The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Ashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

BTW, I have been diligently crusading against Global Warming for many years now. I encouradge cow killing and have often partaken in celebratory rituals of eating their flesh.

Edit. I am not necessarily posting this for debate or discussion. Just for people to see it. Some probably have, other have not. It's for them.

[Lissa]

So how do you explain the large rise in world temperatures in the past 50 to 60 years given that the Earth is s'posed to be ending a mini-warming phase that started 10k years ago and the Earth should be returning to an ice age? How do you explain the wild weather seen throughout the globe with each year getting worse than the last?

I dunno about you Ashock, but I have seen first hand the increased temperature changes between when I was a child and now, coming up on 50 years, where the area where I have grown up had seen worse drought conditions, warmer winters with less precipitation with occasional bad storms than end up making things worse.

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

[FireIceTalon]

This forum is starting to look like Stormfront.

[kandrathe]

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

All that said, it is probably also true the issue is over politicized, and certain opportunists are sowing fear to cash in on things that do more harm than good.

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

[roguebanshee]

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

All that said, it is probably also true the issue is over politicized, and certain opportunists are sowing fear to cash in on things that do more harm than good.

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

On the other hand, not doing anything because others aren't doing anything is not going to help either. Maybe they aren't doing anything because they don't see you doing anything.

It's the old "Who wants change?" vs "Who wants to change?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps

[Lissa]

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

All that said, it is probably also true the issue is over politicized, and certain opportunists are sowing fear to cash in on things that do more harm than good.

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

Except Greater Asia has been cutting back Kan. China has curtailed its use of Coal and to a lesser extent Oil.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...rops-again

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-dec...ccelerates

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/world....html?_r=0

While China is increasing the number of coal power plants, it's also making them more efficient and environmental friendly compared to their old plants (trapping more emissions).

[Ashock]

So how do you explain the large rise in world temperatures in the past 50 to 60 years given that the Earth is s'posed to be ending a mini-warming phase that started 10k years ago and the Earth should be returning to an ice age? How do you explain the wild weather seen throughout the globe with each year getting worse than the last?

I dunno about you Ashock, but I have seen first hand the increased temperature changes between when I was a child and now, coming up on 50 years, where the area where I have grown up had seen worse drought conditions, warmer winters with less precipitation with occasional bad storms than end up making things worse.

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

If you want to talk about what you've seen, that's fine. I have not seen that. Also, dont forget that the weather patterns do go through natural cycles. That is a documented fact.

Now, in my life in the US, I've lived about the same number of years in NY and in LA, with the last half being in LA. I can tell you that the weather here seems to have gotten colder in the winters and seems like it has gotten a bit cooler in the summers. Rarely do I see temps of over 100 now, as compared to let's say 15 years ago, when we had weeks of over 100 in a row.

Either way, personal experiences when it comes to weather are not really strong enough evidence, unless you actually document everything and I've not.

---

This forum is starting to look like Stormfront.

You've started several topics in an attempt to propagate and propagandize your views. This forum needed some balance. This is not CNN.

[eppie]

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

Well, greater asia is doing a much better job than countries like the US, canada, australia and the Netherlands....yes they have more people of course but per person they are not even close to what we polute.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

BTW, I have been diligently crusading against Global Warming for many years now. I encouradge cow killing and have often partaken in celebratory rituals of eating their flesh.

Edit. I am not necessarily posting this for debate or discussion. Just for people to see it. Some probably have, other have not. It's for them.

I was starting to agree and believe this but then I remembered I have a Ph.D. in chemistry.

Ashok, you can have your own opinion but you are not allowed to make up your own facts.
Global warming has been proven in a way evolution and gravity have.


More than 98% of serious scientist agree. The 2% that don't usually have a hidden agenda. Most of those people are sponsored by big oil or coal.

[Taem]

I watched the video linked and it seems the crux of its argument is based around co2 being the defacto mechanism of climate change (or better said, not causing it). I digress, the assumptions being made are enormous; these naysayers assume that just because there was more co2 in the earth's air millions of years ago, that we'll be fine and that shouldn't affect the overall global temperature. I'd argue that the world was covered in co2 absorbing plants back then that absorbed most of this co2, and without them now (since we're cutting them all down), we all but guaranteeing some sort of catastrophe. However, having said that, I didn't actually post here to argue temperatures because I've heard plenty of convincing arguments from both sides and since I'm not a scientist, who am I to stir the pot? I'm more concerned with the planets resources and looking at our (humans) population growth and how we rape the world of its natural resources. I've read many scientifically accepted peer reviewed articles stating we are causing animal extinctions an a scale never seen before... Due mainly to over hunting and habitat encroachment. Simply put, there are too many humans for this planet, and the long term outcome of that is clear: mass extinction. What does this have to do with global warming? It is man made, just as the proponents of global warming will tell you. This is the real issue, and the answer to both problems... find a way to get rid of a quarter of the population, save the planet. I like to romanticiz on the concept of inhabiting other planets to save ours as opposed to China level of birth control. On a personal level, I do feel that humans have helped cause global warming, but not nearly to the degree it's been hyped up to be; my concerns are more for the longevity of the planet in regards to our actions of deforestation and over hunting. Could we survive if the planet warmed another 10+ degrees? Of course we can. Could we survive if all the plants and animals went extinct? Probbably not. Anyway, not an intentional derail of your thread, but an astute observation of what I feel is the real problem.

Edit: I wanted to clarify something so I don't sound undecided when in fact, I very much am; I am quite certain the planet is warming. I am quite certain we humans are releasing an obscene amount of pollutants into the air. I'm quite certain scientific data can prove beyond doubt that co2 helps temperatures rise. What I disagree with is how, over my 40years of living, I've never seen it (the weather and temperatures) change so drastically seemingly overnight, and I find it impossible to believe this is 100% man made. It's completely illogical we could cause such a massive change in such a short time when we've been releasing toxins into the atmosphere for decades. To me, it is clearly a case of natural weather patterns on the planet, with some human help, however as I said in another thread, if we as a species suddenly decided to cover the world in co2 absorbing plants and trees and cut our population in half, I doubt this would have much effect on the current temperatures and furthermore, I don't think the raising temperatures will eradicate all life as we know it because...I believe in what most scientists believe in called evolution, and I feel our planet would simply enter into an new Era with species adapting to the current weather and temperatures... like the animals around Fukushima, or Chernobyl who have evolved to be tolerant to that type of radiation, same as humans absorb radiation from the sun and turn it into vitamin D.

[FireIceTalon]

Ashok, you can have your own opinion but you are not allowed to make up your own facts.
Global warming has been proven in a way evolution and gravity have.


More than 98% of serious scientist agree. The 2% that don't usually have a hidden agenda. Most of those people are sponsored by big oil or coal.

Basically, this.

The thing is too, many people who deny global warming also do not fully understand what it actually is. They see a colder winter or two in their area, and they think "global warming aint real". But global warming is simply a rise in the average temperature around most of the world. I live in Boise, ID and we have had an extremely and unusally cold and snowy winter this year, but that of course was largely due to the La Nina' that has come through this year. I still know that global warming is very real. The problem with denying climate change based on what you see in your particular area is that it is similar to the logic "I just ate lunch, therefore world hunger is solved". It might not be warmer in your particular area at a given time, but that doesn't mean the average temperature around the world isn't rising, because it absolutely is.

Boise has more seasons (you get all 4 here) here than in Los Angeles (its basically summer most of the year, with a very very short fall/spring and a mild, dry winter), where I lived the first 34 years of my life. After living there for so many summers, I can say they seem to get hotter almost every year, with 2006 being record breaking as I recall. Winters had gotten slightly cooler or stayed around the same. I guess Los Angeles is having torrential rains right now, but again, this has to due largely with La Nina. Of course, this stuff isn't all that (if at all) important when it comes to scientific fact regarding climate change, but since we were talking about our own anecdotes I thought I would throw in what I've seen personally.

This, however, IS significant:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

scroll down just a little, and check the graphs off to the right. Says it all.

[Lissa]

So how do you explain the large rise in world temperatures in the past 50 to 60 years given that the Earth is s'posed to be ending a mini-warming phase that started 10k years ago and the Earth should be returning to an ice age? How do you explain the wild weather seen throughout the globe with each year getting worse than the last?

I dunno about you Ashock, but I have seen first hand the increased temperature changes between when I was a child and now, coming up on 50 years, where the area where I have grown up had seen worse drought conditions, warmer winters with less precipitation with occasional bad storms than end up making things worse.

Simply Ashock, what I've seen with my own eyes tells me that humans are having a detrimental effect on the climate. I likewise follow the scientific method where observations are catalogued, compared, and hypotheses drawn and the information points to Humans causing these temperature rises.

If you want to talk about what you've seen, that's fine. I have not seen that. Also, dont forget that the weather patterns do go through natural cycles. That is a documented fact.

Now, in my life in the US, I've lived about the same number of years in NY and in LA, with the last half being in LA. I can tell you that the weather here seems to have gotten colder in the winters and seems like it has gotten a bit cooler in the summers. Rarely do I see temps of over 100 now, as compared to let's say 15 years ago, when we had weeks of over 100 in a row.

Either way, personal experiences when it comes to weather are not really strong enough evidence, unless you actually document everything and I've not.

Well, according to the following from Climate Stations for Los Angeles, Los Angeles has been showing a general increase in mean temperature since 2000.



From 2000 to present, 5 below average mean temperatures and 11 above average mean temperatures. If we now remove the data for less than a degree in difference we see 2 below years and 6 above years. Likewise, those above years have shown up more in the last ten year (since 2006) than the below years (which occurred before 2006).

Los Angeles has been in a major drought which would cause another side effect. It may feel cooler, but it's actually hotter because drier air holds less moisture making it effectively feel cooler.

The facts show that there's been an increase in the average temperature in Los Angeles over the past 15 years (most of it coming more recently and most of it being even higher). What seems to be the case and the fact of the case are two different things and the facts bear the opposite of the seems.

[Ashock]

No matter how green we get now, it's moot if greater Asia continues its meteoric increases in burning fossil fuels.

Well, greater asia is doing a much better job than countries like the US, canada, australia and the Netherlands....yes they have more people of course but per person they are not even close to what we polute.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

BTW, I have been diligently crusading against Global Warming for many years now. I encouradge cow killing and have often partaken in celebratory rituals of eating their flesh.

Edit. I am not necessarily posting this for debate or discussion. Just for people to see it. Some probably have, other have not. It's for them.

I was starting to agree and believe this but then I remembered I have a Ph.D. in chemistry.

Ashok, you can have your own opinion but you are not allowed to make up your own facts.
Global warming has been proven in a way evolution and gravity have.


More than 98% of serious scientist agree. The 2% that don't usually have a hidden agenda. Most of those people are sponsored by big oil or coal.

It's been proven by one side of the scientific community, using at best selective data. The other side has been silenced by the media and the first half.
The fact that you choose to be on the side that gets all types of grants based on the whole Global Warming craze, does not make you right.

Your degree in Chemistry is not nearly as impressive as many of the people who dissent with this en vogue political view.

Here's something for you, one of many that I can list.

https://www.cato.org/blog/clear-case-sel...assessment

And more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...-ever.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367...rming.html

I can go on and on. That's enough for now though.

Oh and btw, I have a degree in CS and one in Finance. That does not mean that I am always right about picking which computer stocks will do well in the next 10 years.

Degrees don't impress me. Constructive thinking does.

[FireIceTalon]

How are there "sides" when, as Eppie correctly pointed out, that more than 97% of the scientific community agrees that climate change/global warming is for real? That isn't sides, that is an overwhelming general consensus in the scientific community.

[Ashock]

How are there "sides" when, as Eppie correctly pointed out, that more than 97% of the scientific community agrees that climate change/global warming is for real? That isn't sides, that is an overwhelming general consensus.

How is it that over 95% of college professors in the Lib Arts departments all over the country are "progressives"? And it's not like the science departments are the reverse. Just not quiet as lopsided.

[Lissa]

How are there "sides" when, as Eppie correctly pointed out, that more than 97% of the scientific community agrees that climate change/global warming is for real? That isn't sides, that is an overwhelming general consensus.

How is it that over 95% of college professors in the Lib Arts departments all over the country are "progressives"? And it's not like the science departments are the reverse. Just not quiet as lopsided.

Scientist think in facts, that's the difference. Scientists are taught to be skeptical of things and only make a determination when observations and facts fit the hypothesis. Scientists that jump to a gut reaction are ridiculed by their fellow scientists. If you can't prove it with data, you won't be listened to.

[Ashock]

How are there "sides" when, as Eppie correctly pointed out, that more than 97% of the scientific community agrees that climate change/global warming is for real? That isn't sides, that is an overwhelming general consensus.

How is it that over 95% of college professors in the Lib Arts departments all over the country are "progressives"? And it's not like the science departments are the reverse. Just not quiet as lopsided.

Scientist think in facts, that's the difference. Scientists are taught to be skeptical of things and only make a determination when observations and facts fit the hypothesis. Scientists that jump to a gut reaction are ridiculed by their fellow scientists. If you can't prove it with data, you won't be listened to.

Indeed and there's two sets of data. One promoted by those in power and one that is not. Scientists as a group are also extremely naive and easily manipulated by politicians.

Even before I did a bit of digging years ago about the whole Global Warming craze, I thought that it was illogical that human beings can be responsible for something like that, simply because we are not significant enough and also because earth's history has had numerous shifts in temperature in the past, before we became industrialized.

What I've found, answered my questions, fully. So you have your set of data, I have mine. I feel that yours is manipulated and just because it is widely propagated, it does not make it valid.

I bet you that in 10 years, this fad will be over with. It's already dying out bit by bit.

I also find it interesting that the proponents of this re-distribution of wealth masked as concerned citizens of the world, cause this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pa...-1.2450920

You'd think that they practiced what they preached, but no... that's not the liberal way.

[FireIceTalon]

I bet you that in 10 years, this fad will be over with.

If temperatures around the world had begun to consistently fall, or at least stay relatively the same, you would perhaps be right. But that hasn't been the trend for decades now. And further, your proposal would require some substantial material change(s) for a reversal in current climate conditions to take effect (if that's even possible, which is a more complicated and unsettled question than the existence of climate change itself which is already established), and it would likely take longer than 10 years for that be quantifiable, but I do not see that happening either way. Global warming is a (unfortunate) fact, and it is here to stay - at least for the forseeable future.

It is not a fad, but a real world issue that is easily observable, backed by reliable evidence and data, regardless of how much you want to personally politicize it. Granted, climate change is political, but it is so in a systemic context, and not one of personal, subjective political convictions as you are making it out to be.

And yes, there has been climate change in the past, but that does not mean the causes of past climate changes are the same, either qualitatively or quantitatively, as this current one. The evidence seems to indicate otherwise:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

As I see it, the question of global warming is not one of its existence (this is indisputable), or one of it being human-made (this is nearly indisputable), but one of whether or not it can be stopped, or reversed.

I also find it interesting that the proponents of this re-distribution of wealth masked as concerned citizens of the world, cause this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pa...-1.2450920

You'd think that they practiced what they preached, but no... that's not the liberal way.

Politicians alone, be they liberal or conservative, or anything else, are not the cause of global warming - they simply contribute to it like the rest of us. Sure, there is some irony in world leaders flying in their personal airplanes that emit tons of environmental harming carbon fuel into the air, to a meeting about climate change of all things, but again, this has far more to do with the system and productive forces of society, and their practicality, than it does with the political affiliation of politicians, or people in general.

I would prefer to not eat any processed foods, or wear clothes and shoes that weren't made by some poor worker in China or Honduras, or more closely related to this specific topic, not drive a vehicle that uses energy from fossil fuels. But is it really practical to do any of this, at least in a meaningful consistent way, under the present circumstances? Not really. Capitalism is a global system and not a lifestyle, and it is a system which puts constraints on our lifestyles and actions in general regardless of what or how strong our political convictions may be. And this applies to all persons, regardless of their class and how much power they may wield. Most choice is an illusion.

[Ashock]

Most choice is an illusion.

For you and those like you, most illusion is a choice.

[FireIceTalon]

It is you, not I, that is denying the existence of global warming despite being shown overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your conclusion. I'm afraid it is you who has the illusions here, and it is you making the conscientious choice to have them in the face of contradicting evidence.

[Ashock]

It is you, not I, that is denying the existence of global warming despite being shown overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your conclusion. I'm afraid it is you who has the illusions here, and it is you making the conscientious choice to have them in the face of contradicting evidence.

K