The global warming conspiracy

reply to post by afterschoolfun


Ok... and so does that disprove my point?

I am not talking about Al Gore... im talking about Martin Durkin. If you have nothing to say about that, then fine. By don’t try and deflect it onto another argument.

I know what i believe... and like i said before, we can all keep throwing around statistic, web links, quotes from scientist etc... but very few people actually truly understand the environment or climate change. We all smugly using/quoting second hand knowledge, as if it was our own. I am honest enough to admit that my belief in climate change and the damage, i believe, we are doing to our planet is a leap of faith.

I will now politely withdraw from this thread because it is a discussion i have been involved in many times and, to be honest, i find it tiresome and stressful.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Now, I have just watched the flick you posted and I can only say: Right on spot! The only warming source the earth has is the Sun. Turn it off and we become a cold rock.

Well, frozen iceball. But unfortunately the Sun isn't warm enough. Without the effect of so-called greenhouse gases reflecting back outgoing radiation, we'd be about 30c colder.

An inconvenient truth?

Not at all. The greenhouse effect has been proven beyond doubt, and life on earth rely on it for survival, but to say that humans strengthen this effect through our CO2 emissions is stupid. The greenhouse gasses work as an insulaor, but the Sun and the earth's inside are the only sources of heat energy to mention.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by afterschoolfun

 

Ok... and so does that disprove my point?

I am not talking about Al Gore... im talking about Martin Durkin. If you have nothing to say about that, then fine. By don’t try and deflect it onto another argument.

I know what i believe... and like i said before, we can all keep throwing around statistic, web links, quotes from scientist etc... but very few people actually truly understand the environment or climate change. We all smugly using/quoting second hand knowledge, as if it was our own. I am honest enough to admit that my belief in climate change and the damage, i believe, we are doing to our planet is a leap of faith.

I will now politely withdraw from this thread because it is a discussion i have been involved in many times and, to be honest, i find it tiresome and stressful.

Your right, it is hard to determine exaclty what is going on. I respect you for your belief. All I do have to work on is others whom I put my faith in like Alex Jones. If only I was a scientist lol

Now here's an experiment you can all try out if you have one of them thermometers with a sensor on a cord connected to it. Fill the Baloon with CO2 and sooth from lets say a small fire, with the sensor inside. Tighten the end of the balloon and take it outside somewhere there is little of no wind and lots of sun and measure what happens with the air temperature inside the balloon and outside. I won't reveal the result, but the OP should speak for itself.

[edit on 14/6/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

Did anyone notice we got three days of biblical darkness starting March 29, 2010? Did anyone notice it was snowing in Florida last fall?
Have you taken in a sunset and noticed the bright neon color or the rubidium red clouds? Those are not natural.
Could be the time of the Apocalypse and someone is holding off the supernova of the Sun.
I am the director of the Apocalypse, now in its 12th year.

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
reply to post by Muckster

 

oh, and I suppose Al Gore had all the answers too?

Guess not.

You're sourcing a "study" done by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While their name might sound trustworthy and official, it isn't. They're a right-wing, industry-friendly think-tank that really has no business in the global warming discussion:

www.sourcewatch.org...

As for Al Gore being wrong... there were only 9 statements he made in his entire film that are truly under question, and even then they're quite minor and exhibited a poor choice in words/examples that could have been easily demonstrated another way. Those, by no means, invalidate any of his points. He actually had the VAST majority of his facts straight, and the current anthropogenic warming is already having devastating environmental, agricultural, social, and economic consequences:

www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by TruthWarrior
Your right, it is hard to determine exaclty what is going on. I respect you for your belief. All I do have to work on is others whom I put my faith in like Alex Jones. If only I was a scientist lol

Hey man, take it from somebody who used to visit PrisonPlanet/Infowars and listen to Alex Jones' podcast all the time... he covers a lot of good news and has a lot of valid perspectives, HOWEVER, the guy is still full of a lot of shi*t. He's a professional conspiracy theorist, and most of his speakers/facts on global warming have been dead wrong. This is part of the reason why I stopped visiting his websites. Alex received a lot of flak from his listeners when he went after global warming, and rightfully so. There are many theories on what exactly is motivating Alex Jones... but he does have a history of right-wing leanings and there are some questions about money/influence behind him. But regardless of that speculation, what I find most angering about him is that he decides to run with the whole illusion of global warming being a hoax, and then also running with the asinine assumption that global warming is just a ploy to bring about world government that taxes carbon and then taxes our breathing and then takes over our lives. Sorry but that math is INSANE and it doesn't add up. I've heard all the "evidence", and it's mostly illogical and grossly exaggerated. But even IF the government was using global warming to control us and tax us, that DOESN'T mean that global warming isn't real, it just means that ONCE AGAIN, the powers that be are taking a legitimate/pure issue and corrupting it to their own agendas.

What also angers me about Jones is that he very suspiciously COMPLETELY ignores the real conspiracy behind global warming, and that is the fossil fuel industry's out-in-the-open influence and funding of disinformation, political corruption, and bogus science on global warming in order to create false doubt about it. And as enraging as it is to me, they've been successful in manipulating politicians, media, and conspiracy groups to believe that by denying global warming, they're fighting the powers-that-be, when in reality, the powers-that-be are the ones who are CREATING this false denial. It's disgusting and it MUST be stopped. REAL scientists are pulling their hair out over this, and UNDERGROUND environmentalists who have been resisting the government/corporate system for DECADES are disgusted with it all. You want the real resistance, fight the RICHEST INDUSTRIES EVER TO EXIST and fight the oil/gas/coal companies who have created this anti-AGW propaganda campaign.

Check these out:

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

www.pbs.org...


I don't mean to try to flip the world on its head after it already has for you... but I've studied this issue very deeply, gave every global warming denial a chance and I've overwhelmingly concluded that AGW is real, man-made, and that the "skepticism" over it was manufactured by industry groups who would have their profits cut off if we abandoned fossil fuels. SO MANY of the evils of the modern world can be traced back to the fossil fuel industries- from wars, to propaganda, to government corruption, to bogus science, to the stealing of peoples' land, pollution of the environment, overt destruction of the environment, greed/wealth accumulation, the suppression of cleaner/more advanced technologies, the destruction of peoples' health, the list goes on! These industries are preventing us from achieving the sustainable, free, scientific, advanced, renewable, and clean future world we all desire.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
As for Al Gore being wrong... there were only 9 statements he made in his entire film that are truly under question, and even then they're quite minor and exhibited a poor choice in words/examples that could have been easily demonstrated another way.

A British judge did rule that there were 9 inaccuracies in his scary movie. If you wanted to really pick at it, you could find much more though. 35 Inconvenient Truths. But then again, that's according to one of those 'right wing, oil funded, kooks and liers' associations
But seriously, if Al Gore wasn't profiting so much now, I'd almost think that he was trying to include many flaws in his movie.

Those, by no means, invalidate any of his points. He actually had the VAST majority of his facts straight, and the current anthropogenic warming is already having devastating environmental, agricultural, social, and economic consequences:

How do you know that AGW is having devastating effects? Because the climate has always changed, and will continue to do so, whether we emit CO2 or not. But it seems every disaster now must be due to AGW, ignoring that these events have always occurred in the past.

Take for instance, the alarmists claims of islands being inundated, due to AGW. When are they going to realise that many of these islands, such as the Carteret Islands, are sinking, which has nothing to do with climate change. It is common knowledge that atolls are formed due to ancient islands slowly sinking. This is a well known fact, yet alarmists still try to blame it on AGW, even though there has been no detectable acceleration in sea level rise. There is also the fact that many islanders have used dynamite, and blown away sections of the reef, leaving them more exposed to wave and tidal action.

Also, the often used poster for AGW (at least since the polar bear has been shown to be doing fine) is glacier melts. What many don't realise is that glaciers are poor indicators for present climate. Some glaciers have long and complex reaction times to things such as temperature, precipitation, wind and ocean currents. Sometimes up to hundreds of years, especially for larger ones. Although many are receding, some are also growing. But this is certainly not proof of AGW.

So although Al may have got some of it right, his Hollywood drama was always intended to pull on your emotions and feelings, regardless of the science. At least it helped kick start his carbon trading business.

But it's only oil companies that are corrupt, right?

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
A British judge did rule that there were 9 inaccuracies in his scary movie. If you wanted to really pick at it, you could find much more though. 35 Inconvenient Truths. But then again, that's according to one of those 'right wing, oil funded, kooks and liers' associations

But seriously, if Al Gore wasn't profiting so much now, I'd almost think that he was trying to include many flaws in his movie.

Yes actually, you're correct- you picked a terrible source for "35" inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth. First of all, Al Gore did not invent anthropogenic global warming. In fact, it took decades for him to actually come out and rally for its cause as aggressively as he has. Prior to that he was just another politician with milquetoast goals. Within the scientific community, the debate over whether global warming is real or not ended decades ago. The only reason people are debating its existence right now is because there has been a seriously concerted and successful effort by industry, right-wing think-tanks, and other such organizations to discredit global warming as an issue because it threatens their profits/ideologies. It's an alliance made in hell. If we abandoned fossil fuels, this would destroy some of the largest industries ever to exist. So if you want to talk about profits, you're focusing on the ant in the corner (Al Gore) while willfully ignoring the elephant in the room (fossil fuel industry). And please do your homework on your sources, just the very nature of that website screams pseudo-science and industry bias. I really can't believe you're allowing yourself to be duped like that, seriously, take a big step back from what you're advocating and really ask yourself if the people behind that website are your allies. I'll tell you right now, they aren't. Here's some info:

www.spinprofiles.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...

www.sourcewatch.org...(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)

How do you know that AGW is having devastating effects? Because the climate has always changed, and will continue to do so, whether we emit CO2 or not. But it seems every disaster now must be due to AGW, ignoring that these events have always occurred in the past.

Take for instance, the alarmists claims of islands being inundated, due to AGW. When are they going to realise that many of these islands, such as the Carteret Islands, are sinking, which has nothing to do with climate change. It is common knowledge that atolls are formed due to ancient islands slowly sinking. This is a well known fact, yet alarmists still try to blame it on AGW, even though there has been no detectable acceleration in sea level rise. There is also the fact that many islanders have used dynamite, and blown away sections of the reef, leaving them more exposed to wave and tidal action.

Also, the often used poster for AGW (at least since the polar bear has been shown to be doing fine) is glacier melts. What many don't realise is that glaciers are poor indicators for present climate. Some glaciers have long and complex reaction times to things such as temperature, precipitation, wind and ocean currents. Sometimes up to hundreds of years, especially for larger ones. Although many are receding, some are also growing. But this is certainly not proof of AGW.

So although Al may have got some of it right, his Hollywood drama was always intended to pull on your emotions and feelings, regardless of the science. At least it helped kick start his carbon trading business.

But it's only oil companies that are corrupt, right?

How do I know that AGW is having devastating effects? C'mon, seriously? Do you look at the actual headlines/science or do you only accept what comes from denialist websites which ALWAYS downplay the existence/effects of AGW?

It's simple math really- there are certain gases which contribute to a greenhouse effect on our planet; we have emitted an immense amount of them that has lingered in the atmosphere over the past century; this has created a rapid/upwards warming trend in global averages temperatures; no matter what this WILL have effects on various ecosystems; glaciers/ice caps are diminishing in volume; desertification, drought, flooding, and sea levels are increasing; causing such an abrupt change in already-weakened global ecosystems is a DANGEROUS thing. Must I really spell it out for you? The evidence is abundant, simply do a google search for anything I've mentioned, and try to steer clear of any site with an agenda and simply stick to ".edu" or ".gov" sites. Also, major climatological organizations will undoubtedly be the main source on this topic, they conduct/compile most of the studies and harbor most of the experts in the field, and no they are not corrupted by government grants.

Climate changes... yeah, so what? The problem now isn't that the climate is simply changing, but that it's changing at such a RAPID rate, causing damage to the environment, and as a result of HUMAN actions (something we can actively choose to STOP). I don't know where you're getting "every disaster now must be due to AGW". Certainly there has been talk of links between AGW and recent increases in extreme weather, however, scientists cannot easily link individual events (like Hurricane Katrina) directly with global warming. They absolutely are striving towards better data on regional atmospheric energy/heat distribution, but the overall increase in extreme weather can be mostly/largely linked to global warming just as a logical conclusion. Though scientists haven't really concluded, as they function in the realm of proof, evidence, and rigorous study, so while their informed opinion is that there's most likely a link, they admit that concrete proof is difficult to demonstrate currently. Even the media, though sensational, is hesitant to link weather with global warming without a shadow of a doubt. They're mostly quoting scientists anyhow, and highlighting the juicy points but retaining the scientific reluctance to conclude. As for these events "always" occurring in the past... the reality is the rate/severity of global weather patterns is abnormal when compared to the past, so it IS different..

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Continued...

Alarmist claim of islands being inundated? Actually sea-level is absolutely rising and many low-lying islands are facing direct consequences of this rise:

tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

sealevel.colorado.edu...

e360.yale.edu...

www.soest.hawaii.edu...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

unfccc.int...

www1.american.edu...

www.nwrc.usgs.gov...


As for the Carteret Islands... there seems to be some debate, and the dynamite fishing is definitely one of the likely factors, but the cause seems to be MOSTLY rising sea levels and an increase in flooding/high-tides. If you have strong evidence of it being a tectonic force, I'd like to see it. But regardless, one island that isn't sinking 100% due to AGW doesn't mean that rising sea levels dont have an effect nor does it mean that most other islands facing these problems are not the result of AGW. Here's what I found:

www.nicholas.duke.edu...

Most glaciers and both of our ice-caps are facing rapid melting. The VOLUME of the Arctic ice-cap is declining precipitously, and the Anarctic ice cap is experiencing massive ice sheet break-offs and calving. And while this is not DIRECT and final proof of global warming, it is certainly a byproduct of it, an obvious symptom.

Al Gore got the vast majority of his facts correct. And what kind of movie/documentary DOESN'T try to pull on your heart-strings in some way? Many times they don't even have to try, the simple facts pull on your heart enough, but a human presentation of such facts via a documentary is almost certainly going to involve emotion and an embedded perspective by the filmmaker and those interviewed within. There's nothing wrong with this so long as the facts are straight and the emotions within reason/honesty. I think An Inconvenient Truth was far from the soulless spectacles that Hollywood puts on for us to gobble up each year. It was quite a serious, deep, and scientific movie that would have most movie-going sheep snoring in their seats if they weren't expecting it. As for "his" carbon trading business... where's the evidence of this? I know he's invested in some businesses of the sort, but as he's said, why wouldn't he invest in companies he believes in? What's worse? Investing in carbon trading or directly in oil companies? Sure there are much better things to invest in I'm sure... but it's really a non-issue and Al Gore doesn't have ANYWHERE NEAR the amount of lobbying/economic power as companies like Exxon or Western Fuels.

I never said only oil companies are corrupt, I'm just saying that they're some of the most despicable, untrustworthy, and corrupt entities on this planet, and to anybody familiar with reality, that is not a radical statement at all.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Yes actually, you're correct- you picked a terrible source for "35" inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth.

Of course, those evil oil funded right wingers

If you want to defend Al Gore, then how about show where they went wrong rather than attack the source? Because we could take a look at the link you showed earlier supporting Gore's mistakes.

In 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation. See this article for more details. According to this Greenpeace blog, the evacuation is due to begin in 2008.

This is used as justification that AGW is affecting Pacific Islands. But if you look at the links they provide, they talke about the attols I mentioned earlier. They say this regarding the islands; "By 2015 they are likely to be completely submerged". Now does that have anything to do with AGW? NO.
Gore's mistake stands.

Historically, global warming events at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, as explained in Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming, this does not disprove that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising CO2 emissions have cause warming since the 20th century.

Yes, but that's not what Gore said. He erroneously claimed that CO2 has been the major driver in previous climates.
Gore's mistake stands.

Cullen's team came to the conclusion that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them".

Yet they fail to mention that deforestation has played a major role in reducing precipitation? That is fairly well known, but of course, they'd rather stick to blaming it on climate. So although the effects on Kilimanjaro can be blamed on humans, Gore was wrong when blaming CO2 emmisions. Gore's mistakes stands.

I could continue with Gore's continuing mistakes with Lake Chad, Polar Bears (4 of them) and Greenland melts etc, but there's not much point. But if you want to defend him then you're entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
It's simple math really- there are certain gases which contribute to a greenhouse effect on our planet; we have emitted an immense amount of them that has lingered in the atmosphere over the past century; this has created a rapid/upwards warming trend in global averages temperatures.

Yes, CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation. Although knowing how it affects climate is much trickier as it will not behave like it does in a test tube, as there are so many variables and feedback systems which we still do not fully comprehend. The main example being cloud cover, which cannot be accurately predicted with current climate models. But yeah, we could definitely see some degree of warming. Although
But then the alarmism comes out...

no matter what this WILL have effects on various ecosystems; glaciers/ice caps are diminishing in volume; desertification, drought, flooding, and sea levels are increasing; causing such an abrupt change in already-weakened global ecosystems is a DANGEROUS thing. Must I really spell it out for you?

You could at least provide some evidence. Glaciers have been diminishing since the last glacial period, and more recently, the LIA. It would certainly be odd if none were retreating. But as I said earlier, they are a poor indication for present climate.

Desertification is a process which has always occured, for various reasons. But it's easy to blame it on AGW without evidence, eh?

Can you find any evidence of an increase in drought due to AGW? I know Sheffield et al,. 2009 found no discernable upward trend in drought.

Flooding can be influenced by a lot of factors. But one of the main reasons for increased flooding is increasing urbanisation, causing more run off than would naturally occur. That and the fact that more and more people are living in flood prone areas. I mean, what do you expect when you build a city below sea level? So other than these reasons, can you provide anything that conclulsively shows an increase in flooding events due to AGW?

And of course sea levels are increasing, they've been doing that for a long time. But interstingly, many studies have shown no accelration in sea level rise. There is a bunch of predictions based on factors we do not fully understand. But you are claiming that this is already happening.

If the evidence is so abundant, you should at least post some evidence to support your bold claims.

Edit to fix grammaticla errors, and I see you have already posted some links I hadn't looked at, so I'll check those out

[edit on 11/4/10 by Curious and Concerned]

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I don't know where you're getting "every disaster now must be due to AGW"

Well, your posts for a start . Then there's the constant fear mongering from organisations such as WWF and Greenpeace. I generally agree with their overall message, but feel they have been corrupted into using fear tactics to generate more revenue. Fear sells. There's also the media, which you claim is reluctant to link weather with AGW. I will politely disagree with you on that, as it seems nearly every severe weather event these days has some kind of statement either linking it to GW, or indicating an increase in these events due to GW.

As for these events "always" occurring in the past... the reality is the rate/severity of global weather patterns is abnormal when compared to the past, so it IS different..

There are many reasons for the perception of an increase in severe weather. The main reason being that there is far better monitoring and reporting of severe weather events than there was 100 or even 30 years ago. Also, with with increased reporting comes increased media coverage.

Also, as I have previously mentioned, an increase of population in disaster prone areas will have a corresponding increase in people affected. If more and more people live by coasline prone to hurricanes and severe storms, you would expect a corresponding increase in people affected, without any actual increase in the weather events themselves.

Yet you are claiming that the rate/severity of global weather patterns is "abnormal compared to the past", so would you like to provide proof of this?

Well, I took the time to review the links you provided to prove AGW is real and affecting sea level. The first site you linked to provided good information on the variation in sea level due to isostatic rebound, showing that in some places, sea level is actually dropping. They go on to say "The variations in sea level trends seen here primarily reflect differences in rates and sources of vertical land motion". However, I didn't recall seeing any evidence for specifically AGW induced sea level rise.

The next link provided was useful for determining that gravity effects, because of the so called "geoid" , can have an affect on sea levels. One bit I found interesting though, is the reference to "climate-change deniers". I'm still trying to figure out who these people are that deny that the climate changes. Silly people they must be, thinking there is no variation in climate.

The next site provided the information, from the TOPEX satellite, to provide this analysis of sea level trend over recent years.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b724bce8ea8.jpg[/atsimg]

Interesting that this data shows a recent drop in the rate of sea level rise, during the supposed warmest decade in the last hundred years (or was that millenia?). It is of course only a small timeframe to infer a trend, but do you think that was predicted? Maybe we don't know as much about sea level as we think.

Speaking of predictions, that about sums up the rest of the links, mostly referring to IPCC's supposedly conservative projections. Although there was the link referring again, to the atolls of the Maldives. Have you noticed it is predominantly atolls or volcanic islands which get all the attention for the dangers of rising sea level? Perhaps it would be wise to find out how atolls are formed.

An atoll is thought to begin as living corals colonize and build a fringing reef on the flanks of a seamount or volcano. Over time, as the volcano cools and becomes denser, its gradually sinks below the sea surface. The corals, whose symbiotic algae require light to grow, continue to build the reef upward towards the sea surface, maintaining the top of the reef in the photic zone. The reef gradually becomes separated from the subsiding island by a lagoon, thus forming a barrier reef. Eventually the cold volcano sinks so far that it disappears beneath the surface, leaving behind the characteristic ring-shaped reef surrounding a central lagoon

Formation of Atolls

This does not only apply to atolls, but many volcanic islands as well. Rates of sinking could vary from island to island, some extremely slow, but some quicker. In fact in some places, it's quicker than the rate of sea level rise.

A computer analysis of tide-gage records in the northeast Pacific indicates that the active volcanic islands of eastern Hawaii are subsiding at a rate considerably faster than the eustatic rise of sea level. The rate of absolute subsidence increases progressively toward the center of current activity on the Island of Hawaii. Honolulu, Oahu, appears to be stable; Kahului, Maui, is subsiding at 1.7 mm per year; and Hilo, Hawaii, is subsiding at 4.8 mm per year.

source

Also, earthquakes can cause a significant drop in an islands level. It's hard to find any kind of figures for the rate an island subsides, as it is easier to measure relative sea level, which will incorporate any drop in a land mass with actual sea level rise.

But this is why volcanic islands and atolls are frequently used to portray the dangers of AGW, even though this type of information never seems to make it into the alarmists work.

So, yet again, this is not quite the evidence that "AGW is having devastating effects", which is apparently so abundant.