Man-Made climate change is a con

Fossil fules will run out way before we do anything too drastic to the planet. When that happens, we will know once and for all whether global warming was a farce or not.

whether it's man made or not, I don't think there is a dispute on the fact that the climate is getting warmer. This has happened in the past and contributed to mass extinction across the planet. We still need to find a way to stop it no matter what is causing it!!!

Here is a clue - solar variability.Get back to us on finding a way to fix it. It is actually getting cooler - "they" knew this, and began talking about >climate change< rather than global warming.Should we do something about pollution? Of course, is CO2 a pollutant? No. Labeling CO2 as a pollutant is as asinine as labeling H20 as a pollutant. If you want to reduce "carbon emissions", with a global population of 6.7 billion - why not simply exterminate 6 billion carbon emitters?

latestart wrote:

whether it's man made or not, I don't think there is a dispute on the fact that the climate is getting warmer. This has happened in the past and contributed to mass extinction across the planet. We still need to find a way to stop it no matter what is causing it!!!

During the past 20 years, NASA has observed cooling in the upper atmosphere. If the recent rise in global temperatures were caused by fluctuations in solar output, you would see a uniform rise at all levels of the atmosphere. Instead, the lower levels are warming because solar radiation is not able to escape the atomosphere due to green house gases. The upper atmosphere is cooling because solar radiation that usually reflects off of the Earth's surface has been trapped by green house gases.

Also, the so called "cooling trend" is anything but that. 2008 is a la nina year which would normally mean a very cold year due to changes in ocean currents. Yet, 2008 is still going to be about the 10th hottest on record. Some cooling trend.

But, hey, some MP thinks global warming is a hoax. I guess that proves everything.

You won't hear this on the news, however you did see news that the start of the Iditarod had to be moved because of "global warming".

Here is the headline that you will not see.

4 Time Iditarod Champion Pulls Out of Sled Race - Too Cold

FAIRBANKS — Defending champion Jodi Bailey of Chatanika won a bitterly cold, blustery Gin Gin 200 late Sunday night. Several mushers had pulled out of the race from Paxson to the MacLaren River Lodge -- including four-time Iditarod champion Jeff King -- citing the adverse conditions. According to the race Web site, temperatures at the MacLaren River Lodge were between 35 and 40 below. It was reportedly 10 to 15 degrees colder on the lower portions of the trail during the second portion of the race.

Yo wrote:

For god's sake our cars' fuel efficiencies haven't changes in 20 years. It's a freaking joke.

We're you alive in 1980? You could buy a diesel VW that got 65 mpg. The technology for fuel efficient vehicles has existed for decades, but the ability to produce and buy them for the US market has effectively put to a halt by lobby groups for the oil industry. Fuel conservation is a great idea because we'll need the fuel in the future, but the cause shouldn't be promoted under the unfounded hype of global warming.

Ignorance, hmmm. Here's a document from Yale, you might want to note the third paragraph in the section "The Sun's Evolution and the Fate of Life on Earth". Sun's temp is indeed increasing and will continue to increase (note the fifth paragraph refers to the extinction of all life, not just humanity).

Although I wrote my last post badly, I should restate. Obviously global warming is causing a much quicker increase in our climate that the increase in solar temp: I was just referring to the idea that humanity is ultimately doomed by expansion of the sun. Virtually all astronomers agree that the increase in sun's heat will make Earth uninhabitable for humanity long before that. However, the actual planet is indeed doomed by the penultimate expansion. We will not be around to see the fireworks.

Here's the link:

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2005/4/05.04.01.x.html

jean wrote:

... (until the sun's penultimate expansion)....

I'm guessing that you don't know the definition of penultimate. Someone else used it incorrectly too.

No Science does overwhelmingly agree. If they didnt then it wouldnt be news that one Irish politician disagrees. I said I would look at the evidence myself and recommend the same to anyone, however I yes I would still take many experts opinion over my own. Im not sure how you can disagree with that.

No i didnt take a poll of the worlds smartest people but I absolutely believe this to be true. Do you really disagree with this? it wouldnt be news that one Russian scientist or one Irish politician disagrees if many many learned people disagreed.

aGeochemist wrote:Years from now we will look back and wonder why we have spent billions of dollars on something with such a weak scientific foundation.

Probably to prove the political will is there. Might not be well founded but it beats waiting and doing nothing. Sure, a lot of what is done is stupid, it's hubris to think we have that kind of control anyway, but eventually we might face a common threat like an asteroid impact, or some other big thing that gives us little time. We can't 'save the planet', it's more than capable of 'saving' itself, but we might be vulnerable to things we can survive better if we can move fast. I think that's what's really being tested right now. All the spin and bad science is the same as the stuff people tell kids in a school when the fire is nothing but a drill. 'Got to do it', 'maybe this, maybe that', 'don't do this, or that'.. Sure it's mostly blether, but if it gets people thinking and acting in ways that allow fast premptive movement if some big ugly shit really hits the fan, then it does its job. Beats spending on wars, THAT's expensive. Some time a whole bunch of nations might have to deal with a threat and manage not to bicker between themselves over it. We have the luxury of enough money and power to practise that. I'm not even going to try to moralise for it or against it, just saying that this is what seems to be happening.

mcgato wrote:

jean wrote:

... (until the sun's penultimate expansion)....

I'm guessing that you don't know the definition of penultimate. Someone else used it incorrectly too.

Penultimate: next to last.

As I understand it, in the sun's latter years it will swell and either engulf the earth or come very close to doing so; then retract; then expand again. A nice summary, with plenty of links to primary sources, is available here:

The science of the sun's evolution (or my *understanding* of that science!) could be faulty; my use of the word "penultimate," based on my understanding of the above, was not faulty.

However, I do make plenty of spelling and usage mistakes--not all typos, either--and am happy to be corrected when I do.

me o my wrote:

No Science does overwhelmingly agree. If they didnt then it wouldnt be news that one Irish politician disagrees.

Right now it appears that the majority of scientists in fields related to climatology do not believe in AGW. Certainly, by far, the majority of really notable ones do not; people like Hansen from NASA are increasingly isolated, both from their peers and from "reality."

The problem is the lag between what is actually happening in the scientific community and what is reported by the clueless and inept MSM which was sold a bill of goods wrt AGW and which, typically, is very very slow to admit that they were wrong.

If you want Andrew Revkin the NY Times, for example to admit that AGW is crap, you might have to wait about as long as it'll take for Jane Brody (at the NY Times) to admit that a high carb diet made her reach for the statins & get fat.

Moral: Don't depend on profoundly stupid people and corrupt institutions for your education.

Be real! The point is science is full of - saying that man is the cause! The earth has done this many times! Seasons change!

So your doctors tell you that you need an operation, you blindly accept that part of you is the problem, they remove your kidneys oops they were wrong but hey they made alot of money!Money Money follow the trail!

Oh Sht boy wonder thinks we can control the climate of the whole planet 0 mays well be the universe!

aGeochemist wrote:

Much of the scientific "evidence" is falsely presented to achieve a specific political or economic agenda, either knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm glad someone is finally shedding light on this. Man-made climate change is all part of a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by scientists who are doing the bidding of the aliens. The truth is out there!

Actually have you noticed the increase in sisemic activity at Yellowstone national park? The earth is really heating from whithin and were getting ready to unload and explode!!!

How many people should there be and who decides?

me o my wrote:

No Science does overwhelmingly agree. If they didnt then it wouldnt be news that one Irish politician disagrees. I said I would look at the evidence myself and recommend the same to anyone, however I yes I would still take many experts opinion over my own. Im not sure how you can disagree with that.

No i didnt take a poll of the worlds smartest people but I absolutely believe this to be true. Do you really disagree with this? it wouldnt be news that one Russian scientist or one Irish politician disagrees if many many learned people disagreed.

For God's sake, your logic stinks so bad.

For the last time, why does science overwhelmingly agree, as you say? Any evidence? What makes you think it's 'news' that "one Irish politician disagrees"? Can you find a news report on one irish politician disagreeing? You are also ruling out the bias of the news, and if you don't think the news is biased, then you are more naive than I thought. It's not good enough to just 'look at the evidence' if you are just going to agree with the scientist anyway because whatever you found by yourself is completely irrelevant. How do you expect to be, at the very least, independent, if you keep following these guidelines. I'm not saying to never trust your doctor, but sometimes you can't just take an expert's word for it, especially if you heard it on the news. There are other experts that you may not have heard of, thus it only seems like there is an overwhelming majority.

You just keep believing that to be true, then. Maybe you will be right in the next life. Even so, however, my point was that the majority does not make right. If all the scientists who agreed with global warming were suddenly killed, would that make global warming false, since 100% of scientists would then believe global warming to be false? There is all kinds of censorship and experts that don't get a voice, skewed facts, etc. You have to make your argument based on the evidence, not what the experts say. Such undying faith in "experts" can lead you down the wrong path. Plus, just because it's on the news, that doesn't mean it's unheard of. There have also been some (rare) segments on how the science of global warming is shaky, and there were actual scientists that appeared to say they had been threatened into silence. Take a minute to think if this would alter your view of the role "experts" play in our decision making. Also, please make an attempt to make your posts logical, if you know how to do that. If not, then just stop posting.