The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bart007]

Is Global warming occuring because humans iin the 20th century are filling our atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2? Or is it politicians manipulating the voting public using fear?

Yes, we are experiencing global warming. It is caused by changes in radiaition output in the sun. It is not caused by humans emmiting CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Al Gore is completely wrong, over 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition rejecting Al Gore's claims that humans are the cause of Global warming.

Most probable cause of the recent global warming is changes in radiation from the sun.

We are currently undergoing global warming, this has been ongoing since 1900 AD. We just came out of the mini ice age that occurred from 1370 AD until 1900 AD. We have a ways to go before we reach the global temperatures that we had 1,000 years ago. Greenland was actually green back then. Perhaps it was the more violent storms on the Atlantic that delayed the discovery of America by Europeans until 1492 (aside from the viking explorers and settlers that came to Greenland and North America).

In the medieval global warming, England was wine country, the Vikings and Sweden had population explosions and they necame world powers. Greenland was green and the vikings had settlements on the coast of Northern Greenland. There was a mini ice age before and after the Medieval warm period. Prior to the dark ages ice age, there was a Roman warm period that was much warmer than the temperatures today.

Some politicians and their allies tend to replace science with scare tactics in an effort to rally people behind them and thereby influence election outcomes.

here: watch, listen, learn, and enjoy.

[Bart007]

Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

I'd dearly like to know what her brother would have made of all this.

Hello QED.

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread and the other global Warming thread. I haven't really read any other threads lately.

I figured she may be related to the famous physicist Richard Feynman. Are they brother and sister?

[Bart007]

Why has this thread been removed to "Random Ramblings" when we are discussing the science of Global Warming? This placement is extremely prejudicial and biased.

[Bart007]

The charts QED copied from Wikipedia I believe are the fabrications of the UN Team, This is exactly what 18,000 plus scientists are protesting.

That's the funny thing -- I see nothing in that data that indicates an anthropogenic contribution anyway, but then again, everybody's experience of reading "stock-market" like charts differs depending on how much they've made out of them

Thanks for the link to the Hockey Stick Debate anyway. The paper at the center of it seems to be worth a read: Ross McKitrick APEC Study Group, Australia “What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?

I was referring to the Hockey Stick type 'reconstructed temperatures' charts only. A source of much controversy.

[ST88]

Finally, the twentieth century has brought about mega sized cities and long Major highways where vegetation has been replaced by the concrete jungles. All you need to do is look at any infra red map and you will see the rural areas cool, the cities and highways red, and the suburbs somewhere in between. Cities and Highways are new sources of heating the atmosphere, especially at ground level where temperatures are often taken. I've been told that no adjustment has been made for this ever growing 20th century heating effect.

That is a very interesting effect. I think I remember a study being done in Salt Lake City where they painted their asphalt roofs white and the mean temperature of the city went down. Ah yes, here it is:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/arti ... oryID=1774

I, too, am a global warming skeptic, though I don't see much that's particularly wrong with limiting carbon emissions from fossil fuels. We're going to have to do this for other better reasons eventually anyway. I am generally distrustful of studies like the ones mentioned herein because I know how easily they can be manipulated, both consciously and unconsciously (not to mention films and books). I have only recently accepted the Ozone depletion argument, though I am not thoroughly convinced on that score either. Everyone islooking for "evidence" that plays well as a visual, and that leads to bad science and the typical media hype surrounding scientific claims.

[QED]

Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

I'd dearly like to know what her brother would have made of all this.

I figured she may be related to the famous physicist Richard Feynman. Are they brother and sister?

Yes, that's right. A talent for science seems to be in their genes JPL's website lists some of her achievements here.

As for this debate being moved to RR, the admin of these forums wish to see an element of Religiosity in all debates taking place in the various debating sub-forums. Ironically it was precisely that element which inspired my interest in this topic in the first place as it strikes me that there are certain parallels here. I am certainly not arguing that we should continue to treat our environment with out and out contempt. What concerns me is the quality of the science being used to make a particular political point.

[Bart007]

Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

I'd dearly like to know what her brother would have made of all this.

I figured she may be related to the famous physicist Richard Feynman. Are they brother and sister?

Yes, that's right. A talent for science seems to be in their genes JPL's website lists some of her achievements here.

As for this debate being moved to RR, the admin of these forums wish to see an element of Religiosity in all debates taking place in the various debating sub-forums. Ironically it was precisely that element which inspired my interest in this topic in the first place as it strikes me that there are certain parallels here. I am certainly not arguing that we should continue to treat our environment with out and out contempt. What concerns me is the quality of the science being used to make a particular political point.

We are certainly in agreement. I believe good science may reveal to us truth and bad science guided by ideaology can blind many from seeing truth.

[QED]

We are certainly in agreement. I believe good science may reveal to us truth and bad science guided by ideaology can blind many from seeing truth.

Maybe, but the sort of truth (the only sort I think worth having) that science reveals is the truth that confronts us when we act in the world. This is an objective reality with zero compliance so nature, to use the popular vernacular, is the ultimate BS detector. If increased radiation from the Sun is the behind the current spike in global warming, then we would find out eventually (possibly after the needless switch to nuclear fission) and possibly sooner on account off the reduction in global dimming as atmospheric particulates are reduced.

[Greatest I Am]

If we look at suicide rates and other ways that humans hurt themselves because of lack of faith in a better system, does it become our sociological duty then to lean towards a God or any other idea that promotes hope for people that clearly need it.

I recognize that most "and rightly so" would consider this lying, but if the end is justified by the means, this little white lie could save many lives. To believers of course this lying does not occur.

To non believers. By denying the existence of a God, do we inadvertently help people to loose hope and end their lives because of this lack of a possibility of a better system.

I know the question is poorly worded but cannot find a better way of expressing this concept.
If someone can be prevented from suicide by a simple statement of faith, then if no other harm is done, then I think IO would lie to prevent this death. Should I?

The same logic may apply to the warming of the earth. For safety and benevolence, would it not be better for us "believing it or not" to take the position of yes we are part of the problem and now take steps to improve the situation.
Even if wrong, we do the right thing vis a vis the environment.

Could this type of action actually improve the situation?


Regards
DL

[QED]

If we look at suicide rates and other ways that humans hurt themselves because of lack of faith in a better system, does it become our sociological duty then to lean towards a God or any other idea that promotes hope for people that clearly need it.

I recognize that most "and rightly so" would consider this lying, but if the end is justified by the means, this little white lie could save many lives. To believers of course this lying does not occur.

To non believers. By denying the existence of a God, do we inadvertently help people to loose hope and end their lives because of this lack of a possibility of a better system.

I know the question is poorly worded but cannot find a better way of expressing this concept.
If someone can be prevented from suicide by a simple statement of faith, then if no other harm is done, then I think IO would lie to prevent this death. Should I?

The same logic may apply to the warming of the earth. For safety and benevolence, would it not be better for us "believing it or not" to take the position of yes we are part of the problem and now take steps to improve the situation.
Even if wrong, we do the right thing vis a vis the environment.

Could this type of action actually improve the situation?

For a moment there I thought you had gone insanely off-topic! But I see why now. We better not debate the question of faith & suicide here, but it is highly debatable.

However, the suggestion that we might live with "little white-lies" for some greater benefit could easily be revealed to be a dangerous exercise if we felt compelled to replace fossil fuel wit nuclear fuel for no good reason for example. Sir Walter Scott ("Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive") would not approve. Any set of policies built on the shifting sands of false beliefs is liable to paint us into a corner that we might never be able to get out of (something I fear has already happened in the division of mankind into different religions to briefly return to your sentiment).

[MagusYanam]

Is Global warming occuring because humans iin the 20th century are filling our atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2? Or is it politicians manipulating the voting public using fear?

Yes, we are experiencing global warming. It is caused by changes in radiaition output in the sun. It is not caused by humans emmiting CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Bull. Try living in Beijing for a few months and if you don't think humans emitting CO2 (and other fumes) into the atmosphere is harmful to the environment. Or try to see more than two blocks down the road in Xi'an. I promise I'll be a good boy and won't say 'I told you so' when you develop bronchitis. I also think that in an area as traditionally frigid as Beijing (as the ancient Chinese made all too clear) I shouldn't be able to go out in shorts in February and not have my legs freeze off.

We are currently undergoing global warming, this has been ongoing since 1900 AD. We just came out of the mini ice age that occurred from 1370 AD until 1900 AD. We have a ways to go before we reach the global temperatures that we had 1,000 years ago. Greenland was actually green back then. Perhaps it was the more violent storms on the Atlantic that delayed the discovery of America by Europeans until 1492 (aside from the viking explorers and settlers that came to Greenland and North America).

Um, wrong, wrong, misleading and wrong. There is still a debate among historians as to whether it wasn't a misspelled form of Old Norse 'Gruntland' (a redundant name meaning 'Ground-land') or whether it was named 'Greenland' by its discoverer, Eirikr Rauthi, in order to attract more settlers. But this was a ploy: only the southern tip of Greenland was farmable - even during the Mediaeval Warm period - and those parts of Greenland are still green during the summer today! Also, maybe you didn't stumble across this fact when you were fact-mining about Greenland, but Leifr Eiriksson was the first European to set foot on the North American continent in the year 1000. And the preventative factors for Western Europeans in the knowledge of the American continent, as most historians will acknowledge, had more to do with the economics and political structure of Catholic Europe than they did with the climate.

In the medieval global warming, England was wine country

Again misleading. Kent was wine country. And to a small extent, southern England still is wine country, though the industry is not as expansive as, for example, France's.

the Vikings and Sweden had population explosions and they necame world powers.

And they remained world powers up until Gustavus Adolphus (well, well after the Mediaeval Warm Period had ended).

Greenland was green and the vikings had settlements on the coast of Northern Greenland.

Um... what the hell have you been smoking in history class? There were Viking settlements near the present-day cities of Qaqortoq, Nuuk and Narsarsuaq - none of which can be called a settlement 'on the coast of Northern Greenland'. In fact, the Vikings were dealing with Inuit pushing further into the south of Greenland, perhaps because the lands were becoming uninhabitable by large populations that couldn't survive on hunting alone.

Some politicians and their allies tend to replace science with scare tactics in an effort to rally people behind them and thereby influence election outcomes.

Hmm... sort of like this entire 'culture war' I keep hearing about, where gays and urban youth are DESTROYING OUR FAMILIES! and the ACLU and feminists and 'secular humanists' are PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS! and anti-war activists and other critics of neoconservative foreign policy are GIVING COMFORT AND AID TO THE ENEMY!, all evidence to the contrary, huh?

Don't reach for the speck in other people's eyes before taking the log out of your own.