Climate summary fuels worry

What I think is funny about the Climate Change idea, is that so many 'conspiracy theorists' on this site are very anti-media distortion and anti-political corruption, but on the subject of Global Warming many just drink the kool-aid.

The economics of Climate Change are the real scary part. Bjorn Lomborg puts it very elegantly in this video.

LINK

I am going to stay skeptical and say that human driven Climate Change is a fabrication. I think it is rule by fear much like the War on Terrorism. Most, if not all, of the proposed legislation in regards to climate change would have a drastic negative effect on our economy and the economies of the world. We would be halting the development of underdeveloped countries around the world by not allowing them to use fossil fuels, saying that they should use expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind or solar.

The Kyoto Protocol is set up to destroy our economy, and exempt countries like China who is the leading polluter in the world. LINK

Give it a few years. We may liken the Climate Change scare to Y2K.

PS: I am bracing myself for the backlash

edit: my grammers is suck

[edit on 16-11-2007 by DINSTAAR]

Wow, it's been a few hours and no reply. It must be an off night for Climate Change debate. Oh well.... I'll probably see something in the morning.

Dear Crowd - We Need help - the climate change is not about me and you sitting there and wondering what we shall do. Its about a challenge in science. Like they did in the 60ths - We will put a man on the moon.. So if they send something to mars then I tell its a bit outdated.. Ints intresting - but yet - we need to find other ways.. For that I have setup a simple but yet powerfull collection of files; taking up ideas of alternative energy sources. If you happend to have any files that is near that kind there is - feel free to upload them. The server is inside a telecommunication building in saweden where I happend to live. I am specially intrested if someone can find (youtube) information on the pendev magnetic motor. go culture.zapto.org Then we put together some kids and let them build and expriment with this type of physics. I can just imagine what a team of 19 year olds could be able to produce. The adress to this site is
culture.zapto.org:82...

to upload find: Inkommande inslag
to see: go passed shows , om alternativa energikällor.

/Stanley meyers Network of friends.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Dammit man.........how many times do I have to tell you. The # I am referring to is just the increase for that #. After the 33% increase it still only makes up .117% of the atmosphere.

I gave you the link, read the whole thing.

I did, understanding this stuff is the next important step. I know what they did, I've seen this sort of bad maths and bait and switch method before.

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology

This is very clear. Very. 0.117% of atmospheric CO2. Not 0.117% of the atmosphere.

It's not even .117% of the atmosphere, heh. I'll spare another attack from my calculator skills, but trust me, it is. CO2 in total is only 383ppm in the atmosphere (that parts per million).

Enjoy your Turkey.




[edit on 17-11-2007 by melatonin]

I find it a little odd on a personal level. This time of year, the valley should be covered in snow and I've been able to play soccer everyday except for one since early October. For all these "nay sayers," I would like them to come tell me why the mountain tops are barely white, when the entire mountains this time of year are ALWAYS burried in snow! Regardless if it's a "hoax" or not, I know that something IS contributing to these rather warm weather conditions in the past 3 years or so.

climatologists and such cottoned on to global warming long before the media.

just because its in the medias interest to hype everything they can,thus climate change,doesnt meen its not happening.

once again people are underestimating global warming proponents,im well aware of how the media works,how they represent and distort,who controls them and what their objectives are.


heres some more news.
news.bbc.co.uk...

oh and deadflagblues,here is what is wrong with your mountain.
www.nichols.edu...

godspeed you black emperor!

[edit on 17-11-2007 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by Terrylynn

While much good has been done in the name of “preserving the environment,” a wing of that movement has become a radical cult, its adherents intolerant zealots who believe themselves possessed of some great truth denied to the rest of us. Their goal is power; their ambition is to take control of the destiny of nations in the name of preserving and exalting their goddess: Mother Earth.

Agreed. The movement is getting ridiculous. I think you are correct in your statement that many people are zealots. Films like An Inconvenient Truth are full of discrepencies that even a High Court in the UK has rules many of the statements in the film are wrong. LINK

To me, today, it's very simple. I'm not a climatologist and I don't pretend to fully understand the complex interworkings of the various factors which impact our climate. Even climatologists say it's impossible to completely understand them. I do understand the logic behind the issue though.

It is the perfect mechanism for control. What better issue to demand global conformance than saving the planet and the future of the species?

There's only four endings here. First, the proponents are defeated and the planet is fine. Second, the proponents are defeated and the planet flips out, resulting in a 95% reduction in population. Third, the proponents succeed and the planet cooks anyway. Fourth, the proponents succeed and halt the warming trend, also succeeding in their actual goal of enslaving the human race.

I value freedom above all else. Only the first and second endings preserve freedom. Give me freedom, or give me death.

I'm with the OP on this! There is something very wrong wit the global warming argument. Since the beginning of the Earths existence (4.5 Billion years ago, where it is agreed the Earth was a molten ball of rock - now that's a bit warm!!!!! ), the earth has warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled etc..

If you follow the stock markets, you'll know there is this trend to rise, fall a bit, rise, then fall, but overall, there might be a long-term trend of rising (or falling).

Extend that to the planet - 100,000 years ago we were in this thing they call an Ice Age. Curiously, climatologists today don't seem to consider this as a "problem" or anything, however, this little bit of warming that is occurring is sending them into what I can only describe as a panic.

Now considering the planet at its inception was a molten ball of rock, I'd take the general state of the planet to be cooling, even though right now it might be warming up.

I'd also like to highlight another point often quoted by scientists: the ice caps. They say the ice caps are melting, the sea is rising (hey - they know something! ) as a result, and this is bad for the earth. I have a problem with this! If we were in an ice age just 100,000 years ago, where the Earth was ice to the equator in summer, then why is the melting of this ice a problem?

Here is a fact: pure water melts at zero degrees celcius. So what if the ice caps are melting? They had to eventually (unless the earth goes into a period of cooling towards another ice age)!

I'm also confused as to why the ice caps are used as a benchmark. It seems that so long as the ice caps don't melt, all is fine, but if they melt, we're doomed!! Where the hell did the scientists learn this stuff??

To say the IPCC are impartial is wholly inaccurate. The IPCC was formed by governments of the world. They're going to pick scientists who say what they want to hear.

Here is what I think is really happening, but they're not saying:

The oil is running out. Let's step back a moment however. We can't burn fossil fuels without producing CO2. Can't be done, as fossils contain carbon, and one of the results of combustion is CO2. As combustion becomes more efficient, you actually get MORE CO2!!!!!!!!

Now, why do you think they keep targeting CO2? BECAUSE WE CAN'T BURN FUEL WITHOUT CREATING IT. It is why they target our cars primarily - they can measure the CO2 output from those, and produce pseudo-science around it.

Another thing that people forget is that the ENTIRE GLOBAL atmosphere composition of CO2 is 0.03% (concentrations vary but that is an average figure). CO2 is by no means the only "green house" gas. There are others that are far worse, and not just in terms of "heating effect" but in other ways, too (such as the destruction of the Ozone layer).

One thing being splattered all over the news this evening was that they predict that average temperatures will rise by between 1.4 and 6 degrees by 2050.

1) Between 1.4 and 6 degrees is a hell of a variance! Why don't they say between 0 degrees and 30 degrees just to be on the safe side? We know the planet is warming up (I don't need a scientist to tell me that) - all I need to do is guess a figure. 1.4 to 6 degrees should be OK! This isn't the lottery - I have previous data to tell me the trend, so extrapolation of figures is easy.

2) Who said that an average increase was a bad thing??? We already know the Earth is warming up, but even if average temperature is rising (and remember, averages don't mean very much at all statistically), in the UK, it could mean we see temps in summer of +40, but in winter, temps of -20. Assume for a moment the months May - August see temps of +40/-20 whilst September - April see temps of +20/-40, the average day/night temps = +26/-33. An overall average temp is -3.5 degrees!!

As you can see - you've got extremes of temps, but the average is still a minus figure!! It means nothing.

What scientists fail to appreciate and do not mention, is the day/night variance in temperature. In the desert, the difference between day/night temps are greater than in a more temperate climate such as the UK, where day/night temps don't vary so widely.

To suggest that an average increase of +1.4° (or even their predicted +6°) will have a catastrophic effect on the world is massively over-rated, and in fact, the IPCC and others should be prosecuted for misleading the world, and causing panic and hysteria over something that isn't actually a problem.

They keep saying that if CO2 levels keep rising (note the fact they have stopped mentioning any of the other "green house" gases that are actually worse for the environment), global warming will be really bad (errr - but the planet has always been warming up since the last ice age!). By targeting CO2 (our cars etc) what they are really doing is getting us to use less FUEL. What is fuel made from? OIL! Where does it come from? THE MIDDLE EAST!!! What is the problem? IT HAS NEARLY RAN OUT!!!

Unless we go and invade Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.. - then we're more and more dependent on oil from the Middle East.

I note also this evening that the news stated that as part of the fight against global warming, a new system has been prototyped that turns waste food into fuel. Notice they mention the word "fuel" in there? Curious don't you think, considering the problem is too much CO2 and global warming????? I didn't think we were talking about fuel shortages, but nope - it is definitely related to global warming.

You'd have to be pretty dumb IMHO (not aimed at anyone here) to not spot the backdoor relationship between global warming, reducing CO2 emissions, and the curious mention fuel always gets when discussing this topic.

It is probably why they're so keen to build nuclear power stations. I note that during these discussions, words like SELF-SUFFICIENT, and ENERGY SECURITY crop up. They also repeat the problems with the gas supplies from Russia to Europe.

In summary, the problem is nothing to do with global warming at all - it is actually a very big problem with oil supplies, as oil = fuel = our modern way of life. No oil = we're right back in the stone age. No electricity means that most of our lives grind to a halt. Most of things we do require electricity. I wouldn't be using a computer, typing here on ATS if it wasn't for electricity, which relies on a coal-burning power station to generate it. In addition, a lot of manufacturing processes use oil, such as in the production of plastics etc.. - without oil, our present way of life is in really big trouble.

Thanks for reading this massive post! I think we need to look after our planet, but this argument about global warming is a proxy to the real issue - oil.


reply to post by melatonin


I totally agree!! If you take the average figure of CO2 composition of the ENTIRE earths atmosphere, it is only 0.03%. If you take a doomsday scenario and say that human produced CO2 will double it by 2010 to 0.06%, that is still nothing!!! Why? Because CO2 is not the cause for the earth warming up. If an increase in CO2 levels from 0.03% to 0.045% will result in the Earth warming up 6 degrees by 2050 (only 38 years from now), they just broke the laws of thermodynamics, and re-wrote the laws of the thermal efficiency of CO2 as an insulator!! I suggest these scientists do not know what they are on about.

I remember when last April was reported as the SECOND warmest in 60 years. ONLY the second warmest??? Gees. The FIRST warmest occurred in the 1940s!! This global warming thing doesn't add up!!! Bottom line: THE SCIENCE IS FLAWED!

You can't get around the point that when the Earth was born it was molten rock. 100,000 years ago we left the ice age. This warming we're seeing now (specifically, this mass melting of ice we're witnessing)is perfectly natural.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I totally agree!! If you take the average figure of CO2 composition of the ENTIRE earths atmosphere, it is only 0.03%. If you take a doomsday scenario and say that human produced CO2 will double it by 2010 to 0.06%, that is still nothing!!! Why? Because CO2 is not the cause for the earth warming up.

Some strong words. I tend to think it is a cause.

Without doubt increase CO2, increase temps. That is basic physics. The 0.038% of the atmosphere that CO2 makes up provides around 8-24% of the greenhouse effect of this planet. It packs a punch for its small concentration.

If an increase in CO2 levels from 0.03% to 0.045% will result in the Earth warming up 6 degrees by 2050 (only 38 years from now), they just broke the laws of thermodynamics, and re-wrote the laws of the thermal efficiency of CO2 as an insulator!! I suggest these scientists do not know what they are on about.

I'm sure they do know enough about their own area of science. The prediction estimates for future climate are based on a doubling of CO2. So, it does depend on when we hit that mark. It's also generally accepted to be most likely between 2-4'C, but there are estimates that extend outside this range.

Also, this isn't just for CO2, this includes the positive feedback from other effects of CO2-enhanced greenhouse effect (increased water vapour, lowered albedo)

I should make it clear that I don't think that doubling the concentration has NO effect - that would be equally wrong (sorry if that was implied). What I DO think is that its effect is over-estimated. 0.03% in the scheme of the planet is nothing. 0.06% is still nothing. If we're talking 1% then I could start to understand, but we're talking thousandths of that amount of present concentration, and even smaller amounts being added to it. We're talking about a realistic increase in present CO2 concentrations of 35%. That is 35% of a total of 0.03% = 0.043% over the entire volume of the earths atmosphere (including the the 2/3 of the planet where land doesn't exist).

What I'd be more concerned about is the way China and India are polluting the rivers (nothing at all to do with the climate) and are making certain species extinct!! The latest died late last year. They haven't seen any since (it was a pre-historic branch of Dolphin, and the last known member from the Triassic period IIRC). Gone, due to pollution.

If we put half the effort into sorting that out than we did global warming, then we'd really be getting somewhere.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
0.03% in the scheme of the planet is nothing. 0.06% is still nothing. If we're talking 1% then I could start to understand, but we're talking thousandths of that amount of present concentration, and even smaller amounts being added to it.

But this is just arguing from small numbers. I can give you .0005 grams of '___', in your body of however many thousands of grams, and it will have a very big effect

We could apply the same to a nice small dose of polonium (about .000001 gram is likely to be fatal in a body weight of 80,000 grams).

If we put half the effort into sorting that out than we did global warming, then we'd really be getting somewhere.

I agree, these countries should be doing more to preserve their habitats. They are making the same mistakes that we made during our industrial expansion. But I think we could do both. No need for either-or.

It is also likely that the predicted warming will have a negative effect in certain species. Indeed, some bad predictions for future extinctions due to warming.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by melatonin]

I invite you all to d/l from somewhere a documentary shown on BBC4 entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you still believe that Global Warming is due in large part to man and not about money... well I guess we are all lost.

its unlikely we'll run out of hydrogen anytime soon, i wouldnt sweat the fuel thing

if its oil thats a worry, there is a hundred years or so of it left... the sooner the better, i say

reply to post by schlotsky1

I invite you all to d/l from somewhere a documentary shown on BBC4 entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you still believe that Global Warming is due in large part to man and not about money... well I guess we are all lost.

That is a pretty good documentary. Though Documentaries generally aren't fair to both sides, it's a good counterpoint to An Inconvenient Truth.

I still think Bjorn Lomborg makes the best points on the subject. See my first post on page 4 for a link to him speaking with congress.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues


OK
Well I am sitting here in Scottsdale Arizona on vacation. Tomorrow is supposed to only reach the mid-60's. Un heard-of in these parts this time of year. Everyone here seems to welcome it. So, all it realy proves is whether changes, and whether does what ever it wants. Thats why we have meteorologist, who attempt to predict it. If whether was static, and it was written down somewhere what its supposed to be everyday...I would worry. But for now, I am going to enjoy the nice sunny days I am having here.

Global Warming is just periodic cycles. Plain and simple!!!!!!!


Enough said!!!