The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The point of the story you linked was the following.

“The idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you can’t have a debate is outrageous. Because there’s a strong majority in basic science doesn’t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.”

The following speaks volumes.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

June 21, 2011
The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.
Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.
Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.
"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.
Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it.
- Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication
Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.
That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.
Cicerone also points to strong statements about climate change from the leading professional organizations in the United States, including from the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and others.
Of course, it's still possible to find a few scientists who reject the consensus. Cicerone says it is appealing to think they are right when they say there's no need to worry about complicated cap-and-trade policies or otherwise fuss about climate change.
"I think rooting for the underdog, the David against the Goliath, is something that we all do — I think it's particularly American, although it happens everywhere," he said. "And in fact, this is the way scientists work.
"Scientists don't gain respect, and attention, and fame, if you will, by going along with the mainstream, and I don't know of many scientists who try to go along with the mainstream — they're trying to go the opposite direction."
Though a few are still finding reasons for doubt, Cicerone says he and most of his colleagues find the science of climate change is stronger the harder they look. So does this public disbelief mean that Americans are becoming more anti-science?
Conservative voters' views of climate change have shifted in recent years.

Leiserowitz of Yale University says that's not what his polls show.
"Most Americans have overwhelming trust in the science and trust in scientists," he said.
But the public is largely unaware of the consensus because that's not what they're hearing on cable TV or reading in blogs.
"They mostly get exposed to a much more conflicted view, and that's of course not by accident," he said.
Leiserowitz is now starting to ask how public opinion changes when people actually know that the National Academy of Sciences and other groups consider climate change to be a big concern.
"So far the evidence shows that the more people understand that there is this consensus, the more they tend to believe that climate change is happening, the more they understand that humans are a major contributor, and the more worried they are about it," Leiserowitz said.
He says if you drill down a bit, the American public actually is not split when you ask them if they'd like to see a gradual transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.
"We find overwhelming bipartisan agreement about that," he said.

As it happens, that transition is a step toward slowing the pace of global climate change.

And everyone of those "scientists" relies exclusively on the propagation of the AGW fraud to feed himself and his family. Their data just doesn't pass muster and their theory is not only unproven, but probably unprovable.

CO2 is a straw man that has ruined the environmental movement.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Water vapor is self regulating. It's called rain.


There is a certain amout of water vapor that can stay in the air at a given temp and pressure. Any excess falls as rain.

Some good stuff here.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

CO2 is an insignificant trace gas, only a small fraction of which is produced by human activities. Your earlier point about "acid rain" is pure scare tactic as every instance of "acid rain" is the result of sulfurous pollutants which everybody thinks should be minimized, despite the fact that most are the result of volcanic eruptions.

EPA met all of it's initial mandates just a few short years after it was created. Ever since, it's been on a never ending mission to expand it's power and budget as all bureaucracies do. Your source is a self interested, highly partisan fraud.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Global warming has not been claimed or proven to increase the rate of extinction. A meteor strike wiped out the dinosaurs. By putting debris into the air that altered Earth’s climate. Instead of all at once, we are putting debris in the air little by little. At what point are things dangerous? No one is saying but saying there is no climate change and not studying or trying to get a handle on our emissions is stupid. Anybody who flies knows that you don’t have the clarity of air any more. Or how many stars you can’t see now.

I’m not speaking for Jackie, but the way I took his point, and it is a good one, is that there is always change, and we ain’t all that. We’re just one more spec on the cosmic wheel.

Follow the money and it will lead you to the inevitable conclusion no matter how much the sky-is-falling industry has to pay for it. We should stop polluting our planet period.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

...

At a meeting several months ago a senior manager made some comment about our trying to lower our "carbon footprint" or some other rubbish. Everyone in the room with a technical degree looked at each other in disbelief, but nobody said a word (out loud).

Also, despite what the greens would hope for, the evil petrochemical industry actually stood to make $millions off of "cap and trade" had it happened.

I work for a major international oil firm also. We actually have a "Director of Climate Change". When she and her minions come over to speak, most of us non-managerial/tech types just sit there incredulous.

You're wrong about cap n trade. We stood to make billions at least initially in the European market. That's because the govts were going to hand out billions of "free credits" to get us to play. Our board took it and tried to lead but I don't think it got any traction due to the Euro problems and other EU factors, along the Copenhagen Conference being a disaster (YEAH!).

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

CO2 is a straw man that has ruined the environmental movement.

I used to think that the CO2 was the environment clarion issue when it was determined that calls to "Save the Rainforest" were going unheeded.

Now I think its just a Socialist and Zero Population Growth issue used by governments/UN/Socialist Libs to control the unwashed masses and redistribute money to their own pockets.

It has nothing to do with "Protecting The Environment." Many of the environment issues that affected US in the 60s - like dirty air and water - are still real problems except its happening in developing countries. I invite the enviros to go to those countries and affect real change.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

You're wrong about cap n trade. We stood to make billions at least initially in the European market. That's because the govts were going to hand out billions of "free credits" to get us to play. Our board took it and tried to lead but I don't think it got any traction due to the Euro problems and other EU factors, along the Copenhagen Conference being a disaster (YEAH!).

It's a matter of scale, I used to work for one of the big internationals in the old days as well, but now work for a much smaller company, hence millions instead of billions.

Protecting the environment is a must, I've seen that first hand, and I know for a fact that everyone in the petrochemical industry lives on this planet, most have kids living on this planet, and all want a safe environment to live in.

For every academic bitching about it, for every bureaucrat regulating about it, there are dozens of scientists and engineers working, actually working, on ways to make the environment cleaner, and they are working in the very industries the zealots attack.

Concentrate the argument on sulfurous and nitrogenous waste and either recyclable or extremely long service life products. Deforestation and over population are serious issues.

There is no need to invent from whole cloth a fabrication like AGW to protect the environment, it's only purpose is political.

[Whirlaway]

And the Global Warming hoaxters are enforcing a strict doctrine against their skeptics......

The BBC recently announced a policy change limiting the amount of air time that is given to the anti-global warming scientists and opinionists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...body-rule.html

[Jackie S]

Olivia got my point. In the entire Cosmic Scheme, we are really not that much. The only thing that makes us different from every other Species that have inhabited the Planet is we have reached a level of intellegence that allows us to contemplate our own mortality. Take away that, and we are no different than one of the other most populus animals, for instance the Trilobite, which by fossil records might have been the most populus animal on the Planet at one time. Seen one lately?

[Whirlaway]

There are studies, with gorillas and other species, that disputes we are the only species that can "contemplate" mortality. Within gorilla bands, they mourn their passing in ways that resemble humans..same with other species.

Originally Posted by Jackie S

...a level of intellegence that allows us to contemplate our own mortality. ...

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

And everyone of those "scientists" relies exclusively on the propagation of the AGW fraud to feed himself and his family. Their data just doesn't pass muster and their theory is not only unproven, but probably unprovable.

CO2 is a straw man that has ruined the environmental movement.

Scientists are reporting their findings. They would be doing the same job, global warming or not. That’s the job, study the interactions, record data, analyze the data, and try to make sense of any trends. They won’t be sharing in all the money you talk about. The “scientists” you refer to below have much greater reason to skew numbers. They make money that is directly tied to your argument there is no global warming. Just like you do.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

CO2 is an insignificant trace gas, only a small fraction of which is produced by human activities. Your earlier point about "acid rain" is pure scare tactic as every instance of "acid rain" is the result of sulfurous pollutants which everybody thinks should be minimized, despite the fact that most are the result of volcanic eruptions.

EPA met all of it's initial mandates just a few short years after it was created. Ever since, it's been on a never ending mission to expand it's power and budget as all bureaucracies do. Your source is a self interested, highly partisan fraud.

I didn’t say CO2 caused acid rain (it actually does, rain pH is @ 5.7). I was making the point that acid rain wasn’t a fabrication and using it as an example of how the process works.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

It's a matter of scale, I used to work for one of the big internationals in the old days as well, but now work for a much smaller company, hence millions instead of billions.

Protecting the environment is a must, I've seen that first hand, and I know for a fact that everyone in the petrochemical industry lives on this planet, most have kids living on this planet, and all want a safe environment to live in. Give me a break. All you have to do is look at the list of superfund cleanup sites to see that many people who were in charge didn't feel that way.

For every academic bitching about it, for every bureaucrat regulating about it, there are dozens of scientists and engineers working, actually working, on ways to make the environment cleaner, and they are working in the very industries the zealots attack.

Concentrate the argument on sulfurous and nitrogenous waste and either recyclable or extremely long service life products. Deforestation and over population are serious issues.

There is no need to invent from whole cloth a fabrication like AGW to protect the environment, it's only purpose is political.

You’re missing a key concept. There have been scrubbers for smoke stacks for years. The type of device depends the make up of exhaust. Power plants than burn coal with a high sulfur and mercury content have the means to burn clean but seek variances to keep from spending the money. Most pollutants are already controllable. The main reason these “scientists” are working on ways to make the environment cleaner is because of the commercial potential of any thing they come up with and to keep OSHA off their backs. Talk about a biased batch of lab workers. Corporations spend more on public relations and advertising after the disaster/ecological damage than installing equipment before hand. Because they might not have to spend it.

Would they be working on these things if the academicians hadn’t spent the time and research on them or the public didn’t know about them? Cigarette companies concealed negative findings. Regulators keep tabs because the industries don’t have a good record of self regulation. People might care about pollution but corporations don’t.

All you have to do is look at numbers. CO2 numbers are climbing rapidly. Even if you don’t think they are causing a problem now, how long before they do? Zinc, iodine, copper and iron are trace elements in our bodies. Too little or too much can damage your body beyond repair.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There are studies, with gorillas and other species, that disputes we are the only species that can "contemplate" mortality. Within gorilla bands, they mourn their passing in ways that resemble humans..same with other species.

Mourning is after the fact. Contemplating your mortality is before the fact. They don't know that even if they avoid every peril, they are still going to die.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Global warming has not been claimed or proven to increase the rate of extinction. A meteor strike wiped out the dinosaurs. By putting debris into the air that altered Earth’s climate. Instead of all at once, we are putting debris in the air little by little. At what point are things dangerous? No one is saying but saying there is no climate change and not studying or trying to get a handle on our emissions is stupid. Anybody who flies knows that you don’t have the clarity of air any more. Or how many stars you can’t see now.

I agree there is some climate manipulation, but most of it is done by the scientists themselves, it's called geo-engineering. They have forgotten a general rule in science, causality. To blame the public at large to force agendas for unproven science is nothing more than a money game. Scientific funding, cap-n-trade, etc; it's big business and there is a lot of money at stake.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...09RG000282.pdf

These people say the solar activity has little to do with the issue.

And this harvard astrophysicist says that it does have an affect on surface tempatures. He even talks a bit about the pre-industrial revolutions' "mini ice ages." We know in the 70's that the "global cooling" was "supposed" to be the result of chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs,creating a hole in the ozone layer. CO2 wasn't the culprit back then for city polution it was Carbon MONOxide. The reduction in useage and regulations are believed to have solved the global cooling. However, you cannot discount the cooling pre-industrial revolution, because we didn't use freon, a CFC, et.al. back then.

What is the WHOLE affect of geo-engineering? Do they believe because THEY are doing it, that it doesn't have an affect on an ecosystem further down the tradewinds? Who is to be believed and what are they getting out of it on either side of the fence?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the only problem with CO2 is the it is not a major green house gas. its a deception that AGW backers harp on.

Its water vapor, not co2, is what drives the climate tempatures.

sorry, I left out a key piece to the last line.

Water vapor in the form of cloud cover influences what kind of climate an area will get. the amount of clould cover is influnced by 2 outside sources, the sun's radiation and cosmic radidation from other stars.

the way this was explained is this (if I remember correctly), the more cloud cover you had, the climate in the area would get cooler; whereas, less cloud cover gets you a hotter climate in an area.

I think it was a norwegian scientist who came up with this theory and was not well received.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There are studies, with gorillas and other species, that disputes we are the only species that can "contemplate" mortality. Within gorilla bands, they mourn their passing in ways that resemble humans..same with other species.

They miss their dead just like my old lady cat missed the other old lady cat. They died within two weeks of each other, but they didn't think they were going to meet each other in the afterlife. Contemplating mortality is something completely different, and it leads to another whole philosophical can of worms. What happens after I die. Why do I exist. What is the meaning of life. Is their a deity. If not, how do I understand infinity.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

They died within two weeks of each other, but they didn't think they were going to meet each other in the afterlife.

Your having atheist cats i don't think proves anything!