Global Warming is a hoax.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1305229009' post='2240584']
hey, this is the first time i brought it up!! lol.
[/quote]


Yes, but between my wife and Winchester...

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305229500' post='2240591']
Yes, but between my wife and Winchester...
[/quote]
oy. say no more.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The fact is that there is no evidence that man has changed the worl's climate, only that the world's climate is changing "

we see that it's getting ge3nerally warmer anyways, and suddenly assume that there's no evidence? wow, people haven't been reading this thread for the man mand global warming argumetns, at all.

[quote]here is a quick synopsis:
-sun activity i've cited a study for, only accounts for a third of the warmth, at most.
-volcanoes theories ive shown have no basis in anything. the myths are traced back to a volcano that erupted 700k years ago. nothing is ever cited as authoritative that they actually do more harm than humans, other than nonsensical gut speak. seriously, a single state probably puts out as much as a volcano does. and ironmonk said thrity volcanoes go off a year. we have fifty states most of which probably do at least as much damage. not to mention other countries. to cite thirty volcanoes or volcanoes in general, without nothing more cited or reasoned, is simply idiotic.
-they showed that a few hundred parts per billion can increase temperature. humans before cars, with agriculture, did this. now we're at parts per *million* and the parts are shown by isotopes to be from recent human activity.
-temperature started going up exponentially around the seventies. this era is known as the environmental era, given people started developing so much. even if we were generally going up before, that it would be triggered at the exact same time, is too much to say it's just a coincidence. maybe, but it's not good judgment to say so.
-ice cores in antarctica started getting blacker during the industrial revolution, and lighter the same yuear the clean air act was implemented.
-they show that CO2 does in fact increase temperature.
-if we know it increases temperature, and all the theories for why we're warmer other than humans doesn't add up... dsen't it makes sense to at least suspect that it might be cause of humans?

people just say it's not because of humans and because of some vague cycle, without addressing facts. don't let facts get in the way. truthiness gut speak all the way. even if global warming by humans turned out to be false, to say global warming is a hoax, is idiotic [/quote]

[quote]

"Why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they [are] the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon 'pseudo-certainty.' I call it 'being a f*cking moron.'" --Al Franken, from Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot

Quote

Quote
i've never seen any sources cited for the volcano theory, but here's what i can find pointing that the volcano thing is a myth:
--------------
The volcano theorists can't even keep their stories straight. In his book, Limbaugh claims that the 1991 Pinatubo eruption put 1000 times as much chlorine into the atmosphere as industry has ever produced through CFCs; yet on Nightline, Pinatubo is alleged to have produced 570 times the equivalent of one year's worth of CFCs. Both can't be right. It turns out neither are.

The figure 570 apparently derives from Ray's book--but she said it was Mount Augustine, an Alaskan volcano that erupted in 1976, that put out 570 times as much chlorine as one year's worth of CFCs. Ray's source is a 1980 Science magazine article--but that piece was actually talking about the chlorine produced by a gigantic eruption that occurred 700,000 years ago in California (Science, 6/11/93).
---------
i'd also add, that hte common sense answer to me is... consider all the smoke stacks out there. consider all the pollution, places like LA. i'd bet california itself is like a volcano very short period in intervals. doesn't this make the most sense, considering how little and how infrequent volcanoes erupt?
----------


scientific article saying the sun is only accounting for a third of our warming
-------------
QUOTE
With respect to global warming, though solar activity has been at relatively high levels during the recent period, the fact that solar activity has been near constant during the last 30 years precludes solar variability from playing a large role in recent warming. It is estimated that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity account for between 18 and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999
QUOTE
It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the
twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than
do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater
influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of
changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse
gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

^ Stott, Peter A.; Gareth S. Jones and John F. B. Mitchell (15 December 2003). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change". Journal of Climate 16: 4079-4093. Retrieved on October 5, 2005.[/quote]



[quote]the facts are pretty clearly pointing to man made causes.
but in any case, i don't understand why it's so 'common sense' not by man. look at all the cars, smoke stacks from power generators, . what's nature got? 30 volcanoes a year erupt, each state in our union probably puts out as much. some animal CO2. what about cows and domesticated animals? man made. plus you don't dirty dirty ice in antarctica from natural gases, you see it from man made gases during the times of industry, and less during times of regulation of man gases. ice is an indicator of what's in the air. it seems more common sensical to think that we make more CO2 and emission.
but to each his own i guess.
even still, it doesn't detract from all the factual studies etc.
true, though, the conclusion one should draw is... "what is causing all our warming? it's not the sun or volcanoes, or other things that we can see. so what is it? we know CO2 causes temperature increases, and we have a lot of CO2 in the air, and all those other indicators" if one were to think man gases are just a drop in the bucket, then it could make sense to think what we do is inconsequential, and that there must be some other 'unknown' for why we're warming without something to attribute it to. but i don't know how one draws this conclusion that it's inconsequential.
i don't know how one can rationally be so adamaentaly against the idea of man made global warming. what i see is group think, 'i'm a republican so this is what i'll believe'. or people making assertions really without facts of any significance. [/quote]

"And we know that increasing the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of heat trapped by the planet. Just look at Venus (atmosphere 96% carbon dioxide; surface temperatures the hottest in the solar system). We've done experiments to test that out, too, so it's not simply a conjecture from correlation to say 'more CO2 = warmer'"

"we emit an estimated 30 billion metric tons of CO2 (to say nothing of other greenhouse gases); fossil fuel carbon rising in coral; carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 indicating fossil fuel carbon emissions; falling O2 levels; rising tropopause; stratospheric temp change; cooling and contraction of thermosphere; anthropogenic models best account for ocean warming pattern, sea level pressure changes, and precipitation trends; increased downward and decreased upward longwave radiation; TOA energy imbalance as predicted by anthropogenic models; more warming at night than during day as predicted by anthropogenic models."

also even if we've been generally warming, and even if there's a hockey stick towards recent years, it doesn't mean we can't exacerbate the situation significantly. look at all the above evidence.

Edited May 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

also i'm not sure it's necessarily such a bad thing we're warming. it'll cause mauch variation in our climate cyles though, as i'd suppose is already happening. to note, it's not that we're warming so much as we're experieincing more variablity, that's what's supposed by the general warming.

that quote actually didn't say we're not the cause of it, etc.

Edited May 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"unconvincing" "not compelling"

well, it's atl east plausible to say it's unconvincing that man made is the cause. we know there's lots of things the cause of warming isn't... including volcanoes sun etc etc, if you buy what the science suggests. but that leaves us asking 'what is the cause'. it could be something else. but we know CO2 is increasing significantly and causes warming, etc so it seems like the best take is that it *is* convincing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305197428' post='2240442']
[i]A Few Outlets of Anti-science Misinformation and Obscurantism[/i][/quote]
So much for objective and unbiased debate . . .

[quote][url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Acton_Institute"]Acton Institute[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation"]Atlas Economic Research Foundation[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom"]Frontiers of Freedom[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition"]Global Climate Coalition[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute"]Cato Institute[/url]

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf"]More...[/url][/quote]
Oh horrors! Dissenters!

Thanks for the links to these informative and enlightening websites, L_D. Seriously.

While there is much debate and uncertainty surrounding climate change issues, what is certain scientific fact is that socialistic, globalist schemes like the Kyoto protocol, and carbon cap-and-trade will have negligible real impact on the climate, but will seriously cripple the U.S. economy (worse than it is already), and lead to very real human poverty and suffering.

But let's not let the facts and reason get in the way hysteria and enthusiasm for global socialism! Heresy!

[quote]I've found that some "Catholic" junk has connections with the above think tanks. For example Michael Novak of [i]First Things[/i] and [i]National Review[/i] is a member of the Acton Institute. Not sure what this means as I don't read either of these but it is unfortunate imo.[/quote]
So if any Catholics oppose socialist schemes, and see a free market as the best solution to our economic problems, what they have to say is "junk," and they merit being called "Catholic" only with quotes.

And for one who doesn't read either of those publications, you sure are mighty quick to condemn everything published in them!


[quote]I have no tolerance for anti-science activists marketing themselves and their agendas in Catholic terms. Anyway, please learn real science and don't be deluded by the liars and cranks. This is like tobacco research obscurantism meets creationism "teach the controversy" style propaganda.[/quote]
How dare Catholics be conservative or libertarian! The heresy.

I don't have tolerance either for anti-free market socialist activists marketing themselves and their agendas in Catholic terms, myself.

And, sorry, but if you'd display 1/100th of the zeal for defending the Catholic Faith that you show for your rabid green ideology, maybe I'd have a little bit more respect for your viewpoint.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's tragic is when people start taking positions based on their pre-existing ideologies, cookie cutter politics.
'im liberal/conservative, and even if i'm not consciously aware of it... i'm going to take the cookie cutter position on this'.
not pointing any fingers, just sayin that this is mostly what is at play with most people, as it is is on most issues for em.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305237940' post='2240647']

And, sorry, but if you'd display 1/100th of the zeal for defending the Catholic Faith that you show for your rabid green ideology, maybe I'd have a little bit more respect for your viewpoint.
[/quote]
I don't believe that's justified at all.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305237940' post='2240647']
So much for objective and unbiased debate . . .


Oh horrors! Dissenters!

Thanks for the links to these informative and enlightening websites, L_D. Seriously.

While there is much debate and uncertainty surrounding climate change issues, what is certain scientific fact is that socialistic, globalist schemes like the Kyoto protocol, and carbon cap-and-trade will have negligible real impact on the climate, but will seriously cripple the U.S. economy (worse than it is already), and lead to very real human poverty and suffering.

But let's not let the facts and reason get in the way hysteria and enthusiasm for global socialism! Heresy!


So if any Catholics oppose socialist schemes, and see a free market as the best solution to our economic problems, what they have to say is "junk," and they merit being called "Catholic" only with quotes.

And for one who doesn't read either of those publications, you sure are mighty quick to condemn everything published in them!



How dare Catholics be conservative or libertarian! The heresy.

I don't have tolerance either for anti-free market socialist activists marketing themselves and their agendas in Catholic terms, myself.

And, sorry, but if you'd display 1/100th of the zeal for defending the Catholic Faith that you show for your rabid green ideology, maybe I'd have a little bit more respect for your viewpoint.
[/quote]
Everything you just said is irrelevant and you haven't actually engaged anything that I put forth. The political discourse isn't the science and the problem is that people like you don't seem to realize that (or thrive on obfuscation). I have no tolerance for people who act as though the proclamations of their favorite think tank and pundits are equal to the scientific community. It isn't that hard to discern real science from junk science. The fact that the guy on First Things who often blogs about climate is a member of the Discovery Institute kind of says a lot. lol. I pray that you people get a clue.

[RezaMikhaeil]

19 pages? Wow, well something that is not mentioned here is that Al Gore reciently bought an 8 million dollar house in one of the supposed "global warming flood zones", that he claimed in his movie would be under water soon. However we should also not forget that many scientists have taken these claims to court because there is not a concensus in the scientific community. It's about control, it's about fudging the facts, etc. That whole "hockey stick" chart that Gore showed in his film is manufactured. It's not what the real data says. There hasn't been this steady climb in temperature as he claims. There has been years of warming and years of cooling. This year [and I felt it cause I live in Wisconsin] has been a year of cooling, record cooling actually. However, how many major media sources reported on that?

MSNBC has guests on their show that say, "right now, in the artic there is not much ice" [in the dead of winter]. That is a deliberate lie. Right as those idiots made those statements, there were miles and miles, I think 100,000 total, of ice being created by "mother nature". However, not a single news agency [outside of Fox a few times] mentioned it. When climate gate got busted wide open, it was "not significant" in the major media's eyes. Imagine if those memos came from George W. Bush and were about the wars? Why are those emails not media worthy, but Sarah Palin's husband yelling at Joe Miller are?

[RezaMikhaeil]

I do agree with most of what Socrates said here, but I'd have put it more politely...well maybe I wouldn't have. Either way Ron Paul 2012.

[Amppax]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305243322' post='2240670']
. There hasn't been this steady climb in temperature as he claims. There has been years of warming and years of cooling. This year [and I felt it cause I live in Wisconsin] has been a year of cooling, record cooling actually. However, how many major media sources reported on that?[/quote]

You do realize that climate change is a worldwide thing, and based on the average temperature of the world as a whole, right?


I'm not actually saying that i agree with the theory, i have no opinion one way or the other, i'm not a scientist.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Amppax

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305243976' post='2240674']
You do realize that climate change is a worldwide thing, and based on the average temperature of the world as a whole, right?


I'm not actually saying that i agree with the theory, i have no opinion one way or the other, i'm not a scientist.
[/quote]

I do, and that is what i was referencing. I wasn't just referencing my specific location. globally this year has been of record cooling.

[Amppax]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305247181' post='2240688']
I do, and that is what i was referencing. I wasn't just referencing my specific location. globally this year has been of record cooling.
[/quote]

ah apologies.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305240035' post='2240658']. It isn't that hard to discern real science from junk science.
[/quote]

L_D with all duez respect it actually [i]can[/i] be hard. Sometimes ideas that are chic among intellectual circles turn out to be pseudoscience. The thing that jumps out to me is eugenics. You would have got scoffed at if you suggested that race was not a rigid biological/genetic reality back in the 1930's. Not to mention that not every average joe has the time or even the capacity to interpret multiple sets of data, nor does he have the knowledge and resources to test and verify theories.

In many arenas the general public relies on authorities. Now since this is the age of "questioning authorities" I don't see why scientists get a special immunity from this same form of questionings. Society is always suspicious of religious leaders (churches get a lot of money, and power) political leaders (they'z got mad money, and power) but all the sudden when it comes to scientific researchers, we're supposed to grant them this god-like respect we don't grant other authorities? I'm not accusing you of doing this outright, but I think with scientism being a prevalent philosophy today that's what we end up getting. "The scientists say . . ." gets an automatic seal of approval from the general public, why are they less critical? As we know, religion is not always pure and can be used for evil, politics sure as hell is not pure and can also be used for evil, but science is considered unadulterated by the lust for money and power, no it's just the honest pursuit of intellectual knowledge.

Scientists know this just as well as politicians and religious zealots and the best way to move the flock in your direction is to grab at their emotions. Now you accuse the non-AGW side of doing this (and appearing outraged as they do so) but do you think the majority of people who believe AGW is valid do so because of pure scientific evidence? I mean do you [i]really[/i] believe that? I will admit that initially I am easily emotionally-manipulated (at least initially, I always check the facts before I reach into my wallet or stand on a street corner shouting about the apocalypse.) That's not something I like to admit, but oh well, and I can tell you that yes I have been on both sides of the fence with this issue, based on poor emotion from "oh no the Earth is dying and my city is gonna be under water tomorrow I'm gonna put solar panels on my car and go kill some big oil moguls" all the way to "I've been lied to all this time I'm gonna go buy a box car and drive it around the hippie commune for hours to watch them cry while all that glorious carbon dioxide clogs the atmosphere BWAHAHAHA." So I think that now A have a more level-headed view towards it, which is basically me saying "I don't know what the deal is but the hysteria is getting old." You win people over via emotion, and the neo-pagan man is the center of the universe so it causes everything narrative fares well in this cultural climate (no pun intended). Maybe AGW is real, but you cannot deny that people have a vested ideological interest in "proving" it is so.

I fully understand this does not automatically debunk AGW as some sort of elitist propaganda, but you just seem shocked and outraged that people find themselves in ideological odds with it. Now you obviously are more knowledgeable about the subject than I and I honestly do not have the time to read all those links you post, but don't automatically dismiss people's suspicions as anti-scientific horse manure. When there is a lot of money and influence at play, it can be a mighty force against honest scientific discourse. That's just the reality.

I mean I know, as religious people we really need to bridge the chasm between faith and science, first we had the whole Copernicus issue and now we have fundies running around saying the Earth is 6000 years old yikes, but you seem to be overcompensating. I am really not trying to make you upset, I just think it would do your blood pressure good to maybe take a step back and see the real concerns that people have about elitism dictating science etc. To be honest I don't know, I mean I have no freaking idea, whether AGW is a reality, but even before all this hysteria I was told as a kid about recycling and all that good stuff, and hey I like my air to be clean so I'm all for a little friendliness to the Earth.

peace

Edited May 13, 2011 by Ice_nine