Who else thinks the climate crisis is a scam?

Question

I mean, the "cimate crisis" is a HUGE money maker.

The have you go out and buy new cars and refrigerators and all these other things when you don't need them!

Why else would all these huge companies be putting together an "environment" charity? because they're honestly worried? No! big companies don't do anything for free without some kind of incentive.

I mean, in the 1500's it was hotter than it is now and I highly doubt that medieval people were releasing more greenhouse gasses than us, in fact one volcano releases more greenhouse gasses then we do in 10 years! and 650 million years ago volcanoes were supposed have been going off every day and the world didn't burn away did it?

global warming is a huge scam don't you think?

Answer 1

Considering we only have detailed day-to-day temperature readings for a few hundred years at most, we're techincally still coming out of an ice age and "warming up" from that, yes.

The amount of time we have accurate and precise data for, that we can observe patterns from is not enough to prove this theory (because that's what it is) true. It might be true, it might not be, but who knows. The span of time we have adequate and detailed information on is also an eye-blink in the timeline of the earth.

Many scientists will admit that yes, it should be "getting warmer" since we are coming out of an ice age but it is our intervention that is making it warmer and happen faster than it should. But there's no proof of that.

Also, if you are an environmental scientist right now working on grant money, you aren't going to get a whole lot of grant money to show that it isn't - - or might not be true. All scientific studies have bents and get their money from somewhere.

edit: arggh Littlero... I've had eight different scientists tell me we are warming from the last cool off- and only one used that as defence against our over-involvement in global warming. I'd rather trust individuals that give me information from their own learning than anything that says .gov or .org at the end and has an obvious bias.

edit#2: as far as getting information from right wing (or left wing) blogs- that's silly. the biggest question you have to ask to yourself when evaluating information is- where does the money come from? and that goes for any prestigious organization or university around the world.

Answer 2

I, too, don't believe the hype.  Unless we had records dating back a million years, then there's no one on this planet that can prove anything.  Our lives, and even many, many generations back are still just a blink of the eye in the scope of past climate changes on Earth.  We may experience a warm spell now, but in 1,000 years humans may be locked in another ice age.  Try and prove that wrong or right!!  Take a seat Gore.  I don't mind dying with a tan either.  We don't own the planet, the planet owns us and will chew us up and spit us out.

Answer 3

I agree wholeheartedly!!!!!

Answer 4

WHO ARE YOU CALL WHOELSE?BETTER NOT BE ME,DUDE!!!! AND YOUR SHOULD WRITE A BOOK.

Answer 5

George W. Bush does. I guess it explains why only 3 out of 10 Americans still like him.

Answer 6

No No No

Quite the contrary, the scam is the one, not based in science, the one you fall for.

In the first place, the really big money is on your side of the argument.  Ever hear of oil companies?

  Have you heard of even one skeptical scientist who is not funded by them and their propaganda mills, like the Heartland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute?

So far I haven't.  

What you have been listening to is dis-information.

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions."  from comments at  gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

posted by LeeAnnG

Skeptic argument:

The kind of drastic actions required to mitigate global warming risk the destruction of the global economy and the deaths of potentially billions of people.

Answer:

"Is this supposed to mean the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong? You can not come to a rational decision about the reality of a danger by considering how hard it might be to avoid. First things first: understand that the problem is real and present."

"Once you acknowledge the necessity of addressing the problem, taking action suddenly become less daunting. There is no point in discussing the best solutions or the cost of those solutions with someone who does not yet acknowledge the problem."

"But even if mitigating global warming would be harmful, given that famine, droughts, disease, loss of major coastal cities, and a tremendous mass extinction event are on the table as possible consequences of doing nothing, it may well be we are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. I challenge anyone to conclusively demonstrate that such catastrophes as listed above await us if we try to reduce fossil fuel use."

"Now, in terms of conservation and a global switch over to alternative fuels, the people who oppose doing this for climate change mitigation are forgetting something rather important. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource, and as such we have to make this global economic transformation regardless, whether now or a bit later. Many bright minds inside the industry think we are already at peak oil. So even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later.

Seems like a win-win situation to me."

Oil is costing the U.S. citizens $800 billion annually in hidden costs above the cost of gasoline.  That includes  tax credits and subsidies to oil and gas of over $80 billion annually.

Oil accounts for over $300 billion of our annual trade deficit.  

  What possibly could be worse for the economy?



Right now congress is asking for $6 billion over 6 years for alternative energy tax credits.  Compare that to the fossil fuel tax credits, or the nuclear tax credits of up to $9 billion annually.  The changes that are being recommended will actually be a boost to the economy.  If you don't believe me, ask Michael Bloomburg, a Republican who knows a lot about the business world.  And maybe you should read the book he is recommending.

http://www.earththesequel.com./

"Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story."

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City

"Representatives from Silicon Valley tech giants, Wall Street investment banks and utilities signed a letter sent to the congressional leadership late Wednesday urging the long-term extension of the 30 percent investment tax credit as well as the production tax credit for the electricity produced by solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy systems. Among the signers urging action by March 1 are executives from Google (GOOG), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Applied Materials (AMAT), Credit Suisse (CS), Wells Fargo (WFC), venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and utility San Diego Gas & Electric, a subsidiary of energy giant Sempra (SRE)."

Posted by Todd Woody at Green Wombat

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

"Solar energy is the great leveler (unlike oil, which has been the great divider) between the haves and the have nots). No one owns the sun. It can't be drilled or mined or tied up in financial derivatives. It is the only energy source in the world that is primarily free at its source and universally available to consumers. And the closer a nation is situated towards the equator - and the bigger their deserts - the better the technology works." (See Here Comes the Sun, February 17, 2007, Commentary, Chipstocktrader.com)

Your medievel warming idea has been debunked.

According to NASA it was not warmer then.

"There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years."

"Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment."

"On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:"

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.

With regard to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, here is some fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside. If that is not enough, RealClimate has a remarkably in-depth review of the history of wine in Great Britain, and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures. (Hint: not very.)"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

Volcanoes do not cause global warming.  On the contrary, they cause cooling.  This is a well documented scientific fact.

Yes, they release CO2, but not nearly as much as they release particulates and aerosols, like SO2, that rise to the stratosphere blocking out sunlight.  This was proven in the early nineties with the large eruption in the Phillipines.

"Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere."

"Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?)."

"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document)."

"Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend."

"The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions."

The USGS Volcano Hazards program

Answer 7

No, actually, I don't.  And I'm not sure what your whole question means, but no one is telling anyone to go out and buy tons of stuff we don't need:  that's what got us into this mess in the first place!  When I did need a new car, I got a low emission, energy efficient one.  Next time I need a car, I'll get whatever is the best technology available at that time.  I'm sure not gonna trade my current car in for a hybrid, though!  and here's an incentive for ya:  no one will be able to make a buck when the earth is uninhabitable by humans =<

Peace.

Answer 8

Not these guys.  They all say global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

There's no way it was warmer in the 1500s than now.

And volcanoes emit less than 1% of what man does.

Study the science, not the right wing blogs.  Global warming is scientific fact.

EDIT - Someone below wants proof the diurnal (day/night) temperature difference is decreasing.  No prob:

http://research.yale.edu/ysm/article.jsp...

I presume they'll now change their position.

Answer 9

I say scam. If you remember correctly there was not a single case of computers crashing or people being charged a hundred years interest on their houses because of "Y2k". Pure capital gains tax scam. Same here. Scare the masses. Freightened people follow the heard. Also I agree there is NOWHERE near enough recorded wheather patterns to prove anything. 1 to 200 years tops, That can't even be calculated into a useable percent against the millions of years the earth has been around.

You know I have watched the  local Wheather forecast everyday this week( I usually dont bother) And every day the next days forecast has had rain in it! Everyday. It rained once. There was in fact Severe wheather storms forecasted, everybody was scared and talking about it. It just rained, no big deal. So my point is, These guys you beleive in so much have dopler radar right in front of them and still cant call it right! In fact in my opinion wheather forecasting is worse now than 10 years ago! How can you put belief in a hypothissis for the future when they cant get the current right day to day? I am not saying you shouldn' t recycle or watch what you consume or that emmisions shouldn't be watched. If you put a plant in front of a running cars exhaust pipe for a week I'm sure after a day or so it will be dead. If you pile your garbage up in your living room for a year soon you will not be able to go near it or stay in the house without getting sick, So my point There is wastefullness or carelessness obviously has its effects and care should be taken. Being wasteful is just arrogant. Looking out for one another by being responsible will certainly not hurt anything!

Edit- Your bad science does nothing to impress me. And please give your fingers a break your brain might just start working!

Answer 10

Bob, you need to just stop....  You think that science isn't for sale and that scientists are not after grant money?  Come on!  Who in their right mind would say don't pay me.  This has become the opportunity of a lifetime for many of these scientists.  That is the sole reason why this theory, out of all of the millions of other theories, "has been proven beyond debate," and all the other jargon these nutbags use.  

Just watch and mark my words.  I am predicting that within five years, these IPCC alarmists will be so far debunked, that they will have already made up another entirely different scenario, simply to take the attention away from this farce.

However, I got a way for you to prove global warming.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?  As it heats up in the daytime to a certain temperature, yet it cools down at night.  Greenhouse gases prevent it from cooling down as much.  Can you show me where in the 1930's that due to the lack of greenhouse gases, the temperature difference was, let's say fifty degrees, versus today being only a 20 degree difference because of greenhouse gases?  Could you do that?

I mean the only tangible proof would be something obvious like that.  Seriously, we have had hurricanes, tornados, flooding and fires throughout our history, yet for some reason, we are supposed to believe that today's storms are 'different.'  Come on!!!  You can't paint naive over plain dumb and put a nice little bow on it and expect us to eat it all up.

Answer 11

yes, I agree 100%. The government says that carbon dioxide is the main cause. HELLO PEOPLE!!! Did you know that trees need carbon dioxide to live so that humans have fresh air to breath????

Answer 12

put more money in the pockets of rich old people

Answer 13

Seriously... get educated.

Answer 14

moneymaker? is it? i dont see how.

get some education.

heres a very simple starter site for you;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/#faqSec...

aaaaarrrrghhhhhhh! Alexi, please! We are NOT 'coming out of' an ice age, we are already out of it! you all read the blooming graph back to front!

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Answer 15

well... what if it's not a scam. Immagine how costly it would be if don't do anything now?

Answer 16

It's sad to see there are still people with this opinion... Artic and antarctica are melting quicker than predicted a couple of years ago and polar bears are one of the emblematic species at risk. Possibly our grandchildren will be able to see one for real at the zoo. Good luck explaining them climate change was a scam of the big corporations, afterall the history of this earth is full of extintions.

Answer 17

Not a scam.

Do some research (yahoo answers is NOT research).  Look at scientist who actually deal with these issues at universities, the government and IPCC.   There are very smart people worried about this - they are not in a conspiracy.   These are not biased sources. You're biased sources are typically not peer reviewed, have funding by major energy interest.  Researchers have no financial interest in Global warming research.  Grants are always available for other projects if one looks like a dead end.  The research continues because the problem IS real and we need better information and understanding to make good decisions.

Oil and gas are biased because their profits are directly affected by the number for people who act to reduce energy consumption. Ignorance threatens everybody and quite a few people are just parroting right wing propaganda with no real understanding of teh problem, saying the same old tired stuff (it's natural variation, it's cold outside today, cosmic rays from space cause it,  it was warmer some time in the past when there weren't as many people, mars is getting warmer, lots of sun spots, the sun is hot, volcanoes, etc.),  are spreading the ignorant idea that this is a hoax. Obviously, this is your position and your purpose.  

The truth is, accounting for natural variation and the various cycles and warming changes in solar activity, and Earth's orbit, HUMAN ACTIVITY (you and me) have increased the rate at which the planet is warming beyond the natural rate.  This waring could make life more difficult.

Answer 18

Yes-  Its pure c**p,   governments can now use it as a "safe friendly " taxation revenue, fantastic marketing  opportunity for them.  Incredible .

Answer 19

It's not just a scam, it's a psychological operation, or PsyOp. The intelligence community of the G8 nations are all over this one.  They create fake discussion groups and think tanks to mold and shape public opinion and give government advice.  Then they get their actors to recruit gullible people into cults, creating what looks like a grass roots movement.  These cults are promoted in popular media as NGOs.  These cult NGOs take advantage of emotionally vulnerable people, such as homosexuals exhibiting the messiah complex.  This is quite obvious in the area of evangelical Christians, alien & UFO cults (btw, Scientology is a part of the ONI Office of Naval Intelligence, as is the NIH and CDC), national socialists, international socialists, AIDS advocates, and just about any doomsday cult you can think of.  Then the politicians act like it's a real political issue.  They hardly try to hide these facts.  The CIA even has the Dalai Lama doing world tours promoting this idealogical subversion.  The global warming psyop is also excellent for the oil companies which are making record profits in the age of global warming.  People easily accept high petrol prices when they feel guilty about destroying the world as they fill the gas tank.

     The end result will be reduction in national sovereignty, increased power to the U.N., a global tax and restriction of food supply especially to poor countries with colored people.

     If you're really concerned about global warming, try turning off the television and take a look outside and get a reality check.  If that doesn't help, try holding in your farts, and stop breathing.