We need to stop.

I don't think anyone here can deny climate change. In fact, it is impossible for climate to remain still. It is, by its very nature, always changing. The various geological forces, even the very fact that the Sun is a variable star, ensure that climate is in constant state of disequilibrium, as opposed to an eternally static system.

What I have trouble is the sharp contrast between respected scientific approach to the study of climate change, and the mad political bias and overgrown sensationalism that media floods the public with. more worrisome is the fact that many scientists are actually associating themselves with political agendas so to push particular policies, or even political candidates.

Science should never have married Politics, and it should never have given birth to the child they called AGW. This is a major source of bias, especially when those that are in charge of sending satellites or measuring CO2 are the very same entities that serve the political system.

Yes, ice caps are melting. They are supposed to melt. We are technically in an Ice Age. The defining detail of an Ice Age is the presence of year-round ice caps. Antarctica is the proof that our Ice Age hasn't actually ended yet. Between Ice Ages, the Earth goes through interglacial climates - characterized by the melting of ice caps. Fun fact, the Earth was actually warmer (and CO2 levels were even higher) back in the Jurassic era. This warm climate saw the prosperity and evolution of many species of animals and plants, it was paradise for life.

Colder climate is something recent. Colder climate actually, paradoxically, encouraged harsher deserts. Because the water gets locked up as ice instead of flowing across the landmasses. Antarctica itself harbours deserts, as it is so dry. Warmer temperatures plus the oceans bring humidity, which gives rise to tropical conditions.

But polar bears are starving! You saw the pictures. They filmed a polar bear starving to death, and blamed you for causing global warming and making polar bears die.

What these impartial, completely honest media "forgot" to tell you is, since polar bears are pretty much the strongest predator in this environment, their main causes of death can only be senescence, and starvation. They only rarely die of anything else. It's a bit like being surprised when a human dies of old age or starvation, and saying, "What?! You were supposed to be killed by ice caps loss due to global warming!"

Yes, ice caps melt. Is it all exclusively due to humans? I am not so sure. Of course they have an impact, polluting as much as many of them do. But is this the single cause for climate change? I seriously don't think so. It's like saying that humans cause Spring to come.

Satellites, if we are to believe those political entities that monopolised scientific equipment in space, are registering a rise in temperature of the Earth. Do some of you realise that the satellite sensor is in space? And if it's in space, then, it's measuring an increasing amount of heat bouncing from Earth back into space? Insulation works two ways. Yes, it can trap heat. But it does so by reflecting heat. That means that it reflects heat inside back inside... but also outside heat back outside. More insulation, more reflection.

Now, some scientists I have spoken to, found a workaround to try and address my argument. "It's not that greenhouse gases act as an insulating greenhouse gas", they say. "In fact, greenhouse gases convert heat to another kind of heat. Wide spectrum comes in, gets absorbed by the ground, which transforms it to IR or microwave, which then is reflected back towards space, but is reflected back in again by the gas layer." Problem with this argument: then, if the IR or microwave gets trapped more and more, it should be escaping less and less into space. After all, the layer is becoming more and more opaque to this "ground heat". Yet satellites are measuring an INCREASE in escaped groundheat, in other words, in escaped IR and microwave... Oops!

Then there's CO2 measument. Did you know that one agency singlehandedly decides how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere? Since CO2 and water vapour share dangerously similar signatures, this agency is responsible for the worryingly complex task of making a "correct" estimate.

I know that many Leftists, amongst you, are reading this and grinding their teeth at me, probably thinking that I am just another right-winged ostrich that wants Big Oils company CEOs to smoke cigars sitting on the sandy plains of a post-apocalyptic Desert Earth with thick black clouds rolling over a landscape scrorched by the 150 degrees heat. But I actually am really a vehement defender of the environment, and harshly oppose pollution - the biosphere deserves better than us filling our home, this Earth with houses us all, with trash, gases, and plastic islands. I am somewhat horrified by the continued efforts to empty the petroleum from the Earth, this ancient fossil remnants from the sea of Tethys which is then simply burned up into cars and transformed into disposable plastic with no second thoughts.

My point is that I really am getting tired of media trying really hard to convince the population of AGW. It is getting to a point where they are treating it like an undeniable fact: humans are singlehandedly causing global warming. This is an insult, I think, to those real scientists out there that do try to publish their own studies. Even physics is more open to new studies than climatology is. That's how biased climatology has become. We are ready to believe in quantum entanglement, yet aren't ready to consider that maybe, just maybe, climate does not revolve around humans.

just my opinion.

originally posted by: swanne
Yes, ice caps are melting. They are supposed to melt. We are technically in an Ice Age.

You have no idea how many people I say that to and have no idea, many flat out say I am lying and refuse to even look at proof we are.

originally posted by: swanne

My point is that I really am getting tired of media trying really hard to convince the population of AGW. It is getting to a point where they are treating it like an undeniable fact: humans are singlehandedly causing global warming. This is an insult, I think, to those real scientists out there that do try to publish their own studies. Even physics is more open to new studies than climatology is. That's how biased climatology has become. We are ready to believe in quantum entanglement, yet aren't ready to consider that maybe, just maybe, climate does not revolve around humans.

Humans aren't single-handedly causing Global Warming but we are responsible for many things like over-farming, de-forestation and burning fossil fuels. The fossil fuel would've been burnt up deep underground and released via volcanic activity, so whether humans were around or not, Earth would still go through a volcanic and hot house phase.

The only solution?
Quit over-populating an already max-capacity planet.

Every time I look on BBC news there is always an article on GW, quite often some rubbish on what they believe people should do to make their carbon footprint less harmful to the environment. The more they are doing this they are adding fuel to the fire by building up climate anxiety.
Plastic and oils are an incredible material, the only thing wrong with it is that BILLIONS of people are using it.
I just don't understand how a lot of people believe petroleum is a terrible substance but having about 4 - 10 kids for almost every female on earth is acceptable.

a reply to: StrangeQuark96

Quit over-populating an already max-capacity planet.

The single most fallacious statement there
In 2010 , I read some facts on overpopulation
If every single person (man , woman , and child) were brought together in the State of Texas , there would be an 18" radius of space around each person

Only 3% of the continent of Africa is populated . Of that 3 % , 98% is along the coastline

Big numbers , yet even a bigger world

a reply to: Gothmog

7.53 billion humans
1.468 billion cattle
1 billion vehicles
on average 9,728 planes in the sky at any given time
the world consumes about 86 million barrels of crude oil per day

I'm just pulling these from google but I could go on.

Earth will naturally change phases with or without us but we can't dismiss human involvement.

How does anyone know who is right if they are not a scientist who has reviewed countless studies?

In any case, shouldn't we focus on reducing pollution as much as possible? Global warming or not?

Interesting opinion though OP.

a reply to: StrangeQuark96

Was just having a conversation about this over population is probably a bigger threat than burning fossil fuels.
Climate changes, we just need to learn to deal with it and with climate change we also need to control how we use and utilize resources. Burning fossil fuels does have an immediate affect on where we use it, I need to wipe my windows clean once a month because of the two large steel mills running 24 / 7 in a neighbouring city. I cant even imagine what crap rains down, runs off, or falls into lake Ontario, fish probably have black gills.

originally posted by: blueman12
How does anyone know who is right if they are not a scientist who has reviewed countless studies?

In any case, shouldn't we focus on reducing pollution as much as possible? Global warming or not?

Interesting opinion though OP.

The discussion about global warming actually takes away from valid arguments. That's because it focuses on the world ending in 10 years and demanding drastic changes that can't happen.

a reply to: swanne

Yeah......science marrying politics is like a blue blood marrying white trash with the offspring of that unholy union having no clear identity.

a reply to: swanne

...an undeniable fact: humans are singlehandedly causing global warming. This is an insult...

Another "undeniable fact" is that Al Gore started the Global Warming Fraud and also lined his pockets in doing so.

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

www.heartland.org...

$300 million net worth 6 years ago...I wonder what this clown's net worth is now?

a reply to: swanne

Bah, we've had how many ice ages and climate shifts before human beings even walked the Earth?

It is silly to think mere humans could have that kind of impact. We simply aren't that powerful or important

No doubt there is something going on with the climate, but until I see hard evidence (not just conclusions from "dark science") I will continue to believe it is a natural occurrence and unrelated to my Truck or cow flatulence

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
a reply to: swanne

Yeah......science marrying politics is like a blue blood marrying white trash with the offspring of that unholy union having no clear identity.

Spot on

Well stated

One side of the troubled relationship looks at cold, hard facts the other side believes Jerry Springer and the National Enquirer is "the news"

"Dark science" by its nature is NOT science. Science = following the scientific method, which says that any person conducting the same experiment following the same procedures will get the same results. Science that cannot be verified is not science at all, it is actually closer to religion

a reply to: swanne

I think burning fossil fuel is causing a lot of soot to go into the air which is causing global warming. Just my hunch.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: swanne

I think burning fossil fuel is causing a lot of soot to go into the air which is causing global warming. Just my hunch.

Any solutions to that? Because simply not using fossil fuel just isn't an option.

Now, when we vastly expand nuclear power (including private ownership) then we can talk about eliminating fossil fuel. Until then, it is the lifeblood of our economy and our country and is the only viable choice.

a reply to: JBurns

Nuclear power is on the decline. Technologies that can't make weapons were never researched and the ones that can make weapons are expensive because of how dangerous they are.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: StrangeQuark96

Quit over-populating an already max-capacity planet.

The single most fallacious statement there
In 2010 , I read some facts on overpopulation
If every single person (man , woman , and child) were brought together in the State of Texas , there would be an 18" radius of space around each person

Only 3% of the continent of Africa is populated . Of that 3 % , 98% is along the coastline

Big numbers , yet even a bigger world

Having enough space to stand is pretty irrelevant to the carrying capacity of our environment. If China and India were consuming American levels of resources we would probably already be there with current technology.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: swanne

I think burning fossil fuel is causing a lot of soot to go into the air which is causing global warming. Just my hunch.

Just for you
Climate Science
So , carbon(soot) in the atmosphere would lower the temp tremendously
This has been proven by studies of major volcanic eruptions in history and pre-history.
Carbon absorbs radiation , then re-emits at lower wavelengths
Cold and dark.
Just like me.

a reply to: Gothmog

Not quite.

When it covers things like the ice caps the opposite happens (I.e., soot on the ground). They get warm and melt. Water from the surface drips down and breaks the ice apart (which is why the polar bears are struggling.., no ice to travel over to hunt for food).

Nothing is as simple as put because it kicks off other processes that always complicates the simple answer.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Gothmog

Not quite.

When it covers things like the ice caps the opposite happens (I.e., soot on the ground). They get warm and melt. Water from the surface drips down and breaks the ice apart (which is why the polar bears are struggling.., no ice to travel over to hunt for food).

Nothing is as simple as put because it kicks off other processes that always complicates the simple answer.

Not really.
You have the absorption of radiation that would normally heat up the Ice Caps
And , you can bet the farm that the more carbon in the atmosphere , the more the relevant temps drop (around the world)
What "processes" does "what" kickoff ?
It is proven science .
What else can I say ?
I think , nothing else.
Successful rebuttal to your debate point
Learn science

a reply to: swanne

You talk about ice ages and climate in the jurassic period like they are very similar to what we're experiencing now.
Those are changes in the climate over hundreds of thousands of years, not 6 decades!
AGW is not about changes but about the rate of change