Anthropogenic global warming: biggest hoax in science

[tuxbox]

As has been alluded to earlier in this topic, I really can't see why, even if climate change is a hoax (which it is not) that it would be such a bad thing to switch from our reliance on fossil fuels to more cleaner and renewable energy sources. I mean we don't have an infinite supply of oil, so we're going to need to think about what we're going to do when that runs out. And it's not like it's a change that can particularly be resisted either, as the supply of fossil fuels dwindles, the prices will go up and industry will seek cheaper alternatives.

Moving towards cleaner energy is a sensible idea even if climate change weren't an issue. The fact that it is an issue merely adds extra weight and necessity to a change that is going to have to happen anyway. I simply don't understand the mentality of denying the facts, what exactly are people trying to cling to? It's clinging to a sinking ship that's all it is...

Global warming is not a hoax, but anthropogenic global warming is most likely false. That said, I believe we should be looking for cleaner energy and try our best to preserve our rain forests and wetlands.

 

[australopithecus]

Control

Of what exactly?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

but anthropogenic global warming is most likely false

So you think that is not happening what we have predicted that should happen and observe to be happening?

 

[Laurens]

Global warming is not a hoax, but anthropogenic global warming is most likely false. That said, I believe we should be looking for cleaner energy and try our best to preserve our rain forests and wetlands.

To me its simple, Humans dig up vast stores of Carbon that have been locked beneath the Earth for millions of years and then burn them at an alarming rate to release CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere. It has been known that CO[sub]2[/sub] has a warming effect for centuries. The fact that we are adding it to the atmosphere whilst also chopping down rainforests (which absorb CO[sub]2[/sub])at an equally alarming rate makes it pretty obvious that we are most likely the cause of the problem, or at least a major contributor towards it.

I'm curious to know, do you think the aforementioned activity has any affect on the climate at all?

 

[Gnug215]

Uh, so you've established their agenda. Can I ask why they're doing this and what they're gaining from it?

What's the motivation of propagating this supposed hoax?

Control

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that for a single second, so you'll have to provide me with some hefty sourceage.

And as armpits already asked: control of what?

I realize that there are monetary interests in all this, but that mostly speaks against the motivations of the AGW deniers.

However, I think you are actually being somewhat naive if you think all the people involved here are sinister powermongers who are vying for "control" - whatever kind of control that would actually be. No, I don't even think the deniers are evil either, but it's a perfectly natural reaction to defend one's income (let's just use that word), even to the point of cognitive dissonance.
And most of the proponents of AGW are just regular scientists, who I should think are fully aware of the fact that "control", in any particularly important shape or form, will never really be theirs.

You may think I'm being naive here, but I think we've all seen enough about the psychology involved in... everything... to know that people generally aren't black & white versions of good & evil.

I mean, I accept AGW, and I am pretty sure I'm not out for control, but to make a better future for our world.

 

[scalyblue]

Why is it always the rainforests? IIRC, the ocean sequesters significantly more carbon than all terrestrial plants, and anything that increases ocean temperature can have a much more drastic effect than razing all the forests to the ground. I don't have any evidence of this at hand because I'm not at my pc.

 

[tuxbox]

Control

Of what exactly?

Human behavior. The far left is not much different than the far right, both want to control our behavior. The only difference is how they try to accomplish it. The far right tries to do this via religion and government and the far left try via science and government.

 

[tuxbox]

Global warming is not a hoax, but anthropogenic global warming is most likely false. That said, I believe we should be looking for cleaner energy and try our best to preserve our rain forests and wetlands.

To me its simple, Humans dig up vast stores of Carbon that have been locked beneath the Earth for millions of years and then burn them at an alarming rate to release CO[sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere. It has been known that CO[sub]2[/sub] has a warming effect for centuries. The fact that we are adding it to the atmosphere whilst also chopping down rainforests (which absorb CO[sub]2[/sub])at an equally alarming rate makes it pretty obvious that we are most likely the cause of the problem, or at least a major contributor towards it.

I'm curious to know, do you think the aforementioned activity has any affect on the climate at all?

While there is plenty of evidence that humans and modern society are contributing to global warming, there is zero evidence that humans have caused it. In fact, the evidence shows that the earth's temperature has been climbing at a steady rate since the end of the last ice age.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Human behavior. The far left is not much different than the far right, both want to control our behavior. The only difference is how they try to accomplish it. The far right tries to do this via religion and government and the far left try via science and government.

"The far left" that has the power to influence world politics doesn't exist except in the fevered imagination of the patsies of the parasitic capitalists and such. Most of the more influential governments like the United States, Canada, and whatever those crazy Brits are doing are all centrist-conservative at best.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

While there is plenty of evidence that humans and modern society are contributing to global warming, there is zero evidence that humans have caused it.

... once you claim that all the evidence that humans caused it is dismissed as a giant conspiracy?

You should really consider how much you are using creationist-style rhetoric on this one.

 

[tuxbox]

... once you claim that all the evidence that humans caused it is dismissed as a giant conspiracy?

It is pretty hard to dismiss evidence that does not exist. This planet's climate has always been dynamic and more than likely always will be, with or without humans.

You should really consider how much you are using creationist-style rhetoric on this one.

:lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You should really consider how much you are using creationist-style rhetoric on this one.

:lol:

Seriously. Worldwide conspiracy of "far left" scientists covering up "the truth" is right out of the creationist handbook. It isn't my fault you're falling into the same loony-toons trap.

... and not for nothing, but it is the same paranoia-based political movement that claims global warming is a hoax that also thinks evolution is a hoax, and Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Socialist Muslim Atheist. You might want to consider that.

 

[tuxbox]

Seriously. Worldwide conspiracy of "far left" scientists covering up "the truth" is right out of the creationist handbook. It isn't my fault you're falling into the same loony-toons trap.

Why else would they throw "anthropogenic" in front of global warming when the evidence does not support it?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why else would they throw "anthropogenic" in front of global warming when the evidence does not support it?

Because the scientists say that the evidence DOES support it. Unless you think that you and the creationists know better than the scientists?

 

[tuxbox]

Why else would they throw "anthropogenic" in front of global warming when the evidence does not support it?

Because the scientists say that the evidence DOES support it. Unless you think that you and the creationists know better than the scientists?

The evidence only supports human cause global warming if you only look at the data of the last couple of centuries and ignore the earth's entire climate history. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Christopher Scotese, the creator of the Paleomap Project, is not a creationists. Anthropogenic global warming is false, unless they are willing to say humans caused the last ice age to end.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The evidence only supports human cause global warming if you only look at the data of the last couple of centuries and ignore the earth's entire climate history. Which is exactly what they are doing.

Christopher Scotese, the creator of the Paleomap Project, is not a creationists. Anthropogenic global warming is false, unless they are willing to say humans caused the last ice age to end.

Ummmm.... that's the dumbest thing I've read all day. (*edit* second dumbest... Michele Bachmann said something)

Do you even know what climate scientists are saying?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wow, a climate change denier after Dr. Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Tell me [tuxbox], what is your opinion on all the work done by Muller and the rest of his team?

 

[tuxbox]

Ummmm.... that's the dumbest thing I've read all day. (*edit* second dumbest... Michele Bachmann said something)

lmao

Do you even know what climate scientists are saying?

Yep

 

[tuxbox]

Wow, a climate change denier after Dr. Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Tell me [tuxbox], what is your opinion on all the work done by Muller and the rest of his team?

I am not a global warming denier and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. As for BEST, from what I can tell they are doing great work.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I am not a global warming denier and I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. As for BEST, from what I can tell they are doing great work.

Sorry, anthropogenic global warming denier. You do understand that the great work done by BEST supports anthropogenic climate change, right?