The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Waxxa]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

If humans have made such a big impact on the planet in such a relatively short time, then the answer can only be reduce the number of humans. It wont matter if everyone seperates their plastics, paper and cans, catch buses over private transport or what ever 'green' practices you do because the planets population is increasing way faster than it should.

What govts' is going to make the call (or world body) that only so many people can live on this planet and who has to go. If we keep breeding the supposed global warming problem will not go away, it will increase incremently regardless.

[dipshit]

I am therefore fully aware of all of these cycles, but I have yet to see any evidence showing a rising trend with these cyclic effects removed.

Here's some that goes for 127 years. You will note that the lines do go up and down for several years at a time... but the overall long-term trend is an increase in the earth's average temperature.

Global warming does not predict a steady increase from one year to the next. It predicts 1 or 2 degrees increase in average global temperature over 20 years or so. (or whatever)

Saying last year showed a cooling does not negate what global warming is predicting.

[Jantar]

...Saying last year showed a cooling does not negate what global warming is predicting.

No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

[Maki]

No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

Heaves giant sigh of relief... The plateauing of the GISS data really does it for me, thanks.

[Maki]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

If humans have made such a big impact on the planet in such a relatively short time, then the answer can only be reduce the number of humans. It wont matter if everyone seperates their plastics, paper and cans, catch buses over private transport or what ever 'green' practices you do because the planets population is increasing way faster than it should.

What govts' is going to make the call (or world body) that only so many people can live on this planet and who has to go. If we keep breeding the supposed global warming problem will not go away, it will increase incremently regardless.

Gosh, thats true but very unPC. Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image. It's much more PC to introduce carbon trading, etc. Things that will not solve the problem.

If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion.

I have said this before and been told, "oh, but look at China and the nasty results from their 1 child policy, more boys than girls, etc..." I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war...

Whatever...

[dipshit]

No, in isolation it certainly doesn't. But coupled with the fact that there has been no warming in 10 years, and a cooling by MSU data while plateauing with GISS data, and all the while CO2 has continued to increase, then it does falsify the AGW hypothesis.

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which could be masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

[dipshit]

This is the effect of just aircraft contrails...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

[Maki]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

Good point. The flight ban over the USA for 3 days post 911 led to temperatures that were measurably warmer than expected.

We are obviously having an impact on the planet, but trying to tell that to some people is like banging your head against a stone.

They will figure it out anyway, sooner or later.

[davereid]

.... Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image.....If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion......I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war....

No, it's already being done.

For example, the rich western world now like the word "Sustainability".

That word just means "Turn the poor mans land from food production into the production of petrol. Let him starve"

Thats how it works. We ignore plentiful reserves of coal and other fossil fuels and force biofuels on the world.

Biofuels are merely the first worlds money buying the third worlds food when we don't need to.

The most finite (unsustainable ?) resource the world has is arable land.

But, in a questionable solution to a problem that may not exist, we have created a solution that may not work, using irreplaceable resources, and starving millions.

But still, we are the first world. When your grandkids say "Daddy, what did you about global warming" you can say "I used biofuel and sustainable stuff. It only killed poor people, and now they are gone we keep doing it forever"

[Skyryder]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

Global Dimming...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog..._summary.shtml

The catch-22 is, that if we reduce the amount of visible pollutants, we very well may see a sudden rise in temperatures and the full greenhouse effect with the increased greenhouse gases.

I seem to recall seeing something on this on the Discovery channel a while back. I certainly recall comments that dimming was causing aberations in global temperture measurements. Might explain why some measurements suggest a plateau of global temperture at present.


Skyryder

[Hitcher]

That word just means "Turn the poor mans land from food production into the production of petrol. Let him starve"

There is truth in that. Compound that by adding an overlay of overindulged ignorant green politics that is opposed to genetically-modified food production and deeply in love with "organics" and the world's scant arable land falls under even greater pressure.

Mankind has the necessary technology and knowledge to feed the world many times over. The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.

[avgas]

But another complicating factor is the amount of visible pollutants that are reducing the strength of sunlight reaching the surface, particularly in the northern hemisphere. Contrials from aircraft alone crisscrossing Europe and North America continuously have been found to have an impact on the amount of sun radiation reaching the surface which is masking the full greenhouse effect from CO2.

In more than 1 occasion in the history of the planet, over 1/3 or the planet did not see ANY decent sunlight for a long period of time. This was caused by natural effects. It too put lovely fluctuations on your temperature graph, could not the planet have cooled during this period, then increased in the last 10,000 years to a level more maintainable? I'm not saying once again that the data about the aircraft paths blocking the sun is false, im just saying that to assume everything has a 'butterfly effect' is not the ONLY option. Especially considering that particulates in Jet fuel are superheated and would disperse easier than most.

[dipshit]

In more than 1 occasion in the history of the planet, over 1/3 or the planet did not see ANY decent sunlight for a long period of time. This was caused by natural effects. It too put lovely fluctuations on your temperature graph, could not the planet have cooled during this period, then increased in the last 10,000 years to a level more maintainable?

Of course the planet sees changes in temperatures time and time again. A volcanic eruption can send temperatures plummeting for several years at a time. Or the bigger ice ages and warming cycles.

Earth has had hundreds of thousands of years to settle into a pattern with its own ways to produced enough equilibrium for life as we know it through various balancing acts. Otherwise life wouldn't of had the reasonable stability over millions of years to evolve in to the species we have now.

But how fine are those balancing mechanisms? Could our human activity that has only just recently come onto the scene with technology capable of altering our planet, be enough to upset those natural cycles?

When you look back at our atmosphere from space you realise there isn't much there beyond the clouds and can see how delicate it really is...

[Waxxa]

Gosh, thats true but very unPC. Of course the only way to combat the massive impact we are having on the planet is to stop the explosive increase in our numbers, but politicians don't want to go there because it might hurt their image. It's much more PC to introduce carbon trading, etc. Things that will not solve the problem.

If we do not limit our population through some means, such as only allowing 1 child per couple, then nature will do it for us in a much more painful fashion.

I have said this before and been told, "oh, but look at China and the nasty results from their 1 child policy, more boys than girls, etc..." I guess people like that would rather nature take it's course and kill the excess off the traditional way, through starvation, disease and war...

Whatever...

China had the right idea but their culture of wanting boys over girls has now put China in a terrible, sexual imbalance. Though China would be one of the few countries in the world who could implement such a policy (and it is a policy of one child, not a policy of boys only).

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple. We have to reduce the population before sustaining a pre-determined level.

If the planet is to survive another couple of thousand years of human habitation, we need drastic solutions and forget the Political Correctness crap. Time to get logical not emotional.

[Ocean1]

The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.

Amen.

I am, however, working on it.