Do you think that the global warming debate is a red herring to hide some other global tragedy?

Question

Do you think that the damamge to the world through testing of both the atom and the hydrogen bomb, has caused more problems than world leaders are admitting?

Most independant scientists agree that CO2 is not a dangerous gas but a necessary one - in that it feeds our plant population and without that process, we would all die!

In fact , there were higher amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than at present! (Probably because there weren't enough plants to convert it into oxygen.)

Altho' I am not convinced by the global warming debate and remain a sceptic, I do believe in environmental responsibility. (I would just like to make that clear!)

My belief is that there is a worse man made problem happening that has been kept very secret as an atom bomb is a mini big bang isn't it? So therefore the effects could last for centuries and wouldn't it fit in with the butterfly wings theory?

Answer 1

You are right to be sceptical, Mars is also experiencing the same atmospheric temperature increases as earth.  Mars's problem stems from the fact that the sun is heating up (it does that, apparently) so it's quite plausible that earth's problem may have the same root cause.  You are also right to suspect that damage has been done to the planet by human behaviour.  However, the human races destruction of this planet 'all' stems from the fact that we live in a society that has greed as the only driving force.  You've heard it before and you'll hear it again; BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!!!!

The problems that we are facing cannot be resolved.  The human race is now so infected with the greed bug and the mass media is so mendacious, that you may as well just enjoy yourself to the full; because we're fukced.

Answer 2

With this global carbon tax . I guess it's about money as always ?

Answer 3

How about AGW being used to divert attention from the coming Oil shortage crisis?

OPEC just said today they will not allocate more oil to US.

Oil just jumped $5/barrel to about $105.

The Environmentalists don't want the blame they deserve for stopping All Drilling, Any new refineries, Nuclear Power Plants and some wind farms.

The price of gas will continue to increase until the economy goes into recession  -  does that qualify as a tragedy?

Answer 4

It's unlikely.  The Bush Administration has invested great time and energy into blocking action on the most important scientific issues of our day, both those that could help us and those that could kill us.  This has been done solely to benefit he and his coterie of supporters who have made huge financial gains from his having maintained the status quo against all reason.  It is the $ame deal as going to war in IRAQ for fictional causes.  To make this fly, he has assembled the largest troop of baboons of anyone since Hitler.  The damage done to the human the damage race this time is incalcuably greater.

Answer 5

Just remember

OPEC is raisng the price and cutting back production.

     We need to clean up the Atlantic and Pacific Gyres, Removing the plastic and other trash from this area will increase the amount of fish in the oceans. Something as basic to life on this planet but not as glamorous as a wind farm are these areas once filled with life. The cost to do this would be staggering and the positive benifit would negate numerous problems we are having right now.

  The Gyres are empty of life and most are over 500 miles away from the shore.  A place where the lazy UN paid researcher wont go when there is easy money made in global warming.

   These are the real global tragedy and the level of pollution is just rising by the day in them.

Answer 6

Some times I think it is not only our spewing of green house gasses into the atmosphere , but also the fact we have too many people on this planet. I feel we have already have reached the tipping point on global warming. Since the year 2002, the artic ocean has 20% less summer ice. Temperatures that rarely got above 40F, during the summer  months, are now reaching 70F, in the summer in the artic ocean . Even if all man made artificial green house emmisions were stopped today, the earth will keep heating up, until the green house gasses are removed from the atmosphere.  Also the world's oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb C02. When you dissolve C02 in water one gets Carbonic acid, just like in a soda pop.

Answer 7

kiko - you have it right about GW being phony. However it is used as a red herring not for some nuclear bomb effects but to produce hysteria to hide a political grab for control, power and money by the Left.

Look at the tactics used by the Left against their political opponents, they say conservatives are selfish, evil people who should not have jobs where they can spread their ideas, should not be allowed to publish and sell what they write, should not be allowed to speak in public [shout them down and riot if they try], are made out to be stupid, venal and uncaring.  The same tactics are used against those who disagree with GW. Why?  Because they are the same people who cannot allow political opposition as cannot allow opposition to GW.  To them the debate is closed in their favour and disagreement is not to be allowed.  

This comes from a Left which says it supports freedom of thought and speech, and they do, as long as it agrees with them.  No freedom for opposing views, because then they might lose their battle for power, control and money.

Ernie77 - part of the Left's Big Lie Repeated Loudly and Often, is that a great majority of scientists agree with GW, but that is not true.  The ones whose work is dependent on funds from Leftist politicians and educational administrators toe the line and they are overwhelmingly members of governmental boards, associations through educational institutions and such.  They are paid to support GW, their jobs depend on it and they are thoroughly "bought".  Other reputable scientists question the causes and the data [much of which was "doctored" or is inaccurate] used by the GW group.

You use the tactic of labelling those who disagree as "nuts", by comparing them to those who do not believe we landed on the moon. A typically Leftist tactic.

Answer 8

We often assume that it is possible for the "lay-man" to have an accurate opinion of a very complex subject that takes professionals many years to learn. The media talks of the "scientist" in a compartmentalised way as if they are odd little chaps who don't quite understand the world but wander around making irrelavant, if not absurd, claims about the world, whilst rarely agreeing with each other.

In fact this is no where near the truth. Most scientists from the "hard" sciences as they are sometimes termed, (physics, chemistry for example) agree on 99.999% of their subjects, if not more, if they did not we could not launch rockets to Jupiter or make complex materials for jet planes and computers.

There are always the "nutters" you find them in every walk of life, if you want to find a "scientist" who believes we didnt land on the moon you will find one, ten probably, and 10 million who know we did.

Its the same for global warming, the vast majority (i want to say all) of Earth Scientists are in agreement about the fact that it is happening, and are clear on the probably reasons.

What happens in the world is that politians are clever enough to know that the average "jo" or "joan" doesnt have the training to actually know these things, and they know they can manipulate the masses to gain some advantage. So they promote quack ideas whenever it suits them. A good politians can always provide statistics as we all know.

No, the atom bomb is nothing like what we think of as the  Big Bang, the Atom Bomb is based on a very well understood sub-atomic reaction. The Big Bang is a theory of epic proprtion to explain the existence of the universe as we perceive it. The butterfly's wing you refer to is often associated with Chaos theory, but is basically a comment on cause and effect over long periods of time.

There is no easy way to have sound views on science by listening to media and reading popular science press, the only way to do it is to go out there and spend several years studying the subject, otherwise your views will be shaped by the slightly-informed.

The worse thing in the world that is happening is the dumbing down of real science education in schools. Its producing just what polititains want, a malleable population who dont know what to believe. Thats why dictators burn books, they wouldnt need to burn many magazines to suppress knowledge.

Answer 9

I'm not convinced about the whole global warming theory either.  More and more scientists are coming out of the closet against it.  However, I believe we can certainly do more about cleaning up the environment.  To think that Man can end this world is arrogance beyond belief----The Good Lord made it, and the Good Lord will take it away in His own time.

Answer 10

No - Global warming is a tool to raise taxes.  If the temperatures were cooling, then you would hear that man putting aerosols into the atmosphere was reflecting light and causing AGC.

The climate can never be static, and they would do anything to get taxes increased.

Answer 11

sweetie, GL IS a real issue. bu-uht it would have happened if humans hadn't messed up the planet. it's kinda llike the Ice Age: the even without the mamoths, it still would have happened :]

yes, i think that our gov.ment screws up A LOT more than they tell us but global warming aint a conspiricy. i agree w/ u that in some cases Al got the facts wrong. but, it still is and remains an inconvinent truth that global warming IS HAPPENING!!!!!:[[

Answer 12

all scientists understand the role of CO2 in photosynthesis

all scientists also understand the role of CO2, in its very low concentration, in regulating climate

Most scientists believe that the ongoing industrial revolution has disturbed a delicate balance, with serious consequences.

I've met a bunch of these scientists.  There isn't a single one that "governments" could control in order to perpetrate a conspiracy.  They just aren't interested in doing anyone any such awkward favours.   They really believe it, because the evidence is more than good enough.

Answer 13

WOW, loads of questions there!

First up, ure right that in esscence CO2 is a completely natural gas, as is the greenhouse effec, its always happened! And there have been higher amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at certain phases of time! The difficult issues are determining past climates, often using very 'accurate' testing methods, i.e Radiocarbon, Thermoluminescence give huge timescale variations (+/- thousands of years), therefore we cannot say with any certainty exact climatic conditions at exact times, or the state of various other espects (ie atmosphere element composition) with any true honesty! Rather we extrapolate and work with the data the best we can!

I think its important to realise that since the industrial revolution man has been pumping CO2, CH4, ect ect into the atmosphere and this may be altering climate! Ive done a lot of work on this and am still unsure as to the actual impact, there have been so many warm and cold periods through earths history (FACT)! But one thing that we can all agree on is that altering the natural balances of the planet is perhaps unadvisable and therefore cutting emmissions, recycling, thinking about energy conservations can only be encouraged, whether for saving the planet or just plain ability, and responsibility, to be able to do things differently and not affect our general way of life!

As for atom bombs being equivalent to the big bang, im not sure, but heavily doubt its anywhere near the force, or will have the lasting effects, especially on a global scale!

Answer 14

No it's real, and here's one account of the balance of science for and against it:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

There's a long, detailed history behind that science as well:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.h...

So given the scientific consensus and the history leading up to it, why in the world would global warming need to be a cover for something else?

Answer 15

I think you are confused and ill informed.  You have no concept of the scale of the problem.  Nor any context to judge the validity of the statements you quote.

A one degree celcius rise in the oceans temperature is the equivalent energy to 1.358 BILLION one Megaton atom bombs.  That has already happened.

CO2 is an asphyxiant, it displaces Oxygen which you need to breath.  YOU are not a plant.  Plants also die if there is too high a CO2 concentration.  Define "dangerous gas" if causing death is not the ultimate definition of dangerous.

Global Warming is a misnomer only from the perspective that it is more accurately named "excess energy in the biosphere" and will be expressed as more extreme weather, not just warmer weather.  Higher winds, more snow, more rain, more storms, more lightning, colder winter temperatures.  All are products of the same processes.

No, I don't think there is a conspiracy to hide the detonation of a billion atomic bombs.  The only conspiracy is to keep people confused to the point of inaction.

Answer 16

No, it's a red herring for liberal politicians and others of their ilk to strip us of our personal liberties and put the government (with them in charge of course) in complete control of every aspect of our lives.  If you don't believe me, just look at what these so called "environmentalists" are proposing.

Answer 17

It always was, and now, the met - office web site has announced that during January global cooling occurred. The leads to the likelihood of a continuation and real global cooling in the future. It is just as I thought the present UK government have used this issue as a means to raise tax and that is the only reason they are interested in the global warming, of course Brussels also sees this as an ideal opportunity to make even more for their gravy train.