Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

The simple fact is, people that disagree that global warming is man made are taking a head in the sand approach. Yup it's there, but we didn't do it, so we can continue to use all our luxurious modcoms.

To me man made global warming seems a) logical b) obvious. We have so much stuff cooking out there that there has to be some kind of effect. Think what happens when you are in the shower without some kind of vacuum, the whole environment changes, condensation/humidity. Now apply this on a macro scale, with billions of extra complexities, ie polar caps, oceanic streams and a greater sense of cause and effect, it all starts to seems obvious. If you add naturally occuring environmental cycles to this as well, then it all starts going a bit crazy!!

Anyway the guys that coined the term greenhouse affect in the 80's were always saying that if something wasn't done right then, then we were pretty much doomed by the 2020s.

Carbon taxes have never been the answer. That is probably the only hoax out of all of this.

The only answer was for people to take note in the 80's. We missed the boat, we sow the seeds, etc and so on.

In saying all this, I personally can't accept that we are doomed, but I don't think things are going to be pretty.. and I won't be suprised if I am wrong.

And I have read some people mention china, interestingly they are probably doing a lot more than other countries. They are using nuclear power and they are putting up plants at a rate of knots. Nuclear is not the best solution. Given we haven't been able to develop the best solution (or plans withheld from the public).. then nuclear is probably the next best.

If we do survive all this, there is one thing I would like people to take from it. That is the world can still run if we move to environmentally friendly or neutral power sources etc.. Which is good for the environment, but guess what... These energies will be low cost or free - what does that equate to, lower overheads in the cost of living. Business' can then produce the same but for less cost. The economy still thrives. It's just that the fossil fuel economy dies.And to that I say bring it on.!!

Originally posted by johnny2127
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Well it actually hasn't been accurate. Temperature and weather models have been drastically off. The last 2 years alone have been the worst models, with the famous predictions of the worse winters and worst hurricane seasons in generations and then nothing......

No... While the climate models are not perfect, they've actually proven quite accurate and are evolving/advancing all the time with more data and improved computing. The fact is, any recent climate projections have actually been too CONSERVATIVE and global warming (and it's effects) have proven and will prove even worse than thought just a few years ago.

www.washingtonpost.com...

As far as settled science, sorry my friend it really is far from it:

Man-made global warming/ man-made climate change is not settled science. 31,487 American scientists, 9,029 who hold PHDs, have signed a petition, that reads in part: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide methane or other green house gases is causing or will cause, in the foreseeable future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmosphere carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments on earth.

Leading scientist proponents of man-made climate change were caught recently exchanging e-mails exposing the fact that they had been less than honest with climate change data in order to “make” the data agree with their “settled science.”

LINK

Now I know you're going to say they were cleared by an independent investigation, but it wasn't independent at all.
Not independent

However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda." - MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

That "30,000 Scientists" petition was proven a total fraud and a joke, drawn up (and even faked as a phony scientific paper) by an utterly unqualified and untrustworthy person:




The notion that there is no convincing scientific evidence of AGW or its predicted consequences is a notion of PURE RUBBISH. It's totally uneducated to say that the science is "unconvincing"... according to WHOM?? To you? You don't matter, frankly, nor does Monckton or Lindzen or any of the other unqualified and/or paid-off hacks of AGW denial. It really sounds like YOU need to do your homework much deeper instead of taking right-wing propaganda sites for gospel simply because it feels good to you.

There is NOT substantial evidence that rapidly rising CO2 and global warming is good for global ecosystems. Of course the effects are complex and certainly there are SOME benefits, but OVERALL the effects will certainly be some level of disastrous. Ecosystems CANNOT adapt quickly enough and are already facing dire consequences of global warming. Also, higher CO2 concentrations in a short amount of time and without a balancing of OTHER environmental factors actually contributes to WORSE plant/crop growth. Just because CO2 is plant food doesn't mean it's okay for us to increase atmospheric concentrations over 100ppm in merely a century.

The CRU email hacks WERE actually proven to be grossly exaggerated, cherry picked, misinterpreted, and taken out of context. The scientists were cleared of ANY wrongdoing (aside from minor problems with slight sloppiness and paranoia about FOIA requests) by FOUR independent investigations, and YES they were independent. Please see the truth here:

Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

Apart from ignoring the giant ball of fire in the sky, Global Warming alarmists also overlook a few other inconvenient truths. They ignore the fact the natural emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceed human contributions. In fact humans contribute a measly 0.035% of the total annual carbon flux. Any system that can be perturbed by such a tiny fluctuation would be very unstable indeed. They also ignore the fact that water vapour is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas. The atmosphere consists of 40,000 ppm of water vapour, whereas carbon dioxide weighs in at a miniscule 380 ppm. Instead they rely on dubious computer models that the IPCC itself admits exclude complex parts of the climate system that they don’t yet understand.

Great read

Climatologists DO NOT IGNORE EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLES, they absolutely ACCOUNT for them because Climatologists are the people WHO STUDY THEM FOR A LIVING. The anomaly within the last century has been a very rapid rise in global temps that has far EXCEEDED anything that natural cycles (or the sun) could have possibly caused. The concurrent rise in atmospheric GHGs not only matches the rise in temps but is intrinsically connected via elementary atmospheric physics and and entire body of deep climatological science.

As for the Medieval Warm Period, once again, that was regional and not at ALL comparable to what we face now...




The sun is also NOT RESPONSIBLE for our current global warming. Sunspots have been at a total minimum and solar irradiance has decreased over the past couple decades while warming has INCREASED concurrent with CO2 emissions/levels...

Problems with accuracy of data due to how temperature is measured:

If you want to understand why the controversy over global warming won’t go away, forget combing through hundreds of hacked emails or trying to understand the enormously complex computer climate models that spit out predictions of our future doom. Instead, just check out the Marysville, California, temperature monitoring station that NASA and other climate researchers use to track temperature trends. The problems with the Marysville station represent in microcosm why the supposedly “settled” issue of climate change has become so unsettled in the last few months.

The Marysville temperature station is located at the city’s fire department, next to an asphalt parking lot and a cell phone tower, and only a few feet away from two air conditioning compressors that spew out considerable heat. These sources of heat amplification mean that the temperature readings from the Marysville station are useless for determining accurate temperatures for the Marysville area.

Indeed, the Marysville station violates the quality control standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA admits that stations like Marysville, sited close to artificial heat sources such as parking lots, can produce errors as large as 5 degrees Celsius. That is not the only shortcoming of the Marysville data; it turns out that daily data were missing for as many as half the days of any given month. Either the device failed to self-record, or no one recorded the daily data as procedure requires. NASA simply filled in the gaps in the data by “interpolating.”

Link

Another bullsh** argument...

Look my friend, you are obviously a smart person. But what you need to realize is that data and stats are easily manipulated. Anyone can make a study aimed at proving or disproving anything and find data to support it. You can view a documentary, but they also set out to prove or disprove a certain point. According to you, 97% of climate scientists say global warming is man-made. But the flip side of this means that the research you did was hardly unbiased or independent. You basically did a ridiculous amount of research (which is great), but it was done by a bunch of scientist who have made entire careers based on their opinions and know that regardless of the truth, it won't be known in their lifetime. I'm not saying which side is correct. I'm just saying this entire thing has taken on a political nature, and that is also the case within the scientific community (which is tragic). Try to keep an open mind and not so doom and gloom. Either way, a human life is short viewed from the lens of the earth. If you're right, the earth will correct the problems on its own and human life may or may not survive. If you are wrong, the earth will still heat and cool and humanity will have to adapt to it. Either way, the science and debate is not settled, and both sides agree with that.

They aren't easily manipulated. There is a rigorous scientific system of checks and balances that keeps track of mistakes, errors, and bad data... and it works quite well. There isn't some conspiracy by countless scientists and scientific institutions to trick us all into believing in global warming so they can get grant money... even the suggestion of such a conspiracy is plain stupid and illogical.

It seems you're injecting/projecting your own opinions on a realm that is based on objective science. You speak as if scientists are just throwing around random conjectures left and right based on gut instincts and faulty technology, but the reality is actually the opposite. The science is very well established, backed up, developed, and ABSOLUTELY employs rigorous scientific method and scrutiny, and passes those tests with virtual flying colors. Once again, the scientific "debate" has already been settled. What we face now is a false political/media debate that is based on disinformation, conspiracy theory, and bogus science that seeks to undermine the very serious science of Climatology and the implications of AGW. It's all good to question authority, but you're ass-backwards in who/what/why you're questioning global warming.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
What's saddest to see is that the fossil fuel industry's propaganda has worked on so many of you...

Talk about lemmings.

I too have researched global warming much much further than most people, and I've given EVERY SINGLE AGW DENIAL ARGUMENT A CHANCE. I really did... and ya know what? Essentially ALL of them proved to be wrong and/or plain ignorant. After going deeper down the rabbit hole than probably most of you... the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has only been strengthened in my mind.

The scientific debate ended decades ago, then a couple decades after that, the fossil fuel industry put out SERIOUS money, disinformation, propaganda, and political/media takeovers to convince people that there was a giant conspiracy. So essentially what happened is TPTB made you think that you are fighting them by denying global warming when you're actually playing right into their plutocrat hands. The fossil fuel industry is the WEALTHIEST INDUSTRY EVER TO EXIST ON PLANET EARTH, and for the world to take global warming seriously it would entail SERIOUS cuts to industry profits and their reign over our governments/planet. Do you really think they're gonna play nice? No. Here is the reality:

READ THESE NOW

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

www.pbs.org...

www.grist.org...

www.skepticalscience.com...

climateprogress.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2-11-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)

Bravo on this post and ESPECIALLY the one just above. Brilliantly laid out.

But you know what's funny? I bet not one skeptic will change their mind....they never do. I don't believe they are capable of doing so no matter WHAT evidence they are shown.

They post [easily disprovable] nonsense, we point out their flaws, they post more nonsense and start to get angry, we point out their flaws, so they post more nonsense and get REALLY angry and start ranting about how brainwashed and stupid we are. It's almost pathological.....

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
What's saddest to see is that the fossil fuel industry's propaganda has worked on so many of you...

Talk about lemmings.

I too have researched global warming much much further than most people, and I've given EVERY SINGLE AGW DENIAL ARGUMENT A CHANCE. I really did... and ya know what? Essentially ALL of them proved to be wrong and/or plain ignorant. After going deeper down the rabbit hole than probably most of you... the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has only been strengthened in my mind.

The scientific debate ended decades ago, then a couple decades after that, the fossil fuel industry put out SERIOUS money, disinformation, propaganda, and political/media takeovers to convince people that there was a giant conspiracy. So essentially what happened is TPTB made you think that you are fighting them by denying global warming when you're actually playing right into their plutocrat hands. The fossil fuel industry is the WEALTHIEST INDUSTRY EVER TO EXIST ON PLANET EARTH, and for the world to take global warming seriously it would entail SERIOUS cuts to industry profits and their reign over our governments/planet. Do you really think they're gonna play nice? No. Here is the reality:

READ THESE NOW

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

www.pbs.org...

www.grist.org...

www.skepticalscience.com...

climateprogress.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2-11-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)

Bravo on this post and ESPECIALLY the one just above. Brilliantly laid out.

But you know what's funny? I bet not one skeptic will change their mind....they never do. I don't believe they are capable of doing so no matter WHAT evidence they are shown.

They post [easily disprovable] nonsense, we point out their flaws, they post more nonsense and start to get angry, we point out their flaws, so they post more nonsense and get REALLY angry and start ranting about how brainwashed and stupid we are. It's almost pathological.....

edit on 3-11-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason given)

Then disprove my question why CO2 goes up but temp comes down...


1: During the Ordovician Period average temps were 12 degrees Celsius or less (today's avg is about 12C) but CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm but yet today we are about 380 ppm and avg temp of 12 degrees Celsius?

According to basic 101 greenhouse theory the earth should have been hot as hell not a freezing cold ice age.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Watched your long movie.

Did not find it to be any more convincing than the inconvenient truth.

If you want to tell me the government is lying about the numbers being so low, then I can also say they are lying about them being so high.

Either way..

The truth is, if it is this bad. There is nothing you nor I can do.

I would just hope that the morons of the world stop the baby factory while they can and save some future people.

I have personally made the choice to not have children and wish more would follow suit.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
The notion that there is no convincing scientific evidence of AGW or its predicted consequences is a notion of PURE RUBBISH. It's totally uneducated to say that the science is "unconvincing"... according to WHOM?? To you? You don't matter, frankly, nor does Monckton or Lindzen or any of the other unqualified and/or paid-off hacks of AGW denial. It really sounds like YOU need to do your homework much deeper instead of taking right-wing propaganda sites for gospel simply because it feels good to you.

My friend, do not assume that I only visit right wing sites or haven't read the same things as you. I have no allegiance to any political party. I watched the video you asked up to, and there was nothing new in it for me. From my perspective, it provided a ton of information, but then made tremendous leaps as to correlations and causality. Good video, far from unbiased or non-political. Still was worth watching for sure.

It is wrong to assume that everyone will come to the same conclusions, or view things the same. It is also wrong to put down the opinions or viewpoints of others. I have read and reviewed what both sides say of the man made climate change debate. I don't come to the same conclusion as you, nothing wrong with that. Sadly, since the science has been so politicized and hijacked by both sides, its hard for people to view this topic independently without subconsciously 'rooting' for one side. Me, personally I don't care which side is correct. If global warming is caused by man, well sorry but no one will stop it. You will never control China, or Russia, or the US. If its nature, we can't control it. Either way, earth has changed, is changing, and always will change. The earth staying constant has never been normal.

I'm glad you're passionate about this topic, but the sources you presented to me seemed to be the equivalent of studies put out by tobacco companies saying smoking doesn't cause cancer. These are all studies and research DESIGNED to come to a certain conclusion. Hence they will always be flawed.

Originally posted by The_Liberator

I'm not bashing anyone. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of the posters on this site, for whatever reason, seem incapable of objectively looking at the evidence and coming to an informed conclusion.

The same argument could be leveled at you. In order to persuade others, you have to empathize with their position, validate their thought process, and lead them to a new conclusion that doesn't violate their reasoning. Posting drivel like 'Deniers are pointless to talk to' ...or, ' if you would just watch the video you would see' is a far cry from a persuasive conversation.

I can tell you your tactic doesn't work: I watched the entire video, read extensively at skepticalscience and other related pro-AGW (what the hell does AGW stand for? I get the GW, but whats the A? American? ) And sadly I am still a skeptic. The integrity of the evidence pointing to man-made causation is compromised. While I concede it is still a possibility that our carbon emissions are a contributing factor, I do not believe the case has been proven. IMO the scientific establishment is neglecting important work related to natural causes because the "official" blame has already been placed.

To answer your question, there are a lot of people trying to convince the public about the seriousness of what we are facing. James Hansen (lead climatologist for NASA), Dan Miller (the guy in the video that no one watched, lol), Bill Mckibben, Ross Gelbspan, and on and on.

Dan Miller is a trained spokesperson for The Climate Project ... personally trained by Al Gore, according to the video you posted! TCP is a nonprofit created solely by Al Gore! (As for the other examples, it's late I am tired, and I don't wanna get sucked into the research like last night )

You can believe that Al Gore took on the cause of MMGW to get rich, but I believe he did it because he is empathetic and caring and terrified. I know you disagree, but that is what I believe.

Well you definitely have more trust in politicians than I do! But really, can't you concede that at the very least Gore's activities since 2004 seem to suggest that there is a broader plan in play?

You want readers here to watch that video with an open mind. Can't you do the same with the data we present to you?

all planets around us are warming. we are responsible for that too? no.

brb going to spray a WHOLE can of hairspray into the air.

edit: you know I dont even want to look at facts on either side of the arguement anymore. if you actually think its good for the government to tax you to breathe ...you need your head examined.

Quote :-

Exhibit number 5:

Ocean acidification is considered the “evil twin” of global warming. CO2 dissolves in sea water to become carbonic acid which is slowly making the ocean inhospitable for the vast majority of marine life. Don’t believe me….then see exhibit number 6.

You don't know what you are talking about. The oceans are not going "acidic. "
The oceans are alkaline. To add an acid to an alkaline will make it neutral BEFORE it goes acidic.
You are repeating the same scare mongering alarmist rubbish which is politically biased.
Also note that an alkaline enviournment will also dissolve the exoskeletal frame work of marine life.

Why don't you comment on the amount of waste/rubbish mankind is putting into the ocean?

/Limbo

reply to post by The_Liberator

And I am saying that it is man made and that 97% of climate scientists agree with me

97% of climate scientists? Can you name 20 of these expert climate scientists? Your mantra-like repetitions of AGW propagandist arguments have done nothing to address the real scientific objections with CAGW (that stands for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming).

As for your claim about CO2 lagging temperature: www.skepticalscience.com.

Instead of addressing people's arguments you just endlessly, lazily link them to Skeptical Science. This is the summarization of proofs on Skeptical Science apparently refuting the 800-year lag between temperature changes and corresponding CO2-changes.

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles.

True. I think we can all agree with this.

CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone.

To say that CO2 amplifies the warming during these interglaciations is probably true, to some extent. The CO2 in the atmosphere will undoubtedly have an effect but the question should be, will adding more CO2 to the atmosphere have any significant warming effect? CO2 has an ever-diminishing radiative forcing response because its effect is logarithmic, so hypothetically, adding more CO2 to say 50ppm would have greater effect than adding to 400pppm. To address Skeptical Science's statement though, they say that CO2 amplifies the warming (presumably during interglaciations) and the temperature variations during these interglaciations cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone. Which is true, they can't, but how does this refute the notion that CO2 lags behind temperature fluctuations? Nobody knows what caused the temperature variations during past interglaciations because paleo-reconstructions are prehistoric and relate to times for which no direct empirical measurements of anything are possible.

CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet.

Again true. But this doesn't refute anything.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Thanks op for another thread that says [
WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE - again.............................................

There is nothing we can do about it, it has been taken out of our hands, ever thought that perhaps its mothers natures way of saying enough is enough, you have not looked after me so now I am going to do something about it. Sure people make # loads of money from this global warming scam. In fact as I was driving to work this evening I thought to myself so what , its all going to be ok in the end. Even if that means leaving this planet.

I know what its like to die and I am not afraid of death and neither should anyone else be its a simple transition just not in hu-man form.

reply to post by The_Liberator


Would really prefer you didnt abdicate your own voice, certainly not to the Roda Group.

Global Warming is a Hoax...

Google Video Link

Enjoy the film, hope you don't have an aneurysm...

But your in luck, the oil is running out and
I do think we need something other than fossil fuels.

Google Video Link

We better hope the oil crash happens slowly or
your worst fears of global warming will seem
like a holiday.

For over a year now I have been a voice in the wilderness asking how less than 1% of the atmosphere (CO2) can heat up the other 99%, I have yet to receive an answer. Last time I looked, CO2 was 383 parts per 1,000,000, those scientists must have some really good measuring instruments to get down that low.
From memory, the natural world produces 350,000,000 tons of 'crud' each year, that is, CO2, methane, sulferdioxide, nitrogen, ash particulates, water vapour, helium, hydrogen, etc. Humans produce about 50,000,000 tons of the same sort of 'crud' looks to me like the natural world ought to pay carbon tax, not humans.

Originally posted by Limbo
Quote :-

Exhibit number 5:

Ocean acidification is considered the “evil twin” of global warming. CO2 dissolves in sea water to become carbonic acid which is slowly making the ocean inhospitable for the vast majority of marine life. Don’t believe me….then see exhibit number 6.

You don't know what you are talking about. The oceans are not going "acidic. "
The oceans are alkaline. To add an acid to an alkaline will make it neutral BEFORE it goes acidic.
You are repeating the same scare mongering alarmist rubbish which is politically biased.
Also note that an alkaline enviournment will also dissolve the exoskeletal frame work of marine life.

Why don't you comment on the amount of waste/rubbish mankind is putting into the ocean?

/Limbo

In addition to this statement, they have found there is more deep water coral than shallow water
coral. The coral die off is a major concern, but to be honest even our best scientists are
still trying to understand the full ecosystem and how it works.

The fact that we did not know there was more deep water coral than shallow water coral
til recently shows that as much as we do know, we got a ways to go yet.

I support funding extensive research into the field, but I'd like to see equal representation from
the political spectrum.

I'm skeptical about global warming for the same reasons that nobody can predict the weather accurately beyond a few days. The global climate is a giant plasma in constant flux with too many variables interacting to know with any accuracy what will happen with it very far into the future. I think for similar reasons nowhere have I read any good scientific definition containing high empirical content of what is being referred to by the terms 'global warming' or 'climate change' that would allow the theory to be refuted by some observations years or even months into the future (Assuming refutation of a scientific belief is even possible). I don't know how such a definition could be arrived at though in terms of where and when the readings would be taken and how mere chance and luck could be controlled for as variables. But even if such a definition could be arrived at the issue of causation comes up. If we had enough of a grasp on what is causing the climate to change over the years then wouldn't we also be able to then predict the weather years into to future?

The Global Warming theory is merely the current politically dominant paradigm in science. And in the world of knowledge political might does not make right. The argument from authority is weak at best. The veracity of even the simplest scientific paradigms is very difficult to determine but the theory of global warming is a paradigm of the most complicated order involving the action of the entire climate over a period of years.

To better understand the nature of scientific paradigms I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' Also worth reading is Karl Popper's essay 'Science: Conjectures and Refutations' and a response to that essay by Imre Lakatos 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.' Do any study of those works and you may start to understand why people don't automatically jump on the "band wagon" to agree with everything that appears obviously true to you. Things get a lot more complicated when one looks in depth into the fields of philosophy of science and epistemology; the intellectual foundations for any belief in science.

reply to post by izero



The simple fact is that AGW/Global Warming is not about the REAL toxic chemicals which are released each year to rivers, lakes and the ocean... It is not about the plastic island in the Pacific, and it is not about the environment at all... They are after CO2, and they only go after CO2 quite simply because apart from methane, living things do not naturally emit any toxic gases.

If the whole AGE/Global Warming was really about the environment environlunatics would LOVE that CO2 emissions have been increasing, since it is a known fact that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are in fact beneficial for all green biomass on Earth, that is plants, and trees. But instead of going after the real toxic chemicals and gases which are still being released the One World Order elitists decided to blame CO2, since all living things, including humans, emit CO2. This way they can make the ignorant masses feel guilty of just living, and having so many people on the planet, which goes well with the elitist plans for depopulating the planet.

We have had several threads about this, and I have even showed a paper which can be found at a UN website from 1991 where a crazy environlunatic talks about creating an economic crisis, an environmental crisis, and making environmental groups that will work for the benefit of the One World Government, and how to make governments embrace the redistribution of wealth making all middle classes non existant, and creating two classes, those in power, and the poor, which would be everyone else. He doesn't specifies it like that, but if you had an inch of grey matter you would read between the lines, and yes part of the plan is to completely ban the middle class around the world.

We have had several threads showing how elitists have wanted, and still want world depopulation, and would use any means necessary to achieve it, and blaming CO2, as well as indoctrinating people and children to beleieve "it is ok to die and to explode children for the environment"...

You see, it is real simple, but the AGW lunatics have been so brainwashed, and are so ignorant that they can't see the trees in the forest.

You people don't want to understand that YOU are some of the people the elitists want to get rid of. They don't have you in mind for cheering for their scam/new false religion, they serve you to the sharks as soon as any of us who know that AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a scam, and as they reach their main goal they also get richer with the new taxes on CO2, and all other taxes they are planning to "ease your guilt"...

Ocean acidification is considered the “evil twin” of global warming. CO2 dissolves in sea water to become carbonic acid which is slowly making the ocean inhospitable for the vast majority of marine life. Don’t believe me….then see exhibit number 6.

You don't know what you are talking about. The oceans are not going "acidic. "
The oceans are alkaline. To add an acid to an alkaline will make it neutral BEFORE it goes acidic.
You are repeating the same scare mongering alarmist rubbish which is politically biased.
Also note that an alkaline enviournment will also dissolve the exoskeletal frame work of marine life.

Err.... adding a weak acid into the ocean will indeed increase the Hydronium ion concentration and decrease the Hydroxide ion concentration. This will indeed cause the pH of the ocean to decrease and the pOH to increase, thus the ocean is indeed becoming more acidic, but this is completely distinct from saying the ocean is an actual acid (having a pH of less than 7).

l2chemistry.

Originally posted by lavenlaar
Co2 - natural occurance
Trees produce Oxygen from Co2
Humans need Oxygen to survive
--
Less trees in world + greater population = greater increase in Co2
EASY ! Plant a tree

Why was Co2 emissions at its lowest in the 1940's in the industrial age ?

I have heard and read this response often. I think it is as popular as misguiding.

Natural substances or chemicals can be bad for you

Water - natural occurance
Try to keep your head under it for a while. Or try drinking more then a gallon per hour.
Try to plant a tree in it.

Methane -natural occurance
and so forth

Nobody will say that Co2 or O2 are unnatural. The global warming discussion is not a natural-unnatural debate. Even though we try to make it into one from both sides. Yes-sayers play the blame card and confuse the discussion. But a lot of no-sayers seem to view it from a perspective where "natural" = good in itself/god/not our fault.
Neither works. The poster is right when he thinks it is about what the actual situation is and what you can do about it. I am just as afraid as others that is too late already and that we have to wait and see what happens. In the meanwhile I think it would be respectful towards others and the earth to act as if every act will make a difference. Don't pollute!

This whole topic is about lifesustaining quantities and tipping points and temperatures and our possible role in it.
If you are willing to plant a tree, it seems that you think it would be possible for us to change the situation for the better.

Co2 in the forties was low because there was a worldwide crisis in the thirties maybe? What do we know?

reply to post by C0bzz


But again, like the claims that CO2 causes massive warming, the claims that CO2 are the main cause of the acidity is nothing more than lies. The real problems with acidification of the oceans are being caused by toxic waste being allowed to be released into rivers, and oceans in most of the world.