Global Warming Scam

[a_unique_person]

I am so happy I will be dead before any of this will really matter.

My children, and their children, won't be.

 

[a_unique_person]

From CFSM:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Correlation is not necesarily causation, correct, but you are confusing the issue because the scientists have scientifically demonstrated the cause and effect that is happening in this case. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is demonstrably so, and it is increasing in concentration. The only argument is about the degree to which the earth will warm.

 

[RichardR]

Ah, Buckaroo, could you please predict the weather for me for hallowe'en.
I want to have an outside a party and I don't wish for rain.
I'm in Toronto.
What, a meteorologist doesn't have the tools to do that?

You are confusing predicting the weather with predicting climate, From Short and simple arguments for why climate can be predicted:

It is true that we cannot predict the weather indefinetely (or even beyond a couple of weeks), because of the chaotic nature and infinitesimally small uncertainties in the state as we know to day, will affect how the weather evolves in a few weeks (the 'chaos effect'). But, still I say that I know with certainty that there is a very high probability that the temperature in 6 months will be lower than now - when winter has arrived (it's summer on the northern hemisphere at the present). In fact, the seasonal variation in temperature and rainfall (wet and dry seasons in the tropics) tends to be highly predictable: the winters at high latitudes are cold and summers mild...

More at the link.

 

[Tricky]

My children, and their children, won't be.

They allowed you to breed!


(Just kidding AUP. I couldn't resist.)

 

[Floyd]

Thanks to all. That's really cleared things up.(not).
Having read a few of the articles posted here, I'm not impressed with the way some of them make assumptions about the cause of global warming. However, it looks like I'll be doing some more research as junkscience.com doesn't appear to be the most objective source. Mind you, neither does realclimate.org.

Is it true that the polar region was warmer in 1938 than it is today?

Is it true that if the north pole ice melted it would not have any effect on sea levels as it is the same displacement principle as ice cubes in a glass of water?

 

[Brainache]

,<snip>

Is it true that if the north pole ice melted it would not have any effect on sea levels as it is the same displacement principle as ice cubes in a glass of water?

Maybe so for the actual ice cap itself, but not for all those glaciers on Greenland Siberia, Iceland etc. And let's not forget Antarctica, plenty of ice there just waiting to slide into the ocean.

 

[Huntster]

I'd talk to Tobias if I were you, he knows a great deal about global warming.........

Tobias doesn't "know" squat.

 

[a_unique_person]

They allowed you to breed!


(Just kidding AUP. I couldn't resist.)

You'll keep.

 

[DeviousB]

Thanks to all. That's really cleared things up.(not).
Having read a few of the articles posted here, I'm not impressed with the way some of them make assumptions about the cause of global warming. However, it looks like I'll be doing some more research as junkscience.com doesn't appear to be the most objective source. Mind you, neither does realclimate.org.

Generally, one shouldn't rely on any single source in science. Of all the sources of GW information out there, the IPCC is probably the best. It may move 'glacially' slowly, but it pulls together the information from hundreds of research teams into what is generally conservative view of the 'scientific consensus'.

It might be argued that all the scientists involved with GW are wrong; although it's not enough to say so, you would need a considerable weight of evidence to back it up. You might be able to argue that the modelling techniques are not good enough to justify their conclusions; but you would need to say where and how they are failing, and demonstrate the critical nature of the problem. You could always claim collusion or conspiracy amongst the scientists involved; though the size of the conspiracy would dwarf that needed to pull off a false-flag 9/11, hoax the moon-landings and cover up the Roswell incident put together.

Is it true that the polar region was warmer in 1938 than it is today?

Maybe, so? Global Warming doesn't mean everywhere gets warmer by the same amount, it means the global average temperature increases. Increased meltwater falling into the Atlantic at northern latitudes might possibly shut down or divert the Gulf Stream. This would mean that GW would cause a decrease in the average temperatures across the UK of 5C.

Actually, I can find references to the warmest air temperature in the arctic occurring in 1938. But one data point isn't an argument for anything.

Is it true that if the north pole ice melted it would not have any effect on sea levels as it is the same displacement principle as ice cubes in a glass of water?

No.

Arctic ice is freshwater, Seawater is saltwater. Saltwater is denser so the arctic ice must displace a smaller volume of saltwater to balance the weight of the freshwater. If the ice melts, it will contribute a net volume to the oceans ( http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html ).

Also, do not forget that water expands as it warms. The thermal expansion of the oceans is often overlooked because it does not have the drama of a vanishing glacier or a fracturing ice-shelf; it provides, however, a significant contribution to the predicted rises in sea-level.

 

[Polaris]

I am so happy I will be dead before any of this will really matter.

But what if science tackles immortality?

 

[Beerina]

Great if you want wooly mammoth bones, but not if you are old and living in Europe, when a heat wave killed tens of thousands.

One could argue heavy-handed socialism, making air conditioners prohibitively expensive, was the cause of most of these deaths.

 

[stocks]

Newsweek says

Here is a direct quote from a Newsweek 4/28/1975 article entitled 'The Cooling World':

"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists
disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over it's specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

If the climate change is as profound as the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climactic change would force economic and social adjustments on worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the Nation Academy of Sciences" ...

 

[Aepervius]

Answer to Stock

I have yet to find many peer reviewed article from the 70th pretending that climat was cooling down, whereas I find plenty of JOURNALISTIC source (pretending to have a scientific shine and backing), saying that earth was cooling down and going to an ice age.

On the other hand , we have now a lot of JOURNALISTIC source pretending that global warming is not true and is contested, whereas you find a breadth of article demonstrating GW and there is a consensus for a majority of scientific that GW is true. Now the anthropomorphic origin of that GW might be contested. That is another issue.

See the different , stock, between the two cases ?

 

[Buckaroo]

I have yet to find many peer reviewed article from the 70th pretending ....... Now the anthropomorphic origin of that GW might be contested. That is another issue.

See the different , stock, between the two cases ?

Right on, Aepervius. Dig it:


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

 

[varwoche]

Having read a few of the articles posted here, I'm not impressed with the way some of them make assumptions about the cause of global warming.

Which articles and assumptions do you refer to?

 

[Dr Richard]

As I know this forum is filled to bursting point with intelligent and informed people, can you tell me if junkscience.com is a credible source, and do you disagree with any of the points above?

A lot of people have already commented on whether junkscience.com is a credible source.

Interestingly, this issue was recently debated in the UK, as the Royal Society sent the following letter to Exxon:


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

Note towards the end the comment that Exxon/Mobil spent $2.9million dollars on organisations which misinform the public about climate change through their websites.

Why is this relevant? junkscience.com is one of them...

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

The link contains details of how Steve Milloy, who set up the junkscience website, originally worked for a consultancy set up with aid of Philip Morris, the tobacco company, which set out to "disprove" the fact that smoking could be bad for view (which was of course unrelated to the fact that Philip Morris made large amounts of money from, er, people smoking).

It details how Exxon/Mobil also helped to fund this work, and funds other organisations listed at Steve Milloy's address.

Why does this matter?

From the google tab for junkscience: "JunkScience.com spotlights and debunks faulty scientific data and analysis used to promote special agendas, such as those of activist groups"

Is not Exxon/Mobil an activist group with a special agenda when it comes to research on global warming?

Why does junkscience.com not detail its funding from Exxon/Mobil?

This is intellectual dishonesty.

In the scientific world, peer reviewed journals require scientists to declare competing interests, such as funding from drug companies. This is because it is accepted that such funding introduces the possibility of bias. junkscience.com does not do this (unless I have missed some VERY small print?), and cannot claim to be a reliable source.

 

[RichardR]

Here is a direct quote from a Newsweek 4/28/1975 article entitled 'The Cooling World':

"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists
disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over it's specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

If the climate change is as profound as the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climactic change would force economic and social adjustments on worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the Nation Academy of Sciences" ...

The global Cooling Myth.

Even if it were not a myth, this would still be just a fallacious appeal to Science was Wrong Before.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is a direct quote from a Newsweek 4/28/1975 article entitled 'The Cooling World':

"The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists
disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over it's specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

If the climate change is as profound as the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climactic change would force economic and social adjustments on worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the Nation Academy of Sciences" ...

There was no IPCC convened, there were no global conferences. It was a phenomenon that has since been explained, the 'global dimming', that is, pollution that caused the opposite of global warming. That pollution was relatively easy to remove. Which is a worry, since the dimming is a problem that is only short term, but the global warming cause is very long term. The CO2 you produce now, half of it will still be in the air 100 years from now.

 

[stocks]

Ipcc? Co2?

There was no IPCC convened, there were no global conferences. It was a phenomenon that has since been explained, the 'global dimming', that is, pollution that caused the opposite of global warming. That pollution was relatively easy to remove. Which is a worry, since the dimming is a problem that is only short term, but the global warming cause is very long term. The CO2 you produce now, half of it will still be in the air 100 years from now.

warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=40



What about future climate? The Establishment has handed the baton to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In its Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001, IPCC “projected” 1990-2100 warming in the range of 1.4 to 5.8 oC. These low/high end-points rely, respectively, on IPCC’s implausibly-high and unimaginably-high projections of economic growth in Third World nations.

Despite the best endeavours of brave and determined economists Ian Castles (Australia) and David Henderson (UK), IPCC is retaining its outlandish TAR economic projections for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) due out in 2007. Just to show how bizarre these economics are, per-capita GDP for Australia was US$ 17,000 (market-exchange-rate basis) in 1990. In 2100, according to IPCC’s “storylines”, it will be a plausible-sounding 55-61 (US$ 1990 thousands) – compared to Afghanistan 69-78, and Zimbabwe 68-87. South Africa, with the world’s highest coal intensity (76%) in primary energy use, will do even better. In 1990, its per-capita GDP was a minuscule 2.8; and by 2100, it will be 394-470!

Apologists for IPCC, say that only those for collective supra-regional GDP projections are “approved’ – not those for individual nations. So be it; but obviously, if IPCC adjusts-down South African economic growth, in its AR4 work-sheets, another country will have to go up even more to keep whole its (pre-approved) total projected coal consumption.

IPCC’s high-end (A1FI) “scenario” has world consumption of (carbon-rich) coal increasing by an amazing 37% between 1990 and 2000. In reality, it grew just over half as fast – 21% during 1990-2004. Can real scientists accept, and use as underpinning for their own climate-related work, the emissions projections and consequent range of future global warming proffered up by IPCC? Scientists can and do. Unquestioningly – as if they were Holy Writ. (As an awful example, there is no need to look further than CSIRO’s 2070 Australian regional climates.)


canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

[exarch]

6. It is a waste of money and resources trying to cut emissions before gaining a better understanding of climate change

I think it would be a waste of money and resources not to.
Even if global warming turned out not to be happening, it still wouldn't hurt to look into alternative forms of energy production, if not for the simple reason that in about 30 years, the oil will pretty much be all used up. So we have to find a way to deal with that problem anyway. Why not try to fix it by doing something other than burning oil and coal?
And there's no denying that fuel emissions cause smog and acid rain.