Is global warming a scam?

Global warming 'dips this year'


BBC News

Is Global Warming another Y2K?

Global temperatures have not risen since 1998, they will dip this year. Yet we all have heard and probably added our own anecdotal evidence on Global Warming. The lake that has dried, the mountain without snow, the zone without rain... they are all considered signs of global warming, yet the temperatures have not risen for 10 years. So is all this anecdotal evidence just due to the power of suggestion? are we seeing another huge scam driven by the race for scientific funding, emissions trading, government subsidies for expensive and potentially useless technologies?

TSK: It is CLIMATE CHANGE FFS. It will have varying effects around the world only one of which will be a trend over time for there to be warming at the ice caps.

Does it matter anyway? If were scared into using less non-renuables anyway then this would be better for humanity in the long run anyway.

A quick look at the retreating glaziers might be a wee indication not all is good though.

Makkadman, this is possibly the stupidest fucking topic I have seen on TT so far. Global warming doesn't have any economic benefits for anyone. Are you suggesting that the whole thing has been fabricated in order to create some kind of new 'eco' industry? The causes and effects of global warming have been proven, as well as that mankind is responsible for it.

Why is Greenland becoming Greenland then?

@makkadman: You forgot to mention other bits in the article suggesting a temporary halt in global warming - did you not read the rest of it?

It's ok, they're balanced out by these advancing glaziers.

The only thing that has been proven is that ice used to cover most of europe and north america and nobody was crying foul wenn the glaciers moved up north in those days. Mind you I have nothing against cars that dont need fossil fuels but the glaciers starting moving back before "our" CO2 production even really got started. One must be more objective when discussing climate change.

Change has always been part of this planet that is how old? exactly. So now we have been tracking the temperature for o' say 100years(not everywhere mind you) and we now know it all why its getting warmer? get realistic. This continent has cooked and frozen over at least a dozen times and now we think its cause of a stinking ford fiesta in front of us that the worlds gonna flip? get a life.

We dont know shit about natures "big picture" just by taking a picture of a glacier getting smaller. Go take a picture of one getting larger and what than?

Dont forget it's actually called a "theory of climate change" which means its not a law, because as scientists will always say there are now laws not even gravity or time.

So do the third world a favor and stop using there meager food supply for fuel. That really gets me, tree huggers filling up on grain meant for ethiopia.

Food for thought...

It had already been so in the past. From Wikipedia entry for Greeenland:

When doubts were raised in previous discussions regarding how really scientific this new global warming "truth" cult is and what exactly is driving it and its new high priest, Al Gore, I seem to remember some people being branded as neo-con lunatics or some sort of boxism.

I hope for the sake of everybody that the models and their gurus were wrong.

I hate the Internet.

On ARD news recently they had a report of a new resort being built somewhere on the North Sea coast. The developers are betting that the warmer climate will drive tourists away from traditional places like Turkey and Egypt that will become too hot to be comfortable. So they're hoping to cash in on the "new hot spot" for tourists. <pun intended>

Causes and effect of global warming have NOT been PROVEN (it's a theory!) ... or else you can explain to me how and why the last few ice ages ended without human intervention. And I'd also be curious to know how the ice ages came to be, while you're at it. Never have heard or read a good all-round explanation other than some meteor falling into the Gulf of Mexico and killing off the dinosaurs. OK... that might have happened once, but how about all the other times?

New "eco industry" is certainly developing quite nicely, I'd say. Solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, new batteries, better hydro-electric generators, alternative heating like the geo-thermal heat pump system in my house... lots of money being poured into this new eco industry. There's profit to be made, and so of course lots of folks are jumping on the bandwagon.

I just wish they'd make up their minds so I could figure out whether I should be moving north (global warming) or south (global cooling) next time.

Yes, but if temperatures haven't risen since 1998, then how are retreating glaciers caused by increasing temp??? Also as the article mentions 1998 was especially warm due to the El Nino effect (NOT global warming!)


Thanks, considering the general stupidity of most topics on TT, i am downright honoured that you think i managed this herculean task.


Proven, are you kidding me? Beneficiaries aren't always decisionmakers or initiators but they do have an inherent stake in maintaining the status quo. Sure, someone else came up with the idea of global warming, but a scientist who climbed on to the bandwagon in his 30s isn't about to get off it in his 50s near retirement.


HEM got there first!


I didn't forget to mention it, that's what the link is for! it's just that i was astounded that with all the brouhaha over global warming, the temperatures haven't even risen for the last 10 years! With all the importance of this topic, and everyone going crazy trying to find solutions, how come everyone forgot to mention this fact??

For those familiar with complexity theory, it will also be obvious that climate (a complex system) has no single equilibrium state, and it's always going to be far from any stable "average temperature". last 100 year's average doesn't mean a thing, and cannot predict future changes, as the climate is not a linear system and fluctuations are inherent in it, which explains ice ages and the massive fluctuations seen over large time periods (on the scale of 10,000 years)

Climate change is real and confusing for those whose heads are better kept in sand. The debate isnt about wether it is happening or not, but wether the speed with which it is is caused by man or natural fluctuations, and can we reverse the experiment we started in the late 1800s?

Errr... Have you ever heard of Carbon Tax?

Late 1800s? we've only been pumping CO2 since the 1950s in any significant amount! Not to mention asia thats been at it since the 70s so CO2s only "really" been here for 30/40 years but the global warming concept came up "before" that. So there you have it time really is not a constant (melodie of Dr.Who or The Timezone for our north american friends on TT starts)

Dr. Who starts tomorrow actualy. I just took that as the date of our fossil fuel addiction. If I took 1950 that would be like blaming our parents for being egotistical and selfish gits.

Point taken.

Where do u watch Dr.Who?

BBC. The joys of sats!

*average* world temperatures have not risen (although you would normally expect variation up and down over a decade and this decade has been instead consistently the warmest decade ever). However, that does not mean that there have been no changes at Polar regions where actually there have been marked temperature rises.

Bollox, bollox and more bollox. Man is not responsible for global warming, it's a scam, a fraud. It's a theory. Sure we're not being exactly enviromentally friendly burning all our fossil fuels but the latest round of carbon taxes on this that and the other are nothing more than the latest round of stealth taxes. The earth is no warmer or cooler than when I was a lad some 30 odd years ago, it's absolute bollox. In the 80s & 90s we were told it was the ozone layer we were fucking up, funny that don't get mentioned anymore! It's Co2 that's bad for us all. Really, I remember learning in school that CO2 made for a healthy environment, photosynthesis I think, look here's a fucking diagram to make it real easy !

[

So what are all our various governments doing with the Billions nay, trillions of dollars collected each year for our carbon dioxide emmissions? Feck all, it's used to bolster pension funds, wars, etc. How about using it ALL to pay for more forests, plant more trees, create more lakes, etc. To help the environment. If the government really wanted to tackle emmissions why don't they force car manufacturers to make only cars with engine sizes less than 2 litres? I could walk out today and buy a 4.2 litre Jag/Mercedes no problem, no one is stopping me! Or how about introducing incentives to get people to drive LPG vehicles? (The UK government dropped it's scheme in 2006!)

It's another booga booga atempt to tax you to the hilt!

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER COMMENTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST SCAM IN HISTORY
EIGHT REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM
MARS ALSO EXPERIENCES GLOBAL WARMING (Are we to blame here too???)
PLUTO ALSO EXPERIENCES GLOBAL WARMING (Better stop driving them SUVs on Pluto then - the planet not the goofy dog!)

We are not responsible, it's a stealth tax, the current indicators prove that it's a scam, the figures don't add up.

i wish that were true that bush was such an environmentalist, but hes still forking out a lot of money each month (which would be better spent on new technology) for an oil war nobody needs.

Pluto is not a planet anymore. Don't you read the real news?

dwarf-planet then happy?

Although I'm not sure it's so politically correct!

This is why djgrazy is an idiot. The mental process is:

1) Have an opinion
2) look for things which confirm his opinion when understood incompletely
3) Ignore experts who know more than him telling him he's wrong.

To wit, from the article he posted as "evidence"


Edit: same thing again, I read the mars link


Hmm... are we experiencing planet wide dust storms today? wetter.com says no. So two similar phenomenon can have separate causes, brilliant.

Must have been quite a Friday night firelane if you can research all that before 7 in the morning.

I have kids so theres my excuse

djgrazy writes plenty of bollocks that can easily be dismissed but I wanted to tackle this. The reason we do not hear much about the ozone layer now is because the developed world acted quickly to ban CFCs and limit their release into the atmosphere. Likewise in the same treaty of 1983 nitric oxide, suphide and particulates were also banned. Now maybe you might remember in the 70s, the smogs in UK cities and the devastating acid rain that killed trees in Scotland, Scandinavia and Germany. All now thankfully a thing of the past thanks to concerted international action.

The ozone layer has now almost fully recovered. And paradoxically the mass of transboundary particulates in the atmosphere was masking another problem by having a cooling effect on the atmosphere: the dramatic rise in greenhouse gases including CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

Of course CO2 plays a crucial role in photosynthesis but without the intervention of man, CO2, mrethane etc are all a relatively heavy gas that exists mainly at the earth's surface. At surface CO2 can easily be reabsorbed by plants and plankton which photosynthesis it back to oxygen. Periodically a volcanic eruption might upset that balance by sending plumes of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere where they cannot be reabsorbed. Fortunately volcanic activity is generally not a common occurrence and feedback mechanisms mean that the atmosphere can accommodate them. However since the industrial revolution developed nations have been burning fossil fuels and sending plumes of hot greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere. The concentration has therefore steadily risen and in recent years has risen far faster than natural dispersal mechanisms can cope. Now until the 1980s the occlusion of the sun by particulates actually masked the warming effects of these gases particularly at the Poles. Paradoxically our success in ridding the atmosphere of particulates means that we are now becoming fully aware of the effects of greenhouse gases - and those effects are much much more pronounced at the two Poles than anywhere else, meaning the rate of melt is now higher than at any time in history.

How do you know when the Poles have been in space?
When you don't see the big wagon anymore.

Yes, ever heard of permafrost? (as in the stuff that's disappearing from the Siberian tundra).

I'll overlook the childish "get a life" comment and attempt nonetheless to engage in mature debate by pointing out that ice core samples allow us to chart temperature changes and other climatic factors pretty accurately dating back millions of years. Yes, the continent has "cooked and frozen" a dozen times before, but never at anything even starting to approach the current speed. An ice age lasts 10,000 but at the moment we are looking at average temperature rises of around 2-3°C within the space of barely a century.


All science is a theory. The IPCC state that they are confident that global warming is human induced to a confidence level of 95%. Are you advocating doing nothing in the hope that the 5% chance wins through? And, if so, is this through stupidity or selfishness?

Still, thanks for confirming your own ignorance. If you knew the first thing about this subject you'd know that long-term climatic changes are caused by the Milankovitch Cycles. Meteorite impacts and extreme volcanic eruptions generally only affect the weather for a very short period of time, usually a year or two.


I agree with the earlier sentiment that this is one of the most stupid threads ever started on Toytown. This one wins a prize because Makkadman actually answered his own question. Why are global average temperatures likely to be lower this year? Because it's an El Nina year. El Nino and El Nina temperature inversions have always had considerable regional effects on climate (not only temperature).

As Bell the Cat patiently keeps trying to point out, there is a difference between temperature and climate and a difference between short-term weather patterns and long-term climatic trends. Anyone who thinks that "Global Warming" doesn't exist because "temperatures will be lower this year" is automatically excluded from this debate through their own ignorance.

It's so much easier to be cynical about this subject than have the courage to think that there may actually be a problem. This makes it easier for people who think that a big car is the ultimate status symbol, (rather than a good education), to carry on as if everything is fine. Of course it's easier for us in the west to not think about this subject, we don't live in poor coastal communities in places like India or Indochina whose lives will be devastated by rising sea levels, we don't live in parts of Africa that will be devastated by drought, (in the mean time, Northern Europe is experiencing greater precipitation). Dream on if you think there isn't a problem, you'll wake up one day when a crisis caused by global warming arrives at your doorstep.

Evidence?

@Wheel (and others): You could start with Science and Nature. What is it that makes you so suspicious of science?

Global Warming is real *lol*

'Nuff said ...

Adrian et al.
This indeed is a silly thread. Nature and Science is good sources, I find www.realclimate.org worth reading once a month or so.
the interesting sociological question is why there are so many people like djcrazy who are evidently not interested in science and try to bring in grade-school arguments. The referenced websites like the rant from mr. coleman from the weather channel are just cranks, and there have always been cranks who have stumbled into money and somehow view that as a license to ponificate about other topics. Re Coleman, the guy is a businessman/entertainer, not a climatologist, and is as relevant as the Discovery Institute.
En fin, there are a lot of problems in the world right now, and arguing with cranks is not a good investment of time.

Would anyone deny (or doubt) there is a correlation between Co2 levels and temperature?
Would anyone deny (or doubt) that humans have contributed to the increase of Co2 levels?
Would anyone deny (or doubt) that global warming would have a disastrous consequences?

If the above three answers are NO, efforts to reduce human produced Co2 should be encouraged and welcomed.

QUOTE

Since 1960 atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have increased from 313 ppm to 381 ppm (a 22 percent increase), according to measurements from Mauna Loa observatory, and research into Antarctic ice cores published last November indicated that carbon dioxide levels are presently 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years.

I predict 2010 will be a great year

Yet another self-proclaimed "expert" on the subject who after reading a couple of books and watching a History channel documentary believes he fuckin knows IT ALL ! Believe me you don't! Get over it! You are being lied to about the speed at which makind is contributing to the problem, where is all the revenue from the carbon-taxes going? Seriously, this has to be as fucking transparent as a window, why aren't the governments tackling the issue at source? I.e. car manufacturers, raising the taxes the end-consumer pays will not result in a downturn, the mass majority will just grin and bear it.

So the Weather Channel founder is a nutcase too then, eh? Proof please? oh and while we're at it perhaps you would like to tackle THESE GUYS.

It's also worth noting that since we're now experiencing such spetacular weather phenomenon like snow in Winter and sunshine in summer, the words "Global Warming" are very rarely heard in the media today, over the last Two years there's been a distinct move away from "Global Warming" to...wait for it..."Climate Change" LOL

That's the problem with science it's based on theory, a nice governmental grant can sure help to sway opinion, then when the science doesen't match the experts opinions no problem we just change the name of the problem.

Remember the "Search for Saddams WMDs"...it was based on intelligence findings too...ended up being called "The liberation of Iraq"

regardless of what djgrazy is saying, it is a truth that whatever the weather, someone will attribute it to climate change

"it's really hot - definately climate change"
"Its raining - climate change"

etc etc etc ad nauseam

Come on then Mr. Science, show me the evidence.

Please feel free to post data to back this 2-3°C rise over the last century.

HERE , nope that'll be climate change
HERE , nope that'll be climate change too then
or
HERE, eh no.

Yep, the Earth is certainly cooking

I guess you missed the fact that we have an environmentally more friendly home heating system using a geo-thermal heat pump. What do you heat your place with? If the answer is oil, natural gas, wood or coal, then you are part of the problem, too! Advocating is all well and good, but what are you actually doing? That is the real question! Put your money where your mouth is, talk is cheap.

edit: thanks for reminding me djgrazy. I have an appointment later this month to have my car converted to LPG

I agree, so let's see those stats...

I heat my house with Scottish Gas Dual Fuel (I believe 70% gas)
I drive a 3L Jag which has been LPG converted and has next to zero carbon emissions
The wife drives a 1.6L Focus C-Max also LPG converted with next to zero carbon emissions

So if my scepicism is wrong, at least I haven't contributed to the problem.

I don't know why I drag myself down to your level of debate; I guess I just love pointing out your ignorance. There has not been a "move away from Global Warming to Climate Change". It's simply that it's taken that long for the correct term (i.e. 'climate change') to enter your thick skull. IPCC stands for the 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' and was founded with that name in 1988, you idiot.

Maybe not up in the northern hemisphere, where it's not an issue. It still in issue in the southern hemisphere that is discussed. Just because you don't hear it in the news, doesn't mean it's not happening.
If you truely don't believe it's an issue, next time you're in NZ I'll give you €20 to lie in the sun for half an hour...come back and let me know how well the ozone protected you.

The ozone layer was being depleted. So they banned the material causing ozone depletion (CFCs). Now the thinning (or the "hole" to morons like DJGrazy) has stopped and ozone levels are replenishing themselves.

A heart-warming story to show that something can be done about climate change as well.

This stuff is full of holes, volcanic activity is fairly common, and active volcanoes exist in most periods. On the scale at which you talk of Global warming, round 100 years, there is typically at least one major event with a global scale impact. The annual volcanic contribution to CO2 is around 200 million tonnes (from memory, not exact). Volcanoes also inject a lot of water vapour which has a much larger greenhouse effect on the environment.
The stuff you give about the Ozone is a good demonstration of muddled thinking. The Ozone layer has not "recovered", though ozone depleting chemicals are reducing and atmospheric ozone is increasing. And ozone itself has a greenhouse effect(around 25%od CO2), so to fight global warming should we restart the production of CFCs? The part about bad air quality is unconnected with CFCs or Ozone, they are separate issues, and of course cleaner air is desirable. However, as you yourself say, loss of particulates from the atmosphere would lead to an increased heating of the atmosphere.


I don't know where your are getting this 2-3°C from, are you aware that the debate over global warming is about a rise in global avg temperatures of 1° over the coming century?So next time don't pull numbers out of thin air, there is a difference between 2 and 3.

All science is a theory and long term climatic changes are caused by Milankovich cycles, as wiki proves it? Your total certainty with total lack of any clarity is amazing, meteorites and volcanoes cause changes that last a short period of time? and how did you figure that one out einstein? Does their size have something to do with their impact or the duration of that impact? does the composition of gases in a volcanic eruption have any impact?

The reason I use the global average temperature as an indicator is because it is a simple indicator that has been measured by all estimates of global warming, and indeed man-made global warming talk is about how production of greenhouse gases will increase global temperatures. most laymen understanding of global warming are about: more CO2 equals more greenhouse effect equals higher global average temperatures, melting of polar ice caps, etc. I will go very slowly with my point about the El Nino, El Nina effect:

El Nino causes rise in global average temperature, and in 1998 this is what happens
temperatures do not rise for the next 10 years
El nina causes decline in global average temperatures, this is what is happening in 2008

This is all very well, but where does global warming fit into the above picture? As greenhouse gases are supposedly at historically high levels, shouldn't the temperature have kept on increasing, with perhaps no decline, in spite of the el nina? Over one tenth of a century, shouldn't the rise be somewhere near one tenth of that predicted for that century? And don't forget the rise in 1998 can be traced to the el nino effect, rather than man-made global warming


You confuse good intentions with good science.
it doesn't take courage to watch An inconvenient truth and then join the chorus. it takes courage to think for yourself

(more in next post)

Too much gibberish in that post to make sense of it all, so I'll just pick on this particularly-inaccurate point. The IPCC has several scenarios for global mean temperature increases by 2100, and they range from 1.4 to 6.4 °C. I chose 2-3°C as the most likely mid-range.

Sorry to interrupt – carry on sharing your in-depth knowledge on the subject...

Some studies proclaim that the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years. The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...7/15/do1508.xml

@Wheel: I think you misunderstand me. I suggested that you should read the relevant articles in Science and Nature, ie. respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, if you are looking for evidence. They are better sources than an internet forum. You will find that scientific research disagrees with you.

The above applies to makkadman too.