Global Warming.

[irmerk]

I put it in this index just to mess with the people that think it is not propaganda. Anyway, I would like to hear the opinions and or evidence for or against.

I think pollution in the first place is ruining the Earth, and respectively harms the atmosphere, as well as other systems, which have caused a degree of human influenced warming.

 

[desertedcities]

From what I've learned from watching several series on 'global warming,' or 'climate change' they seem to be calling it now, and from talking to a couple climatologists (not meteorologists, they're the only ones in denial as it seems) is that what we're doing can be done by the earth itself, all with the help of the sun (duh). The kicker is is that we're doing it (see footnote) an an exponential rate. Many times faster than the earth and sun would do it naturally. So, simply put, it's like going from a hot bath and jumping directly into a cold bath ,and when you do it, your heart says in two sluggish beats, "You're stupid."

I have faith in the earth itself to correct it itself if we can't stop being so damned human. Of course the earth will take its sweet time, it doesn't cater to us, after all.

I think the shit will really hit the fan, though, when the permafrost begins to completely melt and ridiculous amounts of methane are released (a more potent 'greenhouse gas'). Until then, I await the time where I can say, "I told you so."


('It' is releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses, i.e. CO2, Methane (from the cows' asses, and melted permafrost), you know what I mean).

 

[Finger]

Deniers and environmental activists alike generally have a false understanding of what man-made climate change is. Yes, the Earth would still be warming even if we weren't burning fossil fuels, but that is part of its normal cycle. Its true that we're only emitting 3% of the total carbon gas but that's 2.91% more than what the global climate is used to dealing with. It is evidently causing a tipping scale scenario where warming melts the ice caps and releases more carbon gas, which further warms the planet melting more ice, releasing more carbon gas, and so on. I already posted this on the old forum, but here it is again. Potholer54 does a better job explaining it than I can:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

I put it in this index just to mess with the people that think it is not propaganda. Anyway, I would like to hear the opinions and or evidence for or against.

I think pollution in the first place is ruining the Earth, and respectively harms the atmosphere, as well as other systems, which have caused a degree of human influenced warming.

Humans have little to due with the earth cooling or rising and co2 has no influence on it at all. The sun is the main factor on whether or not the earth will have cooler weather or warmer whether. It is contributed by Sun spots. And even if their was a rise in green house gasses then you would see an incredible spurt in plant life.

In all honesty, Al Gore is a fucking idiot. He claimed he invented the Internet so in my mind, his entire credibility on that statement alone should be called into question. I saw his video on Global Warming and it has scare tactic and emotional manipulation written all over it. Also he completely disregarded about 50 years of weather research and lied about numerous things in the video itself. The moment he said "co2 contributes to Global Warming" is immediately when I have to face palm...

I believe the issue should be raised upon pollution. That would be a legitimate issue and I can get behind something like that. This Global Warming thing to me is a farce and should have been thrown out the moment it was raised. The whole thing started as a political movement to push for nuclear power plants in the 1950s.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Deniers and environmental activists alike generally have a false understanding of what man-made climate change is. Yes, the Earth would still be warming even if we weren't burning fossil fuels, but that is part of its normal cycle. Its true that we're only emitting 3% of the total carbon gas but that's 2.91% more than what the global climate is used to dealing with. It is evidently causing a tipping scale scenario where warming melts the ice caps and releases more carbon gas, which further warms the planet melting more ice, releasing more carbon gas, and so on. I already posted this on the old forum, but here it is again. Potholer54 does a better job explaining it than I can

The polar ice caps melting is apart of a normal cycle. Nothing to get to worked up about. The same happened before the last ice age.

 

[PuppetXeno]

.. And how can you possibly deny that 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere has no significant impact? WE'RE DOOMED. Oh wait, human contribution is only 4% of that.. 0.00152%... Shocking, we're dead. :roll:

Ok so now I'm definately highly skeptical of AGW, because it's riddled with doomsday thinking and megalomania. But, I do think we should do everything we can do to reduce environmental pollution. This includes stinking up the atmosphere... Also, I understand cloud formation plays quite a part in greenhouse effects, much more than CO2 could, and airliner vapor trails significantly influence cloud formation. This was observed during the flightless days after 9/11.

But, I don't know enough about the subject. I keep running in to contradictory claims, and I'm not convinced either way. I don't think taxes will help anything at all, but I've heard something about geo-engineering which may be interesting. Artificial trees that will absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and some kind of stuff they can spray in the air to make clouds reflect more light back into space.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

.. And how can you possibly deny that 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere has no significant impact? WE'RE DOOMED. Oh wait, human contribution is only 4% of that.. 0.00152%... Shocking, we're dead. :roll:

Ok so now I'm definately highly skeptical of AGW, because it's riddled with doomsday thinking and megalomania. But, I do think we should do everything we can do to reduce environmental pollution. This includes stinking up the atmosphere... Also, I understand cloud formation plays quite a part in greenhouse effects, much more than CO2 could, and airliner vapor trails significantly influence cloud formation. This was observed during the flightless days after 9/11.

But, I don't know enough about the subject. I keep running in to contradictory claims, and I'm not convinced either way. I don't think taxes will help anything at all, but I've heard something about geo-engineering which may be interesting. Artificial trees that will absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and some kind of stuff they can spray in the air to make clouds reflect more light back into space.

When faced with a lack of expertise in the subject, there ARE other things you can do. For instance, you can ask yourself what the general opinion of the real experts are. They almost all agree in AGW to some degree. You can also consider the source of the opinions contrary to the general scientific consensus. Most of those sources are non-scientists with direct links to the people who produce or directly depend on fossil fuels for their financial success. I've often noted that the anti-AGW claims rely on their being a giant international conspiracy, which they claim wants to destroy capitalism because fixing AGW might hurt fossil fuel company profits... and when someone cites conspiracies and claims negative outcomes unrelated to the science as stronger proof than any scientific evidence they present, that's a clue too. Something else that should be noted is that the leaders of the anti-AGW movement tend to be lying shit-weasels... I personally find integrity to be important, I don't know about you. I know that some environmental zealots tend to overstate the scientific evidence, but the scientists don't. That's important to remember too.

Something really interesting that has happened in this particular situation is that recently an anti-AGW group, the Global Climate Coalition, was exposed suppressing the results of their own research, because it confirmed AGW. Click here!

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

That's a pretty big (potential) nail in the coffin of the anti-AGW propagandists.

 

[Finger]

Iamthevoice and PuppetXeno, did either of you even watch the videos? They explain exactly how a small increase in carbon emissions can trigger positive feedback. They explain exactly how we know solar forcing and global dimming are not responsible. They also explain exactly why Al Gore is not and should not be concidered an authority on the subject. This is about science, not politics. The current scientific consensus is that the industrial output of carbon gases are responsible for the current warming trend.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

In all honesty, Al Gore is a fucking idiot. He claimed he invented the Internet so in my mind, his entire credibility on that statement alone should be called into question.

Since Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet," and that was pointed out as a rather stupid lie almost a decade ago, what does that do to your credibility. You can disagree with Al Gore, but to pretend (also sort of foolishly) that a Nobel Prize winning former vice-president is a "fucking idiot" is also a pretty big strike against your position.

You buy into weird Utopian cults, and you reject reality... you know, I'm not going to ever engage with you again. I just can't deal with the crazy. Enjoy the forums!

 

[Spase]

Humans have little to due with the earth cooling or rising and co2 has no influence on it at all. The sun is the main factor on whether or not the earth will have cooler weather or warmer whether. It is contributed by Sun spots. And even if their was a rise in green house gasses then you would see an incredible spurt in plant life.

What. I almost stopped reading when you wrote that the sun.. not CO2.. warms the earth. To me this represents an incredible misunderstanding of even the most basic parts of the claims you're trying to refute. Of course the Sun warm the earth. CO2 effects the way energy leaves the earth. CO2 is not somehow acting as a heat source.

In all honesty, Al Gore is a fucking idiot. He claimed he invented the Internet so in my mind, his entire credibility on that statement alone should be called into question. I saw his video on Global Warming and it has scare tactic and emotional manipulation written all over it. Also he completely disregarded about 50 years of weather research and lied about numerous things in the video itself. The moment he said "co2 contributes to Global Warming" is immediately when I have to face palm...

Al Gore is not an expert and certainly not someone to go to for good information about the scientific research. However.. I am so tired of people claiming the Gore said he invented the internet. Go read the quote in context and if you still don't understand what he's saying I'll try to explain it to you. Saying he claimed to invent the internet makes you sound ignorant.

There's no question that CO2 contributes to global warming. It's trivial to shine light through a cell containing CO2 and measure differences in how much energy of different spectra is absorbed as a function of CO2 concentration. The only question that even the people denying global warming dispute is whether humans are creating enough CO2 to have an effect.. not whether it contributes to warming...

Please. Go ahead and face palm. Then cite me a source that makes the claim that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. Preferably a source that doesn't claim the pyramids were made by aliens.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Since Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet," and that was pointed out as a rather stupid lie almost a decade ago, what does that do to your credibility. You can disagree with Al Gore, but to pretend (also sort of foolishly) that a Nobel Prize winning former vice-president is a "fucking idiot" is also a pretty big strike against your position.

You buy into weird Utopian cults, and you reject reality... you know, I'm not going to ever engage with you again. I just can't deal with the crazy. Enjoy the forums!

What does my position towards the Venus Project have to do with anything? You sat their and made all sort os claims of what the Venus Project is and you kept getting it wrong; you referred to the Zeitgeist Movement as a cult when you have to apply every other movement as a cult as well.

Also yes he did claim he did. My father saw him on tv when he stated he did create the internet. And yes he is a Nobel prize winner; but that doesn't account about the fact that he ignored over 50 of weather research so he doesn't deserve the Nobel prize and especially since his colleague (I forget his name) stated to Al Gore that they may have to redo the research since their is more to it than they are accounting for. He blatantly disregarded the note and went ahead with it anyways.

Green House gasses are only part of the reason why the earth is heating or getting cooler. Ever of the mini-ice age? Ever hear that the earth during the middle ages were far warmer than they are now?

Also how many times must I explain it; the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement is not a Utopian cult; they have what seems like Utopian ideas when they are not.

 

[Finger]

Still determined to not learn what the real scientific consensus on global climate change is, aren't we? Who cares what Al Gore says? Climatologists who support the Anthropagenic Climate Change model have been increasing in number simply because it is the best explanation for the evidence.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Your father was wrong. Look up the facts about it - http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp.

You actually should probably spend a lot of time on that site. It's amazing all the crazy shit people make up that others will just believe with no evidence.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

What. I almost stopped reading when you wrote that the sun.. not CO2.. warms the earth. To me this represents an incredible misunderstanding of even the most basic parts of the claims you're trying to refute. Of course the Sun warm the earth. CO2 effects the way energy leaves the earth. CO2 is not somehow acting as a heat source.

As the heat goes up, so does CO2, as the heat of the earth lowers, CO2 level's drop. So how can CO2 be causing it if these basic numbers do not add up to the idea that CO2 causes the earth to warm. I never stated "The Sun warms the earth" in that way. I stated that sun spots are the main contributor to global warming or global cooling.

Al Gore is not an expert and certainly not someone to go to for good information about the scientific research. However.. I am so tired of people claiming the Gore said he invented the internet. Go read the quote in context and if you still don't understand what he's saying I'll try to explain it to you. Saying he claimed to invent the internet makes you sound ignorant.

There's no question that CO2 contributes to global warming. It's trivial to shine light through a cell containing CO2 and measure differences in how much energy of different spectra is absorbed as a function of CO2 concentration. The only question that even the people denying global warming dispute is whether humans are creating enough CO2 to have an effect.. not whether it contributes to warming...

Please. Go ahead and face palm. Then cite me a source that makes the claim that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. Preferably a source that doesn't claim the pyramids were made by aliens.

As stated before, it is sun spots that contribute to Global Warming, the CO2 rise and fall with the temperature level. Nothing of what Al Gore even states is remotely true. You need only look at the Green Houses and how they contribute to the growing of plant life to give the idea that Green House Gasses are causing this statement to be utterly false. Every Botanist and scientist I know of that work with plant life has stated that "if green house gasses were contributing to global warming, then where is the increase in plant growth throughout the planet? You do not see it and for that very reason the idea that human beings are creating green house gasses which are contributing to global warming is false. Mainly due to the fact that the water perspiration is the biggest contributor to CO2. We reject Global warming because it is false."

So thus only to listen to one side of the science can be misleading, and in order to be able to gain a broader aspect you also have to take into the account that this issue was a political move to push for nuclear power plants in the 1950s in Europe. I reject Global Warming in it's fullest until I see actual evidence and not bad science that states otherwise.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

Still determined to not learn what the real scientific consensus on global climate change is, aren't we? Who cares what Al Gore says? Climatologists who support the Anthropagenic Climate Change model have been increasing in number simply because it is the best explanation for the evidence.

Please I would like to see those statements and see what kind of science they have put into it.

 

[Finger]

The videos you didn't watch contain plenty of references.

 

[Spase]

Every Botanist and scientist I know of that work with plant life has stated that "if green house gasses were contributing to global warming, then where is the increase in plant growth throughout the planet? You do not see it and for that very reason the idea that human beings are creating green house gasses which are contributing to global warming is false. Mainly due to the fact that the water perspiration is the biggest contributor to CO2. We reject Global warming because it is false."

How many botanists do you know?

Do they understand photosynthesis? Because I'm going to go ahead and guess the basis for your claims is in the fact that plants convert CO2 into carbohydrates with the help of sunlight. If that's not the basis for your argument please let me know what is.

I won't bore you with details about the photosynthetic process both because you probably wouldn't pay attention and because if you are interested there any many good sites explaining it. I do want to mention that CO2 supply is not the rate limiting factor in the process. Period.

I don't know much about botanists. Do they need to know even basic biochemistry? Maybe some metabolic pathways? Do they have some data? Maybe a single study showing differential rates of growth in plants at different CO2 concentrations?

Are you claiming that farmers flood their green houses with CO2 to vastly improve how quickly they grow plants? If they don't why not? If it works and they don't why don't you go into the business and easily out compete the people who're currently at the pinnacle of thousands of years of agricultural experience and technology?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up what you're saying other than the phrase, "All the botanists I know.."

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

When faced with a lack of expertise in the subject, there ARE other things you can do. For instance, you can ask yourself what the general opinion of the real experts are. They almost all agree in AGW to some degree. You can also consider the source of the opinions contrary to the general scientific consensus. Most of those sources are non-scientists with direct links to the people who produce or directly depend on fossil fuels for their financial success. I've often noted that the anti-AGW claims rely on their being a giant international conspiracy, which they claim wants to destroy capitalism because fixing AGW might hurt fossil fuel company profits... and when someone cites conspiracies and claims negative outcomes unrelated to the science as stronger proof than any scientific evidence they present, that's a clue too. Something else that should be noted is that the leaders of the anti-AGW movement tend to be lying shit-weasels... I personally find integrity to be important, I don't know about you. I know that some environmental zealots tend to overstate the scientific evidence, but the scientists don't. That's important to remember too.

Something really interesting that has happened in this particular situation is that recently an anti-AGW group, the Global Climate Coalition, was exposed suppressing the results of their own research, because it confirmed AGW. Click here!

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

That's a pretty big (potential) nail in the coffin of the anti-AGW propagandists.

Improbablejoe... this is a very disingenuous and ambiguous attempt to label any of the skeptics that state that those scientists who oppose the man made global warming theory are paid by the industrial complex because it serves their pockets. This irrational and should not even enter into the debate of global warming. This entire quote and consensus is a sleazy tactic used only by politics and should be kept their arena. This is not the way of science.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

How many botanists do you know?

Do they understand photosynthesis? Because I'm going to go ahead and guess the basis for your claims is in the fact that plants convert CO2 into carbohydrates with the help of sunlight. If that's not the basis for your argument please let me know what is.

I won't bore you with details about the photosynthetic process both because you probably wouldn't pay attention and because if you are interested there any many good sites explaining it. I do want to mention that CO2 supply is not the rate limiting factor in the process. Period.

I don't know much about botanists. Do they need to know even basic biochemistry? Maybe some metabolic pathways? Do they have some data? Maybe a single study showing differential rates of growth in plants at different CO2 concentrations?

Are you claiming that farmers flood their green houses with CO2 to vastly improve how quickly they grow plants? If they don't why not? If it works and they don't why don't you go into the business and easily out compete the people who're currently at the pinnacle of thousands of years of agricultural experience and technology?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up what you're saying other than the phrase, "All the botanists I know.."

Actually, botanists have been providing some of the best non-atmospheric supporting evidence of AGW for years. Warming is a pretty big deal when your career depends on growing things. In fact, because of the record-keeping and very specific life cycles of some plants, botanists can track the rise in temperature as far back as the 19th century. Here's an example:
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2004/09-03/botanists.html

Ignorance is ugly. When ignorance drives policy decisions that will affect the entire world over the next few decades, it is ugly and dangerous.

 

[IamtheVOICE123]

How many botanists do you know?

Do they understand photosynthesis? Because I'm going to go ahead and guess the basis for your claims is in the fact that plants convert CO2 into carbohydrates with the help of sunlight. If that's not the basis for your argument please let me know what is.

I won't bore you with details about the photosynthetic process both because you probably wouldn't pay attention and because if you are interested there any many good sites explaining it. I do want to mention that CO2 supply is not the rate limiting factor in the process. Period.

I don't know much about botanists. Do they need to know even basic biochemistry? Maybe some metabolic pathways? Do they have some data? Maybe a single study showing differential rates of growth in plants at different CO2 concentrations?

Are you claiming that farmers flood their green houses with CO2 to vastly improve how quickly they grow plants? If they don't why not? If it works and they don't why don't you go into the business and easily out compete the people who're currently at the pinnacle of thousands of years of agricultural experience and technology?

Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up what you're saying other than the phrase, "All the botanists I know.."

Mark Captain, Mellisa Belinda, Michael Kruss, Aaron Roth, and Tootie Burnsworth are a couple of the ones I know of. They have graduated from various universities such as Princeton, Yale, and Harvard. They have a Bachelors degree in Botany, a Masters in Plant Life researching and have about 5 years in training in the scientific community through the study of plant life.

Also I do know about the photosynthesis process but I would appreciate it if you would not just assume that I would not pay attention to it. I am for an open discussion and a debate and I would welcome any evidence to do so. As far as the peer reviewed literature goes on Green House Gasses increasing a growth in plant life (Green House Gasses commence various elements other than just CO2, like Hydrogen and Methane; also I never stated it was CO2 only) I would have to look for them, it's been a while since I read the literature and I forgot the name of it. If you would give me a day or two I could come up with it.