Global Warming is a Hoax

[Futo]

I am no environmentalist but i have to admit i am casting a concerned glance over to my friends the polar bears.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Futo

I am no environmentalist but i have to admit i am casting a concerned glance over to my friends the polar bears.

Ice continues to melt, as it has for thousands of years. A couple hundred years ago, much of Oregon had glacier cover. The melting has nothing to do with man made warming, and everything to do with the fact that ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

[aimhigh]

I'm sorry Sir John Scott if i'm asking. Do you mean that all these years political leaders are cheating us? That they just created the global warming and it is just a state of mind?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by aimhigh

I'm sorry Sir John Scott if i'm asking. Do you mean that all these years political leaders are cheating us? That they just created the global warming and it is just a state of mind?

Political leaders didn't create the AGW theory. Environmental scientists did. The Left picks it up because it is a huge externality which can be used to restrict freedom and enlarge government control of private life.

[ewomack]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Political leaders didn't create the AGW theory. Environmental scientists did. The Left picks it up because it is a huge externality which can be used to restrict freedom and enlarge government control of private life.

I have read some paranoid things in my time, but that pretty much tops the list. You could have said that "implementing environmentalist policies may limit freedom and increase government control of private life." Though controversial, since we don't know the policies in question, it would make sense. But to claim that "the Left" (whoever that is) is using environmental policy to "control" people and limit freedom? I have to put that into the same category as the "liberals" who think that the "neocons" started the Iraq war only to bring on "the rapture."

There is no Leftist conspiracy. There is no Neoconservative conspriacy. We're just a divided and hopelessly polarized country that scapegoats the "other side."

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by ewomack

I have read some paranoid things in my time, but that pretty much tops the list. You could have said that "implementing environmentalist policies may limit freedom and increase government control of private life." Though controversial, since we don't know the policies in question, it would make sense. But to claim that "the Left" (whoever that is) is using environmental policy to "control" people and limit freedom? I have to put that into the same category as the "liberals" who think that the "neocons" started the Iraq war only to bring on "the rapture."

There is no Leftist conspiracy. There is no Neoconservative conspriacy. We're just a divided and hopelessly polarized country that scapegoats the "other side."

What do you mean by "there is no Leftist conspiracy"? Do you even understand the ideological basis of the modern Left and Right?

[G10]

Originally Posted by aimhigh

I'm sorry Sir John Scott if i'm asking. Do you mean that all these years political leaders are cheating us? That they just created the global warming and it is just a state of mind?

I am guessing that you said this slightly tongue-in-cheek as in reality, we all know that political leaders would never lie to their public

[aimhigh]

Originally Posted by G10

I am guessing that you said this slightly tongue-in-cheek as in reality, we all know that political leaders would never lie to their public

Wouldn't they G10? What if for sake of cover up or they want to protect something. I believe politics is good when it has been created but those who run by it i have a little confidence.

[cldnails]

Originally Posted by aimhigh

Wouldn't they G10? What if for sake of cover up or they want to protect something. I believe politics is good when it has been created but those who run by it i have a little confidence.

Sarcasm
Noun

* S: (n) sarcasm, irony, satire, caustic remark (witty language used to convey insults or scorn) "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift

[John Scott]

Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

[John Scott]

http://tech.v7n.com/2007/12/03/global-warming-a-myth/

[webfinity]

Preach it!

[Rankenstein]

I haven't seen the vid posted above yet, but I understand that this is from The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that has been hugely and widely discredited for faking and slewing data, presenting false information and so on. Two of the scientists featured in it have expressed alarm that their portions were edited to give totally misleading bias to their views.

It has since been shown that one of the planks of the film's argument, the idea that solar cycles are in involved in the warming process, is just wrong and thus practically renders the film pointless, it having no other major argument to support it's views.

It is undisputably true that the earth is warming up, and looks set to continue in this trend, and we understand that greenhouse gases could possibly be contributing to this, and as a species we produce loads of greenhouse gases. We need to be a bit circumspect (in fact we need to be very circumspect). Not to do so would be thoroughly irresponsible, in the same way as the Global Warming Swindle is thoroughly irresponsible.
.

[John Scott]

I understand that this is from The Great Global Warming Swindle

I watched that, and I don't think this is related.

documentary that has been hugely and widely discredited for faking and slewing data, presenting false information and so on

That could also be said about Al Gore's film. In fact, it is said.

The issue really is, is there proof of any theory? I haven't seen any that I would term "indisputable".

And the thing that really aggravates the situation is that we turn to scientists as impartial authorities, when in fact many of them are pushing a political agenda. One of the Lead Authors on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the agency most often quoted by proponents of human-induced climate change - refers to statements by other authors wherein they reveal that their agenda is not to present impartial scientific data so much as it is to "convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

He also said, "to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."

If and when you can remove the political motivation from the debate and present indifferent facts that prove the case, let me know. Until then, I see a lot of people being very shrill and trying to use a monumental boogeyman to scare civilization into socialism.

Oddly enough, the same people who propose we act on the theory of anthropogenic global warming without clear proof are often the ones who insist we must act against the theory of god for lack of proof.

[Rankenstein]

That's all true, but if you ask me it's the people (by which I mean, the policy and decision makers, not you or I) who are against the Kyoto treaty that are politically motivated. It's the big business lobbyists who would rather just make money and pooh-pooh any notion that global warming exists. They want their profits, anyone else can go hang. That's the way I read it, anyhow.

This notion that global warming is a con, to scare the world into socialism is a new one on me.

And when you mention the idea that it's all being done in order to convince the US to sign the Kyoto Treaty? Would that be the Kyoto Treaty that the US actually promised to sign? Would that be the treaty that one hundred and seventy four nations have signed already? The treaty that only one country has definitively said it will not ratify? (Guess who that could be, by the way?)

So, yes, the US needs convincing, and you'd have to be a fool to disagree with the principle of the Treaty, which is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

How's that a bad thing, John? The only people who are affected by this are big businesses, but as they have Bush in their pocket, it's easy to see why they can continue polluting without a care (and Bush has abetted them in this, it's not even a matter of dispute, it's on record that Bush passed laws enabling polluters to police themselves if they feel like it, or just not to bother about it if they didn't feel like it. That's a disgrace!). This isn't about socialism or whatnot, though I'm sure the administration just loves that you think it is! That's what they want you to believe. It's all about cutting down pollution, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that aim, and everything wrong with blithely ignoring it or, worse, covering it up and doing their usual fearmongering with some ridiculous notion of a boogeyman socialist world order.

It's particularly galling when one administration says the US will definitely do something about it, signs up for it, and the next administration turn round and says no. That's pathetic! Either that, or 174 nations round the world are wrong, and the US is the only one in the right? I don't think so, I think we know what the real situation is, don't we?

[cldnails]

The only people who are affected by this are big businesses

That's a naive statement. If it effects the big businesses pockets, who are they going to push the costs to? Of course, the end user, me you, all consumers, everyone pays.

[John Scott]

who are against the Kyoto treaty that are politically motivated.

I was just reading up on why they are against it, yesterday or the day before. Shocked to see that the Kyoto Protocol exempted some big polluters.

The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto

I wouldn't support that either. It's pure hypocrisy. We are all against pollution, as demonstrated by our laws that enforce some of the strictest emissions standards.

But to agree to let India and China off the hook, while gas-taxing our own population into the stone age, is just dumb.

174 nations round the world are wrong, and the US is the only one in the right?

I would say that is self-evident.

[Rankenstein]

Quite right that India and China should not be let off the hook.

[StrongInTheArm]

Climate change is causing the tropics to widen, with possible impacts on the global food supply, research suggests.

Scientists examined five different measures of the width of the tropical belt, and found it expanded by between 2 and 4.8 degrees latitude since 1979.

...

The scientists behind the new study note that the tropical zone appears to be expanding much faster than predicted by computer models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7126069.stm


It couldn't be global warming, that is just barmy. I blame the pixies.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Climate change is causing the tropics to widen, with possible impacts on the global food supply, research suggests.

Scientists examined five different measures of the width of the tropical belt, and found it expanded by between 2 and 4.8 degrees latitude since 1979.

...

The scientists behind the new study note that the tropical zone appears to be expanding much faster than predicted by computer models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7126069.stm


It couldn't be global warming, that is just barmy. I blame the pixies.

The debate, for the most part, is not whether the temp is rising or not, but whether human activity is the cause.