Why is Anthropogenic Global Warming a lie?

Question

could you please reference journals or papers with your answers.

Answer 1

The scientific process is highly political.  There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that dispute AGW, but most of them seem to be published in countries which don't have entrenched AGW agendas.  

People in Sweden and Denmark for example, believe in the Little Ice Age, regardless of some warmists making the pronouncement that the Little ice age didn't happen because it doesn't fit their AGW theory, when in 1650 the Swedish army marched 17 miles over the frozen Baltic sea to invade Denmark.  To them the little ice age is an historical fact.

Answer 2

Evidence the global warming story is silly is the part about floating ice in the ocean (icebergs and arctic icepack) melting and overflowing coastlines.

Floating ice displaces the same amount of water as is contained in the ice, so it cannot overflow anything.  Exactly like the ice in a glass of water.

global warming is just a fairy tale to scare people.  it will be a subject of jokes, like the global freezing, and Y2K in a few years.

Answer 3

Because it can't be objectively proved that man is causing any warming at all.

At best a majority of some selected scientist believe this to be the case, and it's accepted as fact.

With more understanding of how the climate works, we may find better information and have a different understanding of the workings of the climate, with different reasons why the climate warms and cools as it does.

Answer 4

Ben O - I don't know what climate scientists you think support AGW and deny that any kind of Little Ice Age occurred, but the ones I read clearly acknowledge that cooling period. The reconstruction plots here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...

are based mostly on US Scientist work published in US journals.

The Liltte Ice Age happened, it just may not be nearly as extreme or widespread as some anti-AGW'rs suggest.  There's nothing incompatible with the Little Ice Age and AGW theory. And scientists from Sweden and Denmark acknowledge both AGW and the Little Ice Age, so where's the conflict?

The IPCC WG1 report involved Danish climate scientist contributor Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, and Danish reviewers: Hans

GLEISNER & Martin STENDEL.  It also involved Swedish climate scientists contributors: Hans Alexandersson, Mark Dyurgerov, Regine Hock, Peter Jansson, Caroline Leck, & Markku Rummukainen; along with Swedish reviewers: Per

HOLMLUND, Erik KJELLSTRÖM, Caroline LECK, and Markku RUMM AINEN.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Science (like all the others around the world) have openly expressed their support and agreement with the IPCC process and urged governments to act.

Eric C - I started reading your article with expectations of some valid science. I was immediately disappointed.  This guy clearly lacks familiarity with the journal published climate science research. His suggestion that the ocean may be the source of our increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, indicates he's ignorant of the isotope evidence that clearly identifies the source of the increased CO2 as fossil burning.  The authors a Chemist, for goodness sake, but he's obviously unaware of the literature or research that's been done in the field.  Here's a simple explanation that anyone with a little chemistry can follow:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8...

The "quality" of that paper doesn't improve as it continues. So why should anyone trust this NZ scientist. His expertize (from his own web-site) is: "design and synthesis of potential new drugs with antiinflammatory and antimicrobial properties".

Just like I wouldn't go to a Pediatrist to design a bridge, I wouldn't go to this guy to explain climate science.

Answer 5

It's not.

No, I won't "reference journals or papers" because this information has been out there since about the mid-70s. Libraries, the internet, reputable environmental sites are all bursting with "journals or papers" replete with scientific data. All for the asking. Any person too lazy, stupid, or stubborn not to know this by now is hopeless and part of the problem.

The atmosphere of the Earth, the temperatures of the oceans, the melting of the arctic caps, the change in salinity of the oceans where the fresh water is rushing into the ocean - all fact.

The only thing "political" about it is Big Oil buying more time by convincing mental midgets (AKA selfish clods who stubbornly refuse to adapt and change their own behavior) that everything is A-Okay.

Exactly the same thing happened with the tobacco companies continuing for fifty years telling the public that there was "no scientific evidence" indicating smoking was harmful to their health.

Gimme a break.

Answer 6

This, it seems to me, is what the global-warming scare and scam are all about – frightening Americans into transferring sovereignty, power and wealth to a global political elite that claims it alone understands the crisis and it alone can save us from impending disaster

Answer 7

Not so much a lie as a poorly supported hypothesis.

Answer 8

Are you even going to award a best answer for us showing you sources that go against your belief system? Or like all the others pick a best answer from some one who believes as you do and cuts us down, without reading our source material.

Edit: We understand that you are looking for scientific arguments, but I'm sure we are also all a bit gun shy, since we know how others with your belief system work.

Answer 9

What is a lie is what was said by Al Gore.  He said it was the worst danger facing mankind, worse than terrorism or nuclear weapons.  It is only likely that men have actually raised temperatures less than a degree.  That would logically  increase growing seasons and make warmer nights.  Equating that to some sort of emergency or disaster is why the global warming movement is led by liars and is no more legitimate than any other doomsday cult.

Answer 10

Here is a very good article.  It is by a University professor, with a hole list of references to back up his claims.  It was published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

Edit:

Ken has just employed a typical tactic when countering criticisms of AGW theory.

Do not discuss the science.  (The author gives many reasons why he believes pre- industrial co2 levels are low.  Ken does not discuss them. He discusses just one minor point that may of may not be wrong (no reference to back up his facts) and wants you to believe that all points, therefore, have to be wrong.

Then attacks the man (he is not a climate scientist.  If he were he would then have been accused of being in the pockets of big oil)

Repeats the mantra