Global Warming is a hoax.

[ironmonk]

I am right. Whoever thinks global warming is man made and will continue is wrong. I read the following article and thought it should live on this thread... and wanted to remind the scoffers that I'm still sticking to my guns and am right again... more and more proofs of me have been coming out over the many months since some here wanted to blow off a little common sense and believe the media.

[b]Clue[/b]: the media need to make ratings, one great way to make ratings is scare people. Fear and hate are great factors in getting people to watch your programs.
[b]Clue[/b]: many so called "journalists", don't research, they regurgitate stuff other people create without double checking anything.

Global Warming is a Hoax. Just as the cry of "An Ice Age is Coming!!!" in the 70's.

To blindly believe or even accept that carbon actually is affecting our temperature shows one or a combination of the following:[list]
[*]Ignorance of the subject
[*]Ignorance of the tests completed by the lying scientists
[*]Lack of critical thinking
[*]Poor research
[/list]Follow the money and learn to think.


[url="http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html"]http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popup...1696238792.html[/url]
[quote][b]Gore gets a cold shoulder[/b]
[size=1]Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007 [/size]

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're [b]brainwashing our children[/b]," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the [b]Gore movie [/b][An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. [b]It's ridiculous[/b]."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"[b]We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was[/b]," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"[b]It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong[/b]," he said. [u]"[b][size=4]But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants[/size].[/b]"[/u][/quote]

Edited October 15, 2007 by ironmonk

[Lena]

if anyone has any current scientific info on why climate change is a natural life cycle of the planet, please post away.....I'm trying to find info on it for a paper since I have to present both sides and I have a limited amount of info on that side of the issue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this thread is really full of both sides.

i'd add though, that to think volcanoes necessarily cause more pollution than man made sources is ignorant and very lacking in critical thinking. i cited a source for that here.
but, also, consider all the smoke stacks out there. each state has many. that alone would probably beat the volcanoes. then, we have emissions from cars aggregate.

with that said, it's not unreasoable to think our emissions are a drop in the sea. but, volcanoes is graspin at straws, especially with teh info lacking.

solar radioation is a decent argument considering the overall trends. but, that doesn't explain studise that show they are probably not the primary cause of warming, only accounting for a third in fact.
there are many questions out there that need answered.

now, i'm not going to say you're dumb for tending to believe GW is not man made. but, i am going to say you're dumb if you think it's *in fact* a hoax or not man made. even if you leive this and are proven right in fifty years, it was still idiotic of you to say it's in fact not because of man.
those climatologists who don't believe in it, would admit if you pressed them, they don't know for sure. there are other scientists who take the true scientific posisiton and say we don't know.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=73076&st=40&start=40"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...40&start=40[/url]

actually the thread that had facts in it, other than rhetoric, is the above link.
i had these two threads confused.

i think my point about emissions from the states though, which alone account for only a fourth of world pollution is compelling.

i'd also add that it doesn't ahve to be dark skies for GW to actually occur. by the time it got there, to me it seems, many degrees would have gone up. it can appear clear overall but slightly dimmer and still have effects, as arguably is occurring here.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Forget about global warming or climate change - just reduce emissions so you and your children don't have to breath it and get asthma. And lets get off of oil to get rid of the PetroDollar terrorism. Clean burning energy is possible, if the oil industry wasn't in control of the government.

[Lena]

thanks for the link dairygirl! my interest is in climate change and forests' role, which is huge.

[XIX]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1428610' date='Dec 3 2007, 01:41 PM']Forget about global warming or climate change - just reduce emissions so you and your children don't have to breath it and get asthma. And lets get off of oil to get rid of the PetroDollar terrorism. Clean burning energy is possible, if the oil industry wasn't in control of the government.[/quote]
Exactly, GW is basically a non-issue because, either way, it doesn't affect our responsibility to take care of the environment:

a) We are all called to be stewards of the earth.
b) This responsibility is important, not not close to the most important responsibility. For example, we should do what we can (within reason) to protect the environment.

Perhaps if GW is real, that increases our responsibility in the environment, but not so much so that it will lead to a significant shifting of priorities. What I want to know is why are people so wary of nuclear power? It is by far the safest source of energy in the world. I think there have been two meltdowns in the history of nuclear power, and one was contained so it didn't cause any damage. The other one was disastrous, but it happened 25-35 years ago, so it's unlikely that such a meltdown would ever happen again. The technology evolves, more safety measures, better safety measures, etc. It's certainly safer than having 20 gallons of gasoline in your car, which is a risk we gladly accept. Safer than electricity. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

no problem.

i would also add. considering that analogy about dirty skies. one may think i'm begging the question or something, assuming it doesn't have to be clearly dirty and assuming that it is. but, it's not necessarily wrong or right, just an idea.
but, more than this. consider in al gore's movie. he had scientists bore a hole into the ice in antartica, and pull it out, and do you now what they saw? it started getting gray during the industrial revolution.

also, i concede the wiki picture was bad form and perhaps not accurate. i don't know. i've heard stats similar to taht though.
and, remember al gore's CO2 temperature correlation. but also remember all the nuances related to that, like correlation does nto imply caustaion etc etc.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Lena' post='1428569' date='Dec 3 2007, 11:09 AM']if anyone has any current scientific info on why climate change is a natural life cycle of the planet, please post away.....I'm trying to find info on it for a paper since I have to present both sides and I have a limited amount of info on that side of the issue.[/quote]

Look at the many theories of why there are no more dinosaurs.

The fact that glaciers once covered the earth speaks volumes.

Back around 1808-1809 there was a mini ice age. (google it)

"They" have only been keeping temperature records for about a hundred years. It's been this hot before, it'll cool, and then it'll be this hot again.

Check out all the articles that go into detail here:
[url="http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html"]http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html[/url]

God Bless,
ironmonk

[S][N]

Less argueing over _if_ this exists (PS: It's called Climate Change) and start trying to slow it down.

All your useless argueing isn't going to help your children or your children's children survive in a world impacted by pickering, arrogant, forced ignorant geniuses.

Time to stop being stubborn knobs and wake up. Nuff said.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='S][N' post='1429195' date='Dec 4 2007, 06:38 AM']
Less argueing over _if_ this exists (PS: It's called Climate Change) and start trying to slow it down.[/quote]
My thanks go out to the word police.

[Lil Red]

even if it's not true, it's still good that we are exploring ways to become more energy-independent, taking better care of the earth, etc. do i think we should all become sterilized as to lessen our carbon footprint? i don't think so.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported, and give discussions of the topic at the link:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): [url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/"]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/[/url]
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): [url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html"]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html[/url]
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): [url="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm"]http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm[/url]
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS): [url="http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html"]http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html[/url]
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - [url="http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm"]http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm[/url]
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): [url="http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html"]http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html[/url]
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - [url="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135"]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135[/url]
* American Geophysical Union (AGU): [url="http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html"]http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_...e_position.html[/url]
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html"]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html[/url]
* American Institute of Physics (AIP): [url="http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html"]http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html[/url]
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): [url="http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html"]http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html[/url]
* American Meteorological Society (AMS): [url="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html"]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html[/url]
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): [url="http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html"]http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html[/url]


For more authoritative sources and a retort to "global warming is a hoax", go here:
[url="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027"]http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027[/url]

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd also consider that if we run out of oil or are reduced to little oil, then the earth might begin cooling and no significant effect.
and, even if warming by man, it might cause shifts in our lifestyles and commerce, but it might not be that bad overall given things like increased vegetation etc.

consider whether biofuels which are also pollutants might take over oil. but then, it might not because that'd be a major competitor with simple food sources. a hard core conservative would let the biofuels do as they would, but if we regulated that as we should, and not laissez faire econ, then the biofuel problem might not ever arise.

just some things to consider.

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lena]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1430115' date='Dec 5 2007, 02:20 PM']i'd also consider that if we run out of oil or are reduced to little oil, then the earth might begin cooling and no significant effect.
and, even if warming by man, it might cause shifts in our lifestyles and commerce, but it might not be that bad overall given things like increased vegetation etc.

consider whether biofuels which are also pollutants might take over oil. but then, it might not because that'd be a major competitor with simple food sources. a hard core conservative would let the biofuels do as they would, but if we regulated that as we should, and not laissez faire econ, then the biofuel problem might not ever arise.

just some things to consider.[/quote]
[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/06/eaamazon106.xml"]Amazon rainforest[/url]

some problems with biofuels. not to mention a less-developed country's dependency on forests (energy, nutrition), which must be cleared land in order to supply the market of biofuels to meet the demands of developed countries. the above info. was also kind of talked about on the nightly news today. Indonesia is having the same problem, as it clears the forests for biofuels, which sets off problems for Indonesia as a huge pollutant.

some interesting links I've used on climate change, many of the sites relate to forestry and climate change, and it's very connected as you can see.


[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/recognizing-forests-role-in-climate-change.html"]UCSUSA[/url]

[url="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2006/1000247/index.html"]FAO[/url]

[url="http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/"]WWF[/url]

[url="http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/"]Polar Bears[/url] this one was so much fun to look at, lots of info on polar bears. there is info on climate change as well. I liked the pictures.

[url="http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/"]Climate Change calculator[/url]

[url="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/forests/default.htm"]US Global Change Research Program[/url]

[url="http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Forests.asp"]Global Issues, Climate Change[/url]

[url="http://www.news.wisc.edu/14042"]Hungry insects leave clues to impacts of climate change[/url]