Why do you doubt Global Warming?

I have a theory, and I hope to get some feedback. People argue back and forth about whether global warming is real or not and whether it's man-made or not, and both sides cite scientific research.

Well, obviously they can't both be right, and the arguments of one side must be flawed, their data manipulated, and their logic misapplied.

The issue hasn't been settled by presenting evidence, and I don't believe it will be. Each side of the issue accepts the evidence that supports their case and discredits evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, I think the key to finding the correct answer will lie in determining the motivations for accepting one set of arguments and rejecting the other.

In other words, is there a reason why someone would falsify or manipulate data to say that the earth is warming, and a reason why others would choose to believe it? And vice versa, is there a reason why someone would to the same for the case that the earth is not warming or that it is not due to human activity?

I have come to the conclusion that based on these considerations, the most likely scenario is that the case against global warming is the flawed one.

The reasoning is that the motivations to believe that either the earth is not warming or that it is not caused by human activity are stronger.

To accept global warming as a man-made phenomenon lays heavy responsibility on us to do something about it, and the perceived necessary changes are not easy or comfortable. They would require a change of lifestyle and economic difficulty in many sectors.

The most profitable and powerful corporations on our planet are the oil companies. Naturally they support those who produce evidence against man-made global warming and they have billions (or perhaps trillions when all combined) of dollars to put towards this cause. Just look at that ridiculous ad campaign they funded a while back saying "CO2: Some call it pollution. We call it life." to give one of the more blatant examples.

Not only oil companies, but all industries want to lobby against measures that will force them to reduce emissions which would require expensive revamping of their facilities.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by tamerlane]

[edit on 26-5-2008 by tamerlane]

And why would someone prefer to believe the anti-global warming science and propaganda? Well, it's a lot easier on your conscience to say that global warming doesn't exist rather than admit that you're too self-centered to give up your car for the greater good. And why go through the trouble and inconvenience of growing your own vegetables when you can more easily buy those that have been transported from hundreds or thousands of miles away and produced with highly polluting industrial techniques.

Rejecting the idea of global warming let's a person continue in the lifestyle they are comfortable with without their conscience tormenting them.

Good question.

I didn't believe it at all, but then I came across this:

oversight.house.gov...

And that opened my eyes up a bit. Then I continued to read and research and find more and more manipulated and flawed anti-global warming stuff, so now I'm a believer.

I would LOVE to hear what some of the other people on here have to say. You know, the people that take all the global warming info they find by accredited scientists, and then pretend to know more than they do by saying 'whatever, it's natural'.

The main reason I don't think we are causing Global Warming is, well, I've read a lot of geology books and been to a lot of musuems. The Earth heats up and cools down a lot,
Have we been making a mess of things? Yeah, but it took us a few thousand years to realize we could actualy affect anything, and in less than a hundred we ar emaking changes to help heal it.
But I think mos tof it's malarky of one kind or anorther. Plenty of money changing hands, politicians taking sides, ect. Turns out there are changes going on throughout the Solar System, so it can't be all of our fault.
I think we want it to though.
Science, for all the good it has done us, has also done a lot of harm. Time is something people can't comprehend, and the universe has plenty of it.
Size and scale are another problem we have, beyond a certain size, we have a lot of trouble comprehending it. We want to have left a mark behind, even if it's a bad one, and even better, if we can fix it, then we can feel good about ourselves.

reply to post by bigbert81


Wow bigbert,

That is a great find. I'm glad you shared it.

I didn't realize that the Whitehouse itself was so active in obscuring climate change science.

Anyone reading who didn't check out that link, you should. It's a report from the House Oversight Committee titled "Political Interference with Climate Change Science under the Bush Administration".

Here is the concluding paragraph:

The Committee’s 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to
Congress. The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link
between increased hurricane intensity and global warming. The White House also sought
to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing
government climate change reports. Other actions taken by the White House involved
editing EPA legal opinions and op-eds on climate change.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this is the same administration that fooled me into thinking that there really were WMD's in Iraq so we had to go to war right away before they were used on us.

I don't think that the Whitehouse trying to cover it up, or at least stifle the investigations, is proof of anything more than just the rich looking out for the rich. I think that the big money that put this administration in office really doesn't want to face any additional regulations that could cut into their bottom line. So they called in a few favors and asked the Whitehouse to try and cover it up, or at least divert it.

I tend to think that it isn't man made because the proposals that I have seen will tax the consumer more than the corporations. It looks like an avenue to milk more money from the working class, rather than an honest attempt at reversing global warming.

I think that global climate change is real and it is happening right now. I think that the cause of it is kind of irrelevant at this point. I don't think that carbon taxes are going to change anything. Certainly not enough to offset the industrialization of China and India. I think that the course has been set and now we need to focus on surviving the worst case scenario, not figure out where to place the blame when the stuff hits the fan.

We should stop polluting the planet, but right now I think it is a different issue than global climate change.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Karl,

I can agree with you that the reason why it's happening really isn't as relevant as what to do about it and that carbon taxes really won't make the difference now.

I think, though, that we still have to get past the denial barrier so that we can start doing something significant.

Yeah, maybe reducing emissions would have been enough decades ago, but not now. Things have come too far and there is an inertia effect from the oceans that will keep the planet warming even after we stop emitting greenhouse gasses.

I've heard of intriguing ideas to combat global warming in other ways such as carbon sequestration and blocking some sunlight with aerosol particulates in the atmosphere. That last one was proposed a few years ago by the deputy head of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Volcanic particles can "help cool" Earth

The great thing about using alternative methods to control climate change is that we wouldn't have to make any fundamental changes to our lifestyles or economy. Also, reducing emissions does nothing to counteract the significant amount of CO2 produced by clearcut burning (up to 25% of the total) but these other methods would.

We could keep on burning fossil fuels until we run out of them. The market, rather than governmental regulations, would move us away from a petroleum based economy in its own due time.

The motivations for not accepting climate change or not believing it is influenced by humans would be removed.

Here is another thread discussing those ideas:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's my two pennies worth.

Firstly, there is no doubt that global change is a reality, and always has been. Climate change has always affected the planet, long before us humans ever showed up, driven by a number of factors.
Yes, I agree that we should be trying to do more to conserve energy and be greener but this drive has to come from the top. Thus, it will not happen as those at the top are driven by big business concerns, from which many who govern are making large personal fortunes. It's all part and parcel of the modern consumer driven economy.

Secondly, the cynical side of me sees more and more evidence of manipulation of data to suit one agenda or another. We have the saintly Mr. Gore, would be savior of the planet, telling us all to conserve energy and reduce our carbon footprints to save the earth. This does not stop him then flying around the world on the lecture circuit, thus creating himself a massive carbon footprint, telling everyone else what to do. Then we have him pimping "Green Business" initiatives with whom he has personal financial ties and which will make him even richer. That does not sit well with me at all
The financial thieves who play the stock markets are already salivating at the newest money making schemes - trading carbon credits as a commodity - that it rather gives the impression of another big con game. I see from the following link that we may well soon have personal carbon credits:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Surely, the idea of a big polluter buying carbon credits from someone "greener" makes a mockery of the whole idea of cutting emissions?

The upshot is, I guess, that we'll all see higher taxation to pay for green initiatives and as a penalty for driving a car (as if we are not hit hard enough already) while at the same time being offered nothing in return as an incentive.

Shouldn't all the extra taxation and revenue be used to implement, for instance, a viable national public transport system? - thus reducing the number of cars on the roads. Such things need to be run at the national level though, by people who know what they are doing, not farmed out to private companies who only care about the bottom line and board room bonuses.

So, in summary, Yes - climate change is real but as for the man-made idea, I am still skeptical. So far it all seems to be one big pyramid scheme to rob the people of more of their hard earned cash with no return on investment for the taxpayer (no alternatives to current fuels etc).



[edit on 26-5-2008 by Britguy]

reply to post by tamerlane


Well, it seems that we are on the same page. Like I said before, we need to focus on survival, regardless of the cause. If it is man-made and we are somehow able to reverse it, would it all be for nothing when a supervolcano erupts?

Ultimately, this planet is doomed. It is just a matter of time right? Maybe a man made catastrophe will destroy it, but most likely it will be something beyond our control like a meteor or the sun.

So I wonder at what point will we realize it and put all of our efforts into getting off the planet? I created a thread about it, but I must be the only one who wonders about these things. Forgive my thread whoring, but here it is
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's actually very simple. you're asking an irrelevant question.

data doesn't have an opinion, people do. iow, there's really no reason to convince people of your faith, whatever that may be unless you wish to use your then increased clout to coerce your surroundings.

therefore, it is about power and while it's true that manipulation is happening on both sides, due to known and concealed interests, the real issue is neither climate itself nor peoples' beliefs, it is about proposed actions and reactions to a perceived problem. all else is talk and quite cheap.


the majority of these 'solutions' have got nothing to do with nature and a whole lot to do with power over people. there are many initiatives which are simply counter-productive or useless, let me name biofuels as the most striking example:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

people know that of course, but they do not care, because the true goals of these efforts remain well in reach and the program itself on track.

the underlying agenda becomes even clearer when you consider AGWers' reactions to opposing viewpoints, they inevitably resort to diffamation, which clearly shows that they consider their factual stance hopeless.


threads like this one pop up in regular intervals, therefore i'll post the following link. btw, disproving AGW is not my job, it's the AGWer's to prove it beyond reasonable doubt right?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

PS: do people really need an obvious reason to rally? i severely doubt it.

Simply put, there is not enough data to support AGW ideas. Especially since the planet stopped warming in 1998.

My main reasons for taking a stance against AGW is because 1) I hate bad science, 2) I am extremely cynical and enjoy mocking people's futile but infuriatingly self-righteous attempts to "save the planet" and 3), and here's the big one, AGW has eclipsed the real issues of rainforest deforestation, African starvation, and oceanic harm (bottom trawling, whaling, plastic gyres).

Earth's biosphere (i.e., all known species) will survive our current interglacial period just like it did all the rest. That is a known fact and I have referred to it numerous times, and it has yet to be refuted. Secondly, the evidence to suggest that a warmer, more CO2 laden world will be worse overall is flimsy at best.

CO2 is not pollution in the slightest: it is life. As the world warms due to increased CO2 - again, the evidence to suggest that the two are linked on an atmospheric scale is flimsy at best - rainforests will expand and plant growth will be punctuated.

Finally, since when is Al Gore an innocent "activist"? He has made millions of dollars from this AGW BS. There are many, many people that stand to gain huge amounts of money from perpetuating AGW illusions. It nothing but a religion now, complete with it's own faith.

Don't get me wrong, though: I wholeheartedly support responsible attempts to improve the state of the biosphere. I just like to mock ones that aren't really making a difference or are actually harming what they purport to save.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by SlyCM]

I can agree with the Al Gore critics out there.

He's making a lot of money and getting a lot of fame from his message, and his lifestyle certainly doesn't match up to what he says everyone else should be doing.

In fact there are a lot of "entrepreneurs" jumping in to take advantage of a trend that they see. Besides the fact that many of the new products and services they are offering are absolutely ineffective, I think there is additional harm because all of these new options are distracting governments and individuals from taking a focused and effectual approach.

The whole deal with biofuels is a joke too. It doesn't stop carbon emissions, and even if it can provide us with cheaper fuel, all the savings will be lost in more expensive food. The Bush Administration has simply latched onto this in an attempt to appear more environmentally concerned while really gaining favor with the agricultural lobby. Agri-business corporations benefit more than anyone.

Q: What has the single greatest influence on the temperature of the Earth?
A: The Sun

The sun goes through periods of giving off more and less energy. What has pushed me personally away from the man-made global warming arguments is the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars are also melting.

Unless Viking, Rover, or Phoenix have something to do with it, LOL, I tend to lean towards the perspective that the most obvious answer is probably the right one. The sun is the cause of both because it's gone through a warmer period.

I'm not saying man and greenhouse gases have zero impact on the planet. On the contrary, I'm a conservationist, and agree with as much of a zero footprint philosophy as possible, but that's my own personal philosophy. And I hate $4/gallon gas as much as the next guy.

I just don't buy that man's activity is the biggest reason the planet warmed so much at the end of the last century. It was the sun going through a warmer trend, pure and simple.

I would say if the glaciers are melting on mountains above 10000 then its global warming.

Originally posted by tamerlane

In other words, is there a reason why someone would falsify or manipulate data to say that the earth is warming, and a reason why others would choose to believe it?

Who benefits from the Global Warming agenda? Just follow the money.

Here's a hint. The Global Warming proponents have targeted CO2 as THE measurable cause of global warming. This is important because CO2 output is something they can claim to measure.

This means that CO2 output can then be regulated. And we all know that the term regulation is just another way to describe being taxed. The entire idea of carbon credits is nonsensical in terms of being a solution to the problem of global warming because the buyer of the carbon credits is simply giving somebody else money but still creating the same amount of pollution.

So the first group that will benefit is the government.

So who else benefits? The universities that receive billions in funding to research alternative energy technology.

Who else? The farmers getting paid to produce corn for ethanol production. This also in turn benefits the politicians from the farming states.

Who else? People who have invested venture capital in alternative energy technology.

That's just a start. I'm sure there are more who are going to make a fortune from the global warming industry.

I look at this way

"Global warming" exists
"global cooling" exists

there was a volcano not too long ago that all sorts of scientists agreed, when it erupted (sorry i cant remember where this volcano was, but i will find the article) that when it erupted, it spewed carbon emissions far greater than the last 100 years of human pollution.

Carbon is a necessity for life. Trees use it to create oxygen, we know this though. To introduce more Carbon only creates a need for more tree's and plant life (something our planet can accomodate on its own)

I do not see our ecosystem as weak and fragile. I dont think our planet could survive all that it has supposedely survived, if it was so fragile.

Ice age
Hot period
ice age
hot period
a few global killer asteroids here and there
ice ages
hot periods
etc

It happens.

Just because it seems to be happening again on a nth of a degree for a small scale, doesnt mean its cause for alarm.

I worry too, that it may one day change the face of our planet, but i also know that our planet wouldnt be the way it is today, without w hat its gone through in the past.

I also think that its typical human nature to think that we're mroe powerful and meaningful than we really are. human beings are so bold, and continue that we are the only life in the entire universe and that we are so powerful we could effect a planets ecosystem with some carbon emissions.

If we were injecting massive amounts of Krytpon into the atmostphere, i'd agree with you there maybe a problem

But carbon is the most readily available element up there, so really.....wtf is the big deal?

reply to post by ybab hsur


I stand corrected

its not the MOST abundant source in our atmosphere, its the 5th most, but please do read adn comment on that article

im going to bed now

Good nite everyone

Thanks for that link. Yet another reason I'm a skeptic of man-made global warming.

Yes, we have a warming trend, and yes glaciers are melting. But it's the sun going through a warm spell, not CO2.

response to "alienstar"'s comment of I would say if the glaciers are melting on mountains above 10000 then its global warming.




-----------------------------


websters defines "cycle" as
cy·cle /ˈsaɪkəl/ [sahy-kuhl] noun, verb, -cled, -cling.
–noun 1. any complete round or series of occurrences that repeats or is repeated.
2. a round of years or a recurring period of time, esp. one in which certain events or phenomena repeat themselves in the same order and at the same intervals.
3. any long period of years; age.


Glaciers melt
Then the water that comes from the melted ice evaporates

that water goes up and creates clouds
those clouds collect moisture and become a storm cycle
that storm cycle passes over a section of land and emits it's cargo in the form of rain

now, when the "mountain region" goes back to winter, instead of the glaciers melting, it snows, that snow compresses the ice/snow beneath it, and creates more glacier.

This process is in place to keep the glacier and mountain clean and fresh. If the glaciers never melted and got replaced, life in that area would never stand a chance. I suggest you go buy the "planet earth" series and watch the "north to south pole" chapters. These people are from the UK. As liberals tend to suckle off of anything a British person thinks, you should surely agree with me after watching the DVD (or blu-ray...because blu-ray is freggin amazing)


[edit on 29-5-2008 by ybab hsur]