Global Warming is a Hoax!

For those whose religion is global warming, no person and no competing theories will ever be admitted to have credibility. The objective is control of both thoughts and actions on a global scale. It's the greatest hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind.

 

No, that honor is saved for religion.
I don't know anyone that believes we are doing harm to our environment through the release of hydrocarbons that would die for their beliefs. I don't even think people who believe in the facts of global warming have a great deal of passion or are overly concerned about the issue above and beyond other everyday problems like gas prices, good schools, and foreign wars.
I do see those that argue against the possiblity that we are significantly contributing to global warming adhering to any scrap of evidence that will disprove the existence of man-made climate consequences even as more and more people, companies, countries, and even religious groups come around to the conclusion that global warming is real and we are the reason. I wonder if it is just an inability on their part to be wrong after defending their position for so long or is it a deep seeded misunderstanding of the science with a healthy dose of organized misinformation via big money interests.
Whatever the reasons, I wonder what you guys might consider a sign or a bench mark that would tip the scales in the other direction for you and finally make you come around to where most of the rest of us already reside? Is there nothing that would finally convince you even if let's say the world found itself with a ratio of 90% water to 10% land mass by the middle of this century? I guess what I'm asking, what would you consider proof of man-made global warming?

 

whats funny about this is both sides seem so sure they know. There are no climatologists here I assume, no experts on the subject but cloudsweeper is positive it is 'the greatest hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind.' and Tom is positive that it is a true emergency and in a few years society as we know it will collapse ....Many actual experts admit they dont know the extent of the problem or if there truely is one...If only they looked here where all the answers are...Everyone is an expert on the internet

Of course the truth is, mostly likely somewhere in between but for some reason people must make a stand and act as if they have the first clue

This thread was worth it if not for the mere fact that I heard cloudsweeper, who is sure that all atheists are immoral and only religious people are fit to hold any office say this:

"For those whose religion is global warming, no person and no competing theories will ever be admitted to have credibility. The objective is control of both thoughts and actions on a global scale."

so true...once something become religion...its all over for debate, open minds and middle grounds.

 

Midas, if you or your side could scientifically demonstrate that there was a cause and effect rather than just assert it to be true, that would be helpful. If you were in 6th grade and asserted that (1) man is a contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, (2) CO2 is increasing, and (3) it is getting warmer, therefore man must be causing it to be warmer -- then you would fail for not following the scientific method. But this is what is offered, dressed up a bit in scientific garb, and the entire political and economic base of the planet is supposed to adjust accordingly. Could the fact that the Sun is putting out more energy than it has in 11,000 years be a factor? Nope. Could the fact that we are emerging from a mini-ice age that lasted about 500 years be a factor? Nope. Could it be possible that the 98% of CO2 produced naturally is a larger factor than the 2% produced by man be important? Nope. Could this just be a cyclical climate event? Nope. Could it be important that it is still cooler now than it was 1,000 years ago? Nope. Could the warmth, if it is real, be more of a positive than negative since the cooler periods in history have been associated mostly with death and misery by starvation and disease? Nope. If someone speaks against global warming, they have naturally been paid off by big oil. But the fact that someone practically can't be employed in academia or receive research grants unless they publically support global warming can't be a factor in their beliefs. Since you are so anti-religion, I'm surprised that you can't see that this is the greatest thought-control experiment since the Inquisition. It's a little disappointing. So I could ask you the same question. Is there nothing that would finally convince you that there is no man-made global warming?

 

Drusus, I'm not a climate expert and neither is Al Gore, but I can read well enough to understand that the case for man-made global warming is far from made and needs a lot more work before it is pronounced scientific law right next to the law of gravity. But I am pretty good at sniffing out a hoax. It just takes an open mind and continuously asking, cui bono? Continuously showing pictures of large pieces of ice break off of glaciers isn't proof of anything. Even the guy from the UN who presented the case FOR global warming admitted on CSPAN that their study had to make the ASSUMPTION that increasing CO2 would increase temperature and not decrease it because of the increase in cloud cover. When THE key factor in the study is an assumption waiting to be proved, why are so many people so willing to believe?

Regarding your other comment, belief in God and the actions of organized religions are two separate topics.

 

No you arent so making such definitive statements such as 'the greatest hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind.' seems a bit premature.

I am sure we are all very subjectively confident in our abilities to read and understand any given subject. I have read very convincing arguments on both sides from people who have solid credentials. I have also seen so called experts claim that the jury is still out on the validity or at least the severity and causes of global warming. If indeed the theory needs a lot more work, then I dont see how one can draw such strong conclusions when you admit that not enough is yet known. It seems you are falling into the same bias that you accuses the 'other side' of.

I am no expert so I wont argue the actual point, I have read convincing arguments on both sides and await more real data to draw any conclusions on the matter but I tend to think that human beings, for many reason stated, may very well be having an adverse effect on the environment. That being said, I also tend to think al gore and his alarmist fear mongering rhetoric is dishonest and is not founded in scientific fact either...It seems to me that the jury is still out on the subject but, logic dictates that the best course of action is probably to always try to do what one can to keep emissions and pollution to a minimum....

 

Drusus, I have no objection to reducing pollution, and I'm all in favor of it. But when the "sky-is-falling-global-warming" crowd claims that they are the final word on the subject and no other educated view is even possible, without having presented rigorus scientific proof, they shouldn't be surprised when others push back. There is a lot at stake because various international bodies are trying to organize the world's economic systems around this concept, with them in charge, of course. So I think it is entirely reasonable to suspect that this is a gigantic hoax until proven otherwise.

 

I guess that when we hear this from such experts as our own local blacksmith, that I tend to down grade the information and go on to other more important subjects. These people can yell and scream from now to dooms day for all I care. It keep them from interfering in more important matters.

So I've said the last on this subject. IT's a HOAX! Now you prove that wrong, if you can with data that I will accept. Failing that, you may as well close up shop and go fishing because I don't normally argue with fools or fence posts. See ya!

 

your statement was saying a little more than you 'suspect'...suspect all you want...you made an empirical statement that it IS a hoax...

Like you say though...some people see only what they want to see because of bias or politics.....Nobody here knows if it is a hoax or not.

 

If it is a hoax, doesn't it have to be perpetrated by someone or some group? Who exactly is this group and how do they profit and work in tandem to pull off the hoax? If there is a group out there working to pull off a hoax, wouldn't it more likely be the ones with the most to lose, like big oil? I think you have to play the odds that organizations that have been in existence and already manipulate world markets regularly are probably going to be better at pulling off some kind of hoax or disinformation campaign than a bunch of loosely affiliated groups for some nefarious reason. It just makes more sense if you think about it. Just look at what big tobacco has been able to do for decades with one cancer causing product and they are nothing compared to big oil.

 

I'm convinced that it IS a hoax. But I think it is entirely reasonable for you, and others, to suspect a hoax. And talk about some people seeing what they want because of bias... If nobody knows whether it is a hoax or not, then nobody knows whether human-caused global warming is true or not. Yet they believe, and are happy to believe.

 

Moen, the folks pushing for Kyoto and other international agreements under the banner of "sustainability" have a lot to gain from this. What is "big oil?" All of the public companies like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron-Texaco combined only control about 15% of production. Are they price-makers? No, they are price-takers. The large state-owned enterprises like Saudi-Aramco that own the other 85% of production are the price-setters, but they make bad scapegoats because Congress can't reach out and tap them on the shoulder. So this isn't like tobacco at all. And the politicians, for all of their bluster, never made tobacco illegal. They don't care about health, they care about getting their share of the tobacco revenue, and once they did the issue went away.

So what do you want to do, ban oil production? Of course not. The goal isn't to ban, it is to control. It is to gain political power. It is to tax. It is to grab a share of the oil revenue. It is to regiment one more aspect of human existence to make another inroad into individual liberty. It is to transfer a bit more power from the national to international level. I'm sure there are a lot of well-meaning folks in the global warming movement, and they are a godsend to those above them with a different agenda. If "big oil" wanted to increase profits, they would limit production on their own. Demand for oil is inelastic, and every decrease in production in history has INCREASED industry profits, not decreased them, while the production glut of the 1980s destroyed many small energy producers. But modern economies cannot function or grow without a continuous and growing supply of cheap energy. If you want 1970 levels of energy use, you will also have to accept a 1970 standard of living, and probably something close to 1970 world population levels. But go work on population control first, and usage of fossil fuels will decrease by themselves. If you force lower energy use on the world first, you and the other global warming supporters will be responsible for the resulting die-off that will take place mostly in third world countries.

So once you clear the smoke and examine the economics and politics of the situation, there is a lot of reasons to perpetuate the hoax. The science, the economics, and the politics all point to hoax. I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. That can't happen. But now perhaps the supporters of global warming will understand why those "above" them are pushing for it, and why many others will resist. A little more skepticism is warranted in my opinion before the lemmings jump off of the global warming cliff.

 

exactly, THEY believe it is true and are happy to believe this even though there is rather convincing evidence from many in the scientific community to suggest it might not be true or true to the extent that they portray it. They choose to ignore or discredit.

YOU and your side believe it is not true and are happy to believe it is a hoax even when there is rather convincing evidence from many in the scientific community to suggest there might be some credence...They choose to ignore or discredit.

neither base this on empirical evidence but draw conclusions all the same. Its pretty dishonest on both sides. Who IS the lemming and biased...

 

Whereas I believe that humans ARE helping to warm the globe (to what extent, I don't know, but I feel based on what I've researched that it's a big enough chunk), even if it turns out to be a 'hoax', hell, there's nothing WRONG with less pollution and waste. Plus, at 22, I actually have to DEAL with the CONSEQUENCES of warming if it turns out we are largely at fault, since I'll be alive whereas some of you on here may be long gone. Exciting, huh?

 

I see so you are making emperical statements about global warming without knowing the facts and not being even close to an expert for political reason...You admit you dont know enough to draw conclusions...you just think you do...trusting the gut and what you have read from one side...but you make the bold pronounement 'the greatest hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind.' as if it is without doubt a hoax....you say this for political reasons even though you dont know if it is or isnt any more than those evil people who think it is true and use dishonest means....understood....nuff said

I know you have a real high opinion of yourself, most people do of course...have you ever thought as you pronounce other people lacking in the ability to understand, or lacking in knowledge, buying into rhetoric and bias...that you might be just as bad? I assume not...

 

Former Global Warming Supporters

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tad_Murty

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv


Probably not as smart as someone from Arkansas, but well worth reading.:thumb:

 

Drusus, you believe because you want to believe. It isn't because anyone proved the existence of human-caused global warming because they didn't. I'm pretty skeptical when someone says, "Put me in charge and do as I say or bad things will happen to you." Maybe where you come from, people still fall for that trick. I'm not trusting my gut, I'm asking for the proof. Of course there won't be any proof, only bashing of those who ask for the evidence. There are many possibilities for the temperature increase in recent years, and many of them have been highlighted in this thread. But when it reaches the point where folks are attacked when they even suggest they should be investigated, there is something wrong with the picture whether you can see it or not. So you might as well continue to make personal attacks against me, because you can't prove your point.

 

After spending all the time on your last list of super-weak references, I don't think I want to waste my time on another one. I notice that you don't bother to defend your other choices (like Singer) or admit any error of interpretation (like Pielke). I find your arguments both unreasoned and foolish, and bordering on abusive.

Now I recall that this was why I just stopped showing up at cointalk a while back... if you shout loudly enough and keep giving enough phony documentation maybe you can drown out any dissenting voices and wear people down long enough to silence them so that you can congratulate yourselves that you are right and everybody else is wrong.

I feel sorry for you. Goodbye

 

I believe what? Did I ever say I believed either way or did I not say I do not think either side has proven any point conclusively. I am also skeptical, thus I reserve judgment and do not make sweeping uniformed statements such as:

'the greatest hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind.'

then admit a few posts later that not enough is none to come to a conclusion. I have, of course, opposed tom before on his rabid pro global warming stance as I do not think he knows either...certainly nothing has been proven beyond doubt on either side thus I just wonder why so many people seem to make sweeping empirical statements like the one above...

I made no personal attacks towards you...you seem to think people who do not agree with you simply uninformed, or somehow lick the ability to understand...telling people who disagree with you they need to take time to learn something is simply a weak transparent tactic....

My main point is, you simply dont know, and making sweeping pronouncement that it is a hoax is dishonest...its not a matter of being skeptical as I am also skeptical...but I am also able to reserve judgment until the facts are in a certainly read both sides of the argument, and whether you agree with them are not, there are certainly some convincing ones from men with good credentials (on both sides). I have never once defended any tactics used by either side to make this political.

Maybe where you come from people making pronouncements without knowing all the facts...well...they do that everywhere...nevermind