How the world was mislead about global warming...?

Question

and climate change. Read about it here:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2704

What do you think about this article? Agree, disagree?

Answer 1

The article is correct, there is no man made "global warming".  Even today's believers are saying that El Nino/La Nina contribute more to climate change than green house gases.

People always get suckered into slick sounding science.  This is why theories like Eugenics became so popular in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  The science sounded correct even when there was no objective data to back up the premise.  When this happens, a consensus must resort to bully tactics and behave as thugs to advance their dogma.

Answer 2

I disagree with it. But I'm probably biased; I think anything written by Tim Ball is a joke.

Answer 3

The theory first gained traction in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher's regime was trying to promote the expanded use of nuclear power.  As part of this program the UK government handed out a lot of cash for any research that would make nuclear look better than any other energy source, and as a result the whole myth about man-made global warming was transformed from an obscure theory to a marketing juggernaut.

Answer 4

KRluv says she (?) works inthe industry.  Is that the GW industry?  I find that a funny claim and ridiculous.

There was nothing in the article that I noticed that I disagreed with.  Being a geologist, and understanding a little bit of history, I too see most alarmist as borderline paranoia with their arguments having very little to do with a rational evaluation of the phenomena IMO.

I find those that compare this skepticm to flat earthers or creationism offensive.   There is no comparison.

Answer 5

Oh, we've been saying that all along.

The fun will start when the mainstream press realizes the Global Climate farce is a better story.  

The fairy-tale IS holding up well considering all the cooling we've experienced in the last ten years.

Answer 6

I really dont know =\

a lot people say its a myth...but I guess its better to be safe than sorry

Answer 7

I noticed that all the articles on global warming on that site seem to be either denying it or criticizing government programs aimed at alleviating it. this seems to tell me that your website is biased. I also find it alarming that the "evidence" that global warming is not real seems to be 2 things. 1. global temperature averages went down in 2006. 2. climate changes exist regardless of what we do. Now, it seems apparent that temperatures fluctuate from year to year and that their progression in general is not going to be a straight line, one fluke year does not change the need for action. And the fact that the climate does change on its own also seems like a rather pointless argument, because while it does change on its own, that does not prove that we cannot change it.

The fact is that based on what we know about the planet and the way our atmosphere works, the majority of scientists studying the matter believe that our current expenditure of resources is likely to result in a gradual temperature increase, the global effects of which are not fully known. Beyond that, it is apparent through observable changes that we can effect the planet, we can create smog, we can pollute water supplies, we can cause environmental havoc and we have done so, these observations in and of themselves should warrant a general desire to do what we can to leave a smaller impact on the planet, regardless of weather we believe that doing so will effect the temperature of the planet overall. I see articles like this as being puppet articles from industry that does not want to spend money to change. The “green” movement can be good for everyone, including the economy with an influx of new jobs created by the effort to make our current infrastructure more environmentally friendly.

Answer 8

Global warming is a myth. Al Gore has NO credentials to carry on as he does. Climate change is cyclical, and we are in the cycle. Simple as that. PhD meteorologists who specialize in climate change all agree that what is happening now is normal. They are generally squashed by the media, too.

Answer 9

Richard, your link to sourcewatch does nothing to discredit Mr. Bell.  if anything, it improves his credibility, as sourcewatch lists the many credentials that add veracity to what he said in the article...

and he is right, btw...

Richard-  why is it that an organization that supports the left is called "independent", but any organization that supports the right is called "Biased?"  everyone is biased.  both sides of the argument are biased.  if you think that the IPCC is not biased, you are insane.  i just love how the left casually dismesses ANYONE of any credibility, if he is "Conservative", but someone who supports the left is held up as "Credible".  Mr. Bell's "Bias" has nothing to do with the facts listed that he has a vast history as a climatologist.  you can't dismiss all of his work, simply by saying "Yes but, he is conservative".   that is specious and irresponsible.

Richard- of course he is biased.  like i said above, everyone is biased.  any scientist in this debate is going to have a bias- either believing in, or against, AGW.  i just find it ironic that any scientist who has an impressive body of work, but who happens to NOT believe in AGW is dismissed for his "bias", while scientists who support AGW are propped up as credible scientists.  

And my prupose was not to "Refute" your links.  I also don't deal in propoganda.  In fact, I rather appreciated your link to Dr. Bell's accomplishments.  again, it showed that he has a highly respectable career, bias included, and his opinion is one that should be held in high esteem, regardless of his political bias.  Thank you for providing the link.  my comment was merely that just because the link shows that he is a conservative, does not mean that his findings should be discredited.

Answer 10

isnt it the natural cycle of the earth...

millions of years ago ther was ice....it melted.......then there was ice......then it melted.......then there was ice.......then it melted.......then there was ice.....now its melting.....whats the big deal?

Answer 11

It's real. I work in this industry and see the evidence every day! Of course the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling periods, but us, humans are speeding it up! I see SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography evidence, and WHOI evidence.. I mean please! It's common sense!! We consume resources, water, power at increasing speeds.. it's doing something to this planet!! Lets just say that in 50 years the southwest is going to be a little worried about their water situation. And at least those "scientist wackos" are doing some good and using their time to help you.

Answer 12

I've read similar arguing that evolution is a hoax and that creation is 'the truth'.

I'd be more convinced if all sceptics didn't turn out to be right wing; by definition conservatives are resistant to new ideas. (Particularly ones that mean a government response.)

100 years ago the hot topic in science was whether there had been ice ages or not. (The competing idea was that of the biblical deluge.) Now that's largely uncontroversial.

Today its that adding CO2 to the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect and this produces a warmer atmosphere.

Keep an open mind. Look at sites such as Science Daily, get information from a variety of sources.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_c...

Answer 13

It hasn't been misled, except if you mean by people such as Ball.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

This is real science...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Maximus - thanks for all your supporting information, or was it opinion? If you think my link grants Ball a greater standing, you obviously need to re-read, for you failed to recognize his bias.

Phil - you have graced us with your knowledge of volcanic emissions. What's funny is the confidence of your opinion. Had you done any research whatsoever, you would have found that human activity produces 100 times more CO2 per year than volcanoes. Please, no more opinion.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007...

Maximus - I would ask you not to try and put words in my mouth. I didn't refer to Ball as conservative and I didn't mention the IPCC. However, I did link to the National Academy of Sciences. Ball shows his bias by working with the oil industry and if you think that's not a bias, you are insane.

http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-...

Maximus - BTW, you still haven't provided anything but uniformed opinion to challenge my links. Are you here to provide propaganda only?

Answer 14

Ok i don't like to swear so I won't, basically Global Warming is a FAT LIE, there is no such thing its a natural thing happening in the earth which just happens it has done in history, Leeds in the UK used to be a vineyard as it was so hot, its just the earth it changes quick. Even if there is a problem with CO2 WE wouldn't be causing it, as we only produce about 3% of the CO2 the rest is from the sea and volcanoes and animals.

What we should be caring about is conserving the fuels as they will run out.

Answer 15

A little propaganda piece.  One denieristi talking about how all the other denierrhea agree with him.  We don't get as many of these as we used to.  Probably a good thing.

Answer 16

I kind of agree with everyone's opinion here..what annoys me are these celebrities, politicians campaigning for global warming and they have houses everywhere, loads of cars, bodyguards and entourage and travel a lot on their privet jet plane..and they are promoting GLOBAL WARMING????

Answer 17

Ditto !

The environmentalist whackos having been pushing for this for years.......they finally got traction with "global warming" and their poster boy Al Gore.