Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Maybe in the fantasy world of the virtuous businesman trashing people like Gore, Suzuki and other organizations and individuals that came before them makes sense.

But we live in the real world where individuals and organizations often produce and sell things they know to be toxic. Things like DDT, thalidimide, dioxin, PCBs and cigarettes to name a few. The profit motive has no conscience so the common good demands individuals who do.

CO2 has been listed as a pollutant by the US EPA for a very good reason, it intercepts long wave radiation that would otherwise escape into space, it's basic thermodynamics. To a certain point this is a good thing. Beyond a certain point we get climate change effects that include, increased severe weather events like droughts floods, tornados and hurricanes. We also get a rising sea level and the disruption of entire ecosystems.

The province I was born and grew up in for instance is covered in hundreds of thousands of square miles of dead and dying forest which according to experts I know(including my father who has a masters in forest-engineering and who worked in the private sector in BC for over forty years) is directly attributable to a change in the climate there, namely shorter milder winters that favour the survival of the pine beetle.

Denying a problem doesn't make it go away, and people like Gore and Suzuki are far more honest and courageous than the faceless men in the corporations who just care about the bottom line.
 
Last edited:

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
Maybe in the fantasy world of the virtuous businesman trashing people like Gore, Suzuki and other organizations and individuals that came before them makes sense.


Gore and Suzuki have earned all of the abuse that they've received. Unless your idea's about conservation include Lear jets, 12 cyl diesel busses and 15,000 sq/ft homes, then Gore and Suzuki are the antithesis of what "to do".

fator-in the proven frauds that they are and you have the recipe for the perfect eco-a$$hole


But we live in the real world where individuals and organizations often produce and sell things they know to be toxic. Things like DDT, thalidimide, dioxin, PCBs and cigarettes to name a few. The profit motive has no conscience so the common good demands individuals who do.


So what... Don't want 'em, then don't but them.. It's not that hard.


CO2 has been listed as a pollutant by the US EPA for a very good reason, it intercepts long wave radiation that would otherwise escape into space, it's basic thermodynamics. To a certain point this is a good thing. Beyond a certain point we get climate change effects that include, increased severe weather events like droughts floods, tornados and hurricanes. We also get a rising sea level and the disruption of entire ecosystems.


Know what else interferes with long wave radiation? air-borne particulate in any form... that said, I suppose that the EPA should outlaw dust, volcanic emissions and forest fires...

What's that you say? You can't tax volcanoes or fires?




The province I was born and grew up in for instance is covered in hundreds of thousands of square miles of dead and dying forest which according to experts I know(including my father who has a masters in forest-engineering and who worked in the private sector in BC for over forty years) is directly attributable to a change in the climate there, namely shorter milder winters that favour the survival of the pine beetle.


It's also attributable to the highly successful fire prevention programs that have had an effect of artificially allowing those forests to grow beyond their natural life-time... Forests don't grow forever Cobalt_Kid..


Denying a problem doesn't make it go away, and people like Gore and Suzuki are far more honest and courageous than the faceless men in the corporations who just care about the bottom line.

Whereas fabricating a problem that can't even be defined ensures that it will never go away either.

Think about it; CO2 is considered a pollutant/toxin.... Life on Earth is CARBON-BASED!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Think about it; CO2 is considered a pollutant/toxin.... Life on Earth is CARBON-BASED!

You need to think some more about this. Crude oil also contains carbon, a lot of it. I guess the folks living in Louisiana and neighbouring states will be happy to hear your thought provoking deconstruction of what is and is not pollution...
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
That is the valid point made by those who singed Anna.
Who singed me? Come to think of it, I do remember smelling burnt hair earlier. *looks in mirror to check my doo*
The much touted scientific consensus flogged ad nauseum by the likes of Gore and Strong never existed. If you think science is the answer then you must agree that their has been fraud.
I think that the data pretty much speaks for itself and the application of science to accurately interpret the data is just what it is.
But the fact remains that we do affect most of other parts of our planet so it is quite reasonable to think we have affected the atmosphere.

BTW, slim, CO² can be a pollutant, but not a toxin even if it can be toxic.
 
Last edited:

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
"You need to think some more about this. Crude oil also contains carbon, a lot of it. I guess the folks living in Louisiana and neighbouring states will be happy to hear your thought provoking deconstruction of what is and is not pollution..."


Hydrocarbons, in the form that we are discussing; are generated from organic materials (ie former life forms). Considering that life on this planet are carbon-based, it's to be expected that crude oil contains carbon.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
"You need to think some more about this. Crude oil also contains carbon, a lot of it. I guess the folks living in Louisiana and neighbouring states will be happy to hear your thought provoking deconstruction of what is and is not pollution..."


Hydrocarbons, in the form that we are discussing; are generated from organic materials (ie former life forms). Considering that life on this planet are carbon-based, it's to be expected that crude oil contains carbon.

You didn't get the point, see Annas post below yours and maybe the light bulb will turn on...

:lol:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So... You're saying that crude oil isn't a byproduct of organic life?

Wholly crap, seriously? You still don't get what I'm saying? No, I am not saying that oil isn't a by-product of life.

Is there a point to your posturing on this known fact?
Now follow the bouncing ball...

Whereas fabricating a problem that can't even be defined ensures that it will never go away either.

Think about it; CO2 is considered a pollutant/toxin.... Life on Earth is CARBON-BASED!

Clearly you are insinuating that the pollution aspect is contrived. Because life is carbon based, how could a molecule that contains carbon be pollution?

Well, that belies a fundamental ignorance about pollution. All pollution means is that something causes deleterious effects. Some amounts of a pollutant can be fine, but when you overwhelm a system, that can create disruption, and wreak havoc on systems.

You need to think some more about this. Crude oil also contains carbon, a lot of it. I guess the folks living in Louisiana and neighbouring states will be happy to hear your thought provoking deconstruction of what is and is not pollution...

I was trying to get you to think about that. You were posturing that carbon based life and a carbon pollutant are ridiculous.

Oil contains carbon.

Oil can be a pollutant.

Do you get it yet? Just because something is a natural by-product of carbohydrate catabolism doesn't mean that it can't be produced in sufficient quantities to disrupt natural systems which deal with it.
 

Slim Chance

Electoral Member
Nov 26, 2009
475
13
18
You still don't get what I'm saying? No, I am not saying that oil isn't a by-product of life.


Then stop all of this dancing around the issue and say what you mean.


Clearly you are insinuating that the pollution aspect is contrived. Because life is carbon based, how could a molecule that contains carbon be pollution?


Had you followed the exchange rather than cherry-pick limited information, you'd understand that my responses were based on an overt extension of the Gore/Suzuki position on CO2/global warming and and ensuing condemnation of carbon being identified as a pollutant/toxin by the EPA.

And for the record, I am not "insinuating" that the pollution aspect is contrived... Anything in too great a concentration/volume are toxic and could also be a pollutant... Case in point, sequester yourself in a sealed environment with pure O2... In the unlikely event that you were to survive, you can report back the results. With this important knowledge, are you prepared to classify oxygen as a pollutant as have the EPA regarding carbon or CO2?

Doesn't make too much sense, does it?



I was trying to get you to think about that. You were posturing that carbon based life and a carbon pollutant are ridiculous.


Relativity is at the heart of this issue, isn't it? The last time that you and I had exchanges began to investigate this very important distinction, but alas, it was never to be.


Oil contains carbon.

Oil can be a pollutant.

By extension, considering that all life is carbon-based, is it reasonable to condemn all life as pollutants?

there's that damn relativity thing again.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
The Earth hasn't cooled. Anyone who tells you this is either:
a) ignorant, or
b) lying to you
People like maybe, Phil Jones of CRU,
"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically warming for the past 15 years."

Or Rajenda Pachari who, in a moment of weakness a couple years ago admitted the globe is cooling.

Or maybe Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007), "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
People like maybe, Phil Jones of CRU,
"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically warming for the past 15 years."

In the same interview he said it's a positive trend over the last 15 years, but it's not significant because, well to explain that to you, you would need to know some statistics, and you've proved time and again that you are very weak when it comes to statistics.

No cooling.

Or Rajenda Pachari who, in a moment of weakness a couple years ago admitted the globe is cooling.
Let's have a direct quote shall we?

Or maybe Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007), "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Ah, a well used meme by deniers du jour. He's talking here about the discrepancy between satellite observations, that say the earth is warming, and global heat budgets that say the earth is warming, but don't capture all the energy that the satellites say is not making it's way back up into space. They don't know where the difference is going between the two. That's what science is for...You can read about it all in his paper, here:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf

Try to educate yourself for a change.

PS. How are you coming along with a citation or two that shows how alarmist scientists said the earth should be warming exponentially? Still nothing?

Gee, what a shock.8O

:lol:
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
we're still stuck witht the same cheap and dirty energy dependence we had a century ago.
If you think it's so bad why are you still using it? Nothing stopping you from not being part of the problem except your hypocracy.

The only reason the funds aren't going into developing a sustainable clean energy model is the political and economic power wielded by the fossil fuel industry and those who support it.
Bullpuckey! Multi-billions are going into alternative energy research. Not only that, those self same fossil fuel industries know it, and they're getting in on it. Lots of profit available to them there.

I live a very modest life in material terms, I'm not the one who's argument is almost solely based on the profit motive.
But your carbon foot print is still huge compared to most people in the world. The only reason you don't give it up is you like your relatively luxurious lifestyle and you aren't willing to do more than the bare minimum personally. You want somebody else to make all the sacrifices.


I'm doing the best I can given the limitations of the situation,
No you aren't. You're only doing whatever won't inconvenience you.


what exactly are you doing, what is going to be you're response when the bill for us all comes due?
Why should those of us who don't subscribe to your religion have to live by its tennets?


Sorry I was wrong, too bad entire ecosystems have dissappeared and the conditions for life have become marginal for hundreds of millions, here's a few handouts from the people who brought you the problem. Only so much blame can be laid on the heads of the consumer when you have a producer as powerful and determined to keep its wealth and priviledge.
Hah! Weasel words to get yourself out of practicing what you preach. (What entire ecosystems have disappeared?)


Personally I don't drive any more, I live in a small suite in the city use mass transit and travel very little, I have limited means to alter my life any further, what are you doing?
Your small suite heated? Your mass transit powered by draft horses or fossil fuel? Your food come to the store by horse drawn wagon? Oh right, you have limited means to alter your life further. No, actually you do have the means, you're just not willing because you know your life would be one of abject misery if you did. You know very well that your lifestyle is entirely dependant on the energy you denigrate. None of your ilk is willing to practice what they preach, it's always someone else who has to pay the price as far as you're concerned. Just the fact that you're on this forum proves that you can easily reduce your footprint, but you don't do it because you don't want to.

Look at the electric car example in California, people want to change if they get a chance. There are photo voltaic roffing tiles, I can imagine a house with those and solar cell siding on the southern exposure with other energy saving technology able to produce more power than it uses. How about electric cars with solar cells built into the skin of the vehicle that charge while you park them during the day, any deficit in charge can be made up by the energy produced from you're home. There was the thermadepolymerization that I talked about thta was never really given a chance in the US, wind power, tidal power and so much more.
Nothing stopping any of those ideas. Anyone who wants them can have them, other than thermal depolymerization which is still in developement, and it would be a great idea and do very well, except all the "green" money is going into bio-fuels from sugar cane and palm oil.

Those are just starting points, as long as we're led by politicians like Harper who are little more than oil sector lobbiests in place then what are the chances any real effort is going to be made to deal with the problem. We don't even really talk about it at a national level with the conservatives in place, instead Canada earns condemnation from most of the reat of the world for trying to sabotage any change beforeit starts.
What problem? Global warming isn't a problem, it's a blessing.

At the very least I'm looking for an alternative to an issue that most informed people understand is crucial to our future.

What do you believe in besides continued greed for its' own purpose. It makes no sense to me to stay commited to a path that leads over a cliff.
But you still won't do your own part, you still don't practice what you preach or you wouldn't be on this energy consuming forum, using your energy consuming computer.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Maybe in the fantasy world of the virtuous businesman trashing people like Gore, Suzuki and other organizations and individuals that came before them makes sense.

But we live in the real world where individuals and organizations often produce and sell things they know to be toxic. Things like DDT, thalidimide, dioxin, PCBs and cigarettes to name a few.
DDT is not toxic, and its banning resulted in tens of millions of needless deaths.


The profit motive has no conscience so the common good demands individuals who do.
Yeah, like you'd work for nothing!:roll:

CO2 has been listed as a pollutant by the US EPA for a very good reason, it intercepts long wave radiation that would otherwise escape into space, it's basic thermodynamics. To a certain point this is a good thing.
CO2 was listed as a pollutant for political reasons, and only political reasons.

Beyond a certain point we get climate change effects that include, increased severe weather events like droughts floods, tornados and hurricanes. We also get a rising sea level and the disruption of entire ecosystems.
Climate has always changed, always will. Severe weather is more likely to come from global cooling than warming, likewise disruption of ecosystems.

The province I was born and grew up in for instance is covered in hundreds of thousands of square miles of dead and dying forest which according to experts I know(including my father who has a masters in forest-engineering and who worked in the private sector in BC for over forty years) is directly attributable to a change in the climate there, namely shorter milder winters that favour the survival of the pine beetle.
Bullpuckey again. You've already been corrected on that one.

Denying a problem doesn't make it go away, and people like Gore and Suzuki are far more honest and courageous than the faceless men in the corporations who just care about the bottom line.
Inventing a non-existant problem doesn't make it real either. Drinking the koolaid from con artists the likes of Gore an Suzuki will only impoversh you while it enriches them. Did you never think to wonder why, if they really believe the stuff they're peddlling they don't even pretend to live accordingly?
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
True, but try and find one that is a climatologist and one that has a peer reviewed paper.

Peer reviewed you say?

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming

Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Office of Climatology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1508

Copyright Environmental Geosciences

ABSTRACT


According to numerical models of climate, the continued buildup of greenhouse gases will lead to a substantial rise in planetary temperature and many related changes to the climate system. Empiricists have noted that thermometer-based planetary temperatures have increased over the past century, thereby providing support for the theoretical predictions of the models. Many nations have called for action to combat the threat of global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol represents a major first step in the policy arena.
However, many of the most fundamental global warming issues remain in a state of considerable debate in the scientific community. For example, in the most recent half decade, the atmospheric concentration of many greenhouse gases has slowed or even stabilized. The numerical models of the climate continue to have serious weaknesses including their representation of cloud processes and the coupling of the atmosphere and ocean. Thermometer records may show warming, but serious concerns remain about the true representativeness of their readings. In addition, increased output of the sun, lack of recent volcanism, and trends in El Niño/Southern Oscillation have certainly contributed to any observed warming. The entire issue is further complicated by the fact that satellite-based and balloon-based measurements of lower atmospheric temperatures show no warming whatsoever over the past few decades. Also, there appears to be no increase in tropical cyclone activity, severe weather events, or variability of climate. Finally, the evidence is overwhelming that the climate impact of a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol will be trivial over the next 50 years

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies


A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate

C R DE FREITAS 1 1 Associate Professor in the Department of Geography and Head of Science and Technology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland.

Copyright 1994 New Zealand Geographical Society Inc.

ABSTRACT


Major changes are occurring in the global warming debate. Popular alarmist views are giving way to more balanced assessments of the situation. There is now greater emphasis on the lack of consensus among climatologists on fundamental scientific issues related to climate change.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies




JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D21102, 8 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009JD011841
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere

Philip J. Klotzbach
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Roger A. Pielke Sr.
CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA
John R. Christy
Earth Science System Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
Richard T. McNider
Earth Science System Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere

I can point you to a few hundred more if you like.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Then stop all of this dancing around the issue and say what you mean.

Dance? Anna got it. But then she has a sharp wit.

Had you followed the exchange rather than cherry-pick limited information, you'd understand that my responses were based on an overt extension of the Gore/Suzuki position on CO2/global warming and and ensuing condemnation of carbon being identified as a pollutant/toxin by the EPA.

So, you don't think that the carbon dioxide we're emitting is building up because the sinks can't keep pace?

And for the record, I am not "insinuating" that the pollution aspect is contrived... Anything in too great a concentration/volume are toxic and could also be a pollutant... Case in point, sequester yourself in a sealed environment with pure O2... In the unlikely event that you were to survive, you can report back the results. With this important knowledge, are you prepared to classify oxygen as a pollutant as have the EPA regarding carbon or CO2?

Yes, you've shown why your interpretation is stupid. Effectively everything can be polluting if you are in a sealed room with far too much of it.

Do you actually think this is a relevant analogy to how pollutants are classified? :lol:

Doesn't make too much sense, does it?

Your version doesn't.

By extension, considering that all life is carbon-based, is it reasonable to condemn all life as pollutants?

Nobody is trying to condemn all life as pollutants. Some forms of life utilize cyanide too. It's a pollutant. And it's a carbon chemical species!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.