Global Warming is a Hoax!

Thanks for proving my point, old timer.

 

He cant hear you Tom. When Shawn Hannity tells him theres global warming, then he'll believe it

 

I have posted several links that destroy your"theory" already.

BTW it looks like you are not keeping up with your talking points, this is what Bush is saying:
"
On May 31 Mr. Bush disclosed that he had undergone an epiphany. Using the royal “we” he said: “In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously.”
"

You better keep up on what you are supposed to believe.

 

Cloud, I never said you, I said "some people".

 

Danr, you have posted assertions, but no evidence. Also, I'm not a Bush supporter and I don't follow anyone's talking points. Uncommon for this time and place, I think rather than just accept orders like you do. I've given you a couple of chances now to expand your intellect, but you have declined to accept the gift, to your everlasting detriment. Good luck with that.

 

ROFLYAO! Did anyone notice that when Danr finds something he thinks is good, he uses the term MR BUSH.
We all know what he calls him when he ususally talks about the President.

 

The Global warming trend is a political hoax and agenda. There have been many more drastic swings of temperature and rain patterns in the past. Read the book."After The Ice" by Steve Mithen. He's an paleoentemologist (ancient ORKIN, lol ) as well as a certified meteriologist (weatherman) and has many, many other renowned members of the scientific community saying that we are in a DRYAS period and there is nothing to worry about...
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

Ben

 

Responding to the original poster, that is a buch of hoey. Just ask the Pacific Islanders. They are the canary in in a coal mine. I would recommend moving to higher ground. So that they would be easier to shoot at. Or at least clumb a tree. What I trying to say is give us the high ground.

 

Hi Ben: You must be confused over what they were saying. Read your linked page again. The period known as the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,500 BP) was a COOL period in the Northern Hemisphere, thought to have been initiated by the shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation system due to a massive influx of fresh water. The influx was the result of the rapid emptying of Lake Agassiz in North America due to the melting of an ice dam that held back the lake. (the Great Lakes are the puddles remaining of that one immense former lake) The abrupt cooling primarily affected North America and Europe with a return to ice-age like conditions for about 1300 years.

In other words... the current situation has no relation to the Younger Dryas period EXCEPT that if rapid melting of Greenland ice and other circumpolar ice actually occurs, it could conceivably initiate another similar event. That worst-case scenario can in no way be regarded as "nothing to worry about".

Climate science is quite complex and there are a lot of issues involved, from orbital parameters and solar irradiance to ice albedo, volcanic eruptions, peat-bed methane, anthropogenic gases, and several more. If you insist on treating the science of the issue superficially you will never understand the big picture involved.

Science is the pursuit of TRUTH. The universe is what it is and it's up to us to figure out by observation how it works. Humans have been doing that and taking advantage of the information for at least hundreds of thousands years. Wishful thinking has no place in science. I realize that there are many people who simply cannot believe that the facts of anthropogenic climate change can be true because this violates their cherished beliefs about what being human means. They believe that we have the right, indeed, the responsibility to "dominate" the earth and bend it to our will... and that the earth will always accede to those demands. Now we find that there are now enough of us that our demands can and do exceed the capacity of the earth to supply them. We can either face that FACT and deal with it in a mature and reasonable way, or we can DENY reality and behave as spoiled brats who cry and scream for a cookie. It's a choice between acting maturely or childishly.

 

Yes, but with the cool periods also come warmer periods... Normal temperature swing with scientific backing is the intent of my post. BTW, there has been more than one DRYAS period... Did you follow the link completely?
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/mayews01.html

I'm only a Forester (SFASU, 82), but studying environmental effects on conifers was but a part of my curriculum and the study of dendrochronology was a large part of it.

What has this to do with natural climate deviation?

 

What has it to do? Good grief man... of course there are natural components to climate change, but your assertion that climate change is ENTIRELY natural is completely unfounded and rather foolish.

What is has to do is this:
a. We have a problem
b. There is a 90% probability that we have had a hand in creating this problem
c. We must choose whether to ignore the problem or seek a solution

 

Even though we have already had the high ground. It's easy when you have the whole god damn fleet backing.

 

"Foolish" hmm I've been called a lot of things but cannot recal foolish as one of them. I don't know about you, but my distant ancesters didn't arrive here from Pluto or Neptune. While I believe in evolution I'm also a Christian and think that there are answers to questions concertning evolution which have been erased from our collective memory by a higher being. Maybe God... Will we ever find the missing link to answer our most compelling questions? I seriously doubt it.

As far as you believing that manmade greenhouse gases and emissions are causing the problem, well they probably are to a small extent like they have for those thousands of years since we learned to strike two rocks together... Unnatural, I can't call it that, it's all part of human nature. Just like you and I. We've come a LONG WAY BABY, LOL.

Now to provide an answer to your question, the planet will eventually solve the population problem in a manner we may find horiffic and certainly hope I'm long gone when it does.

 

I cant believe that...here on this forum.

 

Tom Maringer in essance said:
“There is a marked difference between legitimate science and corporate-backed spin-science” ( akin to "creation science"). You choose only that miniscule proportion of evidence or opinion that supports your reconceived conclusion. This is called prejudice.

Mr. Maringer, you are absolutely right and there is no argument on this ‘fact’ it is prejudice (but on who's part), so lets move on with what has actually been going on with this topic. Going back through the posts made in this thread I have gathered the so called references and ‘proofs’ if we can call them that, which you and your followers have used to support global warming side of this issue. Here they are for your enjoyment:
1) National Resources Defense Council, one of the large Green organizations, declared that, "Global warming is fast becoming the number one environmental problem of our time."

2) The IPCC, a creation of the United Nations.

3) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Sen. John McCain support your beliefs

4) Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth” supports your beliefs.

5) Mr. Maringer proclaims, “Well, aside from being an Arkansas bladesmith, coiner, educator, and public servant, I am also a scientist.”
(no published scientific works could be found following an extensive search)

6) Danr involks (his favorite nit-wit) Mr. Bush as having said: “In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously.” note: no mention of ‘global warming)

7) Mr. Maringer admits: Increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has had an effect on climate. Since that (the effect it may have) is a considerably more difficult question, the answers must always be expressed with some uncertainty.

8) And finally Danr’s suggestin: Global warming isnot really a joke, the meat industry really is causing a huge part of the problem. Solution: vegitarianism.

Comments; this has to be that “creation science” you said was being substituted for the real thing. So what is new?

Now here is the material used to make the statement ‘Global Warming is a Hoax”! You will Note they are people who most of us would consider ‘REAL’ scientists. Starting with:

1) Dr. F. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
He debunks a June 7 statement issued by several national academies of sciences just before Britain's Tony Blair arrived for talks with President Bush, saying, "The Statement simply regurgitates the contentious conclusions of the (UN) International Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, which has been disputed by credible scientists. The so-called scientific consensus is pure fiction."

2) Dr. Paul Knappenberger of the University of Virginia, says of the claims made by the science academies that, "What is missing is the scientific assessment of the potential threat. Without a threat assessment, a simple scientific finding on its own doesn't warrant any change of action." “we are being asked to believe what computer engineers are telling us, not what credible climatologists and meteorologists are telling us.”

3) Dr. Iain Murray, another scientist said “ There is no scientific consensus. There is only the manipulation of public opinion and the effort to influence public policy. There is no rapid global warming and no way that any limits on energy use could have any effect on it if it did exist. Global warming is a classic scare campaign and we may well be witnessing its last desperate gasps as more and more scientists step forward to debunk it.

4) Colorado State University's Bill Gray, the world's foremost hurricane expert said, “They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

5) Dr. Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change.”

6) Timothy Ball Ph.D in Climatology and reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.
After obtaining his doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England his career has spanned two climate cycles. Dr. Ball said “Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.”


All leading climatologists and meteorologists, and all are actively debunking this so called ‘Global Warming’ nonsense.
So like or not, when you say what you do about your misplaced beliefs and trusts related to Global Warming and it being a “HOAX”, try and remember it’s not me you are trying to prove wrong, but the above highly respected and legitament members of the scientific community. There is little doubt in my mind where the majority of thinking people will align themselves.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!

 

Hmmm, facts prove otherwise.
http://www.cointalk.org/search.php?searchid=373344
http://www.cointalk.org/search.php?searchid=373342

 

Color me shocked

 

Good summary, Old Dan!

 

but, they'll never listen dan, their ears are filled with the cotton of the media

 

Sorry to say... Global Warming is quite real. :-(

Okay Fred, I'll bite. Here's my analysis of your list of 6 "real scientists".

1) Dr. F. Fred Singer. Check his Sourcewach page... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
which includes his conservative think tank affiliations as well as the hundreds of thousands of dollars received from Exxon-Mobil. His particular brand of spin science was also covered in detail in Chris C. Mooney's THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE. He was previously involved in failed attempts to debunk the role of chlorinated fluorocarbon pollution in ozone depletion and sulphur dioxide pollution contributions to acid rain. He also worked for the tobacco industry to formulate strategies to counter studies indicating that tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. All these Singer efforts were totally discredited. This guy cannot be considered to be impartial in any way shape or form. He is a paid schill for the oil industry ar any other special interest who will pay his fee. If you're contention that "global warming is a hoax" is in any way based on Fred Singer, then you'd be advised to reconsider your opinion right now.

2) Dr. Paul Knappenberger. This guy is an astronomer and is simply making a comment on uncertainties and the process whereby scientific data is chanelled into the policy making pipeline. Astronomers are observational scientists and tend not to like reliance on process modeling. He is simply asking for a threat assessment. His comments in no way dispute the science of global warming.

3) Dr. Iain Murray. The only information about him I could find was on his anti-Gore page at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc= which is filled with unattributed and unreferenced distortions of scientific fact. His statement "There is no rapid global warming and no way that any limits on energy use could have any effect on it if it did exist." is particularly troubling as it moves directly from denial (doesn't exist) to despair (can't do anything about it) in one fatal step.

4) Dr. Bill Gray. Here's an interesting guy, but highly opinionated. He questions global warming largely on theoretical grounds, and has stated that he has a theory to explain it, but has never publicly offered any part of that theory. The bit where he complains about the "Nuclear Winter" is particularly troubling, as that scenario has specifically to do with the short-term climatic effects of the dust injected into the atmosphere by a large detonation of nuclear weapons. That concern is still quite valid and has nothing to do with global warming. It's hard to take him very seriously as his writings seem to be internally contradictory. His Wikipedia page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

5) Dr. Roger Pielke. This guy is for real! You (OldDan) quoted a tiny bit of his writing entirely out of context to support your contention that he is against the global warming concept. NOT SO. He's actually very concerned that we're not taking the issue seriously enough and that the IPCC is backpedaling too much to soften its message. There's a webpage that might be instructive at http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=259 Here's another snippet of Dr. Pielke's writings: "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide as reported in a 2005 National Research Council Report entitled "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties". The IPCC climate change assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur." Pielke is discussion his concern that the climate changes are actually much more complex and more serious than the simplistic models suggest. His criticism is that we have not taken this seriously enough, not that it is inconsequential!

6) Dr. Timothy Ball. Okay, now this guy has some interesting arguments. There's an article at http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Basically his science is weak and he's making politically motivated arguments. For instance, he makes a big deal about the so-called "global cooling" scare of the 1970s. Well guess what... that concept is still alive and well and as valid as ever. In fact, I can quite reliably predict that we WILL in fact, have another ice age... starting in a thousand or perhaps two thousand years. It is in fact a huge issue with respect to how the human race will handle itself when (not if) that occurs. In actual fact, the climate change associated with anthropogenic climate forcing is matched up AGAINST this very long (as in ~125,000 years) climate cycle. So we've managed to stave off the beginning of the cold cycle, by turning the thermostat WAY too high. Ball's contention that he has witnessed two cycles of climate change is rather superficial. Yes we've been through a few minor ENSO cycles in that time, but when we're talking about anthropomorphic climate forcing we're discussing a change in the baseline condition, not a superficial cyclic phenomenon.

If these are the best references you can come up with to support your contention, then I think you'd better just admit you're wrong and retire from this debate. Your position (that anthropogenic climate forcing is a hoax) is completely and utterly indefensible with any kind of scientific data that exists or is likely to exist.

Yes there are uncertainties, yes there are questions, yes there are options as to how we want to deal with the problems we have. But "fiddling while Rome burns" as you advise us to do is pure defeatism. There are some extraordinary complexities involved in the situation. There is a lot of work to do to figure out just what we need to do and how, to mitigate the inevitable damage. I suggest you take off those rose colored glasses that are blinding you from seeing the real world as it really is, and ask what you can do for your country rather than what your country can do for you; it's time to roll up our sleeves and break a sweat.