Global Warming - Is it real, and if so is it caused by humans?

bonkey

yekahs wrote: »

What is unhelpful though is when mysterious comes on here soapboxing his opinions without backing them up, if not with evidence, at least a rationale for believing it. I can fully understand peoples frustrations, and while I don't condone it, I can understand their sacarstic dismissals of his posts as "ramblings".

We have a "report post" function. Please use it rather than complaining about other poster's in-thread

steamjetjoe

Is Global warming real = yes ( silly name though ) Global weather change is more fitting. Im not a scientist but I would hazard a guess here and say, global weather change has probably been happening since the beginning of this planet.

Is it real = Yes the globe has warmed many many many many many times since its formation.

Is it caused by humans= Yes, and by cows, ants, pigeons, monkeys, etc etc. Once again im not a scientist or climate expert but in my opinion humans have little to do with global warming:)

squod

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me where the alleged conspiracy is here. Shouldn't this be on the science forum or whatever?

Yitzhak Rabin

Thanks for your input Joe

steamjetjoe wrote: »

Is Global warming real = yes ( silly name though ) Global weather change is more fitting. Im not a scientist but I would hazard a guess here and say, global weather change has probably been happening since the beginning of this planet.

I have to agree with you, and I think global warming is less used nowadays. I think the correct word usage these days is anthropogenic climate change. Prepared to stand corrected on that one though.

Is it real = Yes the globe has warmed many many many many many times since its formation.

Yes, however we've never seen this type of increase in such a short period of time. Normally it happens over fairly large timescales(with exceptions of cataclismic events such as huge sudden increases in geological activity)
This time the majority concensus is that we have forced a huge shift in climate by releasing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, that had been buried below the earths surface in the form of fossil fuels.

Is it caused by humans= Yes, and by cows, ants, pigeons, monkeys, etc etc. Once again im not a scientist or climate expert but in my opinion humans have little to do with global warming:)

Yes cows do produce a huge amount of the methane(far more effective at adsorbing and re-radiating heat than CO2), but I feel we can add that to human causes, seen as we have enormously increased the amount of livestock in order to feed the close on 7 billion of us, and cut down carbon catching forest in order to do it. One novel idea I heard for reducing this element, is including an additive, a bacteria I think, to cow feed, in order to reduce the amount of methane they emit.

Here's a fairly good basic article about the myth that humans produce so little it doesn't matter.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

Yitzhak Rabin

squod wrote: »

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me where the alleged conspiracy is here. Shouldn't this be on the science forum or whatever?

I ok'ed this with one of the mods before I posted it, as your right there is no conspiracy in the OP. The idea is to try and stimulate discussion about any possible conspiracy, as I wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions and climate change myths.

Kernel

I used to believe in global warming, and the effects of mankinds co2 output on the environment. Now, I'm not so sure.

http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

also, watch a recent episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venutra.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08

Basically, the global warming industry is a huge cash cow, linked to globalist bodies (including the UN). Now I always get skeptical when huge amounts of money and NWO agendas are involved. It's possible that the issue is real and has been hijacked to make money, sellling carbon credits etc. but there is plenty of food for thought there. And plenty of food for a conspiracy theory. King Mob's simplistic view that the oil industry can be responsible for the counter-view does not hold up. The oil industry will continue to sell the oil, making their money regardless until a clean energy is developed, the real multi-trillion dollar industry is the green/climate change movement selling carbon credits to allow the continuation of human pollution from industry.

It's also entirely plausible that much of our climate change is a natural cycle caused by sun activity, or a recent lack thereof.

Kernel

yekahs wrote: »

I think the reason CT'ers are skeptical of CC is because its a global problem that is going to require a global concerted effort to solve, and we all know what happens when heads of governments get together.... its a f*cking baby-sacraficing-blooddrinking-interdimensional-radiochip-tagging-earthquake-causing-lizzzzzzardfest :D

How very glib of you.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

And plenty of food for a conspiracy theory. King Mob's simplistic view that the oil industry can be responsible for the counter-view does not hold up. The oil industry will continue to sell the oil, making their money regardless until a clean energy is developed, the real multi-trillion dollar industry is the green/climate change movement selling carbon credits to allow the continuation of human pollution from industry.

And why doesn't it hold up exactly?
They'll continue to sell oil but wouldn't be able to make as much money off of it, due to less demand and higher taxes.

You honestly can't see how the oil companies could benefit for government inaction?

espinolman

Kernel wrote: »

The oil industry will continue to sell the oil, making their money regardless until a clean energy is developed,
.

Clean energy has been developed , and it is suppressed , and their is so many different technologies and inventions that have been suppressed that panacea have put a ten hours of video on utube documumenting this and illustrating the magnitude of suppression , there is links to it in the free energy thread .

I don't think fossil fuels needed to be burned to have energy because the suppression seems to go back over 200 years , there is alternative ways of getting energy without having to pollute the environment , our planet has been polluted needlessly .

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

And why doesn't it hold up exactly?
They'll continue to sell oil but wouldn't be able to make as much money off of it, due to less demand and higher taxes.

You honestly can't see how the oil companies could benefit for government inaction?

I don't see a carbon tax affecting oil sales or demand (and concordantly oil company profit margins) adversely, no. Especially since carbon 'credits' can be purchased. In fact, if anything the movement would appear to be a redistribution of wealth and a method of creaming money from a newly founded 'green industry'.

espinolman wrote:

Clean energy has been developed , and it is suppressed , and their is so many different technologies and inventions that have been suppressed that panacea have put a ten hours of video on utube documumenting this and illustrating the magnitude of suppression , there is links to it in the free energy thread .

I don't think fossil fuels needed to be burned to have energy because the suppression seems to go back over 200 years , there is alternative ways of getting energy without having to pollute the environment , our planet has been polluted needlessly .

I agree. Perhaps developed is the wrong word, I should have said disclosed.

steamjetjoe

Even more mistakes:rolleyes:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055802206

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I don't see a carbon tax affecting oil sales or demand (and concordantly oil company profit margins) adversely, no. Especially since carbon 'credits' can be purchased. In fact, if anything the movement would appear to be a redistribution of wealth and a method of creaming money from a newly founded 'green industry'.

High taxes mean less people would buy oil.
More incentives for more efficient cars means less people would buy oil.
More incentives for green power production means less people would buy oil.
And so on.

You're claiming a conspiracy on carbon credits because someone is profiting, but for some reason the oil companies aren't?

And this is before I even mention the fact that oil companies have actually engaged in spreading misinformation about global warming.

I've seen much much more elaborate conspiracies come from not even a fraction of the evidence that the oil companies try to discredit global warming.
All the usual signs that CTers jump all over are there.
But for some reason....

Run_to_da_hills

squod wrote: »

It is geat we're discussing this. What I like to know is what the various governments are doing about it. I take the view that connecting the problem to taxation isn't the most wise idea. What's happened so far (correct me if I'm mistaken) is that carbon emissions have risen with every rise in taxation associated with theses emissions.

Invoking the "war on terror" has now officially been succeeded by a new mantra and an excuse for the global powers to be to unleash a fresh tyranny no matter how offensive and damaging to individual liberty it may be, Global warming has now replaced 9/11 as the justification for the global elite to do anything!

The denouncement of the strategies implemented on us by the same Globalists by sceptics is been tarred akin to holocaust deniers and is beginning to mirror what happened after 9/11, when anyone who criticized the Bush's agenda was lambasted as a traitor, a terrorist.

Politicians by their profession are liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre conceived agendas through the mainstream media.

What is more dangerous? A temperature fluctuation that has been mirrored in the past or an excuse for western governments to tighten the shackles of fascism around our ankles in the name of saving the planet?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Basically, the global warming industry is a huge cash cow, linked to globalist bodies (including the UN). Now I always get skeptical when huge amounts of money and NWO agendas are involved.

The problem here, of course, is that there's huge amounts of money involved, regardless of which way you look at it.

The established hydrocarbon-based industries stand to reap huge profits the longer the debate continues.

Others stand to reap huge profits the more radically we move towards the allegedly-greener world.

Some are well-enough positioned to reap huge profits either which way.

It's also entirely plausible that much of our climate change is a natural cycle caused by sun activity, or a recent lack thereof.

That would depend on how you define "entirely plausible", I guess. If you define it in such a way that you don't need to show a functioning correlation between the two, then yes...its entirely plausible.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

High taxes mean less people would buy oil.
More incentives for more efficient cars means less people would buy oil.
More incentives for green power production means less people would buy oil.
And so on.

Can you show me something that supports those assertions? The reason I ask, is because taxation on petrol has been around for a long time, and yet, there doesn't appear to have been any reduction in consumption.

King Mob wrote: »

You're claiming a conspiracy on carbon credits because someone is profiting, but for some reason the oil companies aren't?

They certainly are. But have you watched the documentary I posted in which the link between an oil billionaire and the UN's policy on potentially trillion $ carbon taxation (as handled by the De Rothschild's banking cartel) is explained? Video is only 45 minutes or so in total, so you could watch it this evening easily.

King Mob wrote: »

And this is before I even mention the fact that oil companies have actually engaged in spreading misinformation about global warming.

That doesn't mean that the other side aren't equally engaged. Climategate anyone?

King Mob wrote: »

I've seen much much more elaborate conspiracies come from not even a fraction of the evidence that the oil companies try to discredit global warming.
All the usual signs that CTers jump all over are there.
But for some reason....

Interesting that I'm the skeptic now, and you're the proponent of a conspiracy theory. Refreshing, in fact.

bonkey wrote:

The problem here, of course, is that there's huge amounts of money involved, regardless of which way you look at it.

The established hydrocarbon-based industries stand to reap huge profits the longer the debate continues.

Others stand to reap huge profits the more radically we move towards the allegedly-greener world.

Some are well-enough positioned to reap huge profits either which way.

It is a problem, but I think that the carbon industry is a lot more lucrative, and also fits in well with the NWO agendas of globalisation and a method for developing a global taxation system handled by De Rothschild banking.

bonkey wrote:

That would depend on how you define "entirely plausible", I guess. If you define it in such a way that you don't need to show a functioning correlation between the two, then yes...its entirely plausible.

Care to elaborate on that put down? I'm sure we could all use enlightenment on the topic.

Angry Troll

global climate always changes…and while it is probably safe to assume that there is an anthropogenic effect on the development of our earth’s climate and to act accordingly, just to be on the safe side, we also need to be aware that climate has always changed, also within centuries and even decades, and that to this day it is not really possible to pinpoint or scientifically prove the effect of human activity on the global climate system…there are countless factors to take into consideration here, and throughout the earth’s and humanity’s history we have gone through warmer periods and colder periods…and there will be new ice ages followed by warmer periods and then more ice ages and so on…and the earth will always see climate change…for some billions of years to come anyway…humans or no humans…
oh, and as for the anthropogenic effect…wait until chinaman and the folks on the subcontinent really get going with industrialisation and all that comes with it and all things emissions and kyoto and all we have so far discussed and worried about will suddenly seem minor and meaningless…

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Can you show me something that supports those assertions? The reason I ask, is because taxation on petrol has been around for a long time, and yet, there doesn't appear to have been any reduction in consumption.

If hybrid cars become cheaper than standard ones which do you think people will buy?
If running a wind farm or similar becomes cheaper than a standard power plant which do you think people will build?

Kernel wrote: »

They certainly are. But have you watched the documentary I posted in which the link between an oil billionaire and the UN's policy on potentially trillion $ carbon taxation (as handled by the De Rothschild's banking cartel) is explained? Video is only 45 minutes or so in total, so you could watch it this evening easily.

And does that documentary show how they tampered with evidence or similar?
Or is it just "they stand to gain, therefore they are faking it."?

Kernel wrote: »

That doesn't mean that the other side aren't equally engaged.

So we agree that oil companies etc. actively engage in misinformation and it's obvious that they stand to gain from holding up government action on global warming.
So why don't you believe that they are doing either?

Kernel wrote: »

Climategate anyone?

A laughable non-issue where emails where simply taken out of context and blow out of proportion by the media. Particularly FOX.
And gasp, right before a conference where action might be taken?

But no for some reason, that can't be part of a conspiracy and is just a coincidence.

Kernel wrote: »

Interesting that I'm the skeptic now, and you're the proponent of a conspiracy theory. Refreshing, in fact.

Seems the only reason you don't believe this is because scientists say there's global climate change.
All the other signs are there (actually really there this time) that CT jump on to call conspiracy.

Seems like you've just been taken in by sneaky disinfo tactics.
Shock.

rccaulfield

espinolman wrote: »

It is a situation where mainstream science is distorted by powerful corporations for vested reasons , so is man-made global warming real , i don't know because i cannot trust anything mainstream science says .

Its not global warming, its climate change thats the basics you must know if your going to seiously oppose it!

Son Of A Vidic

The Global warming/Climate change theory is a complete load of Bull$hite! just another formulas for screwing 'Joe public' for taxes and levies. The Earth has repeatedly gone through various cycles of cooling and warming. The Atlantic conveyor switches off - the Gulf stream moves south - the Ice sheet advance = Ice age. The Atlantic conveyor turns on after 15,000 - 20,000 years - the Gulf stream moves back to a more Northerly flow - the Ice sheet recedes for another 15,000 - 20,000 years. The influence of the Sun is paramount to all this. There have been numerous Ice ages, oh and yes we weren't even around when they were happening.

Men were once executed for saying the world was round and now climatologist think we have a greater influence than the Sun - ''cop on twits.''
The Sun that brings life to our Solar system, without which we would not exist, ya that's right, apparently it's been relegated to a small bit part in the whole 'global warming' debate. Here's some food for thought, when the Vikings discovered Greenland, they called it Greenland. Why, because they noted it's abundance of greenery and vegetation. So that means it wasn't the ice covered snow pack Island we know today. So that must mean the climate was warmer back then doesn't it and yet there was apparently less 'Carbon' in the atmosphere. Damn that ruins the whole 'Carbon' debate then doesn't it, why was it warmer back then with less 'Carbon', oh maybe it was the Sun and the natural cycles of the Earth then. Ssssshhhh don't say it out loud though, because they won't be able to 'shaft' us for taxes over it.

Angry Troll

medicman2009 wrote: »

The Global warming/Climate change theory is a complete load of Bull$hite! just another formulas for screwing 'Joe public' for taxes and levies. The Earth has repeatedly gone through various cycles of cooling and warming. The Atlantic conveyor switches off - the Gulf stream moves south - the Ice sheet advance = Ice age. The Atlantic conveyor turns on after 15,000 - 20,000 years - the Gulf stream moves back to a more Northerly flow - the Ice sheet recedes for another 15,000 - 20,000 years. The influence of the Sun is paramount to all this. There have been numerous Ice ages, oh and yes we weren't even around when they were happening.

Men were once executed for saying the world was round and now climatologist think we have a greater influence than the Sun - ''cop on twits.''
The Sun that brings life to our Solar system, without which we would not exist, ya that's right, apparently it's been relegated to a small bit part in the whole 'global warming' debate. Here's some food for thought, when the Vikings discovered Greenland, they called it Greenland. Why, because they noted it's abundance of greenery and vegetation. So that means it wasn't the ice covered snow pack Island we know today. So that must mean the climate was warmer back then doesn't it and yet there was apparently less 'Carbon' in the atmosphere. Damn that ruins the whole 'Carbon' debate then doesn't it, why was it warmer back then with less 'Carbon', oh maybe it was the Sun and the natural cycles of the Earth then. Ssssshhhh don't say it out loud though, because they won't be able to 'shaft' us for taxes over it.

yep, that's more or less what i was trying to say in my earlier post...good to see some more common sense and scientific insight here...

RoboClam

medicman2009 wrote: »

The Global warming/Climate change theory is a complete load of Bull$hite! just another formulas for screwing 'Joe public' for taxes and levies. The Earth has repeatedly gone through various cycles of cooling and warming. The Atlantic conveyor switches off - the Gulf stream moves south - the Ice sheet advance = Ice age. The Atlantic conveyor turns on after 15,000 - 20,000 years - the Gulf stream moves back to a more Northerly flow - the Ice sheet recedes for another 15,000 - 20,000 years. The influence of the Sun is paramount to all this. There have been numerous Ice ages, oh and yes we weren't even around when they were happening.

Men were once executed for saying the world was round and now climatologist think we have a greater influence than the Sun - ''cop on twits.''
The Sun that brings life to our Solar system, without which we would not exist, ya that's right, apparently it's been relegated to a small bit part in the whole 'global warming' debate. Here's some food for thought, when the Vikings discovered Greenland, they called it Greenland. Why, because they noted it's abundance of greenery and vegetation. So that means it wasn't the ice covered snow pack Island we know today. So that must mean the climate was warmer back then doesn't it and yet there was apparently less 'Carbon' in the atmosphere. Damn that ruins the whole 'Carbon' debate then doesn't it, why was it warmer back then with less 'Carbon', oh maybe it was the Sun and the natural cycles of the Earth then. Ssssshhhh don't say it out loud though, because they won't be able to 'shaft' us for taxes over it.

Here is a graph showing the trend of increasing temperatures.



This pictures shows the irradiance of the sun during its cycles.



I'm not seeing much of a link between the sun and the increasing temperatures on Earth. Yeah the sun is hugely important for our survival here and without it, well we wouldn't be here. But it is not the sun causing the increased temperature.

On the Greenland point, Eric the Red discovered it. He called it greenland because he said "Men would be more readily persuaded thither if the land had a good name"

Page 17: http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Faj&CISOPTR=3363&REC=0&CISOBOX=greenland

So the guy lied to try to get people to move over there.

Turtwig

medicman2009 wrote: »

The Global warming/Climate change theory is a complete load of Bull$hite! just another formulas for screwing 'Joe public' for taxes and levies. The Earth has repeatedly gone through various cycles of cooling and warming. The Atlantic conveyor switches off - the Gulf stream moves south - the Ice sheet advance = Ice age. The Atlantic conveyor turns on after 15,000 - 20,000 years - the Gulf stream moves back to a more Northerly flow - the Ice sheet recedes for another 15,000 - 20,000 years. The influence of the Sun is paramount to all this. There have been numerous Ice ages, oh and yes we weren't even around when they were happening.

Men were once executed for saying the world was round and now climatologist think we have a greater influence than the Sun - ''cop on twits.''
The Sun that brings life to our Solar system, without which we would not exist, ya that's right, apparently it's been relegated to a small bit part in the whole 'global warming' debate. Here's some food for thought, when the Vikings discovered Greenland, they called it Greenland. Why, because they noted it's abundance of greenery and vegetation. So that means it wasn't the ice covered snow pack Island we know today. So that must mean the climate was warmer back then doesn't it and yet there was apparently less 'Carbon' in the atmosphere. Damn that ruins the whole 'Carbon' debate then doesn't it, why was it warmer back then with less 'Carbon', oh maybe it was the Sun and the natural cycles of the Earth then. Ssssshhhh don't say it out loud though, because they won't be able to 'shaft' us for taxes over it.

Sheesh what the heck is with people and the sun around these parts? The sun is just one factor in a complex system. At times it's the dominant factor, and at other times it isn't. Solar activity has been a predominant factors over the course of the earth's 4.52 billion year history. That does not mean it always was. For the last 40 years the sun's activity doesn't even come close to explaining the global warming of the planet that has been observed.
Climate Change can be caused by any of the following : orbital precessions, meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, continental drifts, maunder minimum, galactic spiral spinning, changes to water vapour composition etc etc

Btw, we were around for few ice ages.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

If hybrid cars become cheaper than standard ones which do you think people will buy?
If running a wind farm or similar becomes cheaper than a standard power plant which do you think people will build?

You didn't address the question at all. I'll ask you another one. What proportion of co2 emissions globally are cars responsible for? Since your position seems fixated on the automobile industry?

King Mob wrote: »

And does that documentary show how they tampered with evidence or similar?
Or is it just "they stand to gain, therefore they are faking it."?

Why don't you watch it and find out?

King Mob wrote: »

So we agree that oil companies etc. actively engage in misinformation and it's obvious that they stand to gain from holding up government action on global warming.
So why don't you believe that they are doing either?

It's possible that they are. What I do know is that there is more to be gained financially from the Al Gore side, and that the facts don't support this position. Global carbon taxation is worth more than the oil industry, and can be viewed as a new global form of taxation in accordance with the NWO agenda.

King Mob wrote: »

A laughable non-issue where emails where simply taken out of context and blow out of proportion by the media. Particularly FOX.
And gasp, right before a conference where action might be taken?

lol... a laughable non-issue were they? No, I'm afraid that anyone can see that e-mails from the proponents of humans causing global warming advising people to gloss over or completely omit scientific facts constitutes serious dishonesty, and, in definition, a conspiracy.

King Mob wrote: »

Seems the only reason you don't believe this is because scientists say there's global climate change.
All the other signs are there (actually really there this time) that CT jump on to call conspiracy.

Actually, if you bothered to read my posts and links, or watch the documentary I posted, you might realise that the very reason why I'm now so skeptical, is because of the high number of scientists and data which say that it's all bunk.

King Mob wrote: »

Seems like you've just been taken in by sneaky disinfo tactics.
Shock.

Can you explain this statement?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

You didn't address the question at all. I'll ask you another one. What proportion of co2 emissions globally are cars responsible for? Since your position seems fixated on the automobile industry?

Not all of my points where about cars.

All of my points are suggested ways to give incentive to people and companies to adopt greener technology.
They also move them away from dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.
I'd imagine that oil companies wouldn't be too happy with that.

Why is this so far fetched to you?
Do you think oil companies are all for green energy?

Kernel wrote: »

Why don't you watch it and find out?

So no then?

Kernel wrote: »

It's possible that they are. What I do know is that there is more to be gained financially from the Al Gore side, and that the facts don't support this position. Global carbon taxation is worth more than the oil industry, and can be viewed as a new global form of taxation in accordance with the NWO agenda.

Huh, and here's me thinking the NWO agenda included going into Iraq for the oil.
And how much more is to be gained from taxation exactly?
Wouldn't taxation lead to people buying less fossil fuels and and more fuel efficient cars?

Kernel wrote: »

lol... a laughable non-issue were they? No, I'm afraid that anyone can see that e-mails from the proponents of humans causing global warming advising people to gloss over or completely omit scientific facts constitutes serious dishonesty, and, in definition, a conspiracy.

And which e-mails are the ones that "advising people to gloss over or completely omit scientific facts"?
Was it the one that talks of "Mike's nature trick" and "hiding the decline"?
Or the one about not being "able to account for the differences in tempuratures"?
Cause those are the only ones being thrown around by the likes of FOX and others.
Why those two? Are they the worst? Are they the only ones?

And it's plain to see even these ones are taken laughable out of context.

Kernel wrote: »

Actually, if you bothered to read my posts and links, or watch the documentary I posted, you might realise that the very reason why I'm now so skeptical, is because of the high number of scientists and data which say that it's all bunk.

Really?
Which scientists?
What data?
In which journals?

Kernel wrote: »

Can you explain this statement?

Simple, people have tagged global warming denial onto the usual anti science crap.
Big corporations and interests pretending to be suppressed by those know-it-all scientists.
It's very sneaky indeed.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Not all of my points where about cars.

All of my points are suggested ways to give incentive to people and companies to adopt greener technology.
They also move them away from dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.
I'd imagine that oil companies wouldn't be too happy with that.

Why is this so far fetched to you?
Do you think oil companies are all for green energy?

Just answer the question. Can you show that increased taxes have heretofore led to a decline in oil demand? Because if you cannot, then the current system of buying carbon credits means nothing, pragmatically speaking.

King Mob wrote: »

So no then?

Yes, actually, but you'll have to actually watch the documentary. I have explained what it's about, and given a running time in accordance with the charter recommendations. If you cannot be bothered to watch it and offer rebuttal to the points raised in it, then why should I bother to continue to 'discuss' it? I'm sure it will be of interest to some here, at any rate.

King Mob wrote: »

Huh, and here's me thinking the NWO agenda included going into Iraq for the oil.
And how much more is to be gained from taxation exactly?
Wouldn't taxation lead to people buying less fossil fuels and and more fuel efficient cars?

The energy grab in Iraq and Afghanistan was done to ensure US hegemony in the new century. To ensure that the US and it's way of life were somewhat buffered from the global ****storm which is now occurring. It's all in Brzezinski's books. As for NWO, that's bigger than Iraq/Afghanistan and bigger than the US.

King Mob wrote: »

And which e-mails are the ones that "advising people to gloss over or completely omit scientific facts"?
Was it the one that talks of "Mike's nature trick" and "hiding the decline"?
Or the one about not being "able to account for the differences in tempuratures"?
Cause those are the only ones being thrown around by the likes of FOX and others.
Why those two? Are they the worst? Are they the only ones?
And it's plain to see even these ones are taken laughable out of context.

Well, as I've said they amount to a conscious decision at dishonesty and deception towards the public. Unless you think that in context they do not, in which case I would like to see you extrapolate somewhat.

King Mob wrote: »

Really?
Which scientists?
What data?
In which journals?

I've already posted a good link in which all the information can be accessed. Here's a spoon-feed version if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Here's one part for those who will never look at the link.

wiki wrote:

Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[17][18][19]
* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[20]
* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[21]
* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[22]
* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[23]
* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[24]
* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[25] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[26] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[27]
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[28]
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[29]
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[30]
* William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[31]
* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[32]
* Tim Patterson[33], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "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. 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?"[34][35]
* Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[36]
* Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[37]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[38]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[39][40] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[41]
* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[42]
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[43]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[44]
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[45]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[46]

King Mob wrote: »

Simple, people have tagged global warming denial onto the usual anti science crap.
Big corporations and interests pretending to be suppressed by those know-it-all scientists.
It's very sneaky indeed.

Nonsense. As I've shown, the science data does not support the theory of global warming, and many eminent scientists agree.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Just answer the question. Can you show that increased taxes have heretofore led to a decline in oil demand? Because if you cannot, then the current system of buying carbon credits means nothing, pragmatically speaking.

I not sure what you are asking.
Do people not buy less of something when the price goes up and when alternatives become cheaper?
I can't show you a scientific study about this, but I thought it would be just common sense.

Also I'm not talking about carbon credits, I'm talking about straight up tax incentives.

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, actually, but you'll have to actually watch the documentary. I have explained what it's about, and given a running time in accordance with the charter recommendations. If you cannot be bothered to watch it and offer rebuttal to the points raised in it, then why should I bother to continue to 'discuss' it? I'm sure it will be of interest to some here, at any rate.

So no then?

Kernel wrote: »

The energy grab in Iraq and Afghanistan was done to ensure US hegemony in the new century. To ensure that the US and it's way of life were somewhat buffered from the global ****storm which is now occurring. It's all in Brzezinski's books. As for NWO, that's bigger than Iraq/Afghanistan and bigger than the US.

Right.....
Gonna answer the questions there?

And how much more is to be gained from taxation exactly?
Wouldn't taxation lead to people buying less fossil fuels and and more fuel efficient cars?

Kernel wrote: »

Well, as I've said they amount to a conscious decision at dishonesty and deception towards the public. Unless you think that in context they do not, in which case I would like to see you extrapolate somewhat.

No they don't.
Show us one that does.

The only one that comes close is the "Mikes nature trick one."
But then it's painfully clear that it's out of context.

What's Mikes nature trick? Decline in what?
How do you know that they aren't just talking shop?

In my math physics course we are thought many "tricks" to solving equations and we "hide" different parts of equations to solve them some times.
Both "trick" and "hide" can mean quite a few things other than deception.

Kernel wrote: »

I've already posted a good link in which all the information can be accessed. Here's a spoon-feed version if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Here's one part for those who will never look at the link.

And the vast vast majority of them aren't climatologists.
Only 2 are actually in that field.

And what they say contradict what some of the others say.

# Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[10] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[11][12]

And all the quotes on that page are opinion, not science.


But if you want to just base it on numbers of scientists:

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. "respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change") agree that human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."[1] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[29]

Or if you want to go for actual science:

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[22] Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[23] but his attempted refutation is disputed[24][25][26] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,[27] also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[25][28]

Also this is kinda telling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Have a look at all the organisations that disagree officially with global climate change.
Only one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists

Kernel wrote: »

Nonsense. As I've shown, the science data does not support the theory of global warming, and many eminent scientists agree.

The scientific data does support the theory of human caused global climate change and many many more eminent scientists agree.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that put down? I'm sure we could all use enlightenment on the topic.

You claim that an alternate to anthropogenic global warming is "entirely plausible". As far as I'm aware, no-one has a model of your proposed alternate which has anything like the accuracy that AGW-supporting models have attained.

So...where does this leave us?

It leaves us in the situation that in order to conclude that something is "entirely plausible", we have to define plausibility in such a way that the detail and accuracy of the science behind it is either irrelevant, or measured differently from case to case.

If we don't do one or the other, then we end up in the situation that no matter how plausible any alternate is said to be, AGW remains more plausible as an explanation.

If we discard the concept of the accuracy of the science, then pretty-much anything becomes "completely plausible", and the notion of plausibility becomes mostly meaningless.

Alternately, we measure plausibility differently from case to case. I'd hope that no-one would advocate this as a good method of comparison.

Angry Troll

interesting to see a heated debate here…people just need to keep in mind that not everything some scientists say is by default the truth...in fact there is a whole lot of “scientific” bs out there and there are several schools of thought in science on pretty much anything…obviously they cannot all be right…
it is safe to assume that nobody really knows for sure what exactly is causing what and to what degree…and there is no undisputable proof for anything on the significance of human impact on the global climate system…the whole debate is to a large degree just politics…

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

I not sure what you are asking.
Do people not buy less of something when the price goes up and when alternatives become cheaper?
I can't show you a scientific study about this, but I thought it would be just common sense.

Also I'm not talking about carbon credits, I'm talking about straight up tax incentives.

You still have not shown me anything to suggest that increased taxation leads to decreasing demand on oil. I take it you concede that point at this stage?

King Mob wrote: »

So no then?

I've already answered that. And the answer is not 'no'.

King Mob wrote: »

Right.....
Gonna answer the questions there?

Ask a sensible question and I shall endeavor to answer it.

King Mob wrote: »

And how much more is to be gained from taxation exactly?
Wouldn't taxation lead to people buying less fossil fuels and and more fuel efficient cars?

Trillions of dollars, as I've already said. Once again you are harping on about cars. I thought we had ruled cars out of the equation here? And again your argument about taxation leading to decreasing demand. Show me the historic evidence of that - I've asked several times at this stage.

King Mob wrote: »

No they don't.
Show us one that does.

Of course they show dishonesty! :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

But if you want to just base it on numbers of scientists:


Or if you want to go for actual science:

The numbers game is of little interest to me, as my point has always been that a large number of scientists disagree with the global warming caused by human co2 emission hypothesis - not that all scientists, or even the majority of scientists disagree.

As for the first study you have linked to, only 3146 of a total of 10,200 scientists actually participated in the study. Of the 3146, 82% of them agreed that "human activity [has] been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." So your study could in fact equate to 2580 scientists 'believe' that "human activity [has] been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."

As for the latter study, that is disputed, as your link itself shows, and you also need to factor in the likelihood of peer-reviewed studies and sources of funding.

King Mob wrote: »

The scientific data does support the theory of human caused global climate change and many many more eminent scientists agree.

So you dismiss the sizeable minority of scientists so easily? Do you simply always agree with the masses? Have 'they' ever been wrong before?

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

You claim that an alternate to anthropogenic global warming is "entirely plausible". As far as I'm aware, no-one has a model of your proposed alternate which has anything like the accuracy that AGW-supporting models have attained.

Of course the model for AGW is more complete. More resources, funding and attention is being directed towards it in order to establish the lucrative carbon taxation system. That doesn't mean that the alternative is not a plausible alternative, no matter how much you twist it around.