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

DooDahMan
never believed in global warming since i knew about it!

That's the crux of it - anthropogenic global warming requires belief. Belief in a computer model, and an inflated sense of mankind's importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Rafe
The thing is it is a myth that entire solar system is warming up or that Mars has paralleled heating to Earth, it hasn't.[/b]

You seemed to have made up your mind leaving no room for much else.This is fine with me would it not be that this type of behaviour actually slows down progress in general.

Nature and the Royal Society are 2 of the best sources you can get.

There is actually not that much debate with in the scientific community. Every major scientific institution and the vast majority of scientist working in climate affected fields support this.

You do know about standards for doing and publishing a scientific study don't you. Because your comment makes it sound like you have little experience of real scientific literature.

You seem to think very highly of those institutes wich is your right but in my opinion it is much healthier to look at a broader range of sources.Dredimus's first quote in his first post after mine demonstrates quite perfectly why i dont just go with what just the big institutes bring out and claim , i also do not dismiss it point blank.But truth be told that these as you say "prestige" institutes are sometimes far from neutral you see.

I see you refering to those 4 people dredimus quoted as the entire population of that minority report disagreeing with said institutes even while dredimus clearly stated to have quoted 4 people out of 650 from a minority report.this shows "spin" wich is only needed to fortify claims out of uncertainty and or lies ,imo.

You seem to be more worried in proving "your" point right then actual truth wich to me explains the arogance you portrait.

Edited by Rafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
How about reading for a change? those quotes were from the Minority report... and only a few quotes from the 650 that wrote the report... So.. zip it... Mr. Snippy.

I have read the minority report and said why it a joke previously.

It is meaningless quotes, bad written evidence from media sites and one badly calculated paper.

The head of the minority group Jim Inhofe is a liar and has done so in congress on global warming issues and was called out by NOAA for lying about their results.

I have read the report and it is a complete joke.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Just because more people wrote it doesn't mean they are right. After all, in Galileo's time more people thought the sun revolved around the earth.

Actually it had been proven before that by Copernicus. It was just the Catholic Church at the time who had that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
You seem to think very highly of those institutes wich is your right but in my opinion it is much healthier to look at a broader range of sources.Dredimus's first quote in his first post after mine demonstrates quite perfectly why i dont just go with what just the big institutes bring out and claim , i also do not dismiss it point blank.But truth be told that these as you say "prestige" institutes are sometimes far from neutral you see.

I see you refering to those 4 people dredimus quoted as the entire population of that minority report disagreeing with said institutes even while dredimus clearly stated to have quoted 4 people out of 650 from a minority report.this shows "spin" wich is only needed to fortify claims out of uncertainty and or lies ,imo.

You seem to be more worried in proving "your" point right then actual truth wich to me explains the arogance you portrait.

650 is a tiny amount of scientists. I have read the report, it is a joke. It is unsubstantiated and it is nonsense. The use Canadafreepress.com as a source. So why could they not produce an actual scientific report?

Why do I trust these institutes? Because I have been at 3 of them I respect the people who work and I have been involved in work which relates directly to this that is why.

What reason do you have for not believing them exactly.

How about the fact that I actually understand the science as it relates directly to my field? How about I get fed of real science being countered with baseless rubbish and your arrogance to just dismiss a scientific paper on the grounds that it shows conclusive evidence of man made global warming? How about people claiming that the weather in their tiny part of the world for a week is evidence against against global warming? How about the fact that I have actually put science up on hear and been countered with baseless opinion?

So if you think it is arrogant for expecting actual science, then yes I am very arrogant.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dredimus

And it goes back to my last post... there has been no actual science on your part. Your "Science" is bits and pieces of certain aspects that fits the agenda you are preaching on. And speaking on "my little tiny part of the world" I travel this country for a living, and its the same every where I have been, and not for "a week" I'm speaking within the realm of the last 5-10 years. Is there a change in climate? Yes, There is. Is it caused by man? No, Its not. The planet we call earth undergoes transformations of many variations with time. YOUR science tells us that.

Edited by Dredimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafe
650 is a tiny amount of scientists.

The amount of scientist in your report was even smaller so what is it excactly that you think you are proving ?

You where the one adding significance to the amount of scientists involved,no one else.

I have read the report, it is a joke. It is unsubstantiated and it is nonsense. The use Canadafreepress.com as a source. So why could they not produce an actual scientific report?

Ok so al those scientist came together and used canadafreepress.com as a source,Or so you claim. But i have seen you try and spin before, i dont find you very credible in the least.

Why do I trust these institutes? Because I have been at 3 of them I respect the people who work and I have been involved in work which relates directly to this that is why.

I see now.Did you also notice the arguments for neutrality or the lack of ? bias,I am seeing it in you now even more then before you stated this.

What reason do you have for not believing them exactly.

Where have i said i do not believe them precisely? You see ,you seem to have made up your mind up on a lot of things claiming them or portraing them as fact that are not essentialy fact.

How about the fact that I actually understand the science as it relates directly to my field? How about I get fed of real science being countered with baseless rubbish and your arrogance to just dismiss a scientific paper on the grounds that it shows conclusive evidence of man made global warming? How about people claiming that the weather in their tiny part of the world for a week is evidence against against global warming? How about the fact that I have actually put science up on hear and been countered with baseless opinion?

So if you think it is arrogant for expecting actual science, then yes I am very arrogant.

You think you are the only one that has a understanding or comprehension around here on this subject? And on top of that you get "fed" real science? The rest is baseless rubish and jibberish? The "Fact" you put real science onto this board only to be countered with rubish?

Yes you are very, extremely arrogant in my opinion.

You seem to be after others' loss and diminution very badly (not successfully mind you).Do you really need to try and validate yourself like that to feel legitimate?

Sir, i think you are a insult to just about anyone.

Arrogance as bad as this does not intimidate me in the least and i have a feeling there are few if any others around here where it does.

I will refrain from derailling this thread in discussing your behaviour any further as i have made my point.That being sad ,good luck and goodbey.

Edited by Rafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRandomGuy
Actually it had been proven before that by Copernicus. It was just the Catholic Church at the time who had that idea.

That is irrelevant to the argument. The point was the fact that during a certain time period, more people thought that the sun revolved around the earth and were wrong.

650 is a tiny amount of scientists. I have read the report, it is a joke. It is unsubstantiated and it is nonsense. The use Canadafreepress.com as a source. So why could they not produce an actual scientific report?

Why do I trust these institutes? Because I have been at 3 of them I respect the people who work and I have been involved in work which relates directly to this that is why.

What reason do you have for not believing them exactly.

How about the fact that I actually understand the science as it relates directly to my field? How about I get fed of real science being countered with baseless rubbish and your arrogance to just dismiss a scientific paper on the grounds that it shows conclusive evidence of man made global warming? How about people claiming that the weather in their tiny part of the world for a week is evidence against against global warming? How about the fact that I have actually put science up on hear and been countered with baseless opinion?

So if you think it is arrogant for expecting actual science, then yes I am very arrogant.

Canadafreepress.com? Ok, let's look at some of the articles that are in their database.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2071

Scientist who study climate change have now come up with a new prognosis for the future of our planet: 2007 saw the greatest single drop in temperature in recorded history. The ice age which had been receding for the last few centuries seems to be returning.

Global Cooling is a serious problem. The last time our planet suffered from global cooling, there was also a troubling increase in crop failures, disease and the decline of habitable areas (Greenland and Iceland, for example, had much more vegetation.

Gee, that's a recent article isn't it?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3709

Hm, this one's interesting. It talks about sun patterns that are supposed to not exist according to a few members on this website.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2069

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile—the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Uh-oh, it's about a wide variety of regions, instead of one "little out of the way" region.

Or how about this article?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery052506.htm

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continue--but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300—1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950—1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC— 600 AD).

There it is, black and white. Cooling trend over the last seven years. And it also states the FACT that man is no more in control of it than we are in control of our own birth.

Shark, you only look at evidence that supports your view and ignore everything else. It took me less than 5 minutes to find those articles on the website you and those institutes use. Clearly you do not look for information very thoroughly, otherwise you would have been more informed about the truth of global warming.

Edited by MrRandomGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
That is irrelevant to the argument. The point was the fact that during a certain time period, more people thought that the sun revolved around the earth and were wrong.

Canadafreepress.com? Ok, let's look at some of the articles that are in their database.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2071

Scientist who study climate change have now come up with a new prognosis for the future of our planet: 2007 saw the greatest single drop in temperature in recorded history. The ice age which had been receding for the last few centuries seems to be returning.

Global Cooling is a serious problem. The last time our planet suffered from global cooling, there was also a troubling increase in crop failures, disease and the decline of habitable areas (Greenland and Iceland, for example, had much more vegetation.

Gee, that's a recent article isn't it?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3709

Hm, this one's interesting. It talks about sun patterns that are supposed to not exist according to a few members on this website.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2069

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile—the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Uh-oh, it's about a wide variety of regions, instead of one "little out of the way" region.

Or how about this article?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery052506.htm

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continue--but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300—1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950—1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC— 600 AD).

There it is, black and white. Cooling trend over the last seven years. And it also states the FACT that man is no more in control of it than we are in control of our own birth.

Shark, you only look at evidence that supports your view and ignore everything else. It took me less than 5 minutes to find those articles on the website you and those institutes use. Clearly you do not look for information very thoroughly, otherwise you would have been more informed about the truth of global warming.

My point was actually that Canadafreepress.com is not a good source for a science based argument and it would not be acceptable as scientific evidence. (I was criticising the minority report for using it).

My point about people confusing weather with climate was someone using the average weather in their area last summer as evidence against global warming, that is is not a valid argument.

There is no direct 7 year decline, it has gone up and down a bit and it is slightly lower than 1998 (the current record) and last year was one of the ten warmest years ever recorded. However there is still very much a upward curve (slight up and downs are expected rather than direct continuous warming).

The evidence I was using was actual scientific journal articles and from more accessible science magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRandomGuy
My point was actually that Canadafreepress.com is not a good source for a science based argument and it would not be acceptable as scientific evidence. (I was criticising the minority report for using it).

My point about people confusing weather with climate was someone using the average weather in their area last summer as evidence against global warming, that is is not a valid argument.

There is no direct 7 year decline, it has gone up and down a bit and it is slightly lower than 1998 (the current record) and last year was one of the ten warmest years ever recorded. However there is still very much a upward curve (slight up and downs are expected rather than direct continuous warming).

The evidence I was using was actual scientific journal articles and from more accessible science magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American.

Wow, I completely misread your post. My apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
The amount of scientist in your report was even smaller so what is it excactly that you think you are proving ?

You where the one adding significance to the amount of scientists involved,no one else.

Well there is no list of scientists who believe we are responsible for global warming because it is there is not a huge debate amongst the vast majority of scientists

Ok so al those scientist came together and used canadafreepress.com as a source,Or so you claim. But i have seen you try and spin before, i dont find you very credible in the least.

Why because I asked for you to actually use some science to counter me? Have you read the minority report? It is completely lacking in science.

I see now.Did you also notice the arguments for neutrality or the lack of ? bias,I am seeing it in you now even more then before you stated this.
I used scientific papers. If we are going to discuss science then there is no better source for scientific material.

Where have i said i do not believe them precisely? You see ,you seem to have made up your mind up on a lot of things claiming them or portraing them as fact that are not essentialy fact.

Science is not about finding facts. It is about evidence. You start off with facts and work from there.

I saw your comments about the paper and it suggests to me that you have dismissed the paper groundlessly and that you do not understand that scietific papers are not a matter of putting your opinion across, it is an analysis of evidence.

You think you are the only one that has a understanding or comprehension around here on this subject? And on top of that you get "fed" real science? The rest is baseless rubish and jibberish? The "Fact" you put real science onto this board only to be countered with rubish?

I think it is fair to ask for science when talking about science.

Yes you are very, extremely arrogant in my opinion.

You seem to be after others' loss and diminution very badly (not successfully mind you).Do you really need to try and validate yourself like that to feel legitimate?

Sir, i think you are a insult to just about anyone.

Arrogance as bad as this does not intimidate me in the least and i have a feeling there are few if any others around here where it does.

I will refrain from derailling this thread in discussing your behaviour any further as i have made my point.That being sad ,good luck and goodbey.

No, I just don't like such things being touted as science. I'm more than happy to change my mind with appropriate evidence, but I'd expect a scientific source. If that offends you, well sorry.

Wow, I completely misread your post. My apologies.

No problem mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafe
Well there is no list of scientists who believe we are responsible for global warming because it is there is not a huge debate amongst the vast majority of scientists

Why because I asked for you to actually use some science to counter me? Have you read the minority report? It is completely lacking in science.

I used scientific papers. If we are going to discuss science then there is no better source for scientific material.

Science is not about finding facts. It is about evidence. You start off with facts and work from there.

I saw your comments about the paper and it suggests to me that you have dismissed the paper groundlessly and that you do not understand that scietific papers are not a matter of putting your opinion across, it is an analysis of evidence.

I think it is fair to ask for science when talking about science.

Yes you are very, extremely arrogant in my opinion.

You seem to be after others' loss and diminution very badly (not successfully mind you).Do you really need to try and validate yourself like that to feel legitimate?

Sir, i think you are a insult to just about anyone.

Arrogance as bad as this does not intimidate me in the least and i have a feeling there are few if any others around here where it does.

I will refrain from derailling this thread in discussing your behaviour any further as i have made my point.That being sad ,good luck and goodbey.

No, I just don't like such things being touted as science. I'm more than happy to change my mind with appropriate evidence, but I'd expect a scientific source. If that offends you, well sorry.

No problem mate.

I could go on and on with this conversation if i where so inclined especially after the way you dodged most of my post as subtle as you did,kudos. But i am not going to,that is why i said "goodbey" to you (not this thread no'r this board) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mattshark
I could go on and on with this conversation if i where so inclined especially after the way you dodged most of my post as subtle as you did,kudos. But i am not going to,that is why i said "goodbey" to you (not this thread no'r this board) .

I never dodged anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRandomGuy
I never dodged anything.

Kind of. My post about the Time Magazine article was ignored. Yeah, it's not scientific, but Time is a well respected magazine that sometimes relies on science. And you can easily see from the articles that Time is producing right now that they believe in the man causing global warming myth.

Edited by MrRandomGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Kind of. My post about the Time Magazine article was ignored. Yeah, it's not scientific, but Time is a well respected magazine that sometimes relies on science. And you can easily see from the articles that Time is producing right now that they believe in the man causing global warming myth.

I genuinely never saw that (and I'm not sure where it is)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRandomGuy
I genuinely never saw that (and I'm not sure where it is)!

Oh, ok. Well it's only a page back from this one. I'll quote it for you.

I've read through this thread, and noticed a lot of science is put into it. Well, I don't need science to debunk global warming. It's actually pretty simple.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...44914-2,00.html

I would suggest you read the entire article. I'm going to pull bits and pieces of it. By the way, this is an article around 30 years ago that had a lot of hype about global cooling.

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

So now let's have a quick overview of what the extremists said then.

1. The earth was getting colder for the past three decades.

2. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

3. The weather could cause another ice age

4. Man is responsible because of farming (lol) and fuel burning.

Now if we apply those 4 concepts and change it to fit global warming, an interesting thing happens.

1. The earth is getting warmer for the past three decades.

2. The trend shows no indication of reversing.

4. This weather could cause (insert whatever disasters are here, oceans rising, mass flooding, etc.)

5. Man is responsible because of fuel burning.

Now why on earth should we believe in global warming when scientists were worried 30 years ago about global cooling and used the same primary catalyst - man?

The truth is simple. Yes global warming is real, just like global cooling is real. However, it is not caused by humans and it cannot be prevented by humans. It doesn't hurt to do your part for the environment, but please do it for the right reasons. Virtually all scientists who say global warming is caused by humans have something to gain politically and therefore their results are skewed to benefit their political agenda, whatever it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Oh, ok. Well it's only a page back from this one. I'll quote it for you.

Ah cheers.

I know about the global cooling thing it however was dismissed through science pretty quickly.

This paper was released the same year in the journal Science.

Global Cooling?

The paper points the the global cooling idea was based on short term small area readings rather than a global one and that we are going to get hotter while pointing out warming already observed in the southern hemisphere.

This was followed by Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? in 1975. This has been going on for a while now and we are still seeing read global temperatures and biological and climatological effects of warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cerberusxp
You refute my articles with a book review from a right wing think tank?

You think climatologist didn't already take into account natural changes?

So are you going to both to post some science?

Science? I have, you do not seem to accept it though. You have not put forth any hard science. Just bits and pieces that conveniently leaves out over 20 points of refutable evidence.

By the way you had to go out and buy a snow shovel recently yes?

Show me 1 just 1 shred of evidence that our atmosphere acts as a heat pump!

You cannot, because it does not!

Peer review in the scientific community is gravely flawed. Those who happen to agree with the research and views of the elites are more apt to be accepted, others are cast out due to bias or because they step on one an others toes.

Universal and free access to knowledge has been our only protection against this type of intellectual tyranny too frequently purported as absolute authority and falsely represented as consensus.

Edited by cerberusxp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cerberusxp

The founder of this web site started the "THE WEATHER CHANNEL"

Here is a web site that is all science and all about climate change.

ICECAP

Especially check out the FAQ & MYTH section

ICECAP HOME PAGE

I'm right end of story!

Edited by cerberusxp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Ah cheers.

I know about the global cooling thing it however was dismissed through science pretty quickly.

This paper was released the same year in the journal Science.

Global Cooling?

The paper points the the global cooling idea was based on short term small area readings rather than a global one and that we are going to get hotter while pointing out warming already observed in the southern hemisphere.

This was followed by Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? in 1975. This has been going on for a while now and we are still seeing read global temperatures and biological and climatological effects of warming.

What I have heard is that well it is getting warmer on one side of the arctic or antarctic the other side is getting cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cerberusxp

Yes and that has to do with orbit. These are all natural occurrences.

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.