Man-Made climate change is a con

g8terrwrwe wrote:

Read the articles posted in this thread they are filled with evidence. Burying your head in your ass doesnt qualify as not being provided with evidence. I will not reproduce this evidence in a reply but I have read it and I believe it as do the vast majority of learned people on this planet.

You my friend are an idiot.

Why don't you read the scholarly journal I just posted and respond to that? That just shows that you are hypocritical in telling me to look at what has been posted and then you ignore it when I post a link.

For your info, I have read what was posted, and it was the IPCC saying this and that is this way and it's going to have catastrophic effects, blablablah, but no actual backing for those statements. How am I supposed to respond to that? I can't prove a negative, so you must first give evidence for your theory. The only substantial thing about the statistics, I responded to, but it is really a useless argument since it's not a good way to try to prove your point anyway. Also, stop using the "vast majority of learned people on this planet" line. It doesn't mean anything or add anything to your argument. I guess you found it logically sound to attack me rather than the idea, though. Call me an idiot all you want, but it doesn't make global warming any more threatening.

The only thing to fear is fear itsef!!!

I didn't bring up the statistics argument, the other guy did. The point is that 74% is not that high and is far from unanimous. Thus, more research must be done than just chosing the side of the scientists, which at this point, is unclear.

By the way, if you had read my other posts, you would know that my response to the statistics presented had already addressed the 97% "consensus" that the planet has been warming, and I do not argue with that. My link also talks about this so-called consensus among the scientists, some of which aren't even scientists and far fewer are climate scientists. It also addresses some of the things brought up by the IPCC and other arguments for global warming. Check it out.

haah wrote:

I didn't bring up the statistics argument, the other guy did. The point is that 74% is not that high and is far from unanimous. Thus, more research must be done than just chosing the side of the scientists, which at this point, is unclear.

By the way, if you had read my other posts, you would know that my response to the statistics presented had already addressed the 97% "consensus" that the planet has been warming, and I do not argue with that. My link also talks about this so-called consensus among the scientists, some of which aren't even scientists and far fewer are climate scientists. It also addresses some of the things brought up by the IPCC and other arguments for global warming. Check it out.

I read the Viscount's paper (well, I'll be honest, parts.

A 3-1 margin is pretty clear, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

There's a reason the American Physics Society voted to open debate on global warming in 2008. It was clear to them that the science is far from settled and is rife with political and other non-scientific considerations.

I'd be wary of casually calling them global warming deniers, if I were you.

I trust the Sun more than the Moonbat.

What you have said here is largely correct; in fact, it even contains most of the information necessary to refute your conclusion that co2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas on Earth.

You are correct in saying that much of the Venusian warming (i.e., the warming above and beyond what would be expected only from its relative nearness to the sun), is due to the massiveness of its atmosphere. But, that massive atmosphere would mean nothing to the globally averaged surface temperature, if not for the presence of greenhouse gases such as co2 (and so2 and co and h2o and several others). In fact Venus has so much co2 in its atmosphere that most of the co2 spectral absorption lines are saturated. That means that even if we could add more co2 to the atmosphere of Venus, the surface temperature would actually change very little. This occurs partly because co2 is such an effective infrared absorber.

Now, on Earth, because the concentration of co2 is so low, the co2 lines are nowhere near saturated, for the most part. Thus, in contrast with Venus, adding more co2 to Earth's atmosphere does result in a significantly greater absorption of the upwelling infrared. On Mars, since the atmospheric pressure and temperature are so low, the co2 absorption lines are less broadened than they are even on Earth, despite -- as has been hinted at elsewhere above -- the fact that Mars has more co2 than the Earth. Thus, Mars experiences very little greenhouse warming.

The point of all of this is that you are right to say that simply looking at the amount of co2 (or the amount of greenhouse gases in general) in an atmosphere does not tell you whether the planet's surface should be warmed significantly by a greenhouse effect. However, the reasons for why that is insufficient is precisely the reason why the increase of co2 in Earth's atmosphere, and its potential impact on the climate, must be understood.

And finally, to clarify some of your general statements above, the surface pressure of Venus is just over 90 times Earth's. Greenhouse gases (which include h2o) make up about 5% of Earth's atmosphere. And the temperature at the surface of Venus, if you assume that it has the same atmospheric make up as the Earth, so that the only difference is the increase in the amount of solar energy received due to its nearness to the Sun, would be only about 60C, compared with the 450C of the "real" Venus.

frednorris wrote:

Environment minister Sammy Wilson: I still think man-made climate change is a con

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html

There is no doubt that human activity has generated a lot of additional CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases that have a long latency in the atmosphere. I do not know of a single scientist that disagrees with that 'fact'.

Now, the empirical questions are:

1) how much (and in what timeframes) do the substantially increased CO2 (+other gases) lead to increased net heat retention;

2) what are the impacts in the basic components of climate, such as temperature, humidity, cloud cover (including how much does increased [or decreased, but likely increased] cloud cover attenuate additional heat retention [via reflection and reduced re-radiation]), changes in storm patterns, intensities and locations;

3) what other physical effects result from the 'primary' ones - timing and location of rainfall, wind patterns (dust from the Sahel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel]), and ocean currents, which 'convey' a substantial amount of heat from the tropics to other latitudes. Particularly important features include changes in land and sea ice and hence sea level.

4) what are the biological impacts on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.

There is wide disagreement and uncertainty on 'how much' in 1) and the resulting changes in 2), 3) and 4) (although that uncertainty has been reduced since I started working on the area 20 years ago and unfortunately the empirical effects tend to be resolving in the direction above 'little or no impact). I have not waded through all of the comments here but if you do not understand things enough to even articulate anything other than "it is all a 'con'" then you are rather far down the list of individuals that have anything interesting to say on the topic. You are also likely too ideological to ever have anything of interests to a debate on the many issues other than that you do not want to be taxed (directly or indirectly) by policies designed to limit, remediate, transfer wealth to those that might claim to be injured. Now these latter things are quite important and of relevance to many people; they are clearly topics to debate ideologically.

I have not worked in this area since the early 90s but I have an article in "Nature" that recently won my professional associations award for 'Publication of Enduring Quality'.

but i think that we have a moral obligation to take of ourselves. part of that is protecting the planet so that we can still inhabit it. you are right, unless we blow some enormous bombs up, the planet will survive humans. (and even with the bombs it might still be fine and capable of some day producing life again) but the point is not that we are destroying the planet as a rock, but destroying it as our only known habitat.

Learn.d_Astronomer wrote:

What you have said here is largely correct; in fact, it even contains most of the information necessary to refute your conclusion that co2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas on Earth.

At no point have I stated or implied that CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas on Earth. In fact I'm glad they're there so I don't have to alternate being frozen solid with being fried to a crisp every day. The point I was making is that it's silly to point to Venus and say "see, that's what happens when you have too much CO2 in the atmosphere."

But thanks for the corrected information. It's refreshing to run into a poster that really knows what he's talking about.

Most of the crap you listed here may have some very minor effect on weather and climate (although most of it is just crap), but overall, an increase in temperature increases biological respiration which increases CO2. This basic relationship would override anything you listed, including the greenhouse gas effect caused by CO2.

The first thing you list (warmer temps mean less snow) is completely not true. Warmer temps cause more evaporation from oceans, and more precipitation in many areas. It wouldn't increase drought on a global level.

Your second point (the benefits from a longer growing season are frequently nullified by the fact that the middle of the season becomes too hot) may be true on a very local scale, but if GLOBAL temperatures increase, there will be an GLOBAL increase in biological activity.

Your third point (warming increases destructive pests that kill off forests and contribute to forest fires, along with drought) is complete alarmist BS. We are not "rapidly decreasing the plants and animals that produce CO2" like you claim. The world is covered with plants and respiring organisms. If a plant dies out, another will take its place that fills that niche. Honestly, can you provide a source that shows what you claim is occurring, and responsible for changing climate on a global level?

Another point of yours is that "deforestation in China is so severe that it can easily be seen from space". Great, but plants and other trees take their place after they are cut. Also, there is the misconception that most biological CO2 production comes from plants. Most respiration occurs at the microbial level, so regardless of what's occurring with plants, a global increase in temperature will cause a global increase in microbial respiration.

I never said burning fossil fuels isn't releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and I never said the greenhouse gas effect doesn't exist. What I am saying is that climate reconstruction and basic science has shown that increasing temperature will cause an increase in CO2. It's not an oversimplification, it's just that simple. All the other cause-effect relationships discussed do have some minor role and may effect weather or climate on a minor or local scale, but the basic relationship of temperature and CO2 production remains the most dramatic.

The most important assumption in global warming is that CO2 drives temperature. This assumption is incorrect. CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes which is why the earth has cooled in recent years, yet the CO2 content has gone up. The below video has a handful of top scientists who disagree with the man caused global warming phenomenon.

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

Here is a recently submitted article to the US Senate entitled "UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Here is an article from Yuri A. Izrael - Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html

At the very least these sources should show that there is not any sort of agreement by scientist on man caused global warming.

You don't think over a quarter of scientists is worth listening to? The 'majority' can easily be accounted for by many factors, so you can't simply chose sides. Even the 3% of scientists that say the earth is not warming at all deserve some merit (I'm not saying this is correct).

haah wrote:

You don't think over a quarter of scientists is worth listening to? The 'majority' can easily be accounted for by many factors, so you can't simply chose sides. Even the 3% of scientists that say the earth is not warming at all deserve some merit (I'm not saying this is correct).

Sure, you can listen to them.

The question is where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who think the Earth is 4,000 years old. Must we hear their opinion? Do Scientologists deserve a seat at the table? How about that group that thought the Hale-Bopp comet was tailed by a spaceship that would take them away?

I'm not saying that those are equivalent to disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change but there must be some line where we move forward with action rather than hearing the protests of small groups.

not sure wrote:

there must be some line where we move forward with action rather than hearing the protests of small groups.

That line should be the need for conservation of resources, plain and simple. We use oil faster than it's replacing itself, so it should be obvious that at some point we'll have to move onto alternative fuel sources which may be costlier or riskier than oil. We shouldn't need scare tactics to make citizens conserve resources, or to help fund research in alternative energy, but the political arena has made it this way.

In short,the theory of peak oil should make people think about how we use oil. We don't need stories about rising water levels and years of drought and the destruction of species. We just need common fricking sense.

Not sure, I think you missed my main point...

The most important assumption in global warming is that CO2 drives temperature. This assumption is incorrect. CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes which is why the earth has cooled in recent years, yet the CO2 content has gone up.

Well, I'm sorry to say that there is no clear line where you can just dismiss things out of hand. Everything must be considered, and you can't dismiss minority views, so far as they keep within a logical framework. By the way, it's 6000, not 4000.

To add to my last post, all you can do as far as action is concerned is convince people with a sound argument and evidence that can logically be interpreted to support your view. Insisting the debate is over won't help at all.

Poor choice of words on my part; I hope that what I meant to say here was clear from the rest of the post. And I agree with your point about tending toward hyperbole regarding Venus-Earth comparisons; but, as I hope I made clear in my previous post, I think it is still important to look to Venus (and any other planet/moon with an atmosphere) as another useful data point in the understanding of how planetary atmospheres evolve and behave under the influence of various constituents.

Thank-you, I appreciate that. It's much more fun discussing things like this with folks (on both ends of the spectrum) that have taken the time to dig deeper than the political chanting points.