The global warming lie

[DJK0320]

There's that volcano in Hawai'i that emits a huge amount of Co2 into the atmosphere and the amount we spill into it is way less compared to this volcano and thousands of others around the world. Although I may be wrong.

[Leah G.]

There's that volcano in Hawai'i that emits a huge amount of Co2 into the atmosphere and the amount we spill into it is way less compared to this volcano and thousands of others around the world. Although I may be wrong.

Another really good point!

[Mattshark]

Another really good point!

No it is not actually. It is not a constant, exponentially increasing effect. We are.

And I say it's wrong. :3

I just think the earth's too powerful/strong to be affected by us humans. I really do.

Plus the Earth has a history of going through cycles! >>

Yes and I'm sure climatologist in no way have taken that into account.

See how strong the Earth would be if we set off all our nuclear devices. Or try telling it to the species we have wiped out.

Also rate of change - Way off normal, it is at mass extinction level.

In a very fundamental way, I think you are absolutely correct.

In a very fundamental way, she is absolutely incorrect.

If you think a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 is meaningless then I suggest some chemistry classes.

Add to that, the mass losses of the worlds biggest carbon up-taker and oxygen producer, phytoplankton.

But hey, if you truely tell me what is wrong with the Nature paper feel free. Or did you just dismiss it on principle?

Edited December 18, 2008 by Mattshark

[Mattshark]

NASA says 2 trillion tons of Arctic area ice lost since 2003.

[jbondo]

It would seems that scientist these days can get people to believe anything....as long as the grant money keeps flowing in that is. When you get more people believing one side over another it would tend to indicate that more money is being awarded to study that view. Scientists have to feed their families too and if it calls for a little fudging of the facts to keep those funds coming in....

Science is great but it would seem to me that way too many people just accept things as fact because a "scientist" said it (of course not on the level of Oprah but..). Frankly, they are just as susceptible to making errors as anyone else and as I mentioned above regarding $$$, several factors can have a direct impact on what science reports. Obviously if you are leaning to one side of an argument to begin with you are more likely to search out supporting data to further support said argument.

So, there are a whole heap of scientists saying that GW is upon us. But wait, there is also a whole heap that claims it's not. So we argue and dig up all the "statistical info" that supports our own view. IMO, common sense is the order of the day and as I said before, error on the side of caution is the way to go, within reason that is.

[Wickian]

So you are not going to counter it with scientific evidence then (and that minority report, having read it, can only be described as crap).

I've grown tired of going back and forth with people who ignore the facts I show and dismiss them with a wave of the hand. It's a waste of my time. I decided to just show some common sense links this time. If you can't put two and two together then we have nothing to discuss.

[Wickian]

It would seems that scientist these days can get people to believe anything....as long as the grant money keeps flowing in that is. When you get more people believing one side over another it would tend to indicate that more money is being awarded to study that view. Scientists have to feed their families too and if it calls for a little fudging of the facts to keep those funds coming in....

Science is great but it would seem to me that way too many people just accept things as fact because a "scientist" said it (of course not on the level of Oprah but..). Frankly, they are just as susceptible to making errors as anyone else and as I mentioned above regarding $$$, several factors can have a direct impact on what science reports. Obviously if you are leaning to one side of an argument to begin with you are more likely to search out supporting data to further support said argument.

So, there are a whole heap of scientists saying that GW is upon us. But wait, there is also a whole heap that claims it's not. So we argue and dig up all the "statistical info" that supports our own view. IMO, common sense is the order of the day and as I said before, error on the side of caution is the way to go, within reason that is.

Most people have no idea how many jobs(not just scientists) would be lost if the global warming hype ended. Hell, dozens of t.v. shows would get canceled.

[Princess Serenity]

Yes and I'm sure climatologist in no way have taken that into account.

See how strong the Earth would be if we set off all our nuclear devices. Or try telling it to the species we have wiped out.

Also rate of change - Way off normal, it is at mass extinction level.

Well I don't know what you work for. And I do now.

In my eyes, I'm right.

Edited December 18, 2008 by MoonPrincess

[Mattshark]

I've grown tired of going back and forth with people who ignore the facts I show and dismiss them with a wave of the hand. It's a waste of my time. I decided to just show some common sense links this time. If you can't put two and two together then we have nothing to discuss.

You have put up any facts, you put websites who post data from the NSIDC and make claims that counter the data that what the NSIDC say.

[Mattshark]

It would seems that scientist these days can get people to believe anything....as long as the grant money keeps flowing in that is. When you get more people believing one side over another it would tend to indicate that more money is being awarded to study that view. Scientists have to feed their families too and if it calls for a little fudging of the facts to keep those funds coming in....

Science is great but it would seem to me that way too many people just accept things as fact because a "scientist" said it (of course not on the level of Oprah but..). Frankly, they are just as susceptible to making errors as anyone else and as I mentioned above regarding $$$, several factors can have a direct impact on what science reports. Obviously if you are leaning to one side of an argument to begin with you are more likely to search out supporting data to further support said argument.

So, there are a whole heap of scientists saying that GW is upon us. But wait, there is also a whole heap that claims it's not. So we argue and dig up all the "statistical info" that supports our own view. IMO, common sense is the order of the day and as I said before, error on the side of caution is the way to go, within reason that is.

That is slanderous and downright ignorant.

So tell me why is it accepted by every single major scientific institution in the world. Do you think they get money for it? Do you think sub-tropical tuna are being paid to migrate into temperate waters? Do you think the governments of the world paid for 2 trillion tons of ice to be removed from the Arctic?

You haven't got a clue.

Fish the government paid to migrate northward

Well I don't know what you work for. And I do now.

In my eyes, I'm right.

In my eyes you are wilfully ignorant.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Mattshark

[Magnatude]

Wow... I didn't realize how adamant you are Matt.

Instead of agreeing to disagree you start taking the sword to the heads...

For you to understand my point of view you would need an overhaul on the propaganda that has been fed to you, so I have my doubts that you have the capacity to see another point of view... it seems to be ingrained into your thinking.

People are realizing that the Carbon Tax is being collected to fund UN funded ideologies, which includes stripping down the old world and creating a new-world. Although I'm all for harmony and peace and believe we should be one-people, the agenda of the UN includes drastic measures of depopulation. I would suggest reading up on codex alimentarius, then GMO's and the effects of this on our environment (all prominent in the UN agenda).

However I will expect you to say its all a conspiracy theory, so as I have stated before, we can only agree to disagree.

Edit:

I guess what I'm saying is I look at the spokesperson of this movement (David de Rothchild and the UN) and what they stand for (reading their own documents)...

The Mafia approaches the world and says, look people, its Global warming... give us money, we will tax you and we will make sure you will be ok...

I see no difference between the Mafia and these thugs promoting Global warming.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Magnatude

[Cradle of Fish]

Wow... I didn't realize how adamant you are Matt.

Instead of agreeing to disagree you start taking the sword to the heads...

For you to understand my point of view you would need an overhaul on the propaganda that has been fed to you, so I have my doubts that you have the capacity to see another point of view... it seems to be ingrained into your thinking.

People are realizing that the Carbon Tax is being collected to fund UN funded ideologies, which includes stripping down the old world and creating a new-world. Although I'm all for harmony and peace and believe we should be one-people, the agenda of the UN includes drastic measures of depopulation. I would suggest reading up on codex alimentarius, then GMO's and the effects of this on our environment (all prominent in the UN agenda).

However I will expect you to say its all a conspiracy theory, so as I have stated before, we can only agree to disagree.

The irony is thicker than mud.

[Mattshark]

Wow... I didn't realize how adamant you are Matt.

Instead of agreeing to disagree you start taking the sword to the heads...

For you to understand my point of view you would need an overhaul on the propaganda that has been fed to you, so I have my doubts that you have the capacity to see another point of view... it seems to be ingrained into your thinking.

People are realizing that the Carbon Tax is being collected to fund UN funded ideologies, which includes stripping down the old world and creating a new-world. Although I'm all for harmony and peace and believe we should be one-people, the agenda of the UN includes drastic measures of depopulation. I would suggest reading up on codex alimentarius, then GMO's and the effects of this on our environment (all prominent in the UN agenda).

However I will expect you to say its all a conspiracy theory, so as I have stated before, we can only agree to disagree.

Edit:

I guess what I'm saying is I look at the spokesperson of this movement (David de Rothchild and the UN) and what they stand for (reading their own documents)...

The Mafia approaches the world and says, look people, its Global warming... give us money, we will tax you and we will make sure you will be ok...

I see no difference between the Mafia and these thugs promoting Global warming.

Sorry fella, but I have posted scientific evidence which has been dismissed with out due reasoning or even acknowledgement. I have posted papers and peoples answers have simply been "I disagree". In return no one has made a scientific argument against my evidence. These papers are published by excellent scientific bodies, not by the UN.

So why what evidence do you have to actually counter mine?

Also just to add, I'm a zoologist, I am actually studying northward migration of species. As I said, did the UN arrange for that too?

Edited December 18, 2008 by Mattshark

[Mr Supertypo]

how does global warming explain the increase of the general temperature on the solar system?

[Michelle]

Sorry fella, but I have posted scientific evidence which has been dismissed with out due reasoning or even acknowledgement. I have posted papers and peoples answers have simply been "I disagree". In return no one has made a scientific argument against my evidence. These papers are published by excellent scientific bodies, not by the UN.

So why what evidence do you have to actually counter mine?

Also just to add, I'm a zoologist, I am actually studying northward migration of species. As I said, did the UN arrange for that too?

Matt, a lot of the times people are arguing, not that it isn't happening, but whether man has had as big an impact on it as the hype that's being pushed. We can agree that the environment has been used and abused shamelessly, but is any of what is being proposed by the talking heads actually going to do any good in the long run or is it a natural cycle that would've happened regardless.

They are putting unrealistic expectations on industry and people, in too short a time, and causing a needless panic.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Michelle

[Mattshark]

how does global warming explain the increase of the general temperature on the solar system?

I covered that earlier in the topic, general the solar warming is actually a myth.

[Mattshark]

Matt, a lot of the times people are arguing, not that it isn't happening, but whether man has had as big an impact on it as the hype that's being pushed. We can agree that the environment has been used and abused shamelessly, but is any of what is being proposed by the talking heads actually going to do any good in the long run or is it a natural cycle that would've happened regardless.

They are putting unrealistic expectations on industry and people, in too short a time, and causing a needless panic.

Yes but I am asking for people to back that up. No one has. They have just simply dismissed it.

Industry can sort its self out, the did it for all the other problems we have had to change for, notably asbestos.

The problem is we almost certainly do not have most time and the speed and rate of change are way off natural cycles, especially when most of the data is saying we should be getting colder.

There is no point in panicking, but not doing anything or ignoring it is just stupid.

And from what I have seen a lot of people who argue against it can't tell the difference between climate and weather.

[Mr Supertypo]

I covered that earlier in the topic, general the solar warming is actually a myth.

I though that was confirmed also by the probes.

But ok I may be wrong.....

[keithisco]

I though that was confirmed also by the probes.

But ok I may be wrong.....

But ok I may be wrong.....

You have finally got it!

The biggest paid climatologists on this planet are paid by.....OIL/COAL/GAS companies!! Dont be so naïve. The real money is in DEBUNKING GW, CC, not in doing real research to understand it. You try living on 30.000 bucks a year as a member of the UN Climate Panel then try living on 100,000 bucks a year from one of the big Fossil fuel companies. Who has sold out??? Seriously, WHO HAS

SOLD OUT???

Tell me of one nation that does not recognise that Human Factors have really influenced the climate... this is a challenge, tell me of one. Even the USA and China recognise this now.

[Mattshark]

But ok I may be wrong.....

You have finally got it!

The biggest paid climatologists on this planet are paid by.....OIL/COAL/GAS companies!! Dont be so naïve. The real money is in DEBUNKING GW, CC, not in doing real research to understand it. You try living on 30.000 bucks a year as a member of the UN Climate Panel then try living on 100,000 bucks a year from one of the big Fossil fuel companies. Who has sold out??? Seriously, WHO HAS

SOLD OUT???

Tell me of one nation that does not recognise that Human Factors have really influenced the climate... this is a challenge, tell me of one. Even the USA and China recognise this now.

Plenty of researchers don't even get 30,000.

[Melioth]

Global Warming has always been a theory.

[keithisco]

Global Warming has always been a theory.

Is that it?? Is that your contribution to this debate????? No insight, no research, just the usual knee-jerk reaction to something that is so important but you just cant be bothered to have a REAL opinion???

EVERYTHING in life is "JUST A THEORY" until real scientific method, or experiential knowledge is applied.

[Mattshark]

Global Warming has always been a theory.

No man made global warming is a theory. Global warming is an observed event.

I also suggest you look up the meaning of scientific theory before making such a comment.

[Michelle]

Yes but I am asking for people to back that up. No one has. They have just simply dismissed it.

There is no point in panicking, but not doing anything or ignoring it is just stupid.

Plenty of people have backed it up with links, in other threads, that you don't find acceptable and you've dismissed it.

And like I've said many times, just because someone doesn't believe it doesn't mean they are doing nothing and many of them are neither ignorant or stupid...they simply aren't doing it to the satisfaction or the speed in which the overly frantic MMGW proponents expect while perpetuating their panic.

[Mattshark]

Plenty of people have backed it up with links, in other threads, that you don't find acceptable and you've dismissed it.

And like I've said many times, just because someone doesn't believe it doesn't mean they are doing nothing and many of them are neither ignorant or stupid...they simply aren't doing it to the satisfaction or the speed in which the overly frantic MMGW proponents expect while perpetuating their panic.

No they have not. I have posted scientific papers and articles. In return I have had "globalwarminghoax.com" That is not science. Nor is the minority report which I have read. It contains links to websites and newspaper articles and a flawed mathematical equation by Ferenc Miskolczi and from James Inhofe, who outright lied about NOAA data in a senate speech.

No one has acknowledge the work I have put up, all from scientific sources.