Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

The global warming lie

196 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MID
I guess that depends on what is defined as being affected. I personally see human influence as a small perturbation on top of the Earth's climate cycle, but then again, I have no idea what I am talking about ;)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Bade...I'll tell you what:

I agree with you...in respect to the small perturbation.

The degree of that small perturbation is the question.

This argument will be on going until the cow's come home, it seems!

One can find "evidence" for both sides of the argument all over the place. I don't think the evidence for MMGW is effective, and I am certain some of it's fabricated. On the other hand, some proponents of the contrary insert blatant innacuracies into their statements, which cloud the facts to a profound degree and make looking at things critically and logically all the more difficult...

I thought this concern ended when Al Gore's "Live Earth" bombed a while ago...but apparently not.

I actually read an article the other day claiming that 2008 was the warmest year on record! The year's not even done, and the fact is, 2007 and 2008 have both shown a decided cooling trend globally!

The "information" is not information at all...it seems.

I sometimes wonder why I bother to post in these threads.

I have seen 9 inches of snow and sleet and such, and record low temperatures here in the mid-atlantic region of the U.S. this year...since NOV 20....this fall! The earliest snowfall in decades. Yet, some folks are going to tell me that this is a result of man-made global warming!

I think the evidence is clear as to the motivations behind this stuff. Just as the motivations behind the 1970's craze of an impending ice age were clear. Neither concept has any real science to back it up, and we of course now realize, somehat humorously, that the 1970's craze was silly.

I have the strangest suspicion that a couple decades from now, we'll be looking at this global warming hysteria with a similarly humorous vision....

The planet, I think, doesn't care what we think, nor does it care what we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
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.

Matt, with all due respect, MMGW is an hypothesis, not a theory.

Further, it is a weak hypothesis.

Valid (as an hypothesis)?

Sure.

Theory, absolutely not.

Global warming is an observed and repeated scientific fact. This is beyond the scientifically theoretical.

The problem with MMGW is that for some reason, it's been advanced to the level of scientific fact, completely bypassing it's theoretical establishment.

MMGW is not a theory. It hasn't come close to qualifying as a theory in science. The fact that it's being pushed as a fact is a travesty of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Matt, with all due respect, MMGW is an hypothesis, not a theory.

Further, it is a weak hypothesis.

Valid (as an hypothesis)?

Sure.

Theory, absolutely not.

Global warming is an observed and repeated scientific fact. This is beyond the scientifically theoretical.

The problem with MMGW is that for some reason, it's been advanced to the level of scientific fact, completely bypassing it's theoretical establishment.

MMGW is not a theory. It hasn't come close to qualifying as a theory in science. The fact that it's being pushed as a fact is a travesty of science.

I would have to disagree with you MID as would many climatology departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leah G.
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.

http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/?folio=68

Will you acknowledge the Old Farmer's Almanac? I realize you are a smart person and know what you are talking about but personally I think we are on the down side of the warming and I hope I'm wrong. I think we have already done the damage and the Earth will heal herself even if the human species has to become extinct. As individuals have no power to change anything, collectively as a group we stand a better chance but nothing will be accomplished if people don't have a singular goal, survival. If we are headed for an ice age, as I hope we are not, we need to learn all the old ways of doing things to survive. If I'm right, it will hit hard and fast. Remember the Mamoth found with grass in his digestive tract? At this point, I'm not sure it matters as much how it happened, only that it did and we are in big trouble and need to plan ahead better and faster than ever before.

Whether man made or it's an Earth cycle, we are always going one way or the other.

Now, don't chop off my head! :rolleyes:

Edited by Hatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitalalmanac/2009/?folio=68

Will you acknowledge the Old Farmer's Almanac? I realize you are a smart person and know what you are talking about but personally I think we are on the down side of the warming and I hope I'm wrong. I think we have already done the damage and the Earth will heal herself even if the human species has to become extinct. As individuals have no power to change anything, collectively as a group we stand a better chance but nothing will be accomplished if people don't have a singular goal, survival. If we are headed for an ice age, as I hope we are not, we need to learn all the old ways of doing things to survive. If I'm right, it will hit hard and fast. Remember the Mamoth found with grass in his digestive tract? At this point, I'm not sure it matters as much how it happened, only that it did and we are in big trouble and need to plan ahead better and faster than ever before.

Whether man made or it's an Earth cycle, we are always going one way or the other.

Now, don't chop off my head! :rolleyes:

I'm not going to chop off your head. I would just point out that the almanac you have post has used nothing but US temperatures. I personally have no idea about the old farmers almanac. I don't disagree that the earth will return to other states in the future. But I also know people who work on this both in my field and in climatology.

Though since mammoths where grass eaters it is not surprising one had grass in its digestive tract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronGhost
I think the evidence is clear as to the motivations behind this stuff. Just as the motivations behind the 1970's craze of an impending ice age were clear. Neither concept has any real science to back it up, and we of course now realize, somehat humorously, that the 1970's craze was silly.

I have the strangest suspicion that a couple decades from now, we'll be looking at this global warming hysteria with a similarly humorous vision....

I wish people would stop talking about the so-called "Global Cooling "Craze" of the 1970s. This absolutely never happened. There never was a cooling "craze" in the '70s -- I was alive and well and reading the newspaper every day during that decade -- and I'll tell you -- there never was a global cooling craze.

In fact, the majority of climate scientists then were pretty much predicting global warming then -- just like they are today.

But don't take my word for it -- here's a study which shows that there never was a 70s global cooling craze. This is an excerpt, with link to the full report below:

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). But perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time, each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions, was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leah G.
I wish people would stop talking about the so-called "Global Cooling "Craze" of the 1970s. This absolutely never happened. There never was a cooling "craze" in the '70s -- I was alive and well and reading the newspaper every day during that decade -- and I'll tell you -- there never was a global cooling craze.

In fact, the majority of climate scientists then were pretty much predicting global warming then -- just like they are today.

But don't take my word for it -- here's a study which shows that there never was a 70s global cooling craze. This is an excerpt, with link to the full report below:

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then. The research enterprise that grew in response to the questions articulated by Bryson and others, while considering the forces responsible for cooling, quickly converged on the view that greenhouse warming was likely to dominate on time scales significant to human societies (Charney et al. 1979). But perhaps more important than demonstrating that the global cooling myth is wrong, this review shows the remarkable way in which the individual threads of climate science of the time, each group of researchers pursuing their own set of questions, was quickly woven into the integrated tapestry that created the basis for climate science as we know it today.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf.

Interesting, the way I remember it, they were talking about global warming leading to an ice age. It was a long-long time ago, granted. That was why I was so excited to see the movie, Day After Tomorrow, it was just as they said it was going to be except faster. I personally don't think the movie is that far off. Hope it is, hope I'm wrong. Gosh, I'm suddenly feeling very old, I was an adult back then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Interesting, the way I remember it, they were talking about global warming leading to an ice age. It was a long-long time ago, granted. That was why I was so excited to see the movie, Day After Tomorrow, it was just as they said it was going to be except faster. I personally don't think the movie is that far off. Hope it is, hope I'm wrong. Gosh, I'm suddenly feeling very old, I was an adult back then!

It can all get confusing with bit of that. Global warming has also been predicted to send parts of Europe in to an ice age or at least far colder through shifting the gulf stream.

Thankfully I don't think It will get that cold that quickly if it does (The UK is so equipped for snow as it is)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4est4

has anyone seen an inconvenient truth? if people would be more open minded and try to learn as much from both sides of topics it might be easier for people to get it right. earth does go through cycles, but that is not what climate change is, and when the idea started out it was not accepted by the elite media, not until recently when people started wanting to 'go green'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
I would have to disagree with you MID as would many climatology departments.

One of my points!

You will be able to find support for it easily. You'll also be able to find contrary opinions.

This would appear to shore up the hypothetical nature of the claim.

Personally, I look at this thing with a full realization of the scope and scale of the planet Earth, and a full realization of humanity's self-importance, and it's attempts to inflate it, and people's willful acceptance of hype and media-induced doom and gloom.

I am also fully cognizant of the fact that this world is a living, breathing thing which has established very regular patterns for eons vis-a-vis cooling and heating. This regularity has not been disrupted by anything so small as the life on the surface of this planet.

The human presence on this planet is sub-microscopic. Thus, the perceptions from that scale can see the tiny, and because of intelligence, is often seen as hugely significant. Becuase of ego, it is often inflated into things like what we're seeing at present.

But the planet, I think, cares not one thing about humanity. It simply does what it does, and I further think that the planet, were it conscious, would laugh at such discussion as we're having now.

The thunderstorm will form under the appropriate convective conditions, whether we like it or not. Or it may not form at all, and there is no force of humanity that can change that one bit. We can't make them happen, and we can't stop them from happening...no matter what we do.

The argument can go around in circles, has done so, and will likely continue to do so for years. All the while, Mother Earth will simply be what she is...and one day, we'll all feel dumb, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
I wish people would stop talking about the so-called "Global Cooling "Craze" of the 1970s. This absolutely never happened. There never was a cooling "craze" in the '70s -- I was alive and well and reading the newspaper every day during that decade -- and I'll tell you -- there never was a global cooling craze.

I guess it depends on where you were or what you read.

I remember it distinctly...and I was most certainly around then.

In fact, the majority of climate scientists then were pretty much predicting global warming then -- just like they are today.

No one was predicting any such thing. Most climatologists fully realized that we were, and had been warming for millenia. The majority fully realize that we are in a warming period, and that it will end.

The only predictions coming out in recent years are that we will continue warming at untenable rates which will render us in several cases doomed in a matter of decades. It's ther basis of those predictions which has come under severe scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbondo
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

In my eyes you are wilfully ignorant.

"Do you think they get money for it?" In many instances, yes my overbearing friend, I do think just that.

"You haven't got a clue", translation: I'm going to force my opinion down everyone's throat until you all accept it as fact. I will be insulting you along the way to make myself sound more intelligent than I really am.

Apparently you think you know me but I don't remember seeing you at any of the "Willfully Ignorant" club meetings.

You can't be for real Dude...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
One of my points!

You will be able to find support for it easily. You'll also be able to find contrary opinions.

This would appear to shore up the hypothetical nature of the claim.

Personally, I look at this thing with a full realization of the scope and scale of the planet Earth, and a full realization of humanity's self-importance, and it's attempts to inflate it, and people's willful acceptance of hype and media-induced doom and gloom.

I am also fully cognizant of the fact that this world is a living, breathing thing which has established very regular patterns for eons vis-a-vis cooling and heating. This regularity has not been disrupted by anything so small as the life on the surface of this planet.

The human presence on this planet is sub-microscopic. Thus, the perceptions from that scale can see the tiny, and because of intelligence, is often seen as hugely significant. Becuase of ego, it is often inflated into things like what we're seeing at present.

But the planet, I think, cares not one thing about humanity. It simply does what it does, and I further think that the planet, were it conscious, would laugh at such discussion as we're having now.

The thunderstorm will form under the appropriate convective conditions, whether we like it or not. Or it may not form at all, and there is no force of humanity that can change that one bit. We can't make them happen, and we can't stop them from happening...no matter what we do.

The argument can go around in circles, has done so, and will likely continue to do so for years. All the while, Mother Earth will simply be what she is...and one day, we'll all feel dumb, I think.

So you think an increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution of 35% is sub-microscopic. What about mass deforestation and human driven extinction. How about the effect we have had on the ozone layer? I think that is a very poor and inaccurate point.

Not only that there is evidence of MMGW on every continent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
"Do you think they get money for it?" In many instances, yes my overbearing friend, I do think just that.

"You haven't got a clue", translation: I'm going to force my opinion down everyone's throat until you all accept it as fact. I will be insulting you along the way to make myself sound more intelligent than I really am.

Apparently you think you know me but I don't remember seeing you at any of the "Willfully Ignorant" club meetings.

You can't be for real Dude...

It is just one l in British English, if you are going to comment on spelling at least do so accurately.

I would say you are wrong and slanderous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
I guess it depends on where you were or what you read.

I remember it distinctly...and I was most certainly around then.

No one was predicting any such thing. Most climatologists fully realized that we were, and had been warming for millenia. The majority fully realize that we are in a warming period, and that it will end.

The only predictions coming out in recent years are that we will continue warming at untenable rates which will render us in several cases doomed in a matter of decades. It's ther basis of those predictions which has come under severe scrutiny.

There is a lot saying we should be cooling and that we are not is anomalous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melioth
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.

I have spoken, mortal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
I have spoken, mortal.

Is this like when you spoke about having studied European religious history and you didn't know that Aristotle was Greek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magnatude

Thr problem Matts, is stated in this video:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd4zDknz8z

The Data of 100 years pales in comparison of Billions of years of Cycles that we have no real knowledge of.

I could make up a ton of sheets of statistics, write up lists of numbers and pay me enough money and you will get the data you need, custom tailored to your needs. This is how reliable these pushers of Carbon death are.

The facts are we can see the changes occurring on our other planets I've seen the Mars Icecaps fade, we all have, however its likely they are returning back just as we have returned to cooling.

I'd rather go by what I've seen, and what we have experienced lately in my area of the world than some pushers of paper...created by con-men.

Fine, you can go on believing this money making scam. But I wont.

What are they paying you Matts? Are you one of these con men?

Edited by Magnatude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Thr problem Matts, is stated in this video:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd4zDknz8z

The Data of 100 years pales in comparison of Billions of years of Cycles that we have no real knowledge of.

I could make up a ton of sheets of statistics, write up lists of numbers and pay me enough money and you will get the data you need, custom tailored to your needs. This is how reliable these pushers of Carbon death are.

The facts are we can see the changes occurring on our other planets I've seen the Mars Icecaps fade, we all have, however its likely they are returning back just as we have returned to cooling.

I'd rather go by what I've seen, and what we have experienced lately in my area of the world than some pushers of paper...created by con-men.

Fine, you can go on believing this money making scam. But I wont.

What are they paying you Matts? Are you one of these con men?

You think that climatologists have just ignored historical climate cycles?

And weather is not climate. Two different things so it is pretty irrelevant and to show he still is wrong, look at what Paul McCartney did for his concert in St Petersberg,

And no I'm not being paid, yes it is highly relevant to my work.

And I think I covered the Mars thing, but hey you don't have to pay attention any way

You think local weather is an indicator of global climate :huh:

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

jbondo, Matt I know this is an emotional topic but lets keep it civil and on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snuffypuffer

It's true. Scientists just want our money so they can build giant Bunsen burners and large hadron colliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

Can I just make a comment on the Global Freezing fears in the 1960'5 and 1970's mentioned several times in this thread?

I was also around during these times and the import of the fears was as a result of Nuclear warfare driving us into a "Nuclear Winter". It was not a climatological result of anything else. Nuclear warfare (full scale) would throw quadrillions of tons of sun-blocking materials into the atmosphere that would remain there for several months, circulating around the entire planet so stalling any heating from solar radiation. This would plunge the entire planet into a very quick cooling phase hence the freezing.

This was not my theory or belief by the way so I do not intend to defend it, just mentioned it for historical accuracy.

One good thing that resulted was a reduction in the likelihood of Nuclear War at a time when tensions were very high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShyByNature
:devil: corporations influence + :hmm: phony science + :innocent: government with a worthy cause + :wacko: media = $$$$$$Billions$$$$$$ :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
:devil: corporations influence + :hmm: phony science + :innocent: government with a worthy cause + :wacko: media = $$$$$$Billions$$$$$$ :P

Would these be the companies that have had histories of producing false science to say global warming exists or ones who aren't involved in that?

Or a media who are famous for misrepresentation.

Or maybe Nature and Science, the two most prestigious scientific journals around.

Or maybe NASA, NOAA, CRU, Met Office, NSIDC are all just making things up as they go along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leah G.
Can I just make a comment on the Global Freezing fears in the 1960'5 and 1970's mentioned several times in this thread?

I was also around during these times and the import of the fears was as a result of Nuclear warfare driving us into a "Nuclear Winter". It was not a climatological result of anything else. Nuclear warfare (full scale) would throw quadrillions of tons of sun-blocking materials into the atmosphere that would remain there for several months, circulating around the entire planet so stalling any heating from solar radiation. This would plunge the entire planet into a very quick cooling phase hence the freezing.

This was not my theory or belief by the way so I do not intend to defend it, just mentioned it for historical accuracy.

One good thing that resulted was a reduction in the likelihood of Nuclear War at a time when tensions were very high.

I remember that but they were two seperate issues. Both terrifed me and I did tons of research at the library. I even bought books on both issues that I still have, of course, they are both packed away and I can't remember the exact titles. It's wonderful to have all the information at my finger tips, my my, times have changed. Although, I am having a hard time finding the articles I just read a couple of months ago about this subject. Weird.

I don't blame you for not defending it, this thread got a little scary. I just wanted to let you know that it was an issue, you were right. But there were lots of issues back then and everything was life or death. Still is I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.