedneck

according to my energy management lecturer on my engineering course theres more greenhouse gases emitted from cows farting than there is due to manmade sources.
And even more due to volcanoes etc.

He also said humans only contribute about 6% of all greenhouse emissions.

Considering he's a doctor lecturing on energy management I think he knows what he's talking about

reply to post by TheRedneck


So all those baghouses and scrubbers that my mechanics and I&E people have to fix and maintain do nothing?

Really?

I mean, I figured that 30 1998 cars would probably put out just a little more pollution than, say, 50PPM of HCl in a given day.

But I'm just silly that way.

Originally posted by TheRedneck


C'mon Reverend, you can do better than this...

Whoops. Appeal to ridicule.

Been nice talking to you, Sport.

Originally posted by owzitgarn
Considering he's a doctor lecturing on energy management I think he knows what he's talking about

Maybe. Is he a biologist?

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
reply to post by scientist

 

Even if it's not man made then we are certainly helping it move really quickly. Man made emissions are a contributor to the problem of the growing environment.

no evidence for that either. Again, this is about global warming, not global pollution. We are helping pollute every natural resource on the planet, yes. That is the worst thing we are doing. It's the public dumping, oil spills, deforestation, etc. That is what humans are doing that we should prevent, but "global warming" is a distraction, to obscure the serious issues.

The only evidence I've seen from any source regarding global warming was that the sun is getting hotter, and having more frequent solar flares, which correlates to the uncommon temperatures.

Every single model of the greenhouse gas levels are extreme estimations on the levels themselves, and then another estimation of how that level would affect the environment. These are both huge assumptions, that seem to be taken as fact by many people, thanks to Al Gore and this misdirected movement.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by scientist]

reply to post by scientist


Link to solar flares being capable of heating up the planet?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by GT100FV
I don't understand the way the question was posed- "why do people conspire that global warming is fake?" doesn't make sense, worded that way. You might ask, "why do people say/believe/assert that global warming is fake?"
Of course the response would be that there is no scientific consensus that shows mans involvement in the Earth's temperature fluctuations.

really?

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

link to article

Science: Beyond the Ivory Tower . 3 December 2004. Naomi Oreskes.

Beyond that statement the article goes on to discuss how the idea that there is no "proof" or "consensus" is spawned by the cooperate media. There is plenty of evidence, I believe proof but the concept itself is subjective, so in the name of reason and in an attempt to "get along" I will say evidence.

One of the first to respond "ben420" maybe said that global warming / climate change has been happening for billions of years, its true. Still we know that the addition of carbon to the atmosphere is part of the cycle of warming and cooling so why add to an already natural cycle that can in extreme cases FOOK US UP!?!!? Denying to look at the way in which human endeavors impact our planet is willful disregard. With the global population already the size it is and still rapidly growing paying attention to our interactions with the planets natural systems is a must.



[edit on 1-12-2007 by Animal]

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger
reply to post by scientist

 

Link to solar flares being capable of heating up the planet?

Thanks in advance.

I only said there have been studies showing that a raise in the frequency of solar flares correlating to higher temperatures.

Instead of a direct link, try a google search for "solar flares global warming" or "solar constant."

basically, these global warming studies are assuming that the sun's temperature (which is the ONLY source of warmth, remember) is constant. It's not.

Here is a log of significant solar flares in the recent years:

www.spacew.com...

[edit on 1-12-2007 by scientist]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Even if it's not man made then we are certainly helping it move really quickly. Man made emissions are a contributor to the problem of the growing environment.

I agree we are damaging our precious planet. That does not mean global warming is man-made.

There are cycles of heating and cooling that we have not made the slightest impact on.

An 'ice age' is defined as a cold period with a large amount of glaciers. Well, right now we have a ton of glaciers (see north/south poles, arctic regions, himalayas, etc) so technically we're in a 'little ice age.'

Therefore, any amount of heating up would actually be beneficial for life (in general).

IF anything, the Earth is trying to rid itself of the parasites (humans) before all life is destroyed (maybe not cockroaches, they can survive a nuclear holocaust).

Every time one species dies out, magically five new ones seem to take its place.


If you want to get into semantics, the whole solar system is encountering 'warming.' There was a thread covering this a few months ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And another thread titled 'no sun link to climate change,' but a lot of information discussing otherwise.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 12/1/2007 by biggie smalls]

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger
reply to post by scientist

 

Link to solar flares being capable of heating up the planet?

Thanks in advance.

I only said there have been studies showing that a raise in the frequency of solar flares correlating to higher temperatures.

Instead of a direct link, try a google search for "solar flares global warming" or "solar constant."

basically, these global warming studies are assuming that the sun's temperature (which is the ONLY source of warmth, remember) is constant. It's not.

Here is a log of significant solar flares in the recent years:

www.spacew.com...

[edit on 1-12-2007 by scientist]

You actually are wrong here mate. Please note the section of the 2004 IPCC report that discusses Solar Variability.

They describe the various methods used to measure solar radiation, which resulted in the dismissal of the theory of increased solar radiation being the predominate force in global warming.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Animal]

Originally posted by Animal
You actually are wrong here mate.... dismissal of the theory of increased solar radiation being the predominate force in global warming.

again, I never said solar flares were the cause of global warming, but that the sun is conveniently left out of most studies and is rarely mentioned in the media. It's always the fault of cars.

reply to post by scientist


Well, yeah, because the sun produces a constant amount of heat.

reply to post by The Good Reverend Roger

So all those baghouses and scrubbers that my mechanics and I&E people have to fix and maintain do nothing?

Oh, I'm sure they do. Exactly what they do, I cannot say without more information.

I figured that 30 1998 cars would probably put out just a little more pollution than, say, 50PPM of HCl in a given day.

Aha, HCl. With this bit of information I can say with almost absolute certainty that the automobiles in question do not output HCl. Unless they are burning a chlorine-containing fuel, that is, and I know of no fuel that contains chlorine.

I also would like to know how you are calculating this based on the composition of the factory output (50PPM) without takig into account the volume of air containing the hydrocloric acid.

Originally posted by The Good Reverend Roger

Originally posted by TheRedneck


C'mon Reverend, you can do better than this...

Whoops. Appeal to ridicule.

Been nice talking to you, Sport.

Hmmmm, so you can't do better than this?

As I tried to insinuate (and apparently not very well) above and in my previous responses to you, your statements appear to be only half-expressed. You cannot calculate the amount of any substance based only on the concentration without knowing the volume. You cannot make a clear comparison between two unknowns based on a 'feeling' and call it an argument. And you cannot, or at least should not IMHO, make sweeping policy changes based on guesswork and poor half-studies that someone has labeled as 'science'. Do the calculations, check out the reports, and listen to both sides of an argument, and you will probably arrive at some sort of legitimate understnding of the issue. Avoid the calculations, guess at the reports, and ignore the parts of the argument you do not like, and you will not.

Oh, yes, and lest I forget...

Then perhaps you can provide a better example?

I mean, if you're going to make a statement about what a "large number" of climatologists (as opposed to a few tame ones owned body and soul by Exxon), you might consider having your facts at your fingertips.

You know, I was actually considering taking the time to do this. I was a bit concerned about the number of posts it would require at 4000 characters each, but still... then as I came back from town and saw your reply to my third quote above, I changed my mind.

Where is your evidence that the study was conducted by anyone even connected with Exxon? Where is your evidence that these men are 'tame' compared to someone like Al Gore?

The names are out there, Reverend. All you have to do is to go to google and look. I am not going to be your personal search service. You have every right to go on as you are and continue to believe the lies that are expoused by a power-hungry government and an apathetic press. Good luck with that.

TheRedneck