Global Warming Con Job

It's not the amount that's important, it's what it does.
It's not just Co2, it's also methane which is 28X worse for GW gases.
This stuff gets released when permafrost melts, methane that's been locked away for a long time.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

emphasis added by dr_strangecraft

Knowledge and diplomas are not synonymous. I will readily agree that the vast majority of experts are credentialed in any given field. But the label of "scientist" is ultimately a self-applied one. You're making an assuption that someone MUST NOT BE a real scientist if they disagree. Once again, that's politics, not science.

I said nothing about diplomas. But peer-reviewed is what I'm talking about. That means that your peers, fellow scientists who work in the field, have reviewed your paper and think it has enough merit to be published. If the science isn't right, they won't publish it. That's not politics, it's science. You are twisting my words and being obtuse.

Here is the definition of peer-reviewed:
www.google.com...

eer+reviewed&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Regarding the comment about algae and oxygen: The problem is, ships are bottom dragging the ocean floor, killing vast amounts of algae. The oceans are warming and alot of other sea life is dying as well. This is a direct result of global warming, but it is also greatly accelerated by bottom dragging the ocean's floor.





These peer-reviewed scientists have worked in their specialty all their lives. Why don't we go with what the experts have to say, huh?

Because they are so often wrong.

In 1972, the leading geologists and climatologists predicted that the Ogallala aquifer would be exhausted by 1996; that all the cities relying on that aquifer would become ghost-towns. In 2002, they revamped their predictions, saying that it would run out by . . . 2102. We went from 20 years of water, to 100 more years of water, in less than 20 years.

The classical example in modern physics is the michelson-morley experiment

And the founder of modern Quantum Theory,
Max planck, couldn't get a teaching job, and had no credentials when he formed his theory that is the basis of modern astrophysics.

That's why I'm not content to "go with what the experts say."

Science grows by questioning authority, not by adhering to it.



all the best.

.

www.cantonrep.com...

WASHINGTON A new Bush administration policy for reviewing scientific documents before publication has angered some U.S. Geological Survey scientists, who say the elaborate internal review of their work may impede them from conveying information to the public.

The new requirements, unveiled in July but still being put into practice, call for staff scientists to submit all reports and prepared talks to managers to determine if they meet the agency�s scientific standards. They also require researchers to alert the agency press office of any work involving �potential high visibility products or policy-sensitive issues.�

P. Patrick Leahy, USGS associate director for geology, said the agency spent more than two years drafting the new rules in order to ensure all of its scientists are subject to the same sort of rigorous scientific review before they send their work to be published.

So basically they're putting the "rule of thumb" policy they've had in place since 2000 into actual rules that applies to all scientists working for the government giving the Politicians all the power over the results and to hell with that quaint idea called Peer-Review. If the Powers that Be don't like it, it won't be published as is and will be subject to heavy editing. Sound Familiar?

The thing that gets me is that they are trying to make it look like Peer review, but this quote really pissed me off.

Under the policy, a USGS employee must submit any scientific document for a peer review that may involve scientists either inside or outside the agency. A supervisor oversees the process, making sure the reviewers are qualified and looking at how the scientist in question responded to any criticism raised by the reviewers.

I'm sure the Supervisors will be appointed by the Oil Lobbiests as per usual.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Here are the major greenhouse gases listed in order of having the most influence on this planet's temperatures:

Water Vapor
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Ozone

Here is something that some people don't know about. Water vapor makes up the majority of all greenhouse gases, but it also plays a part by regulating the temps on this planet since it always creates an equilibrium.

This planet would also be much much colder if it wasn't for the greenhouse gases, another search that is worth your time.

Do a search on "water vapor positive feedback loop". If it goes beyond your ideas of what is causing global warming then I feel you were not aware of this or blinded by all the hype on CO2. Those who know about it always get drowned out by those who think CO2 is the main factor in global warming. All I ask is you read up on this feedback cycle to have a new and/or different view of what is actually going on with global warming.

I personally think humanity being responsible for global warming is nothing but a crock, to get more money out of us through taxation. Our impact on global warming is minimal in comparison to the amount of gasses such as CO2 etc that nature itself produces, oceans, Volcanos etc.

According to NASA the whole solar system is heating up and it's all due to increased solar activity and an overall increase in the suns temperature and there's sod all we can do about it. Fortunately the cycle is apparently coming to an end and according to the same scientists the sun will start to cool again in the near future.

www.worldclimatereport.com...
www.foxnews.com...
www.martinfrost.ws...
physicist.org...
volcano.und.edu...

It's man made pollution that we should all be concerned about and not global warming. Man made pollution is the biggest threat to all life on this planet and it's all because of human greed, corruption and ignorance. The governments, Wealthy elitists, energy lobbies etc are to blame. If it wasn't for there greed and corruption we'd all probably be using alternative sources of cheap, clean energy by now but all these parasites care about is power and wealth. So why tax us, because its all a crock!!!!!!!! If they dont change there attitudes sometime soon. We are all screwed.

www.iit.edu...

well you think what you want but common sense shows that we have been messing up the planet real bad with all this polution so i tend to think that we didn't help it and if we would stop with this none sense polution it would help our planet.


even if it's not to stop global warming, stopping our crooked ways would help this planet in many other ways.





[edit on 17-12-2006 by selfless]

Originally posted by heatratio
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet.

Actually we have periods in history where the atmospheric CO2 levels where much higher and the average temperatures much much lower.

Fact: There are limited sources of C to burn.

Really? Based on what?

Fact: Infinite growth is not possible.

Based on what?

You will have to fend for yourself.

Signing out

Good Luck

You will have to fend for yourself if your community does not care about you as individual; some of us did not work ourselves into such compromising positions you know.

Stellar

Hello all
I´m not an expert on the GW subject, I always read some articles about it but nothing more.
What I know is that CO2 production has increased and it is directly related to the warming problem that we've been having in the late years.
The reason is simple: Oxygen atoms are suppose to connect with each other and form O3. Well this is a "difficult" reaction to happen cause of pressure and temperature. An easier reaction to happen is to form only O2 and because of the excess of carbon, the "oxygen" molecule joins to the carbon. This obviously makes less Ozone and more oxygen and co2, eventually you end up with a warming problem.

Originally posted by biovf
Hello all
I´m not an expert on the GW subject, I always read some articles about it but nothing more.
What I know is that CO2 production has increased and it is directly related to the warming problem that we've been having in the late years.
The reason is simple: Oxygen atoms are suppose to connect with each other and form O3. Well this is a "difficult" reaction to happen cause of pressure and temperature. An easier reaction to happen is to form only O2 and because of the excess of carbon, the "oxygen" molecule joins to the carbon. This obviously makes less Ozone and more oxygen and co2, eventually you end up with a warming problem.

Thankyou, I think that is an excellent explanation. CO2 is the major problem as far as greenhouse gases. Water vapor reflects UV rays, how could that be the biggest contributor?

Over 900 peer-reviewed scientific papers and not ONE says GW isn't happening. Nor do I think any of them say that it's not human caused. That is unprecedented to have the scientific community all agreed about something. Listen to the scientists, they've spent their whole entire lives studying it. We've knokwn about GW for 40 years and in that time the consensus among scientists just continues to grow ever stronger that it IS happening and that humanity is mostly responsible, not natural cyclesl, although that may play a part, too.

Originally posted by forestlady
... Nor do I think any of them say that it's not human caused...

Incorrect. The opposite is true. They say humans are contributing to GW, but I do not know of a paper out there that says humans are the solitary cause. There may be one somewhere, a lot of junk pseudoscience is on both sides of the issue, but no reputable scientist has stuck his neck out and said humans are solely to blame and no natural climate fluctuation is occurring. (On a side note, according to climatologists, the natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal is warming western North America faster than the overlying GW; i.e. both are occuring, but the natural cycle is the greater element in the far west. This may not be true for other areas.)


Even if all human contribution was eliminated, the natural factors contributing to GW would remain. GW would continue, albeit at a slower rate of change. How much slower is still debated even in the mainstream reputable scientific community.

Contributory factors versus causal factors.

Originally posted by dave_54
Even if all human contribution was eliminated, the natural factors contributing to GW would remain. GW would continue, albeit at a slower rate of change. How much slower is still debated even in the mainstream reputable scientific community.

Contributory factors versus causal factors.

I agree.
No matter how you look at it or what scientific theory you lean towards, global warming has many factors involved, not just one or two that we can try and fix.

Off the top of my head we have:
1) The suns cyclical warming trend.
2) Geo orbit of the earths path around the sun changing.
3) Data showing the cyclical ice ages of the earth every 100,000 years.
4) Green house effect from an increase of certain gasses in the ozone layer.
5) Oceans warming due to hot spots in the earths core moving around.
6) Co² emissions from humans burning refined fossil fuels.
7) Too many Cows farting.


This scientist has been researching this topic lately and offers some very strong points as to why Co² is not the cause of global warming, let alone our tiny production of it.

The truth is more likely a culmination of several of these different theories/events on our planet. And it is also a possibility that the global warming that is taking place is in a sort of "thermal runaway" mode, if I borrow a term found in any electronics engineering text book. Where the 'effect increases the cause' until a critical point (i.e. letting the smoke out of a transistor).
There may very well be not a damn thing we can do about it in that case...
...aside from enjoying the warm weather where it used to be cold
For awhile anyway.

I agree almost entirely with nemethesis' mini-thesis, I believe in the combination theory, primarily Man made + Natural cycle + Solar system-wide warming = unprecedented Earth warming. More importantly, I think the man made component has put the already precarious natural situation past the tipping point and there is ZERO we can do about it now.

Originally posted by dave_54

Originally posted by forestlady
... Nor do I think any of them say that it's not human caused...

Incorrect. The opposite is true. They say humans are contributing to GW, but I do not know of a paper out there that says humans are the solitary cause.

My sentence was probably difficult to understand, but Dave I am in agreement with you about humans contributing to GW. I do not think GW is the sole result of humankind's actions. There are many factors involved, but the human factor means it is happening much, much faster than a normal climate cycle. It means that species don't have time to adapt to the changes.

I do think that the human factor is the largest one in GW.

Originally posted by Nemithesis

This scientist has been researching this topic lately and offers some very strong points as to why Co² is not the cause of global warming, let alone our tiny production of it.

But he's a Biologist

Are you saying biologists know more about atmospheric science than atmospheric scientist?

There are many scientists who disagree with the conventional AGW theory . However there is almost complete consensus amongst atmospheric scientists - those who actual study the subject.

Now, they may be wring. But so what? Almost everything we need to do to reduce carbon emissions are things that any intelligent species would be doing by now anyway.

Although maybe turning the lights off to reduce your energy bills, or walking to the shop to save petrol and parking costs and lose weight, is just too complicated a concept for most people to understand?

More proof that global warming is largely a con job.
Look at how many "carbon offsets" sites are springing up now...
www.google.com...

"Here's how it works: if you add polluting emissions to the atmosphere, you can effectively subtract them by purchasing 'carbon offsets'. Carbon offsets are simply credits for emission reductions achieved by projects elsewhere, such as wind farms, solar installations, or energy efficiency projects. By purchasing these credits, you can apply them to your own emissions and reduce your net climate impact."

Or a more realistic explanation would go something like:

"If you are an idiot and buy into all the BS we splashed up on our boxed web site you can send us a bunch of money to make yourself feel better about being a spoiled American. In return we will send you some stickers!"

Honestly, you would make more of a dent to global warming if you took all your money, made little paper airplanes out of each bill and kept throwing them up to try and block the sun!

[edit on 27-12-2006 by Nemithesis]

The earth's climate system - and biosphere - are both complex systems that form part of a larger complex system.

Obviously, anything we do might impact those systems. As a previous poster wrote, we have done, and there's probably nothing we can do to stop it now.

BUT - we can prepare, responsibly, and mitigate some of our worst effects.

Enough fatalism, please.

Time to focus on the positive. Which means taking responsibly informed action.

I know man is evil, at least some of us, and we have a footprint on this earth but look at what is at the core of this "problem". A group of individuals with a pulpit, the IPCC, has identified anthropogenic CO2 as the source of global warming. Everything else is claims about the effects that may cause. Central to the determination of cause is the Hockey stick temperature plot. I know that we have gone past that to the remedy but....
The most significant document that refutes the claims made in MBH-98 is the Wegman Report.

gycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

This report refutes the claim that the 20th century was the warmest, the 90's was the warmest decade and that 1998 was the warmest year in a millenium. Wegman cited the lack of truly independent peer review, all the reviewers had coauthored with Mann Bradley and Hughes. There was a problem with the statistics, they used PCA(Principle component analysis) and performed the calibration on the portion of the curve that was not sufficiently stable. They did not search out any statistcal experts to assist them. They used bristlecone pine annular rings as a proxy for temperature determinations despite an earlier IPCC report that pointed out the problems of other causes of ring size. CO2 rainfall etc. Steve McIntyre, put the medieval warm period data back into the data set and it suddenly appeared. Turns out it was left out intentionaly. It was put into a folder labeled "censored data".

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=DLSSX42PFULMLQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml&page=2

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

This article goes on to talk about how the IPCC massaged the data for their purposes. This article underwent a review in www.climateaudit.org and was found to be pretty clean.

Sure, clean up our world. Stop real pollution but don't focus on CO2. It is a natural building block of life. 17,000 real scientistssigned a petition in 1999 in Oregon expressing significan doubts in the findings of MBH-98. If the basis of the argument has been shown to be faulty, why are we arguing about the effects?

Originally posted by forestlady
Ah but they do! I can tell by your posts that you don't really know much about global warming.

What's to know about a almost non-event?

How much scientific research have you done on Global Warming?

More than you probably.

You don't present any evidence or sources of evidence for your theory, which just makes it your opinion, but not fact.

Which sources and types of 'evidence' would you find acceptable?

I am married to a biologist, we both have done extensive investigation into GW.

So it must be true?

There is not one single published peer-reviewed scientific paper that says it's not happening.

Why is is so easy to show that the Earth has been undergoing a cooling trend for the last half decade?

There are no scientists, not one, who are real scientists worth their salt who don't believe in GW.

Now who is the one telling vapid lies? Who decides the credibility of these scientist or is disagreement with so called consensus enough evidence for you to base your perception of reality on?

The entire scientific community has been up in arms because the govt keeps trying to suppress the facts and the scientists opinion.

It's the other way round in this instance.

It is a known fact that the U.S. govt has bureaucrats (not scientists) to go through and edit scientific papers/findings to reflect no danger from GW. But that's propaganda, not the truth.

Once again the exact opposite is in fact taking place.

CO2 is by far is the leading major cause of the greenhouse effect.

Water vapour is but i guess you can't blame that on the industrialized world you seem to dislike so much ?

Trees and all green plants help to balance oxygen and CO2 because they take in CO2 and breath out oxygen. The Amazon forest, just for one example, has been greatly deforested.

The forest cover in the USA have increased by great margins since the start of the century. How often do you hear about that?

It used to produce 1/4 of the world's oxygen. Now it's about 1/6 and that was a number of years ago so it's probably even lower by now. That is why we need forests, only one reason why.

I love it when people simply make up facts to suit their views. Anyone who pretends to know how much oxygen is produced by the Amazon rain forests should be laughed out of his credentials.

So what is happening is that the CO2 is outweighing the oxygen on our planet and if it goes far enough there won't be enough oxygen for mammals to survive.

Oxygen levels do not have to decrease for CO2 levels to increase and pretending as much is quite the joke. Where on Earth did you find the evidence that suggest that the atmospheric levels of Oxygen are in fact declining and if would you support to deforestation of the Earth as trees 'uses' oxygen at night? Do you know anything about the atmospheric sciences at all?

The greenhouse effect warms the planet, which means the ice caps melt,

It might actually increase snowfall in the artic regions according to at least a few journals and papers i have seen...

as well as alot of the snow on the higher mountains such as Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas. This means ALOT less water for us, on a planet which is already running out of water.

When it gets warmed more water will be evaporated from Oceans which means fresh water stores on land might probably increase considering the size of the Oceans of the world.

Yes the earth has its cycles. But this one is way, way off the chart

Then someone gave you the wrong chart or simply made it up as drilling all over the world confirms that the atmospheric levels of CO2 have been MUCH MUCH higher in the past and at times much higher during ice ages.

and the CO2 is way, way off the chart, IOW, the earth has never been this bad off or had this much CO2.

I should call this a vapid lie ( that's what it is in my knowledge) but since you offer no evidence i will assume you have non and are just repeating what you heard.

All the major scientists agree that the current changes are mostly caused by human's using fossil fuels.

No they do not and consensus have never succeeded in changing objective reality before...

There may be a cyclical event happening, but it's not the major cause.

All the planets of our Solar system seem to be heating up but despite that the Earth has been showing a cooling trend? I reckon were already saving ourselves ( probably by accident) by means of particle pollution but hey that can't be as everything humanity does is somehow bad!

James Lovelock himself, a biophysicist and the first ecologist to study changes on planet Earth, believes that the main problem may be deforestation, not enough plant life to change CO2 into oxygen.

Believes yeah and i happen to believe other things based on open source scientific papers as available for everyone to inspect.

This is only a small portion of the inforation that's out there.

You clearly have no idea how much information is out there or how it demolishes the government inspired illusion of global warming as result of human activity. At worse we contribute a little and at best our pollution have protected us against the increasing energy output of our uncaring Sun.

If you want source material just search ATS as i am not going to bother attacking your opinions with more than mine as i know you doomers ( no solutions, little fact and plenty of fear and worry mongering) can't really defend your propaganda when pressed to do so.

Stellar

I know i will be drowned out by GW doomsayers´who are not (yet) cynical enough to view established science as what it is - business.

Co2 does block IR and the effect is very relevant, but so is its saturation characteristic, which does not scale linearly, which you seem to assume otherwise you'd be much more relaxed about CO2 !

for all who are not yet fully awake: a trace of greenhouse gas will quickly change absorbtion with increasing concentration in the beginning (again very low concentrations) but will tehn gradually level off. after a certain threshold, the increase becomes unnoticable, because all wavelengths in question are already blocked out.


aip.org

...A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were "saturated" — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference

of course knowing this (or even telling it) is not considered sexy, therefore the information's survival value (in media societies) is negative and i'm posting this via time travel 'cause i'm already extinct. for the record, i am a dinosaur


One more fact, meterologists make models based on silly assumptions and if proven wrong they have just as much faith in the next up to date, modern and flexible simulation software as they had in the buggy POS of yesteryear which they used to justify the upgrade.

one such assumption is/was that methane does not occur naturally

too bad plants produce it in spades

From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature.

do you think being 20% off makes a difference? does 150Mts sound like a lot? are you trusting these numbers (hint: round numbers smack of guessing)


Question: did they amend the old model or does this backlash require new gear again? if so, do you think they are already orchestrating a shift in awareness...to save the earth several times a year and/or remain employed?


I'd certainly recommend it: Sour Seas- How Carbonic Acid from CO2 is Destroying Our* Oceans

another problem, probably more pressing but most likely miniscule compared to waste, bottom trawling, industrial fishing and the destruction of thousands of miles of shore. what gives, Air taxes (see Kyoto protocol) and various subsidies are sexier than trawling bans and maritime national parks.

*note that this title does not represent my mindset but is supposed to imitate the mainstream - how do you think marketing creates an emotional bond? by invoking the concept of owndership of course, no matter how laughable. 'Chinese buying Our oil from Iran' yay.

Steller, great job trying to get some very important points across. Once people start to do their own research on everyone else's research they will see the truth. The spin on CO2 is most likely going to cause someone to make money somehow.

Water vapor, that's my favorite greenhouse gas that gets no love from many people yet is the only one that helps balance things out. More ice melting means more water vapor in the atmosphere. Yes temps will go up, how much is being spun to create fear, but I would rather live in the world we now enjoy then one that is covered in ice.

The more research people do the more they will understand this process. If they only focus on CO2 they are not going to get the big picture. Step away from all the CO2 hype and read on the rest of the gases and processes that may lead to global warming. I enjoy global warming since I like the beach, so more beach front property is a good thing. We might lose some of the coast that we now know of, but when has this planet's surface features stayed the same forever?