Is global warming a scam?

The reason there is no conclusive scientific evidence to prove humans are "causing" global warming is that the climate is way too complex. That's why the computer models are all shite.

The real idiocy is that educated people can't understand that global temperatures are always going up or down like a sin wave. At any point in history the global climate has been in the middle of a warming trend, a cooling trend or at the peak or trough of the trend, at which time it changes direction! DUH with a capital D! Human activity has nothing to do with it. We are so self important. The fact that the Earth's climate holds such an amazingly stable temperature relative to the harsh environment of space and our relative proximity to the sun is amazing.

Quite a paradox how something so complex as the climate could be so simply understood and explained in your post in just a few lines, and still educated people are so stupid that cannot understand it.

The variables that determine the actual climate are extremely complex, yet the natural cycle of warming and cooling is simple to comprehend just like the rising and the falling of the tides. Yet nobody would ever claim that any human activity has any influence on the tides. The major difference is that climate trends can last centuries while the changing of the tides happen twice every day, but they're never exactly the same.

Yet there are uncountable climate experts everywhere that think human activity could and is altering climate. So it might not be as simple as you, non expert, think.

And there are uncountable climate experts everywhere that DON'T think human activity could or is altering climate. Deuce.

Non of them think climate is such a simple issue as you do.
And they do know human activity could alter climate.

The disagreement is whether we are experiencing global warming or not, and if it is human induced.

Your reading comprehension isn't so good. I clearly wrote that the variables that determine the climate are extremely complex. So much so that the computer models that try to simulate them can't do it. What is not difficult to understand is that the climate has always been and will always be in a state of flux. Are you suggesting that the climate doesn't change? Do you believe that the temperature doesn't change. How have we had four major ice ages and a couple minor ones in just the last hundred thousand years?

The assumption of "human induced global warming" is clever indeed. It puts the burden of disproving something which is a natural phenomenon on scientists who would never claim humans are causing it in the first place.

Once and for all, human activity can not alter the climate. The whole scam hinges on the trace element CO2 which is a natural element, not a pollutant as many who believe this nonsense think. Plants eat CO2 and produce O2 which we need.

I think it's time for some COMIC RELIEF on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0...feature=related

Sorry, but I understood perfectly what you wrote:

Everybody understands that global temperatures are always going up or down. Everybody knows we had ice ages. That, however, speaks nothing about the human ability to change climate or not. Claiming climate experts are idiots for not understanding these very basics climate facts and that your simple model is the truth is plain absurd.

Boy, you really are the idiot and I don't use that word lightly. What ability do you mean, the ability to produce CO2? As far as I know the entire "theory" hinges on this one little trace element that is naturally occurring. Every living thing produces CO2 and plant life on this planet requires it to live. No, it couldn't be part of the natural rhythm of the climate that has been in constant progress for all time. No, it has to now be because I turned on a standard 60 watt light bulb!

"It's just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature, it's arrogant meddling" - George Carlin. See link on my last posting

Astonishing demonstration.
Your reasoning is simply outstanding.
And I really mean it.

Nonetheless, don't you think it would be a good idea to try to curb the amount of shit we're putting into the atmosphere? You're completely right in my opinion, there is no way to tell if we are causing the warming but we should really try to limit our effect on the environment as much as possible. As such, I support everything the people who believe we are causing global warming are doing.

Like I previously posted, the global warming fear mongers talk only about CO2 output as the sole cause of "the problem". With regards to putting other "stuff" into the atmosphere that is another issue. Actual pollution like carbon monoxide (different from carbon dioxide) is something that anyone should support reducing. I grew up in Los Angeles which had the worst air quality in the U.S. back in the 1970's. There were smog alert days when we weren't allowed to go outside and you could feel the pollution particles when you breathed in. I was in elementary school at the time. Things have changed considerably since then with more sfficient engines and gasoline. Smog alerts no longer happen in the city of Angels. However, this global warming crap has nothing to do with that.

This whole boondoggle has been created by people with an agenda to hurt industry and economies. CO2 is not and never will be a pollutant. Also in the 1070's "scientists" claimed with just as much conviction that the world was heading towards a catastrophic ice age that would doom all humanity. This never happened and since humans have such short attention spans and memories they have completely forgotten.

So have fun paying more of your hard earned money to the state in the form of higher taxes to "fight" global warming.

read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.

he did a lot of research for this book...eye opener ...

This makes interesting reading,


DISPROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING HYPE

It does make interesting reading, when did the earth become a black body?
Also it is not a peer reviewed academic paper, read the disclaimer at the end.

Sorry, you've lost me.

Would be interested to hear your take on his findings though..

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warmingâ€? halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

please post the bit of the article you are refering to, I can find no reference to any disclaimer stating it isn't peer reviewed. The fact that it is being published in Physics and Society, a scientific publication of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society is obviously niether here nor there, right?

,

Read up about the Stefan-Boltzmann which the Monckton paper talks about.

Try a little research. What does it say at the top?

...and that makes it bullshit in your eyes? Jeez, you'll buy the entire contents of the 911 commission report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, you buy the British governments version of events into 7/7, you buy into the Russians invade South Ossettia as the aggressor shite. You take all this as gospel, yet refuse to accept that an article, contradictory to your "expert" beliefs, written by an expert on the subject and published in a scientific journal carries no wieght because it wasn't peer reviewed?

It tells you right at the top, it's not standard procedure for the society.

Stefan-Boltzmann has demonstrated that the Earth radiates as a Black Body in this article

Going on his past work, I'd say he knows a damn sight more than you do. Or would you care to show us your peer-reviewed articles debunking his findings?

What criteria are you using to distinguish the "good honest experts" form the "bad dishonest" experts? Also where did Monckton do his science training?

The fact that the whole gw scam is so fuckin transparent I can't for the life of me understand how you believe the spoon fed "we're responsible" shite. The guy is coming from the same angle, has no connections to politics or the oil industry, has no alterior motive, he tells it like it is. He also comes from a long line of expert physicians and has his own LAW for christs sake.

Where Monckton did his science training is neither here nor there. Obviously the American Physical Society with 42,000 members feels he speaks enough sense to publish his article in their newsletter.

You don't actually read the stuff you link to do you. The paper was not written by Stefan-Boltzmann (that's two people by the way) it only references the law. Maybe you should check out that blogs of Joseph Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann?

If you're smart, you would be suspcious of articles published in newsletters - news they are, and as such frequently inaccurate. If it makes it into the journal as peer reviewed then I might pay it attention, until then it is just another piece of closely-reasoned speculation. The reason the peer review system exists is so that other experts can review papers for credibility, and yes it does take experts to distinguish between good and bad science because the issues are so complicated - reputation of the author counts for zero in assessing the vaule of any paper, because they make mistakes too. All it takes for that whole paper (or any paper) to be invalidated is a few mistakes or misfounded assumptions.

Of course I do you muppet, Lord Monckton’s work is based on Stefan Bockmann's law.

Boltzmann demonstrated no such thing, and that article merely states it and I am certain that it is incorrect, or at least a careless approximation (see for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body). He was a physicist who did some excellent work on radiation, notably the Maxwell-Boltzmann curve that I recall studying in first year physics.

...yet another know it all keyboard expert. What on Earth makes you believe that you know better than him? It's 11:49 in Deutschland and you have taken time from flipping burgers to enlighten us on where he's wrong. If you're so sure his article is incorrect then prove it. Here and now, PROVE the guy wrong. He seems to have achieved much more in the scientific world than you have my friend, or would you care to point me in the direction of one of the many books you've written or peer-reviewed papers you've published. No? Thought so.

Too much of this on this board, "yeah he's good but I know I can do it better and he's obviously wrong" Keyboard-Experts gotta love them.

Do you want fries with that?

But apparently it was Stefan Bockmann's law, which states: "Any body of sufficient gullibility will absorb all bullshit that falls upon it"
Zargoff's corollary: "Any such gullible person when confronted with their own stupidity, will resort to insult and statement rather that argument"

Says you, the ultimate keyboard expert. I, at least, have studied thermodynamics and physics in enough depth to get an mechanical engineering degree, and I've also published a couple of peer reviewed papers (not on this topic however) so I've practical experience on the ins and outs of academic publishing. What are your qualifications in science? Or is operating a turntable and the internet as far as it goes?

Here is why he's wrong: the earth is not even close to black, and hence reflects some of the incident radiation on it. Black bodies do not do this. Understand this?

Oh sorry didn't realise you were Australian, on the arrogance ladder one rung above Germans. If that last line is your complete rebuttal of his work in "comparing" the Earth to a black body, you really should have spent less time at the beach.

Had you even a single iota of scientific knowledge (which you obviously don't since you ignored the question. Go on, tell us!) you would know that claiming the earth is a black body is credibility suicide. If earth was really a black body, you wouldn't be able to see it from space. Or from commercial jetliners. The sky would not be blue, or it was, you would not be able to see it due to the total lack of light reflecting from the earth to be reflected back by the atmosphere. Think, in other words, what would happen if the earth really did absorb every single bit of incident radiation that fell upon it. In short, your claim is disprovable from basic physics knowledge available in high schools in most western countries I am aware of.


Hahaha! Seems like I had time for going to the beach AND learning science. If that's the best rebuttal you can come up with after your sources are shown to be utterly wrong, then maybe you could do with a bit more sunshine too eh?

To be honest mate, I'll take a respected scientists' word over a surfer any day, the article I posted does NOT state that the Earth IS a black body, it states that the Earth has similar characteristics to a Black Body, in that it obeys the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Comprende?


I can't believe I'm arguing the toss with someone whos great grandfather was either a murderer or rapist.

You still haven't explained what criteria you use to determine which scientists you believe and which you do not. Also on what basis do you consider Monckton a scientist?

I did, try and keep up. I accepted long ago that GW was a scam, the findings are there for all to see, so from my point of view any scientist telling the truth (ie Makind is not the culprit - Nature is as nature is.) is far more credible than anyone claiming the opposite for political/monetary gain. (Al Gore perfect example). Mankind has no control over 95%-99% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, what makes you think that if we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow it'll be for the good of the Earth? We can't control it, it's natures cycle, the Earth gets hotter then cooler.

So to answer your question a scientist I believe is one that isn't agenda-driven and tells it like it is. One I don't believe is one that EXAGERATES the findings to manipulate a scared population in to paying more taxes. As for lord Monckton, I believe he is an Anti-GW journalist and not a scientist.

so to summarise, you believe the ones which you think tell you what you want to hear, and not those that don't.

now that's what I call scientific method

It does, in fact, state "The earth, in turn, radiates as a black body", which is impossible - nobody has ever made a perfect black body emitter nor absorber, and god knows where he gets off claiming the antarctic/arctic ice radiates as a black body etc etc etc etc. He also nowhere provides any proof of this simple statement, so the word "prove" is clearly a flexible one in djworld. Even so, the article concludes that humans may be contributing to global warning, he just can't estimate how much, so the flying spaghetti monster knows why you dredged it up in support of your "arguments". But then, you didn't even get the name of the author right. It's a general article in an journal unrelated to climate change, and is 12 years old for god's sake! Even for a google scientist like yourself you can do better, although given your other contributions it might be all you can do.


Given your grandmother had commercial sex with loads of unwashed coalminers to support her family of 12, I can't believe I'm trying to teach you some science. For someone who can't seem to read "post your scientific learning", you're long on lip on scientific issues and nasty personal abuse.

No, I believe those that tell the truth, or are you denying the basis of my claims, that mankind is responsible for only 1%-5% of ALL greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. 5% is the ballpark figure if you include water vapour. 1% if you don't.

So, to summarize, if we stop all CO2 emmitting activity COMPLETELY, there's still at least 95% of the greenhouse gases being emmitted daily by factors that we have absolutely NO control over.

Your experts seem to think the values should be reversed. Fact is they aren't.

Still haven't done your photochemistry homework then?

if humans are not behind global warming i would be surprised,margaret thatcher called it a 300 yr industrial experiment gone wrong,one thing for sure were behind a lot of other earth changing situations, was watching cnn, and the artical was about the sudden lack of fish\seafood in the mexican gulf, due to the amount of fertilizer being used in the usa to grow grain ,so scientists are what we look to yet they are divided ,they have there own agenda's as well ,but i dont think its a scam.

listen, you utter imbecile, I will spell it out for you so that even your clunking clockwork excuse for a brain can comprehend:

"Greenhouse gases" are an essential component of the atmosphere that ensures a delicate temperature equilibrium on the earth's surface. Over history the levels ofgreenhouse gas have varied and that has consequences for earth temperature. However, at present the increase in atmospheric green house gases at 100ppmv will have dramatic effects on the temperature equilibrium in a similar way to the effects large changes may have had in the past. The difference is that this time he increase is largely man-made and within our control. The running risk is that if increases in output carry on at this rate the equilibrium will be fatally upset in a process of positive feedback. That is the correction methods in the system like sea absorption etc will no longer be able to exert corrective action.

It does not matter what 'percentage' of greenhouse gases are produced by man just that man is responsible for the increase.

it actually astonishes me that someone who has obviously read a lot about global warming can base his entire opposition to climate change theories on as fundamental a misunderstanding as that.

djgrazy, don't you realize that when the bogus "scientists" in the media use arguments like that they are simply capitalizing on the ignorance of folk like you?

and don't you realize BTC, that no matter how much $$$$ in taxes we collect, no matter how much CO2 output we cut, we cannot alter the ways of nature. You are a self important arrogant wank if you believe we can.

I'm cold. It's August and for the past week I've been wearing long pants and fleece jackets. Every evening my house heating system is kicking in (practically all summer!). Can someone turn up the global warming a notch or two? The rhetoric on here is doing little to get me warm, even with all the hot air that's blowing.

Of course we can. Lay down a bit of concrete and you've altered the water course. The scale works its way up from there.

Nice language, by the way.


Twenty pages on and still people are confusing weather and climate. It's hard to have any meaningful debate when people can't even get their heads around that basic differentiation.

The climate on here is hardly conducive to learning anything anyway. But thanks for adding some more hot air. Anyone else volunteering to warm up the atmosphere while I'm sitting here trying to weather the cold conditions?

This works both ways. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis isn't actually science. It is pseudoscience at best.

How so?

It is neither testable nor disprovable.