Why are we being conned?

Question

The man made global warming theory is dependant on the claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50 -200 years (IPCC figure). There have been about 3 dozen papers published on this topic using a variety of measuring techniques, they all show figures varying between 5 - 15 years.

Why is this political doctrine is being imposed on us, when the physical evidence does not justify it?

Answer 1

There is money to be made from scare tactics

Answer 2

Whether it is manmade or not is irrelevent. If you found that your house was on fire, would you start pouring on petrol because 'hey, it was happening anyway'?

What a d**k.

Answer 3

Citing another scientist's work does not mean they agree on every detail.  It means at least one statement made by the first scientist was based on the other scientist's work.  The fact that that paper had 37 references does not indicate that those 37 papers make the same claim.

Adam wrote a good response.  And pointing out that you only provided one link is not "personal abuse."  You claim there are dozens of papers showing carbon dioxide is retained in the atmosphere less than 15 years but only provided one.  Can you please provide another?

EDIT:  OK so all the sources cited there make the claim that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 15 years or less?  Do you have a copy of this one then?  Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. (1970): Aquatic chemistry. An introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural waters. John Wiley & Sons, 583 pp.

EDIT:  Ah I see Adam is on the same track.

Answer 4

If the CO2 levels have been building up over the last X number of years (over 5-15 I'm sure), and none of it lasts more than that long in the environment where is all the extra coming from?   And why is it rising at a reletively steady pace, not down 50% one year and up 75% the next?   The scentists conclusions do not seem to make sense in the real world.

Answer 5

Politics.  It's politically expedient to claim that CO2 is a more "permanent" gas.  It is NOT, but the media can possess more influence were this lie true.

Answer 6

I have to admit this is better than most posts by skeptics on here. I skimmed through the Segalstad reference, I wouldn't call it paper because so much of it is anti-establishment rhetoric. If he really has good data, he should publish it in an actual journal, I looked at his references and if he has published this work somewhere he doesn't include the reference.  He apparently presented it at few conferences over a decade ago, so it seems like he would have had adequate time to clean up the research and publish.  I also searched a few databases to see what he has published and the most recent thing I could find in a journal was an article on molydenum deposits back in 1991.  It was on fluid gas inclusions so he apparently does have some background in that.

If he thinks his work is correct he should publish it.

Answer 7

Global warming seems to be a new political movement which is housing socialism. In essence, it seems to be socialism in disguise because of its higher taxes and efforts to control our everyday lives.

Answer 8

The European Science and Environment Forum is the equivalent of the Heartland Institute here in the US. So much for respected...

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

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/06/0...

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

There is a reason why it is defunct! I can smell desperation in your post...

Answer 9

This is a good point but hardly conclusive.

You give one (just one!) link: on the surface it is a good report by a credible scientist but appearances can be deceiving. In reality, the report has almost certainly been commissioned by oil interests and other industry groups who have a short-term financial incentive in burying GW truths and who don't give a *** for our long-term health or standards of living.

Tom Segalstad, the author of the linked report was a peer reviewer for the third IPCC report (but not for the latest one). He is a geologist (not a climatologist) so he is presumably a good choice as a peer reviewer but not an expert on climate change.

Tom makes some good points but his viewpoint remains in the minority (the majority of peer reviewers agreed on the IPCC report).

Science, just like most other subjects, does not have to be, and rarely is, unanimous. Fact is, science depends on debate and disagreement to keep moving forward.

Two things that Tom doesn't properly address in this report are:

a) the source of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere (he does agree that it is there and that it is causing global warming)

b) given that there is excess CO2, it still doesn't make sense for humans to be adding more.

Finally, although Tom is head of the University of Oslo's geology department, neither the Univeristy or the associated museum supports his views. Tom is supported (but will not confirm if he receives direct financial support) by the Heartland Institute.

Heartland is notorious for its aggressive lobbying for conservative interest groups. For example, encourages fundamentalist teaching in schools (e.g. creationism), opposes anti-tobacco legislation (thus condemning thousands to cancer) and is funded by Exxon - no wonder they are against global warming!

So, if we are being conned, the conning is coming from the skeptics who are trying to discredit decent scientific research: It's fairly easy to buy one or two once-credible scientists; it's not possible to buy the truth!

Edit:

Actually I count 56 different authors cited in his paper however none of them are less than 10 years old - and in this field that is a long time - and one of them is from the 19th C!

You say the report "cites 37 papers" and acknowledge "the IPCC's '2500 scientists'" this is 1.5% - I don't know what your definition of a minority is but 1.5% is a minority in my books so it isn't "simply nonsense"!

As for the oil industry claims, are you denying that:

That Heartland pays Tom Segalstad (http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/Confe... http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

Heartland appends scientists names against their wishes (http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-...

Heartland is funded by corporate lobby groups (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art... )?

Heartland receives funding from Exxon (http://blogs.nwf.org/arctic_promise/2008... http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-funded-hea... http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/2... http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=188)?

Heartland received more than half-a-million dolalrs from Exxon and close to a further half million from other oil industries (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact... http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catal... http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp...

Heartland is largely sponsored by American conservative, industry lobby groups that seek anonymity behind 'foundations' and ''trusts''(http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipie... http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/01/hear... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_I...

Heartland is a think tank that promotes conservative values (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art... http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipie... http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, is Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to their own admission (http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/20...

Please! I am stating facts, not using a "tactic of personal abuse" - if you want to try and make a point that people are being conned, I think those same people are entitled to know who is behind the claims that the IPCCs 2,500 scientists are wrong - prove that the above facts are wrong (and the many, many other citations showing the connection between Segalstad, Heartland and the oil industry) and then I will apologise and admit to personal abuse and not having an argument of substance.

Until then, I stand by what I said and the above supports me:

My argument has a lot of substance (you give one link...)!

EDIT (Again)!

Wait, wait, wait! You "challenge [us] to provide a reference to experimental evidence which justifies the 50 -200 year figure" but YOU are the one who brought it up in the first place!

So - either you have already given us the reference (you say it is an IPCC figure) hence have already answered the challenge or you just pulled it out of a hat and then ask us to justify your imagination...

But as you asked so nicely... http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima... - shows persistence ("residence")  time of over 300 years with a half-life of 50 years.

You also state that all "37 references show experimental evidence for a CO2 retention time of between 5 and 15 years". I took two papers at random and failed to find any such thing - can you help me find support for your claim in:

McKay, CP., Toon, O.B. & Kasting, J.F. (1991): Making Mars habitable and;

Arrhenius, S. (1896): On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground.

You're the one who introduced the word "stooge" (hence were abusive); I stated facts.

And your whole question is based on the statement that "The man made global warming theory is dependant on the claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50 -200 years" - I disagree; please tell us where you get this from.

AGW is strongly (not 100% dependant) based on the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased at a rate faster than ever seen before - exactly how and why are still being debated (thus what the residence rate is is not an issue at this time) although the fact that these high levels are caused by man is no longer seriously debated.

You have made something up that you have not (can't be?)supported and then ask us to refute it - maybe it's all in your imagination?

To summarise:

1 - You ask us to refute a fact that you either made up or won't say where it came from

2 - You state a figure as coming from a report and then say there is no report that states the figure

3 - You insult your own sources by calling them stooges

4 - You ignore the factual claims I make concerning the credibility of your sources

5 - You make other claims that may be considered false (i.e. you have not shown them to be true)

6 - And then you expect us to take your claim seriously

LOL!

Edit:

Manda, great minds think alike?

Looks like another one sinks under the weight of their own... well, don't want to be accused of being abusive so let's just say... "misinformedness"!

Edit:

Still ignoring me, huh? Glad to see the new respondents can also see that your obsession on demanding experimental evidence for an evident truth is irrelevant (it's there isn't it? who cares what the residence rate is? as Al says - your house is on fire! do something!!).

And now, you are becoming annoying:

I've given you one link already - because it answers your demand, you can't accept it?

You say that the IPCC report says CO2 remains in the atmosphere "50, 100 OR 200" years - this is quite a range and I am having trouble accepting that the IPCC would give 3 different figures, unless, of course, this has been take out of context - care to give a reference (e.g. page number) so we can check on the full quote? (Obviously the residence rate is variable as it depends upon many factors including ones that change such as global temperature).

That said, in a continued spirit of cooperation, I will provide even more evidence for the 50-200 range, even though I know that you simply can't accept anything that doesn't support your prejudiced pre-judgements...

http://www.enfo.ie/leaflets/CC1%20Scienc...

http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidif...

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/repri...

http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/ar...

Methinks you have asked for something that is both irrelevant and beyond the absolute proof that only you will be the judge of... in other words, this whole question is flawed and you are wasting people's time with your stubborn and wilful ignorance.

Meanwhile, Nero fiddles on....