Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’


Extrafire
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Something often missed in all the rhetoric is the disconnect that exists between historical climate change and the current changing dynamics. It's not at all arguable that in the past, temperature increases preceded increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. That 700 year delay is solid in the past. That is a strong indicator of the positive feedbacks that exist. However, that historical trend doesn't fit the current anomaly. The temperature changes of the past 1000 years have not yielded what one would expect to see evidenced in the greenhouse gas concentrations. The concentration continues to rise steadily, despite the oscillations of the past.

It is plainly obvious that our increasing emissions of greenhouse gases are not caused by temperature. The spikes that precede a rise in greenhouse gases in the past show how quickly the climate can destabilize once the gases begin their rise. In our case we are adding fuel before the fire starts.

The increases in temperature that resulted in increases in CO2 levels clearly indicate that CO2 increase will have little if any effect on global temperatures. Therefore, what's the big panic about CO2 increases?
 
Extrafire
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

This is absolute rubbish! No evidence, complete ignorance of the real issues, and out and out lies. We have no trouble convincing those in Alaska, or the Canadian Arctic that Global warming is real, because it is real and that is where the GW effects are most dramatically seen and felt.

There you go again. Once more (please take notes so I won't have to tell you again) it's not the climate change that's in dispute, it's the cause. The dispute is whether it is human caused, and since the evidence indicates that CO2 in the past has not caused temperature increases, what is the reason to think that the current CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase?

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Anyone who can support calling global warming a scam is either illiterate or stupid.

Yeah, could be, but that's not what the dispute is about.
 
Extrafire
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

[...]
What does that matter if it was warm? Natural or not, if it gets that warm again we all die.[...]

Why would we die? Last time it got warm humanity and civilization thrived like never before.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

If the arctic became temperate than all our farmland would be arid waste. Do you see any farms being built up north to make up the shortfall? I don't. Thats known as a famine.

Why would current farmlands become arid waste? Are you suggesting that farming is only viable in temperate regions? You mean they can't farm in Brazil, or Ecuador, or Sri Lanka because it's all arid waste in those hot regions?
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

If the world were that warm, the coastal cities would be under water, do you see spare highrises being built inland and upnorth to deal with the overflow? I don't.

But we know that those coastal areas weren't under water the last time it was warm, or 7000 years ago when it was even warmer, much warmer.

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Man made, artifical..irrelevant..all that matters is we need to either stop it, or prepare for it.

If global warming's natural (and all evidence suggests it is) then there's nothing we can do about it. All efforts would be futile. If it's man made, then exactly what do you suggest we do about it?

You'll fall for anything, won't you?

You guys are so pathetic.
 
Tonington
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

The increases in temperature that resulted in increases in CO2 levels clearly indicate that CO2 increase will have little if any effect on global temperatures. Therefore, what's the big panic about CO2 increases?

So you say...not what the data says. It's your job as one arguing against theory to provide evidence to the contrary.
Last edited by Tonington; Nov 11th, 2007 at 01:04 AM..
 
Extrafire
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So you say...not what the data says. It's your job as one arguing against theory to provide evidence to the contrary.

The data clearly shows that temperature increases have preceded CO2 increases for several hundred thousand years. The data also show that current CO2 levels are increasing more than could be accounted for by the preceding temperature increase. The only conclusion to be reached from that, is that there is some other cause of CO2 increase. To suggest that now, contrary to all previous occasions, CO2 will suddenly lead to temperature increase is just plain silly.
 
Zzarchov
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Why would we die? Last time it got warm humanity and civilization thrived like never before.

Yes, back when our population was about a tenth of ours, and didn't rely on extensive infrastructure to keep ourselves fed. We lost one field and just planted another one further inland. Problem is there aren't empty pastures over most of the world.

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Why would current farmlands become arid waste?

Because they were the last time it got this warm?

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Are you suggesting that farming is only viable in temperate regions? You mean they can't farm in Brazil, or Ecuador, or Sri Lanka because it's all arid waste in those hot regions?

They already farm in those hot regions, but in regions slightly hotter, like Libya, not so much farming..mostly sand. So increase the heat in and Brazil becomes a desert, oops. (Ps, get an atlas)

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

But we know that those coastal areas weren't under water the last time it was warm, or 7000 years ago when it was even warmer, much warmer.

And by that you mean we know in fact that it WAS under water, seriously, pick up a book.


Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

If global warming's natural (and all evidence suggests it is) then there's nothing we can do about it. All efforts would be futile.

You're right, just low how its natural for floodplains to be under water, so there is NOTHING we can do..you know, like build levies and dykes. IF we wanted to, we can cool this planet down (man made or not), hell there are a couple of ways we could do it tommorow (with very serious consequences) and trigger an ice age. We aren't cave men with sticks, if we want to change the earth in massive ways we can do it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

If it's man made, then exactly what do you suggest we do about it?

Reverse it (see above) and not do it again.

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

You'll fall for anything, won't you?

Yes, silly me, falling for the very science we use to fuel our modern world. Apparently you believe that we don't use science, we use magic, and thats why it only applies to some aspects of our world (like cooling machines) and not all (like the environment we live in).

Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

You guys are so pathetic.

Thats a typo, the spelling is "I know nothing about science but like to think I know all, so I focus instead on just calling people names"
 
mrmom2
#67
How come all you supporters of global warming religion ignore this little fact


More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

Cause it don't fit into your religious doctrine ?
 
Tonington
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

The data clearly shows that temperature increases have preceded CO2 increases for several hundred thousand years. The data also show that current CO2 levels are increasing more than could be accounted for by the preceding temperature increase. The only conclusion to be reached from that, is that there is some other cause of CO2 increase. To suggest that now, contrary to all previous occasions, CO2 will suddenly lead to temperature increase is just plain silly.

Well you just explained my argument entirely, only you jumped to a faulty conclusion.

I know very well that temperature has lead CO2, I also know very well that this is not what is happening now. That anomaly is not found in the past. Try to explain with natural causes how climate change that occurred in the past happened with temperature leading CO2, and maintain those same causes for what is happening now, for this anomaly.

You tell me what's silly now, that we are releasing known greenhouse gases from stored sinks and we have this new anomaly, and you want to call it natural still?

Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2 View Post

How come all you supporters of global warming religion ignore this little fact


More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

Cause it don't fit into your religious doctrine ?

Here's the current best guess at what the solar cycle will do, which apparently is what all the people saying cooling is on our way believe will be the culprit:



On top of that, the scientists who study the sun say this, from the Solar Cycle Predicting Panel:
Quote:

"In light of the expected long interval until the onset of Cycle 24, the Prediction Panel has been unable to resolve a sufficient number of questions to reach a single, consensus prediction for the amplitude of the cycle. The deliberations of the panel supported two possible peak amplitudes for the smoothed International Sunspot Number (Ri): Ri = 140 ±20 and Ri = 90 ±10."

On top of that, if we enter a new Maunder Minimum, the resulting change in solar forcing will be between 0.17 W/m^2 and 0.23W/m^2. For contrast, the anthropogenic forcing is equal to 1.66W/m^2.

The minority of people saying we're heading for a cooling trend are about equivalent to those saying we were heading for an ice age in the 70's. It's fringe science.
 
Extrafire
#69
delete
 
Extrafire
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Yes, back when our population was about a tenth of ours, and didn't rely on extensive infrastructure to keep ourselves fed. We lost one field and just planted another one further inland. Problem is there aren't empty pastures over most of the world.

Our population was much less than 1/10 of now, and relied on a lot of manpower and beastpower to keep ourselves fed. No fields were lost to sea level rise. When the warming ended and the cool period began there was mass starvation and disease.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Because they were the last time it got this warm?

Except they weren't.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

They already farm in those hot regions, but in regions slightly hotter, like Libya, not so much farming..mostly sand. So increase the heat in and Brazil becomes a desert, oops. (Ps, get an atlas)

They farm in Libya too. All they need is water. And they farm in equatorial wet areas too. Brazil already is much hotter than here. They farm a lot more than we do. Deserts are not caused by heat, but rather by lack of water. Canada has only one desert, in Yukon, or Northwest Territories. Israel made the desert bloom, getting four crops per year of produce that we can only get one.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

And by that you mean we know in fact that it WAS under water, seriously, pick up a book.

We know that during the last ice age, much of the continental shelves around the world were above water. We have found evidence of human habitation below the sea in those areas. But during the medieval warm period? No, coastlines were essentially the same as now.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

You're right, just low how its natural for floodplains to be under water, so there is NOTHING we can do..you know, like build levies and dykes. IF we wanted to, we can cool this planet down (man made or not), hell there are a couple of ways we could do it tommorow (with very serious consequences) and trigger an ice age. We aren't cave men with sticks, if we want to change the earth in massive ways we can do it.

If it was that simple to change the climate we wouldn't be talking about it, it would have been done long ago. We can change the earth in massive ways, but climate is a much more difficult matter.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Reverse it (see above) and not do it again.

Yeah, sure, a simplistic answer is all we need. While you're at it, how about changing the orbit of the earth.
 
Extrafire
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Well you just explained my argument entirely, only you jumped to a faulty conclusion.

I know very well that temperature has lead CO2, I also know very well that this is not what is happening now. That anomaly is not found in the past. Try to explain with natural causes how climate change that occurred in the past happened with temperature leading CO2, and maintain those same causes for what is happening now, for this anomaly.

You tell me what's silly now, that we are releasing known greenhouse gases from stored sinks and we have this new anomaly, and you want to call it natural still?

I'm not suggesting that past temperature increase is responsible for the extra CO2 increase. What I'm saying is the current temp increase is entirely normal, but CO2 increase is only partly normal. You seem to be saying that temp increase is due to CO2 increase, even though it never caused temp increase before.
 
Tonington
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

You seem to be saying that temp increase is due to CO2 increase, even though it never caused temp increase before.

Never caused the initial increase in temperature. I thought you said you understand feedbacks?
 
Extrafire
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Never caused the initial increase in temperature. I thought you said you understand feedbacks?

The data show temp increases well before CO2 increases. Then the temps drop, while the CO2 continues to rise. If CO2 caused warming, then that rising CO2 would have cause the temps to rise, yet they fell.
 
Locutus
#74
For a kinda rhetorically farce bit of a news item, it got plenty of airplay again.

Relax kids, we're all gonna die anyway.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

For a kinda rhetorically farce bit of a news item, it got plenty of airplay again.

Relax kids, we're all gonna die anyway.

What are you a sociopath, this isn't a farce and people feel strongly about the issue because of the serious consequences for all of us.

Go back to the joke forum where you belong.
 
Walter
#76
There have been many other scams, too. Some, unfortunately, successful; others, thankfully, not so successful.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
 
Walter
#77
Global Warming Plot Thickens: Gore Joins Venture Capital Group


By Noel Sheppard | November 12, 2007 - 17:14 ET

The financial scam involved in advancing climate alarmism got even more obvious Monday - to folks outside of the media, that is! - when Nobel Laureate Al Gore joined "Silicon Valley's most prestigious venture capital firm to guide investments that help combat global warming."
As reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added, h/t NBer Wildcatter 1980): "Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work on climate change, joins Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as it and dozens of other venture firms expand into so-called ‘clean-tech' investments worldwide."
Media that have continually ignored the financial aspects of this con will certainly not see the exquisitely delicious irony in the following announcement from the same article:
Also Monday, Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr announced he's joining the advisory board of Generation Investment Management, the $1 billion investment firm that Gore founded with David Blood, who previously managed $325 billion in assets out of Goldman Sachs' London office . Doerr is one of Silicon Valley's most outspoken clean-tech advocates.
Anybody getting a whiff of rodentia yet, or do you need another clue media will surely ignore?
Well, here goes.
On October 3, NewsBusters highlighted a spectacular Human Events exposé by Deborah Corey Barnes concerning Gore's financial connections to so-called global warming solutions including carbon credits (emphasis added throughout):
[Gore's] GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

[...]
Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. But if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters -- and that's almost everyone -- to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center.
Please recall before going further that Gore's partner at GIM used to be a fund manager at Goldman Sachs:
We do know that Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas.
So, add this all up, and Al Gore's investment group is not only connected with one of the world's leading brokerage firms that just so happens to be the preeminent player in carbon trading, but he is also now working for the top venture capital company in Silicon Valley whose partner has reciprocally been placed on the board of Gore's organization.
As such, soon-to-be-billionaire Al Gore has brilliantly structured himself as a virtual financial hub of international investments associated with so-called global warming solutions whereby he'll benefit financially from any hysterical climate claim uttered by a media member, Hollywood sycophant, United Nations climate panelist, or, deliciously, himself.
Yet, virtually no journalist is willing to either see it or report it.
Honestly, I'm not sure whether to applaud his ingenuity or weep for the media's stupidity.
 
Walter
#78
 
darkbeaver
#79
Al Gore is a gold licking member of the overclass, everything he says is a lie and everything he does is false. That makes him a perfect candidate for Prezident of THE UNITED STATES of AMWAYERIA
 
MikeyDB
#80
Eaglesmack
Maybe it's those stockpiles of WMDs that are giving off radiation and befuddling meters and measuring instruments....
Maybe it's "Mission Accomplished" and all kinds of other assorted verifiable "facts" emitted as hot air from an administration that's been in bed with big business and big petroleum for decades....
As soon as you can show us those stockpiles maybe the tune of the skeptics will change....
 
EagleSmack
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by mrmom2 View Post

How come all you supporters of global warming religion ignore this little fact


More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

Cause it don't fit into your religious doctrine ?

BINGO!
 
MikeyDB
#82
Perhaps you could provide some scientific evidence "global" temperatures are cooling?
The issue for me is that the effects of all forms of pollution that are without any doubt "man-made" are a bane to existence. If the great global warming debate focus's attention on corporate malfeseance and the effects of mind-conditioning to create the demand for junk that no one really needs that results in some catastrophic phenomenon or even the idea that human industry and activity have impacted and will continue to impact the planet, that's a good thing. While significant numbers of species face early and perhaps unnecessary extinction at the appetites of the wealthy for more of everything, this phenomenon and the impact of human industry across the entire spectrum of human and animal existence deserves to be talked about.
Eaglesmack and many are enthusiastic and excited that they'll make windfall profits as the banter continues regarding climate change and governments and industry play the shell game with life as we know it on this planet. It's too bad that these people's children won't be able to hold the culprits responsible when water and air are no longer available and whether or not the global climate is warming...or cooling, the greed of a few has turned much of the world into a cesspool.
 
Tonington
#83
Anyone who thinks that there isn't a tremendous amount of pressure on politicians to keep the system running as it is now are missing out on some key facts. Maybe you think the whole theory is bogus, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. But you I think there are some factors involved you may not be aware of, or perhaps you've heard them and cast them off like some tinfoil conspiracy.

So here's some little tidbits for context. Of all the energy that we are using, among the various generating processes, a tremendous amount of the energy is given off as waste heat. Reclaiming that energy is very possible. Adding recuperative heat exchangers to capture the waste heat from generating plants can be done currently, and the capture of that heat allows for some nice benefits. As the exhaust is cooled, the particulate matter which causes much pollution, will precipitate out.

Now this would also allow the power plants to use less fuel. Sure the cost is there in the start-up, but that is reclaimed due to increased efficiency. The reality is, that power companies continue to make more profits, by passing on the rising cost of energy production to the consumer in rate hikes. There is no incentive currently to be more efficient, except in States like California where efficiency is equally as important as new generating capacity.

If you think that market forces will bring about these changes, you're way off. Regulations are what drive improving efficiency. Look at California. They generate 1/3 of the national average in emissions, while paying the same price for electricity. How was that achieved? Regulations. Companies remain profitable, they just have to give up their ever expanding profits at our expense.
 
mrmom2
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post


If you think that market forces will bring about these changes, you're way off. Regulations are what drive improving efficiency. Look at California. They generate 1/3 of the national average in emissions, while paying the same price for electricity. How was that achieved? Regulations. Companies remain profitable, they just have to give up their ever expanding profits at our expense.

Of course their rates are cheaper they don't pay the bills from the suppliers like BC they just sue us instead and tie the bill up in court
 
Cobalt_Kid
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Al Gore is a gold licking member of the overclass, everything he says is a lie and everything he does is false. That makes him a perfect candidate for Prezident of THE UNITED STATES of AMWAYERIA

As opposed to what, the man of the people sitting in the White House in Gore legitimate place. Bush comes from money much older than Gores and has been part of the same industry for decades that is responsible for most of the Global Warming problem.

Al Gore served in Vietnam as a Army journalist and then worked in Congress both as a Representative then Senator for years to bring more accountability to American politics.

Read his new book "The Assault on Reason" about how special interests and religious extremists have taken over the agenda in the US. He's anything but an elitist, that's something that can easily be applied to the men who robbed him of his rightful place as President of the USA however.
 
mrmom2
#86
You mean Al Gore the creator of the internet Owner of emissions credits trading firm no conflict of interests there Once a lying politician always a lying politician
 
Cobalt_Kid
#87
As opposed to George Bush who never did go to Vietnam (same for Cheney who got five draft defererments) and was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court in 2000 to the Presidency.

Men who have also lied about a threat to the US and started a war that has brought them personal wealth through corporations they have close contacts with while killing thousands of Americans and destroying the US economy. Men who have also thrown the Constitution in the trash and have resorted to torture and violating privacy rights of millions of Americans

I guess if you can't except the reality of having a despot ruling the US then Al Gore makes a conveinent target for your frustrations. It's those who are against freedom and the rule of law who are so opposed to Gore.
 
mrmom2
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

As opposed to George Bush who never did go to Vietnam (same for Cheney who got five draft defererments) and was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court in 2000 to the Presidency.

Men who have also lied about a threat to the US and started a war that has brought them personal wealth through corporations they have close contacts with while killing thousands of Americans and destroying the US economy. Men who have also thrown the Constitution in the trash and have resorted to torture and violating privacy rights of millions of Americans

I guess if you can't except the reality of having a despot ruling the US then Al Gore makes a conveinent target for your frustrations. It's those who are against freedom and the rule of law who are so opposed to Gore.

I don't see anyone here saying Bush is great Cobalt He's worse than Gore for sure but Gore really is nothing but a money grabbing ***** .The proof is in his actions
 
EagleSmack
#89
The Bush bashing is just another way to deflect critisism on Al Gore and his brilliant... and I mean BRILLIANT money making machine that he has created. Boy, just by that alone I am tending to think he may have made a good president because he is cashing in on a windfall.

Not just that, he has reopened Zinc Mining on his land in Tennessee to the tune of $500,000.00! You know about Zinc Mining don't you? It is one of the most toxic and most destructive ways to mine. To his credit he has asked the mining company to investigate "better" ways to mine.

Sorry Al...STRIP MINING IS STRIP MINING.

You want Zinc... you have to deforest and dig massive MASSIVE holes in the ground and keep digging until you've exhausted the land. HUGE gas gobbling and C02 releasing dozers and haulers and trucks and every other type of machine you can think of to get to the good stuff and haul it away.
 
Tonington
#90
And Gore bashing is another way to deflect criticism against the business as usual approach and the lack of proof against the theory. It's an ad hominem attack, not at all an indictment of the theory. A reason not to invest in Gore's company, but that is all.