Scientist admits global warming scam, and resigns

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by cushycrux
Why is it so important for you to believe (sorry to know) there is no global warming. Logic: If you can't say it's a global warming because of to less knowledge, how can you "know" there is no (man made) global warming?

Ignorance and fear? Pollution is not healthy, right?

Why is it so important for you to believe that global warming IS man made? Has nothing to do with ignorance or fear, most people are all for keeping the planet cleaner, but not under false premise. This "well even if it isnt real, atleast we are cleaning up the planet" attitude is reckless and ignorant......

I cant murder a man in cold blood and then say "oh well he was just a criminal anyway" it doesnt work like that.

Raping the world for trillions of dollars under the premise of a false scientific theory (passed as fact)is unnacceptable.

One must also remember that this "man made" global warming IS a theory, its just been repeated so long that people take it as fact, thats the MO of people pushing an agenda.

Global warming, of course its real, but other planets in our universe are warming also exponentially. Our own earth goes in cycles, people seem to forget the most basic things taught in school as children...Ice ages, thawing, warm cycles etc.....

Can someone please tell me at what point in recent history we deliberately bred in ignorance and complacency to the point where we just take everything thats thrown at us as gospel just because people with lots of money at stake say so?

edit on 18-10-2010 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

This Post and the starts you get for it shows the real Problem. I never posted my standpoint. But you did it for me. Thanks. The only thing I posted was the statement that it could be illogical and dangerous to say it is not possible that the global warming is man-made. And the amount of the stars you get, shows me that a lot people here seem to not very intelligent.

reply to post by -PLB-

I can agree to that. But the fact there is at least a short term rise in CO2 levels due to human emissions is pretty much undisputed in my opinion. It could be that this sink becomes saturated and emission start to increase very rapidly. It could also be possible that equilibrium takes thousands of years to be reached. One argument you could make is that since we do not know we should not take unnecessary risk.

I agree with everything in your post.

It's like insurance - one has to decide how much to sacrifice 'just in case' we are right.

It's like DDT - UN decided to sacrifice 5 million lives to malaria each year in Africa in favour of banning DDT because of a few thin birds' eggs. They felt the risk of not knowing the dangers of DDT was worth 5 million lives. So, by the same argument, they try to justify the trillions spent each year in preventing global warming.

However, take the case of Freon in fridges. It's an inert gas - doesn't react with everything. So, everyone passed legislation to force the use of the eco-friendly inert gas for use in fridges due to pressure by green groups. Then, many years later, they discovered that freon catalyzes the destruction of ozone in the atmosphere. It doesn't react - it simply catalyzes the breakdown while itself remaining unchanged. And when it comes into contact with the next ozone molecule, it breaks it down as well. And so on. No we want to get rid of it, but we can't, because it's inert! That freon which is there will forever continue to destroy ozone. It is the very thing that we thought was good about it that caused all the problems.

This problem arose because of legislation passed to protect our environment! By trying to be 'green', the world upset the balance by acting on something they knew too little about.

What happens if, many years from now, we find that the use of solar power has caused irreversible damage, as did the eco-friendly freon gas.

My point is that acting either way carries a risk.

The choice of how to act with regards to global warming has become a financial decision, not a scientific one.

reply to post by Saurus


That is why I am a supporter of investing in dealing with the effects of climate change instead if trying to prevent it. Prevention should be a secondary goal and should not consume too many recourses. Although on the other hand, it is a good drive to develop sustainable resources, which is a good thing in my opinion, even if the motive is false. Humans can be pretty shortsighted and short term planners, especially politicians.

Originally posted by Saurus

My point is that every time there is a volcano, nature adapts by absorbing the CO2 until the equilibrium has been restored. (Faster growth of plants in areas of heightened CO2 concentrations is well documented.) I see no reason why the source of the CO2 should affect this natural process.

I agree wholeheartedly. To think that natural sinks can't handle a 100ppm increase in CO2 when CO2 has been 7000ppm higher and plant life has flourished, is truly laughable. There is over 50 times as much CO2 in the ocean as the atmosphere and more than 100 times more CO2 in sedimentary rocks. The overall planetary biomass has increased in the last 10 years which is probably thanks to CO2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would undoubtedly enhance the growth-rates of photosynthetic organisms in general, feed more people, and would not necessarily lead to any ultimate increase in mean global temperature whatsoever, because feedbacks from WV and clouds (providing they are strongly negative) would significantly overwhelm CO2's minor warming effect.

reply to post by Nathan-D


The question is more if nature can restore equilibrium in time before we reach global catastrophe, and the answer to that question is a lot less clear. Although it is overly hyped in my opinion. I predict that for example fresh water shortages will be a much greater thread in the very near future.

reply to post by -PLB-

The question is more if nature can restore equilibrium in time before we reach global catastrophe.

That all depends on the magnitude of the feedbacks and whether they are strongly negative or positive. But since planet earth had 10-20 times the CO2 in the past and failed to find a tipping point I find it highly unlikely that 1.8 times the putative maximum of the past 650ka will do it.

The real problem is ch4:
en.wikipedia.org...

But the politicians don't talk about it because they wan't you to buy meat. It's the fu meat production!





But who want's to know this? Meat is so tasty and people are so spoilt. It's the same to defend co2 production. If you wanna drive a SUV in a town you have to jump on the "global warming scam" train. It's so sad how easy it was for the oil industry to manipulate a lot of people.

reply to post by Nathan-D


But also consider that in those times the conditions on earth were not really pleasant for humans, and it took millions of years.

Originally posted by cushycrux
In 2006, farmers produced 276 million tons of meat.

Those animals contain roughly 193 million tons of carbon in their bodies, which comes from eating plants, which in turn are made from carbon from CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere.

In summary, 276 million tons of meat means 193 million tons less of carbon in the atmosphere, which relates to 707 million tons less carbon dioxide.

If the cows had not eaten the plants, the plants would have decayed, releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere again.

You cannot blame cows for global warming in the short term, since their mere existence means billions of tons of carbon dioxide now exists as cow, rather than as atmospheric CO2.

There are two sides to every coin. It's all a big cycle. Eventually, the atmospheric CO2 will reach equilibrium again, and all balance out.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Saurus

 

That is why I am a supporter of investing in dealing with the effects of climate change instead if trying to prevent it. Prevention should be a secondary goal and should not consume too many resources. Although on the other hand, it is a good drive to develop sustainable resources, which is a good thing in my opinion, even if the motive is false. Humans can be pretty shortsighted and short term planners, especially politicians.

Perhaps we are not so different in our beliefs after all...

reply to post by -PLB-


my question was not about the plants themselves but rather the break down of leaf litter,
the compost undergoes aerobic decomposition so it produces CO2 (carbon dioxide)

so compost itself isn't a sink but a producer, so again the question remains, how much has man prevented the natural CO2 from entering the atmosphere through poor agricultural practices and deforrestation?

Originally posted by -PLB-
But also consider that in those times the conditions on earth were not really pleasant for humans, and it took millions of years.

May I vent for a second here, since your comment has more truth in it than many care to admit,,,

Life on earth will continue, no matter what. Life thrives in hot springs of 100°C in environments consisting of mainly sulphur. If earth heats up to 80°C, life on earth will continue and thrive, but perhaps in a form different to that with which we are familiar. Humans may die out, but the environment will still flourish.

All of these 'green' groups who act in the name of protecting the 'planet' are doing so for the benefit of the human race, not for the benefit of the planet as they claim. The motives are entirely selfish.

In my opinion, life on earth would be better off at 80°C, because then there would be no humans to destroy the life thereon. Why don't the green groups just tell it like it is and say "I am concerned about the survival of the human race. I will do whatever it takes in order to protect our species, irrespective of the cost to the planet". If it were not the truth, why not let earth heat up to 80° and allow life to thrive in peace.

I personally am all for the preservation of the human species. I just hate it when 'green groups' do so under false pretenses.

reply to post by cushycrux


No not healthy, but then again not necassarily fatal, which global warming would be.

Originally posted by -PLB-

 

But also consider that in those times the conditions on earth were not really pleasant for humans

It's true that the further back we look, the necessarily distinct biology and geology makes direct comparisons to our own bio-geographical needs increasingly meaningless, but the point of contention is, if the earth didn't reach a tipping point when there was over 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere what makes you think it could happen now? Presumably, the laws of physics still applied back then as it does now.

Originally posted by cushycrux
Why is it so important for you to believe (sorry to know) there is no global warming.

Truth is important. There is no evidence (yet) of man-made global warming.
People are being lied to in order for some at the top (Gore, etc) to make money and create a new religion of sorts.
It's always important to know truth.
Sure we should take care of the planet, because living in our own filth is bad.
But telling lies that man has made global warming .. that's wrong.
A house built on lies will fall. The foundation must be truth.

Originally posted by mc_squared
This is the third time this has been posted on ATS already.

Hal Lewis is just some 90 year old crank physicist who has absolutely no background in climate science.

Hey! When you have nothing of weight to argue a position dragging out zombies is a respectable approach!

Next week: Al Gore is fat v. 1347232.2

Originally posted by Nathan-D
It's true that the further back we look, the necessarily distinct biology and geology makes direct comparisons to our own bio-geographical needs increasingly meaningless, but the point of contention is, if the earth didn't reach a tipping point when there was over 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere what makes you think it could happen now? Presumably, the laws of physics still applied back then as it does now.

Dont take this the wrong way. I have not made my mind up about any of this. Your post just makes me curious if the Earth did not have more resources with which to handle it in the past as compared to now, thus moving the tipping point closer? I do not know. I just know there are a lot fewer trees where I live than there were 30 years ago so I have to wonder.

I have an indoor garden and I know that artificially raising the CO2 levels does more harm than good if I do not also change other variables like temperature. I have to make it warmer in order to help the plants actually utilize the higher levels of CO2.

Don't shoot me here, I am just asking.

Originally posted by Faiol
well, this was already covered here in ATS, and this guy is not really a climate specialist

this is from OCT 9 ... today OCT 18

Wasn't Al Gore (who the environuts like to trust so much) major at Harvard, goverment? Seems like while attending, his math and science scores were at the bottom of the class.Also after his return from Vietnam didn't he study divinity at Vanderbilt where later on he attended Law School at the same university?
Seems to me, a person would believe a real scientist over someone like Gore with no credentials to speak of. However we keep believing the zealots, for the simple reason that they control the left leaning MSM. Even when information surfaces that proves the data is corrupt the talking heads keep the propaganda coming full force.

www.abc.net.au...

Scientists estimate that the 15 or so million tonnes of sulphur dioxide spat out by Pinatubo temporarily cooled the globe by as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day

Originally posted by Faiol
well, this was already covered here in ATS, and this guy is not really a climate specialist

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Faiol

 

But he is...........Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

I think you missed the word Climate Specialist as in Climatology...If you think it doesn't matter, why don't you go see an OBGYN next time you have a cavity.


Hal Lewis resigned from the APS (American Physical Society) because he launched a campaign to call for yet another review of the evidence that global warming was occuring.

Mr. Lewis spent 7 months trying to gather sufficient signatures amongst the 48,000 members of APS and after having full access to the 48,000 members via email lists and a full ad campaign, he managed to collect only 206 signatures, which comes out to less than .004 of 1 percent of APS's membership.

Not suprisingly he has found a job immediately employed with the "Global Warming Policy Foundation"...a group of UK Cliamte Skeptics that is known to introduce less than honest science into the debate and which has opted to refuse to reveal who funds them and pays for thier efforts. Ironic that he accuses the 48,000 members of APS of supporting evidence that he claims is less than transparent while then immediately joining a notoriously less than scientifically honest organization like the GWPF who refuses to reveal the source of thier funding.

I do not know Hal Lewis, so I will be reserved in my assesment of his motives, but in short, from reading his letter, the APS can do without him and his 48,000 former colleugues in the APS apparently disagree with his accusations.

APS Statement regarding Hal Lewis's resignation.
www.aps.org...

GWPF (Hal Lewis's new employer)
www.guardian.co.uk...