Consider this on Global Warming...?

Question

Lets say Global Warming isn't real....Wouldn't you agree that we should still be trying to cut emissions and be as energy efficent as possible. I think even if it's all made up, we should still be trying to find renewable energy sources, perfecting the Fuel-Cell, and moving away from petroleum based fuels. Do you agree? Can't we at least come together on that?

Answer 1

I completely agree. can't agree more. but if global warming isn't real, whats making the ice caps melt? tearing holes in the o-zone, etc?

Answer 2

Read #6

The theory of man-made global warming is false.  Rather than just giving evidence proving that global warming is based on misrepresented evidence I will directly address the points made by global warming scientists.  If you do not plan on reading my post (I know it is long) I would ask you to watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...  this video makes many of the points I will be making.  Now I will list the points that global warming scientists make: 1. CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. 2.  The IPCC has produced a report on the issue.  3. Computer models predict what we are saying.  4. There is a scientific consensus on the issue/all major scientists agree on man-made global warming/the only people who disagree are paid by the oil companies.  5. Major Politicians, CEO’s, scientists, etc agree.  6.  Even if there is a chance that global warming is real we should do everything we can, it can’t hurt.

1.  This is the main point made by global warming scientists. Data does in fact show that temperature and CO2 are correlated, however the nature of the correlation has been overlooked.  Global warming scientists say that an increase of CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, but this is not the case; a rise in global temperatures causes a rise in CO2.  Using the same graph featured in “An Inconvenient Truth”, (the graph where Al Gore goes up on the cherry picker, the data from the ice core), the graph clearly shows a lag in CO2 as compared to global temperature.  Temperature starts to go up 800 years before CO2 begins to rise.  This happens because of the oceans.  CO2 released by natural or man-made sources is mostly absorbed into the ocean, when the global temperature raises it gradually increases the ocean temperature which releases CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere.  Also most of the warming occurred before 1940 when industrialization was not as great.  One would believe that if global warming is tied to CO2 it would accelerate in the post WWII period, but it didn’t.  The globe actually cooled for 4 decades after WWII, when industrialization was the greatest.  Now take a look at our atmosphere as it relates to greenhouse gasses.  CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere, a very small amount of our atmosphere.  Other greenhouse gasses like water vapor make up 1-4% of the atmosphere.  Now take a look at where CO2 comes from, all human activity combined produces 6.5Gt of CO2 per year.  Volcanoes alone match that number.  All animals combined (meaning respiration, decomposition, etc) produce 150Gt of CO2.  So humans produce a very small amount of CO2 which itself makes up a very small amount of our atmosphere.  Water vapor is acknowledged to be the major greenhouse gas, and all of that is produced via evaporation (i.e. naturally).  

I know some of you may be thinking “ha, he acknowledges the greenhouse effect.”  To you I ask you to read a science textbook, the greenhouse effect is real and plays a very important role in maintaining a livable temperature on the earth.  Global warming scientists cite the greenhouse effect via our emission CO2 as the source of global warming.  They are disproved by their own words.  As I said before the greenhouse effect is real and causes heat to become trapped in the troposphere which warms the earth.  So if human emission of CO2 is to be blamed we would expect the troposphere to be warming and thus increasing the surface temperature (the temperature cited on global warming graphs) of the earth but look for yourself: http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... the troposphere is actually cooling, only the surface temperature is rising.  This warming is not due to the greenhouse effect it is due to the sun.

It makes sense, the sun is the ultimate source of all of our energy.  Studies have shown that the effect of sunspots much more closely correlates to the rise in temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunsp... http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The other planets in our solar system are also warming. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ma...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

All this data points to the sun as the source for our current warming, and what about those ice core studies?  http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

Here are the results of the ice core studies they show a very cyclic effect in regard to global temperatures.  The global warming crowd also argues that weather disturbances will become more likely but the actual numbers show no increase.  Oh and the glaciers, they have retreated and advanced every year since the earth began, they melt in the summer and build up in the winter.

2.  The IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/, is the main source of data for those in support of global warming, and has been very controversial.  In a prior report a graph, the so called “hockey stick” graph, was shown to be forged.  A reprint of the report had to be issued but the damage was done.  The fake graph was the main point made in the report, all data rested on its accuracy.  When an independent review took place the data used to make the graph was shown to be made up, that’s a fact even the IPCC admitted the fraud.  Now allegations have been made that the IPCC has censored the report and refused to take scientists names off the contributors list.  Contributing scientists have alleged that their passages, which were critical of man-made global warming, were taken out of the report.  15 passages in all are alleged to have been cut from the report.  Scientists have also said that their names are on the contributors list even though they left the committee after finding their objections to global warming were ignored.  These scientists left the committee but the IPCC refused to take their names off the contributors list so that they can claim all major scientists agree with them.  The IPCC is a heavily partisan committee that went into session fully knowing that their report would be in favor of global warming, any scientist who disagreed was censored.

3.  Computer models are predictions; they are based on hundreds of assumptions.  If even one assumption is wrong the whole model is incorrect.  Every computer model is based off the assumption that man is the main cause of global warming, which if you’ve read the above paragraphs, should be questioned.  Another disparity occurs in the amount of CO2 released, most models have two times the amount of CO2 being released than is actually seen.  You may wonder why these programmers are being so bold with their outrageous assumptions; the fact is these models predict the climate 50 to 100 years from now.  These programmers will be retired or dead before their models can be proven accurate or inaccurate.

4. This is the most blatant lie made by the global warming crowd; there is no scientific consensus on this issue.  Here are the names of over 17,000 scientists who disagree.  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm  This lie of scientific consensus is purely propaganda meant to make you believe without evidence.  Consider for a second, what does scientific consensus mean?  This may sound silly but imagine that all the scientific community got together and decided that humans can fly unassisted, does this mean it’s true, no.  Science is not politics, issues are not voted on, and truth is not based on which outcome is most accepted, if it was we would be the center of the universe not to mention the earth would be flat.  Those were the scientific consensus of the time, but experimentation has proved them to be wrong.

5.  A recent poll has shown that only 8% of the population believes that global warming is not man-made.  Everyone else believes global warming is man-made and this will affect the world either in this generation or sometime soon.  This accounts for the support of politicians and CEO’s.  Politicians see their constituents believe global warming and the politician jumps on the global warming band-wagon to get votes.  CEO’s and presidents of corporations also see the poll data and try and get customers by pledging their support.  Price differences between stores are often not that great, so leaders of these corporations want to gain customers based on “morals.”  Scientists love the global warming hype; more and more funding is being poured into various institutions for scientists to use.  Scientists find applying for grants easier with this increase in money.  Scientists can get media face time and get studies published before moving on to their real interests.  You may wonder why so many ordinary people believe in global warming even though all the evidence disagrees.  The fact is global warming dissenters are ignored.  The media airs only stories in support of global warming; many people don’t even know that there is a legitimate opposition to global warming.  And the claim that the only people who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is unfounded, its mudslinging.  That claim is just as founded as the claim that all those in support of global warming are paid by the major environmental conservation companies.  

The global cooling scare can show where this is current scare will take us.  If you don’t remember this scare I’ll explain.  In 1974 scientists were convinced that the globe was cooling so fast that we would soon enter a new ice age.  The media portrayed it as fact, committees were put together and came out with the global cooling conclusion, a scientific consensus was called.  Ordinary people were scared that the world would end and what happened?  We now have global warming a 180 from the ice age we were supposed to enter.  Global warming is the exact same scare as global cooling.  You’d think that people would have acknowledged global climate cycles by now.  

6.  This claim has been made more popular recently; it’s called the preventative principle.  This may seem to be the end all global warming argument.  However this statement just conveys ignorance.  You, in your rich country in your house or apartment and on your computer, will not be affected by the precautionary principle.  These changes to alternate energy would apply worldwide, and it is a fact that these energy options are currently much more expensive than coal and oil.  Take Africa for example, a continent made up of mainly third world countries.  How do you expect the poorest people in the world to ignore their coal and gas resources in favor of very expensive alternate energies?  They can not afford it but the UN via the IPCC expects them to switch over.  Also the US alone spends over 4 billion dollars on global warming research, that money could be much better used to promote any number of charity programs.  

If you read my post or watched the video you should at least have been prompted to take a fresh look at global warming as an unproven theory.  It is no lie I do not believe in man-made global warming, my purpose in writing this is not to completely convince you global warming is false.  I wrote this to wake people up from blindly following the global warming crowd.  I urge you to look at global warming and take in consideration arguments made by scientists who oppose global warming.  Your time, vote, money, and liberties are being taken in the name of global warming.  

Start with these links:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sci...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Answer 3

I completely agree with you. This needs to be done, but it won't as long as Bush is in office because he and his family have too much invested in fuel. With their own company and all. Changing the fuel sources would mean less money in his bank for the current fuel. Technology keeps getting so much better over time, and I think some genius should figure out a way to run vehicles on water or battery powered only. That wouldn't polute at all, and it would be so much cheaper on the American citizens. Maybe the next president will do something about it, and maybe the American people tht voted for Bush in the first place will think more before they vote for an idiot. I hope Hilary Clinton is the next president! he would do a lot of good for all of us and the country! Every country but ours is taking measures to help stop global warming. Ours refuses to do it. All foreign made vehicles have had emissions changes, but not US manufactured vehicles.

Answer 4

exactly! Even though a lot of people don't agree with global warming, what is wrong with still looking for energy alternatives. The energy sources we have now will not last forever.

Answer 5

I think we should but only to the point that it does not harm the economy or other countries economies.  Environmentalist refuse to let many third world countries industrialize or use there  own resources.  Why should we prevent their industrialize if it will help their poor starving people?

Answer 6

I couldn't have said it any better.

Answer 7

Yeah I do think we could try to save on that stuff.

  Finding new ways of getting engery with out using stuff that we gotta put into are air.

- still dont belive in global warming.

Answer 8

Michele (above) worries the greens would let millions die from poverty brought about by the economic hardship of "going green."

Very few of these global warming deniers worry about the billions who will die from starvation and flooding brought about by our unchecked greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 9

I can't say it any better than that. Why wouldn't someone agree?

Answer 10

You're right, of course.  But you have to realize there are two kinds of people out there who doubt global warming.  Some are people who have been confused by all the misinformation and haven't had a chance to sort out the facts from the fiction.

The other group are those spreading the misinformation--from religious nuts to specialinterests to those who have tried to turn science (and not just this topic) into a political issue (e.g. George Bush,e tc.).  Some are just screwballs--but some (like the oil companies) are oposing and confusing the issue precicely to delay/derail exactly the kinds of changes you suggest.

Answer 11

Agreed to a point.   I often feel that the Green heads would gladly let millions Die or be out of work or erase man from the planet all together.   During the 60's and seventies (long before me)  people made strides to make things better through the Market---Let the Market drive the changes.   I have at home a very efficiant VW 40-45 MPG diesel rabbit.   I bought it for several reasons AND I AM A Conservative!   I would also by more efficient Bulbs and stuff as well. What I do not want is LAWS making me do it.   I do not want the UN taxing me and calling MY country the Bad Guy.

Answer 12

i completely agree, if more people would of done that from the start then we wouldnt  be having this problem. buut considering the fact that global warming is happening so fast and yet we refuse to do anything about it, i dont know what its gonna take to wake people up, especially bush, he's hporrible, he can cut power at a certain time and do something about this but he doesnt.

Answer 13

First of all, global warming IS real according to the rules of science which state that when reaches a statistical level of certainty regarding empirical research, one can say that something is true (or at least true at this time).  What makes science different from religion is that science admits it is not 100% infallible, and that at some future time things may prove not to be true that appear to be--even if that future is billions of years from now.  But to your point, scientists and engineers have been warning about fossil fuel depletion long before the idea of global warming existed.  Non-renewable means you use it, you lose it.  Who wouldn't rather be able to keep something beneficial that use it up? For example, if there was a cure for a disease that came in doses that once used, would disappear, or a different cure for the same disease that would be limitless, which would any reasonable person or society choose to use?

Answer 14

So, we need to make up big fairy-tales to get people to care about the environment?

That's my biggest gripe with this tripe.  We have legitimate reasons to conserve and explore alternatives, but Al Gore, et al, are out making environmentalists look retarded.