It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Global Warming Just A Hoax?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I like polar bears. There are about 20,000 polar bears. The Discovery channel shows the congregating of 100s of polar bears in Churchill, Canada every year. I'm told polar bears are about to go extinct. 5 of the 19 known populations are declining. I am told that in turn is due to the melting of the ice floes from which the polar bear captures or kills its primary food source, seals!

I am told global warning is melting the ice! If we can stop cutting redwoods to save the Spotted Owl, and if we can stop building a dam to save the Snail Darter, then I want to talk about stopping global warming so we can save the polar bear!



The U.S. Geological Survey predicts two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050, based on moderate projections for the shrinking of summer sea ice caused by global warming. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years.

Due to long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic.

Polar bears exposed to oil spill conditions have been observed to lick the oil from their fur, leading to fatal kidney failure. On May 14, 2008 the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing the melting of Arctic sea ice as the primary threat to the polar bear. en.wikipedia.org...


Any subject so important to a beautiful species like the polar bear and which is even more consequential to us humans, deserves to have the ground rules on what we are discussing laid out. To that end I have “bowdlerized” an article from my favorite source, Wikipedia. I promise I have not altered the meaning of any part of the following exert. I merely selected those parts of the article that looked to be germane to this discussion.



Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

Climate model projections indicate the global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 deg C (2.0 to 11.5 deg F) during the twenty-first century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions and from use of models with differing climate sensitivity. Most studies focus on the period up to 2100. Warming is expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This results from the large heat capacity of the oceans.

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface.

Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases.

Carbon Dioxide

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 deg C (59 deg F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. On Earth the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. CO2 has a long average atmospheric lifetime.

CO2 concentrations are expected to continue to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise depends on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.

When a warming trend results in effects that induce further warming, the process is referred to as a positive feedback; when the effects induce cooling, the process is referred to as a negative feedback.

The primary positive feedback involves water vapor.

The primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature. The hotter it gets, the more heat it radiates which tends to bring the body into equilibrium.

Another important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. When global temperatures increase, ice near the poles melts at an increasing rate. As ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are on average less reflective than ice and thus absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and this positive feedback cycle continues.

Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 deg C (1.35 deg F) relative to the period 1860–1900, according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 deg C per decade against 0.13 deg C per decade).

Paleo-climatologists have argued that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation.

Methane

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as both a cause for and an effect of other warming events in the distant past, including the Permian - Triassic extinction event (about 251 million years ago) and the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago).

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate or methane ice, is a solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure (a clathrate hydrate). Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth

Although it is difficult to connect specific weather events to global warming, an increase in global temperatures may in turn cause broader changes, including glacial retreat, Arctic shrinkage, and worldwide sea level rise.

A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-04-13).
en.wikipedia.org...-tar_wg2-81

Glossary of climate change
en.wikipedia.org...



Summary

Greenhouse gases. If you have ever gone inside a commercial greenhouse during the winter you must have been surprised at how warm sunshine can make the air. This physical phenomenon is involved in what we label Global Warming.

Sunshine comes to the earth as “white light.” That is, we receive the full spectrum of light emitted by the Sun. Incoming light passes easily through our atmosphere. But when the warm earth radiates heat back into space, it is in the form of infrared emissions. Infrared is a long wavelength emission. It is largely reflected by the earth’s atmosphere, thereby warming the earth's atmosphere, oceans and land. Global warming.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by donwhite]




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I like polar bears. There are about 20,000 polar bears. The Discovery channel shows the congregating of 100s of polar bears in Churchill, Canada every year. I'm told polar bears are about to go extinct. 5 of the 19 known populations are declining.

Now, who told you that? May I have a source, or was it from the Discovery Channel?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Global warming by their theory is false. The earth does go through warming and cooling periods. We have very little control over how the earth is warming or cooling besides nuclear war. In fact I think within another 2000 years, its gonna start cooling off again...or so the scientists say. Ill take their word over a politicians. However, there is some good in what the politicians are saying. We really do need to clean up the Earth for our sake as well as all life on this planet.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The title of the thread is biased against the so called left wing from the get go. "ANOTHER left wing hoax"? Did you really want to discuss other "hoaxes" as well? if not then why bring it up other than to inform the reader of your obvious bias. With such an obvious bias how am I supposed to look at the rest of your discussion as being objective?



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 

I think the left wing hoax thing was a hook to get you to read this thread.
I'll one line post your mom.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Global warming isnt a hoax...man made global warming im still on the fence about.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The Right uses the War on Terror.
The Left uses Global Climate Change.

They both use FEAR.


An Inconvenient Truth ON Al Gore: The Google A.I. Conspiracy

Dubya and Al Gore's unknown unholy alliance.

Most people would assume that Bush and Gore have no common agenda. Each have completely different primary agenda's, and each are highly critical of each other's agenda's, but there is one common thread: Fear.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Whether or not humans are the cause of global warming doesn't change the fact that we need to stop being so dirty as a species. Bring on the alternative and renewable fuels and zero waste cities.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Let me at the outset state that I am all for the proper and responsible use of our natural resources.

What I am NOT supportive of, is being "hoodwinked" by any political party for any agenda.

While the current aspect of Global Warming is being debated by scientists all over the world, apparently to a stand still, some facts are inescapable.

1. We, Humans, do NOT know everything. In fact we are just beginning to understand the smallest fraction of the planet we live on.


As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote:

The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.

Ise Age Cometh

So what happens is that one side either makes up their minds that they are correct, and everyone that disagrees with them is wrong; (Like the Gaza conflict) or there is an agenda behind scaring the general public into reacting a certain way.


This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time.

Rush Limbaugh

So what could possibly be the reason behind such scare tactics?

Control. Massive population control and big government.

The Democrats have come right out and said that they are in favor of high gas prices in order to get the public to drive less.


Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly

Hot Air

Now driving less means more dependence on public transportation. GOVERNMENT subsidized and sponsored public transportation.

And of course the hypocrisy of it all is staggering. While those same Dems are telling you to conserve and cut back, they are all driving to their meetings in huge limos and flying there in their private jets.

See, they are not going to cut back, they just want you to.

At least the Republicans are honest about what they are doing. We all drive big cars and have planes.
And we are not ashamed of it.

It's all about control and increasing government; the ultimate Liberal playbook.

They don't want us using coal, but they want electricity. They don't want us using Nuclear Power, but again, they want electricity. We can't mine shale for oil, or drill where there is actually oil. Oh the list goes on and on.

So what about the hype on electric cars? Go ahead and buy one. The Libs are all stopping the building of any coal power plants so what are you going to plug it into?

Now how about those Hybrid cars? RIP OFF

I actually looked at one just a few months ago when buying a new vehicle. By the time I paid the extra price for the vehicle, I could have filled it up for the expected life of the car. My work vehicle takes E85, guess what? I get around 25 mpg on regular gas and 12 on E85.. How is that saving anything?

Please stop falling for every myth that comes down the pike and start asking yourself "why they want you to do it" and figure it out yourselves.

More later on the "ACTUAL" temperature fluctuations occurring and the REAL scientific reasons behind them.

Semper



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Global Warming is without a doubt a hoax and fraud . The Earth climate goes in cycles which have included the Ice Age . The Global Warming crowd have never explained how or why the Earth climate changed before the existence of humans . Notice how when we didn't fry and parts of the world faced colder temperates(SP?) the name of the hoax changed from Global Warming to Climate Change . The whole concept of Global Warming ignores actual factors in the Earth Climate such as the Ocean Currents .

The motive behind the fraud is to tax people and commerce . After the fraud has been found out once and for all the Carbon Trading emission schemes will of course remain in place .



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 




The Earth climate goes in cycles which have included the Ice Age. Global Warming is without a doubt a hoax and fraud. Notice when we didn't fry and parts of the world faced colder temperatures the name of the hoax changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.

The motive behind the fraud is to tax people and commerce. After the fraud has been found out once and for all the Carbon Trading emission schemes will of course remain in place.



As we like to say up here, Mr X11, you are playing hardball! On one point I agree. I don’t like the current Carbon Trading scheme. That is exactly why I don’t like it - it is a scheme! And it is not a rational, workable plan. I’ve already written above that any carbon control plan must be laid on at the SOURCES of fossil fuels. Not on the end users. Why? There are 2,000 of the former who cannot move around. There are 20,000,000 of the latter who can shuffle ownership and location almost at will.

And there is ONE more reason that beats the practicality I urged above. Taxing at the source guarantees a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. Taxing at the end user cannot possibly take into account all the variables each end user will face.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite

I’ve already written above that any carbon control plan must be laid on at the SOURCES of fossil fuels. Not on the end users.


That sounds great in theory, but exactly how do you propose we tax the source without that increased cost of operation being passed on to the consumer? Everything you buy has a price based on the willingness of a consumer to pay it, but always higher than the cost of producing it. If the end cost to you is less than the cost to produce it, then there will soon be no production of that product... unless you want to believe that people will start businesses in order to lose money.

Semper hit the nail on the head above. The current 'crisis' is manufactured through biased scientific study and media overload in order to get people to accept that the higher costs for everything are absolutely necessary to prevent their demise from CO2. The scary things begin to appear when you follow the premise of controlling CO2 production to its limits.

You, sir, produce CO2. Every breath you take exhausts CO2 into the atmosphere. Once the funds gained from taxing industrial CO2 emissions are exhausted (as all revenue sources quickly become), the next step will be your home (residential) and then your personal CO2 contribution. There used to be an old joke that the politicians would tax your breathing if they could figure out a way to do it. Guess what? They just did!

Want alternate energy? Let's assume that someone built an alternate energy source in their basement, and that it was pollution free, low-cost, and reliable. The problem is that they can't afford to start manufacturing it now, because in order to do so, they have to buy carbon credits to cover the cost of running the factory. So all they can do is sell the idea back to an already-established company to manufacture, because that company already has carbon credits. Of course, that company also doesn't want to make anything that jeopardizes the profits they are making on the status quo, so the idea is politely forgotten, and this wonderful alternate energy is not revealed.

Think things through and see who's profiting from these schemes. The ask yourself why all of a sudden, this minuscule trace gas in our atmosphere which is a vital part of the cycle of life and has been for time immemorial is our greatest enemy.

Ask yourself these questions, and realize that pure hydrocarbons produce only two components in their exhaust: CO2 and water. Now, if you wanted to make people deathly afraid of letting just anyone burn hydrocarbons, which of those two exhaust components would you attack?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 




I am all for the proper and responsible use of our natural resources. What I am NOT supportive of, is being "hoodwinked" by any political party for any agenda.

While the current aspect of Global Warming is being debated some facts are inescapable. 1. We do NOT know everything. In fact we are just beginning to understand the smallest fraction of the planet we live on.



Fair enough. A point however. I distinguish from the use of the pejorative “agenda” when the less tainted “policy” might be as accurate. Not everyone can agree with an agenda but almost anyone can endorse a policy. And to be “hoodwinked” is definitely not fun.

It is for this very reason - not knowing everything - that I was reluctant to open this thread. You pointed out the topic is still being debated although I assert not by any mainstream scientist in their academic fields of expertise. Yes, I said ANY. While “mainstream” is open to interpretation, I quailed that by including “in their academic fields of expertise” which is pretty definite.

First comes to my mind the case of astronaut James Irwin. (d. 1991) As an Annapolis grad, he would not have had much learning outside the fields of naval science and engineering. In other words, in the futile hunt for Noah's lost Ark, he had no academic expertise. Any pronouncements he made on the subject other than from first hand experience would not carry much weight. See Note 1.




As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote: “The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time . . The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one - for there will be a next one - could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.”



A truism. That exert well illustrates the hazard in predicting tomorrow or next year or even further out. Or the next race if you are reading this at Hialeah Park. I am not however, particularly well satisfied by reference to a popular weekly magazine from 14 years ago. While what it said was and is true, surely there are later versions of this same old story?

Aside: Time (mostly text) and LIFE (mostly pictures) magazines were immensely popular in the WW2 era. Henry Luce, the owner of Time, Inc., publisher of both magazines, like most owners of the media, was a staunch Republican. Him not a Catholic was nevertheless strong enough to get Eisenhower to appoint his wife, Claire Booth Luce who was a Catholic, to be America’s ambassador to Italy (and to the Vatican). Dems parodied Time and LIFE by saying “LIFE was for people who could not read, Time was for people who could not think.” End.




This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets - Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS - have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time.



Presumably I have disconnected this reference from the Time story. Unintentionally. Assuming that to be the case, I would only say again there must be more current data and perhaps differing interpretations of what if anything it signifies.




The Democrats have come right out and said that they are in favor of high gas prices in order to get the public to drive less. Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly . .



Americans are a perplexing people. On the one hand, every politician rails against our dependence on FOREIGN oil. We presently import nearly 70% of our petroleum products. It was 1956 when Shell Oil’s M. King Hubbert first predicted US oil production would PEAK in between 1965 and 1970. He was ignored until it happened in 1971! US production peaked, then began to fall. By 1992 US imports exceeded domestic production. And so it has been.

Pray tell, how therefore, do we accomplish independence from foreign oil? I suggest there are only TWO ways. 1) ration gasoline. 2) tax gasoline. I’m listening for the THIRD way to reduce domestic consumption so we can achieve independence of foreign oil! So why blast Obama? Is that - Obama bashing - an agenda?




They [Dems] don't want us using coal, but they want electricity. They [Dems] don't want us using Nuclear Power [Bush43 authorized 80 nuclear power plant permits in 2006], but again they want electricity. We can't mine shale for oil, or drill where there is actually oil. Oh the list goes on and on. So what about the hype on electric cars? Go ahead and buy one. The Libs are all stopping the building of any coal power plants so what are you going to plug it into? Now how about those Hybrid cars? RIP OFF



On shale. In the 1970s, Shell Oil Company (using Federal funds) set up a plant in Colorado to retrieve oil from the shale. When the Federal money ran out, Shell did likewise. I believe the decaying plant is still there. Yes, there is oil in shale. But the cost of extraction far exceeds the value of the oil. End of shale.

On nuclear power. When we first permitted nuclear power plants the Federal government allowed the industry to cop out on the potential for damage should a plant fail cataclysmically. I expect a lobbyist got well paid for this financial coup! The law was set that whole industry would have a single $750,000,000.00 limit on liability for damages caused by the industry or any single member. A more appropriate insurance policy would have provided each plant to be liable for $75 billion in damages. Remember Three Mile Island? In 1979 Unit 2 overheated to the point it was in 20 minutes of being the world’s first Chernobyl [1986]. See Note 2.




I actually looked at one [hybrid] just a few months ago when buying a new vehicle. By the time I paid the extra price for the vehicle, I could have filled it up for the expected life of the car. My work vehicle takes E85, guess what? I get around 25 mpg on regular gas and 12 on E85 . . How is that saving anything? Please stop falling for every myth that comes down the pike and start asking yourself "why they want you to do it" and figure it out yourselves.



Ethanol. Historically, America owes Senator Bob Dole (with earmarks) and Archer Daniels Midland for the E85 scam. When the EPA was first signed into law by Richard Nixon, the car makers were forced to scramble to avoid bad publicity if not real penalties due to excessive exhaust pipe emissions.

Ethanol has 2 advantages over gasoline. 1) It has none of the bad pollutants of gasoline. 2) Ethanol will not “ping” or pre-ignite. It replaced the lead in gasoline (GM's Ethyl) to raise its octane rating. To make ethanol “look good” to the public the industry was allowed to calculate their fleet emissions based on all cars using E85.

Laws were enacted subsidizing farmers growing WATER consuming corn. Processors of corn into ethanol - say ADM - were subsided to gear up. Then gasoline refiners were forced to buy a certain amount of ethanol at INFLATED prices (54 cents a gallon over Brazilian made ethanol). Finally, ethanol has 80% of the BTUs of gasoline so it takes MORE to do the SAME.

When domestic refineries got up to speed on RFG - reformulated gasoline - the need for ethanol disappeared. But their power in W-DC did not. We are unable to STOP a program that had some excuse in the 1980s and 1990s but NONE today. And it takes 1400 gallons of water to make ONE gallon of ethanol. All too much of that water is pulled out of the Ogallala Aquifer. See Note 3.


Note 1.
“Previous expeditions, including those of the 1980s led by former NASA astronaut James Irwin, have either prematurely promoted their success or produced inconclusive results. Supposed ark-like structures have turned out to be natural formations or else were inaccessible. None has been confirmed.” www.christianitytoday.com...


Note 2.
Chernobyl is still very much on the minds of Ukrainians. The first encapsulation of the failed reactor is in need of replacement. The next one needs to be designed to last 100 years it is said. The site will be off limits for 1,000 years. 600,000 people received dangerous levels of radiation and 4,000 deaths over normal rates are expected.

A no-go zone 30 km (19 miles) around the plant site is too radioactive to be useful. If Area = pi X radius squared, then that is equal to 725, 000 acres. If the same area of contamination had happened at TMI, and if the land involved in PA and MD was worth $15,000 per acre, on average, then the cost of land alone would have amounted to $10, 875,000,000.00.

TMI would have “chipped in” the industry’s paltry $750 million and said, “Adios, I’m outta here!” As at the WTC disaster, the good ole payer of last resort, the US taxpayers would have picked up the tab, say $10 billion, 125 million dollars! Thank you nuclear power!

Sweet Jesus! Talk about subsidies for the rich! en.wikipedia.org...


Note 3.
The Ogallala Aquifer extends from lower South Dakota and eastern Wyoming across most of Nebraska, through the middle of Kansas and eastern Colorado, down into western Oklahoma, the north part of Texas and some of eastern New Mexico. It was formed after the last ice age retreated and much of the water in it is 10,000 years old. Farmers are withdrawing it 10 times faster than nature can replenish it. Aside: T. Boone Pickens has bought 1000s of acres of water rights in the Ogallala Aquifer. An oil man looking ahead! en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1/12/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Aww, I know it totally sucks, but the polar bear will not survive- global warming or not. Whatever is causing the arctic to break apart in chunks is really hurting those poor fellas, and they can't evolve quickly enough to either a) survive as an aquatic species or b) develop better form and function to allow them to swim farther so that they can reach land.

Polar bears have a really high body mass, short limbs, and lots of fat and muscle that enables them to remain warm in their habitat. Unfortunately, this means that they cannot swim very far. What is happening is that they are being stranded in the ocean and being exhausted to death by swimming, or starving to death because there is little food source on the floating ice.

Most zoologists and marine biologists specializing in polar ecology and polar bears give them between ten and one hundred years before the only existing polar bears will be in zoos.

I was talking to the boyfriend about the bears last night, as we are both involved in marine biology/ecology. Pretty much they could try the same thing they are doing with the tigers. Zoologists are trying to save the tiger species, which is also rapidly in decline primarily due to poaching, by relocating the tigers to Africa, where there are less threats. Also, they are trying to put tiger cubs from zoos into the wild in Africa to try and create a new population there.

They could do this by relocating polar bears to somewhere like Scandanavia, and also introducing polar bear cubs from zoos here and teaching them how to hunt, etc, like the tiger project.

However, it seems it is too late for the polar bears.

Note- even if it is global warming and we switched the types of energy we use, reduce our carbon imprints and pollution, if we did all of that tomorrow... the polar bears would still probably become extinct in the next ten years, as it will take hundreds of years to reverse what we have done... if it is global warming.



[edit on 1/12/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


1st, polar bears are not diminishing in numbers. The 2008 "threatened" designation was in response to AGW advocates' claims that their habitat might be threatened in the future.

Second, AGW itself is, as most of your replies here show, are largely discredited under unbiased scrutiny.

There have been several threads dealing with this. No AGW advocates have refuted the underlying raw data supporting the reports in these threads that man is not causing the climate to change.

See these for additional info:
"Is 2008 the Year They Disproved Global Warming?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"650+ Scientists Protest IPCC Global Warming Report"
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
its not only a hoax its the reason there is currently an economic ressesion .. due to al gore people and company's world wide aren't watching there econimic there bills and there lost ther view on what there needed to look for and that is making profit and creating and maintaining work ect but insteat of that they were investing money energy and time in a so called climate change ect and that is why they lost money , got in to economic problems and thats why people are losing there jobs.. they should have invested in there company and there future portofolio but they didn't and now we are having problems.
Thank you al gore for they financial crisis due to your lies about a so called climat crisis



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Second, AGW itself is, as most of your replies here show, are largely discredited under unbiased scrutiny.

There have been several threads dealing with this. No AGW advocates have refuted the underlying raw data supporting the reports in these threads that man is not causing the climate to change.


Problem is, do either of them present any data or just opinion and assertion? Did you bother to check the data?


See these for additional info:
"Is 2008 the Year They Disproved Global Warming?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So, lets take this one, as this is clearly data based and would be very open to 'unbiased scrutiny'. A thread sourced from a news article from the Daily Telegraph in the UK, which is well-known as a platform for pseudosceptics. One of the major claims from Brooker is just complete BS.


First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.






It hasn't even 'dropped' enough to wipe out warming since 2000, lol. So was the claim biased, unbiased, or just complete BS?


"650+ Scientists Protest IPCC Global Warming Report"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Who cares? Just opinion of some random scientists, ex-scientists, and non-scientists, some of whom were misrepresented by Inhofe's poodle.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
We just don't KNOW enough to be able to make broad predictions such as whether there IS global warming,when the next Ice Age will be, or the Next Iceless Earth Period will be. In order to be able to make a valid prediction, you need several things:

1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.

2.) A long-term history of data for all of those factors.

3.) The degree to which each factor contributes, and the degree to which the interaction of ALL of those factors relate.

4.) A way to accurately measure the long-term actual performance versus the predictive model you have developed.

5.) The ability to make modifications to that model, if the actual measurements do not correspond to your first-phase model.


NO ONE, I repeat, no one admits to having all of the requirements to item 1 yet. In addition, actual measurements have, at best , only been going on for about 100 years, give or take a few years. When you a trying to develop a model that predicts on a scale of thousands and tens of thousands of years, that is hardly enough data.

Finally, much of the data that those who think they know what is going on us, is derived data, that is, data that was not directly measured, but rather inferred from things such as ice core drillings, fossils, etc. That is, in many cases, highly suspect data, as there often are other explanations for readings retrieved from such indirect samplings.

Suffice it to say that science, in this field, has just climbed out of the cave, and has a long way to go, before any reliable predictions can be made with any degree of certainly.

I would suspect their predictions as much as I would suspect the predictions of a carnival lady who stares into a crystal ball, or a blow-hard politician, who has millions to make on selling carbon credits.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




That sounds great in theory, but exactly how do you propose we tax the source without that increased cost of operation being passed on to the consumer? Everything you buy has a price based on the willingness of a consumer to pay it, but always higher than the cost of producing it.



Sure. There is nothing free that is worth having. The end user pays for everything. Example: A ton of coal might cost $200 before the Carbon Tax is assessed. Then it might cost $300. All consumers would bear the cost according to how much they used products in which the cost of coal figured.

But also figure this. Suppose the cost of coal is 30% of the final cost of electricity which is 15 cents a kw. The cost of coal rises 50%. The new price of coal raises the cost of electricity: .3 X .5 = .15 . 15%. The price of electricity now goes to 17.25 cents per kw. If you are a 2,000 kw a month household, then your annual cost increase is $540. $45 a month.

Now, if a coal fired steam generating plant installed 50% efficient CO2 smokestack scrubbers, then that utility would get a $50 refund on its price of coal. The utility could either pay its exec’s bonuses or reduce the price of electricity to its consumers.




Semper hit the nail on the head above. The current 'crisis' is manufactured through biased scientific study . . The scary things begin to appear when you follow the premise of controlling CO2 production to its limits.



There is no evidence that bias has influenced the science of global warming. There is even less evidence that the concept was manufactured out of whole cloth. There may be good arguments against the causation or the best remedy, but that line is not one that will bring results. The limits on controlling CO2 will be set from time to time based on the then current urgency of the prevailing conditions.




Want alternate energy? Let's assume that someone built an alternate energy source in their basement, and that it was pollution free, low-cost, and reliable. The problem is that they can't afford to start manufacturing it now, because in order to do so, they have to buy carbon credits to cover the cost of running the factory.

All they can do is sell the idea back to an already-established company to manufacture, because that company already has carbon credits. Of course, that company also doesn't want to make anything that jeopardizes the profits they are making on the status quo, so the idea is politely forgotten, and this wonderful alternate energy is not revealed.



I have always opposed carbon credits bought and sold by end users. Fraught with fraud and impossible to regulate. That is the same impossible to regulate condition that got us into the Reagan Revolution Meltdown. A $15 trillion mistake!




Ask yourself these questions, and realize that pure hydrocarbons produce only two components in their exhaust: CO2 and water. Now, if you wanted to make people deathly afraid of letting just anyone burn hydrocarbons, which of those two exhaust components would you attack? TheRedneck



I think NOT just 2. There is nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. To name just 3 others. I expect there are more. “Hydrocarbons” is layman’s talk for crude oil and its byproducts. And not to just hydrogen and carbon.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.api.org...
www.sciencedaily.com...

[edit on 1/12/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 




In order to be able to make a valid prediction, you need several things:
1.) All of the contributing factors contributing to the event you are trying to predict.
2.) A long-term history of data for all of those factors.
3.) The degree to which each factor contributes, and the degree to which the interaction of ALL of those factors relate.
4.) A way to accurately measure the long-term actual performance versus the predictive model you have developed.
5.) The ability to make modifications to that model, if the actual measurements do not correspond to your first-phase model.



Normally I do not quote Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld but in this case I must: “You don’t go to war with what you’d want, but you go with what you have.” Him responding to complaints he sent US Armed Forces into Iraq without body armor or armored Humvees which accounted for 1,300 KIA out of the nearly 4,300 KIA on Bush43's watch. (Close to the DoD's dismissive jargon of collateral damage - the unintended killing of civilians).

Substituting “global warming” for ”war” and we are compelled to take action based on the BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. The basic physics are well known and understood. There are too many indicators to ignore. I’m pretty sure no one including Al Gore has claimed the info is absolutely DEFINITIVE. But it is so strong that it cannot be responsibly DENIED or IGNORED.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join