Do GlobalWarming/Cooling nutjobs think we're stupid?

Question

These jackasses run around saying CO2 is bad. I'm not stupid. Plants use CO2 to make food. And cars are not bad. Volcanos do ALOT more damage.

The planet goes thru ice ages and warm ages. We know this. Humans need to adapt but that doesn't mean we should live in caves. The earth will always be here. We won't.

Are these wackos self-centered, niave, stupid or profitting from carbon creditd (like Al Gore)?

Answer 1

You seem to have a few of your facts mixed up...

And yes, I do think you are stupid.

Answer 2

Even expertst are divided about global warming. Read the article below.The Earth's climate will change over time for reasons independent of man's pollution.

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Answer 3

Yes.  We do think you are stupid.

Answer 4

u get it ,Al gore want to be in future USApresdant, and the life willend when GADdecidethat

Answer 5

Lets think.  Do you know that the monsoons in India and Bangladesh depend on glaciers in the Himalayas?  Those glaciers have been around for a long time and volcanoes only increased them (you knew, of course, that volcanoes lower the temperature, right?).  If the glaciers melt much more, there will not be a monsoon season.  Therefore, no crops.  And no food.  That's more than a billion people who will die of starvation.  Oh. And it will affect your income, food, resources as well and your children as well.

Yes, plants use C02.  But if you are cutting down the plants to feed your needs, there aren't as many.

Answer 6

Wacko nutjob?  Can we just cut the rant down to size by using the 2 insults together as one?  C'mon.

I've little evidence of any stupidity on your part except as expressed by this question.  But my credentials per your question: I'm not particularly self-centered.  I'm a wife-mother-volunteer who also works with the public to educate and improve local natural resources.  Stupid?  I was in the top 20% of my graduating high school class and made it through college.  Plus I raised both children to adulthood.  I do earn my income doing something I love, but I could be earning substantially more elsewhere working with the private sector, so I'm not profitting, either.

CO2 isn't bad.  But too much of a good thing, is.

Lots of links if you want 'em.  Lots.

Answer 7

now you get it. Liberals think we are stupid and their solution is the only way, with no debate whatsoever and if you disagree they will attack you

Answer 8

Although some of what you say may be true, does it not concern you that the global temperature increased more than a degree C over the last 100 years? You may attribute that to the rewarming from the ice age, but the last ice age was more than 10000 years ago. You can't argue that this recent jump in heat has nothing to do with us...

A car is not as harmful to the atmosphere as a volcano, no. But a billion cars emiting methane, CO2, etc. That might make a difference. And if you wanted to make a point, why didn't you say forest fires/deforestation, which makes a much bigger impact.

CO2 is not "bad" as much as any other inorganic compound can be "bad", but we cannot use it. We rely on plants to filter it out of our atmosphere through carbon fixation. And yet, it can be harmful if built up (not even talking about CO2 poisoning here), as blankets our atmosphere and traps heat.

Being conscious about your environmental footprint does not translate into living in caves. Just be thoughtful for a second; as you said, we won't be here to see the worst of our pollution, it will be our descendants. Try to respect your heritage, and at least be aware of the problems our generation is causing.

But you know what, maybe I'm too much of a "niave", stupid Al Gore lover to see your side of this arguement. Oh well, my loss.