The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Winston001]

Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard.

[Mikkel]

I disagree, and opinions are what makes this an interesting debate

Facts would be more interesting. This is just my opinion though...

Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard.

And THAT is the essence of this matter I believe. We realise that we ought to do something about it - but we are not willing to bring that sacrifice, because it is inconvenient and bothersome... and quite frankly it's easier to just throw up our arms and say 'not my fault'.

[davereid]

Enjoying this discussion by hard-arsed bikers.

You know what - I'm convinced about the warming trend, I believe humans do contribute significantly (since the coal age of Industrial Revolution) - and I now think it is all too hard. We set the ball rolling by releasing about 500,000 years of organic and inorganic carbon to fuel man's meteoric rise in lifestyle. Who knew?

Today we are asking each other to stop living the comfortable technological lives we enjoy. Folks just won't do it.

And even if they did, the existing effects are decades long so that it won't make any difference until our grandchildren are retiring.

Really and truely - it is all too hard.

Even if we are responsible for climate change, (which I think the thread casts serious doubt on), is going back to the stone age really the best solution. ?

More people have enough to eat, good housing and access to health care than at any time in the planets history.

Most of that is due to our exploitation of the planets resources, including fossil fuels.

As Charlie Pedersen, (Former Pres. of Fed. Farmers more or less said) :

"If you are worried about the carbon emissions caused by farming, please stop eating."

Abandoning those advances just in case we have caused global warming, just in case we can reverse it and just in case it turns out to be bad makes no sense.

I think its impossible to go back in time.

At every other turn in history, humans have developed systems to survive, regardless of what the planet throws at us. In fact, we normally come out better off !

Chances are, that just in case global warming is happening, we may be even better off from it.

[Mikkel]

Even if we are responsible for climate change, (which I think the thread casts serious doubt on), is going back to the stone age really the best solution. ?

I agree, we should stop worrying about global warming - it seems that the general consensus on KB is that it's not our fault and not really an issue, so there...

More people have enough to eat, good housing and access to health care than at any time in the planets history.

Most of that is due to our exploitation of the planets resources, including fossil fuels.

As Charlie Pedersen, (Former Pres. of Fed. Farmers more or less said) :

"If you are worried about the carbon emissions caused by farming, please stop eating."

Abandoning those advances just in case we have caused global warming, just in case we can reverse it and just in case it turns out to be bad makes no sense.

I think its impossible to go back in time.

At every other turn in history, humans have developed systems to survive, regardless of what the planet throws at us. In fact, we normally come out better off !

Chances are, that just in case global warming is happening, we may be even better off from it.

Now the thing about this whole business is not that anyone are suggesting that we should completely abandon the comforts that we enjoy or leave what advances we have made behind us...

The whole deal is, that (just maybe) we may stand to loose all of these things if we don't start thinking a bit more carefully about how we utilise these resources.
Also, it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN - and when that happens we'd better be prepared or humanity will suffer a major set-back. Climate change induced by rapid release of carbondioxide into the atmosphere is a second order concern compared to the global infrastructure breaking down. Anarchy will become a very real problem if widespread famine sets in...

If you take the blindfold off you'll notice that stuff is already beginning to happen.

[Jantar]

...
The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is a sham" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is definately a lie.

That statement itself may be a lie. I am firmly in the Antropogenic Climate Change Skeptic camp, yet I have never seen anyone argue that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them. What we claim is that humans aren't having a negative effect on the climate.

I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I swhould reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

[MisterD]

Also, it's not a matter of IF we run out of fossil fuels, just WHEN - and when that happens we'd better be prepared or humanity will suffer a major set-back. Climate change induced by rapid release of carbondioxide into the atmosphere is a second order concern compared to the global infrastructure breaking down. Anarchy will become a very real problem if widespread famine sets in...

If you take the blindfold off you'll notice that stuff is already beginning to happen.

So maybe, we'd be better off if we forgot about Iraq and oil and did something about regime change in Zimbabwe and turning that sorry place back into a net food exporter?

[Skyryder]

That statement itself may be a lie. I am firmly in the Antropogenic Climate Change Skeptic camp, yet I have never seen anyone argue that humans aren't having a negative effect on the environment around them. What we claim is that humans aren't having a negative effect on the climate.

I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I swhould reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

Yes you are right in that humans do not have a negative effect on the climate. For that too happen we would need some means of 'controlling' the climate for humans to apply a negative or for that matter a positive effect on the climate. But we both know that this is semantics. Your argument is that we 'do' have a negative effect on the environment but 'not' on the climate. This is wrong.
Environment is all encompassing and includes both land and sea at zero feet or below and the atmosphere into the upper reaches. The van Allan radioation belts and associated magnetic fields etc. The environment is not limited as I said it is all encompassing. Even the moon is part of our environment as it effect tidal flow so to is the sun.

A negitive effect on the environment will produce a change in climate. Notice I say change. It may or may not effect climate in positive or negitive manner but if the overall effect is going to be disruptive to the status quo then most would interpret the disruptiuon as having a negitve effect. That is the basis of concern for global warming.

So on this basis "their" argument and has 'everthing' to do with climate change. For those of us who believe that the current weather, ice melt etc is caused by man made emissions as against natural causes be it volcanic or by the sun etc all other theories on global warming just don't last the distance.

There is however one piece of evidence that has never been shown to occur in the geological record. That is the current speed of warming that has occured in recent years. It is unprecedented.




Skyryder

[Jantar]

...A negitive effect on the environment will produce a change in climate.

While I agree that environment covers all aspacts of our planet I do not and cannot agree that a change in any part of the environment will change climate. How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate? It certainly changes one part of the enviroment by reducing the potability of the water, yet has no effect on climate. It is a very long stretch to try and say that all chnges to the environment affect climate.

There is however one piece of evidence that has never been shown to occur in the geological record. That is the current speed of warming that has occured in recent years. It is unprecedented.

I have seen this claim before, but it is so easily debunked that its almost a waste of time to do so. The planet is currently cooling, not at a rapid rate, but it is measurable. This has happened before, and at a much faster rate. In the early 1970's the planet was cooling so rapidly that many climate scientists claimed wew heading for an ice age. The speed of warming is currently a negative, yet we saw much faster warming in the late 1990's. Even then, the pace of warming was not unprecedented, it has happened many times in earth's history.

[fire eyes]

EVOLUTION is a serious business. We do contribute to climate change or at the very least excellerate it. We also contribute to the decline in our environment & our society, it's the price of convenience on a global scale. However, this planet has been in an evolutionary process for billions of years and it continues to do so weather we inhabit it or not. Consider the Big Bang Theory. Our very starting point. There is so much information & referencing material available to educate ones self depending on which pathway you agree with. Facts continually change, like our living planet!

[Winston001]

T
I have already lost count of how many times in this thread alone that I have tried to make this same point. maybe I should reword your statement to:
"The main thing that annoys me about the "Global Warming is caused by man" crowd is that pretty much all their arguments imply that humans are having a negative effect on the environment around them, which is a totally different argument and has nothing to do with climate change."

I know I know, and you are correct. The major argument circles around whether man has any contribution to climate change.

The other more generally agreed position is that man is polluting the global environment. Even if it doesn't affect the climate.

Honestly, I think the second point is much more important. This debate about anthropomorphic climate change is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Right or wrong on climate, the global biosphere is going to hell in a handbasket because of pollution.

That is the real issue which needs discussion and action. Stop poisoning the place.

[k14]

Yes you are right in that humans do not have a negative effect on the climate. For that too happen we would need some means of 'controlling' the climate for humans to apply a negative or for that matter a positive effect on the climate. But we both know that this is semantics. Your argument is that we 'do' have a negative effect on the environment but 'not' on the climate. This is wrong.

See this is the problem with all the believers, they think that its a personal insult to themselves if someone comes along disputing their viewpoint. You cannot say statements like "This is wrong", there is not 100% conclusive proof denying or confirming that CO2 emissions are causing global warming (convieniently renamed to climate change due to the aforementioned warming over the past decade).

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

This just reeks of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. All the believers keep coming out with all the stats saying how right their theory is. Wrong way around for this scientist. The previously posted data by Jantar to me disproves the hypothesis of "The earth has been warming over the last decade" quite conclusively and if anyone cares to read through his posts you will see the indisputable evidence of this.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway

[Skyryder]

See this is the problem with all the believers, they think that its a personal insult to themselves if someone comes along disputing their viewpoint. You cannot say statements like "This is wrong", there is not 100% conclusive proof denying or confirming that CO2 emissions are causing global warming (convieniently renamed to climate change due to the aforementioned warming over the past decade).

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

This just reeks of global warming, or whatever you want to call it. All the believers keep coming out with all the stats saying how right their theory is. Wrong way around for this scientist. The previously posted data by Jantar to me disproves the hypothesis of "The earth has been warming over the last decade" quite conclusively and if anyone cares to read through his posts you will see the indisputable evidence of this.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that we need to tidy up the way in which we live and the current rate in which we are contaminating the planet but I just don't agree with global warming at all until I see some decent evidence I will continue to do so.

My 2c anyway

First I don't take any opinion that differs from my own as a personal insult.

The analogy between Physics and Astrology is a poor one. Astrology or one aspect of it maintains that the personality of the indavidual is determined by time and place of birth in respect to planet aspects within the zodiac. At best it is a belief system and can not be 'proven one way or the other.


There is considearble conclusive data that our Co2 levels are higher now than at any time in the geological record to date. This is not based on psudo science as you seem to imply.

http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.c...ntent_text&z=?


From

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.htm



I have highlighted the relevant sections

A 2-mile-long (3.2-kilometer-long) ice core laboriously drilled out of an Antarctic ice sheet shows that levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time in the past 420,000 years.

As the longest ice core record of Earth's weather history obtained to date, the core also shows that those gases -- carbon dioxide and methane -- play a big role in warming the planet when ice ages end.

But how this icy record will influence current theories about global warming blamed on human activity isn't clear, the researchers said.

"The ice core gives us the past, not the future. But it adds to our thinking about the future, about the future of our climate," said Jean-Robert Petit, director of research at the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble, France. "It's clear that greenhouse gas levels are unprecedented compared with the previous 400,000 years."

Coldest spot on Earth
The core was extracted from 1992-98 by a U.S.-Russian-French team at Russia's Vostok research station, the coldest spot on Earth. Petit and team members endured readings as cold as minus 70 Fahrenheit (minus 57 Celsius), though the station holds the world record low of minus 129 (minus 89 Celsius).

They stopped drilling about 120 yards (109 meters) short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. Scientists want to send sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are protecting it from contamination until then.
Each cylinder-like chunk of ice drilled out of the ice sheet contains a record of snowfall, atmospheric chemicals, dust and bubbles of air. Those clues, trapped in icy layers like tree rings, enable scientists to reconstruct past climates.
The lengthy Vostok ice core is particularly significant because previous cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland dated back only about 150,000 years and showed just two ice age cycles. The new core reveals four ice ages at roughly 100,000-year intervals, shedding new light on how the icy interludes end.

'Some really large changes'

All four appear to have given way to balmier times after levels of the heat-trapping gases carbon dioxide and methane rose by amounts smaller than the increase blamed on human industry in the past century.

The multinational team reported its findings in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature. (Nature is a peer reviewed magazine. my italics)

Petit and colleagues found carbon dioxide levels rose from about 180 parts per million during each ice age's height to 280-300 ppm in the subsequent warm periods -- far below the current CO2 levels of 360 ppm.

Methane levels, meanwhile, rose from 320-350 parts per billion during the icy interludes to 650-770 ppb during the warm spells. Current methane levels are 1,700 ppb.

The levels of both greenhouse gases are expected to continue their rise in the next century due to continued burning of fossil fuels such as coal and other human activities.

"This study is probably the most convincing evidence to date that humans are making some really large changes to Earth's climate system," said Jonathan Overpeck, head of the paleoclimatology program at the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Beyond natural variation

"What this says is we're going well beyond the bounds of natural variation." Petit estimates that the rising greenhouse gas concentrations contributed to about 50 percent of the post-ice age warming; he attributes the remaining heat to periodic shifts in Earth's orbit that increase the amount of sunlight warming the planet.
The natural rise in the gases was attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in oceanic processing of C02, increased plankton activity and the return of methane-producing swamps.

But the core also appears to call into question previous research suggesting a 500- to 1,000-year lag time between the post-ice age temperature increase and the CO2 increase.
Instead, the core suggests temperatures rose in step with rising C02 levels, a finding of interest to scientists studying global warming.
"This core is telling us to get busy and understand the climate system because it really could change," said Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University.

More

http://archive.wri.org/item_detail.c...ntent_text&z=?


Skyryder

[fire eyes]

I guess a group hug is out of the question

[Mikkel]

So maybe, we'd be better off if we forgot about Iraq and oil and did something about regime change in Zimbabwe and turning that sorry place back into a net food exporter?

It would most definitely be more constructive than bombing a medieval country bac

How can polluting an underground waterway with wood treatment chemicals change the climate?

The global climate is a chaotic system:

Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

Changing a variable - no matter how minute - can have drastic consequences down the line.

I have seen this claim before, but it is so easily debunked that its almost a waste of time to do so. The planet is currently cooling, not at a rapid rate, but it is measurable. This has happened before, and at a much faster rate. In the early 1970's the planet was cooling so rapidly that many climate scientists claimed wew heading for an ice age. The speed of warming is currently a negative, yet we saw much faster warming in the late 1990's. Even then, the pace of warming was not unprecedented, it has happened many times in earth's history.

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!

As a scientist myself I read all the information from the "believers" and it is all in the order of "look at the graph, its going up, see I am right!!!" For any self respecting scientist that sets of a big warning light. Have you ever heard of a term called Pseudo Science? Well for those that don't know, this is the difference between, for instance Physics (me) and Astrology. A physicist with a new theory will put it to the test by devising experiments to prove the theory WRONG. An astrologist will read their tarot cards or look at the stars and say something to whoever is listening. A few days/weeks later when their prediction was "correct" in their eyes, they will come out saying "See I was right!!!".

You're right to a certain degree. There's a lot of Pseudo Scientific babble going on these days - not just on the climate debate side of things btw. Seems that the accepted way of making people buy into a 'truth' is to have a guy with a fancy title in a lab-coat present it.

However, as a physicist you must have some knowledge of chaotic systems and would agree that analysing a chaotic system the size of this planet's surface is a major undertaking - and an undertaking that wasn't considered until sometime last century... Considering how much time has been spent by bright minds on figuring out comparatively simple systems it's not exactly surprising that there hasn't been developed an accurate model yet. So while there are indeed people who are trying to push an agenda and use the debate as leverage in politics - don't forget that there are real scientists out there who have clues and are concerned about the matter.

[Skyryder]

Skyrider presented a statement without supporting references - you address this issue and offer an anti-thesis... without supporting references. Surely you can do better mate!

I can on the thread subject.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/...-four-swindle/


I've posted a number of links in support of my arguments.


Skyryder