Those who support politicians who hush scientists on facts about global warming, what kind of people are they?

Question

Those say that we should do nothing about global warming, and that global warming is not product of carbon dioxide emission, do they live in our neighborhood?

Should they fall under "freedom of speech"?

When people start suffering because of people like these who would go against any action against petroleum extraprofit, would these corrupted "neighbors" take the responsibility?

Answer 1

The same kind of people as those who support the politicians and political pressure organizations that provide grants to scientists that study global warming and respond to challenges by labeling those with different opinions with titles like "global warming denier"

Answer 2

Those people are funded by corporations that pollutes alot.

Even if it's not the cause of global warming.

It still pollutes the air that we breathe.  Look at California, after they enforced a cleaner law on automobiles and other area.  You can actually see Los Angels from the mountain with out the dirty fog.

So people are just stupid like BUSH.

Answer 3

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 4

You are, of course, assuming that Global Warming is a product of human carbon emmissions. One overriding theme of posters on this site is the belief that 'An Inconvenient Truth' constitutes some sort of scientific proof. Whilst I agree that global temperatures are rising I do not think that a definite link has been proven between human CO2 emmissions and the effect.

We should certainly take action to cut our gross overconsumption of the worlds resources but I find it a sad state of affairs that we need to be forced to do so by some media exaggerated, politically conveient scientific boogeyman which is generally evidenced by anecdotal 'isn't it warm today' type statements.

The sad fact is that the climate system is vastly complicated and most people don't understand it.

On the specific point of hushing scientists who speak out about global warming I think that they are in the minority. The IPCC has been supported by international govenrments for several years now. You can't deny people freedom of speech just because you disagree with what they are saying. That includes scientists arguing that GW is occurring and people demanding more proof of such.

It is intersting to thisnk that if we are wrong about CO2 but dedicate all our efforts towards stopping emissions whilst disregarding other possibilites then we will fail to halt GW anyway.

Answer 5

They cover a variety of things.  Some are politically conservative and automatically think anything supported by Al Gore must be wrong.  Others are afraid of the changes that acceptance of global warming as reality would bring.

The "swindle" movie cited above is just a political statement, too.  It's scientifically wrong.  Proof:

The director has a history of putting out misleading anti-environmental stuff.  In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called “Against Nature”, which compared environmentalists with n***s. Channel 4 had to apologise for the misleading stuff in that one.  The present movie is also a distortion of the science. More here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environmen...

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313p...

"Pure Propaganda"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Explanations of why the science is wrong.

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

History of the director.

The bottom line is here:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climat...

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."  

Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right.  This movie does not.

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way.  If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information.  They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming.  The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

Answer 6

think about who all the wealthiest families have been over the passed years and you will have your answer. also, it wouldn't hurt for you to check out the CFR, and the Bilderberger's a bit.

Answer 7

The facts don't support CO2 as a cause for global warming.  

Freedom of speech means you can say what you want.  It doesn't mean that you can't get fired for what you say though.

Answer 8

I just wanted to say that Mc's post is the best post ever written on this topic.  bravo, Mc.  if i could give you 50 thumbs up, i would.