| |
| Global Warming is a Lie |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Farhad230148 |
 Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: Global Warming is a Lie |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 1
|
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”- Adolf Hitler. This quote is a perfect fit for the concept of global warming. The term “Global Warming” is misinterpreted by many people and if you actually search for the definition of global warming on www.google.ca, you get over 20 different definitions. If you break apart the term and define it separately, you derive the obvious definition of the globe warming up. According to many scientists, the reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend and these stations do not cover the globe, and they are subjected to human error unlike the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons.
The most shocking fact against global warming is that the ICPP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. This organization is a United Nation Organization. This report is really important but around 90% of the people who believe in global warming have no idea about the presence of the actual organization or the report.
What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. Probably because they ARE directly related! Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. Is man-kind so powerful that we can affect other planets and cause them to have a change in their climate
Do you really think green bags can make a difference in the climate of the Earth? Entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the idea of global warming. There are so many different new products that are supposed to “help” the environment. Companies don’t care about the Earth. As long as they are making money, they are happy. If a new theory is brought out and people start believing it, there will be new products produced to support that theory. On http://www.cafepress.com/buy/global+warming, there are over 500,000 products related to global warming. If these companies cared about global warming, they would understand the amount of energy they waste to produce these products.
There are 192 countries in the world according to the United Nations and only 57% of them believed that human activity caused global warming and are doing something in response to global warming. The United Nations would urge countries to come together as one and to something to prevent global warming. As of right now, the United Nations has no proof that humans are contributing to global warming. If you seem to notice, the majority of the countries that believe that human activity causes global warming are “power-house” countries such as United States, China, and Germany. These countries just want to gain more power over citizens and make it seem like the citizens must do what they say otherwise everyone is going to die.
Many people think that this fact is a lie but actually over 17000 scientists do not believe in global warming. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. There is a petition that has been started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Would you rather believe in approved scientists or the media? The media has a big input in people’s beliefs these days. If there is a report stating that there is going to be an earthquake tomorrow, people are likely to go crazy not knowing what to do. The media wants to control people. If the media recommends a certain laptop, chances are that the majority of the people will get that laptop. The media just says what is in their benefit, so “don’t believe everything you hear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Global Warming is a Lie |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Location: UK
|
| Farhad230148 wrote: |
| The term “Global Warming” is misinterpreted by many people and if you actually search for the definition of global warming on www.google.ca, you get over 20 different definitions. |
Of course you would. That goes for anything, not just “global warming” – if you search for anything on Google, you will get thousands of different defintions about it. Remember: anybody can post anything on the Internet – any moron with an ISP can post their their own nonsense on it – and Google simply finds everything on the Internet without sorting the wheat from the chaff. Learn to use Google properly, and to distinguish reliable from unreliable information. 
| Farhad230148 wrote: |
What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. Probably because they ARE directly related! Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. Is man-kind so powerful that we can affect other planets and cause them to have a change in their climate
Do you really think green bags can make a difference in the climate of the Earth? Entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the idea of global warming. There are so many different new products that are supposed to “help” the environment. Companies don’t care about the Earth. As long as they are making money, they are happy. If a new theory is brought out and people start believing it, there will be new products produced to support that theory. On http://www.cafepress.com/buy/global+warming, there are over 500,000 products related to global warming. If these companies cared about global warming, they would understand the amount of energy they waste to produce these products. |
Well, you’re clearly one of those people referred to by yourself who have misinterpreted the term “global warming”. You are only making up your own straw-man defintion of the concept and attacking it rather than the actual idea of global warming. 
| Quote: |
| “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” |
Now you’re getting somewhere – if at all. Unfortunately, it seems you are only quoting blindly and don’t even have a clue what you’re quoting. 
Well, anyway …
What happens in global warming is that the Earth absorbs the Sun’s radiation and then tries to send excess radiation back into space. But the sent-back radiation has a longer wavelength than the original radiation. Whereas the original shorter-wavelength radiation could penetrate the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the longer-wavelength radiation re-emitted by Earth can’t. As a result, the excess radiation gets trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere (the so-called “greenhouse effect”). This is basically what is meant by global warming. 
The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase, or has the part played by humans been significant enough to make us all blamable for global warming?
So you want to argue that the latter is not the case. Well, though I disagree with you  I’m not trying to argue with you here. I’m just trying to help you make a much better argument than you’ve just presented. 
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
Wow thats an awful lot of bollocks you've written there.
| Quote: |
| the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. |
| Quote: |
| Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path. |
| Quote: |
| Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. |
| Quote: |
| actually over 17000 scientists do not believe in global warming |
Please, please, please do provide some sort of link to support those claims.
----------------
Also you have contradicted yourself by saying this......
| Quote: |
| unlike the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. |
And then this.......
| Quote: |
| then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. |
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Location: UK
|
The impression I got was that Farhad is thinking of “global warming” as nothing more than the Sun heating up the Earth.
| Farhad230148 wrote: |
| What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth …. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. |
I’ve tried to explain to Farhad that “global warming” refers to something more complex than that.
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 425 Chaotic Requisition |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Doctor
Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 2684
Location: UKGBNI, England, Derbyshire
|
Global warming may be bollocks, but I'm definatley sure that climate change, isn't.
_________________
"There is no knowledge, that is not power" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
The impression I got was that Farhad is thinking of “global warming” as nothing more than the Sun heating up the Earth.
| Farhad230148 wrote: |
| What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth …. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. |
I’ve tried to explain to Farhad that “global warming” refers to something more complex than that. |
I did read your explanation, hopefully Farhad did the same as he would learn a great deal. However the impression i got was not one of misunderstanding but rather someone trying to pass-off blatant lies and twisted truths as fact.
----------------
I do however have one small criticism
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase |
We know that the a large bulk of the CO2 increase is due to humans because fossil fuels contain no carbon-14 (c-14 has a half life of around 6000 years). Levels of C-14 in the atmosphere fell slightly between 1850-1950 and 1990-today (between 1950-1990 levels of C-14 increased, this was due to nuclear testing which produced large amounts of C-14), the levels of Carbon-12 which is produced by fossil fuel has increased consistently during this period.
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Location: UK
|
| Cat1981(England) wrote: |
I do however have one small criticism
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase |
|
You are quoting me slightly out of context.
| I actually wrote: |
The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase, or has the part played by humans been significant enough to make us all blamable for global warming?
So you [Farhad] want to argue that the latter is not the case. Well, though I disagree with you … |
I agree with what you say. I just felt there was no point telling it to Farhad, who didn’t even have a clue what he was talking about (let alone trying to dispute).
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
Man caused Global Warming or the causes for any problem in society, are generally address by any individual from other than scientific reasoning.
There are not many things mentioned by the author, that can't be found in some report.
Generally in my discussions, on the issue, there has always been an underlying agenda t the persons opinions, which rarely is deter by the any degree of apparent intelligence. Most often IMO and surprising is the dislike for Capitalism (the industrial complex), then to politics. PEW Research, has two current surveys on the issue; GW Caused by man,
yes 23% Republican - 75% Democrat of college graduates, non grads
32% R vs. 52 Dems. As a top concern they found 12% Rep and 38% Dems.
There are two interesting theory being explored. NASA, last year sent up a couple Satellites to explore, are the effects of solar activity on our outer atmospheres. The other involves conditions our solar system encounters during its 250 million trip around the galaxy core. Other theory, such as solar flares, magnetic field effects, even our whether patterns are also taking on interest. Moisture certainly has a stronger effect on GW, than 3-400 parts per billion of CO2. Not only in retaining heat, but not allowing heat to reach the ground.
IMO; The increase in 200 years from about a billion little people and the energy used, to our current 6.6 billion and a somewhat increased energy used per in all the activity, should be showing up a whole lot more than a .7 degree in temperature or a few parts of CO2, if indeed a problem for natures natural reactions to whats on the planet or the combined totals of nature and mans ability to effect change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cat1981(England) |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 09 Sep 2006
Posts: 827
|
| jackson33 wrote: |
Man caused Global Warming or the causes for any problem in society, are generally address by any individual from other than scientific reasoning.
There are not many things mentioned by the author, that can't be found in some report. |
After i had finished posting last monday and had worked my way down though the forum and i saw that he was loged-on. 6 days later he still hasn't provided any links or reports to support his claims. Should he come back and try to make a debate out of this, i will be able to provide him with reports/links/papers which will show his claims to be wrong.
| Quote: |
Generally in my discussions, on the issue, there has always been an underlying agenda t the persons opinions, which rarely is deter by the any degree of apparent intelligence. Most often IMO and surprising is the dislike for Capitalism (the industrial complex), then to politics. PEW Research, has two current surveys on the issue; GW Caused by man,
yes 23% Republican - 75% Democrat of college graduates, non grads
32% R vs. 52 Dems. As a top concern they found 12% Rep and 38% Dems. |
Thats the whole problem with this issue, it has become too politicised. I have seen suggestions that MMGW was invented by Thatcher and Reagan to provide a reason to build nuclear power stations and other renewable power sources so the west can become less energy dependant on Russia and the middle east. Another one is that it is again a western idea to slow the development of China and India.
| Quote: |
| There are two interesting theory being explored. NASA, last year sent up a couple Satellites to explore, are the effects of solar activity on our outer atmospheres. The other involves conditions our solar system encounters during its 250 million trip around the galaxy core. Other theory, such as solar flares, magnetic field effects, even our whether patterns are also taking on interest. |
There are thousands of different forcings on the planet, some cooling, some warming. Until we have a near perfect picture of what those forcings are and what affect they have on the planet it's going to be impossible to build a complete picture and produce accurate computer simulations. To solve this more funding and man power is needed, however, the moment any scientific institution or government funded project does ether of those the accusation is instantly made that the scientist working on these ideas are only in it for the money and any findings which support the theory of MMGW is biased so as to gain further funds.
| Quote: |
| Moisture certainly has a stronger effect on GW, than 3-400 parts per billion of CO2. Not only in retaining heat, but not allowing heat to reach the ground. |
Whether water vapour is positive or negative forcing is still debatable, however it is generally presumed to be a positive forcing. It is also part and parcel of the MMGW theory. The man made green house emissions are only the first domino. Though this initial increase in temperatures, other forcings are increased such as glaciers melting, lowering of natural carbon sinks capacity to hold green house gases and warmer air holding more water vapour.
| Quote: |
| IMO; The increase in 200 years from about a billion little people and the energy used, to our current 6.6 billion and a somewhat increased energy used per in all the activity, should be showing up a whole lot more than a .7 degree in temperature or a few parts of CO2, if indeed a problem for natures natural reactions to whats on the planet or the combined totals of nature and mans ability to effect change. |
Approximately half of all our GHG are absorbed by the worlds carbon sinks, many such as the south Atlantic are showing signs that they starting to reach full capacity, this means that in future a lot more of our GHG emissions will stay in the atmosphere increasing temperatures much more quickly than in the recent past. Also other forcings such as the suns solar output have decreased slightly over the last few decades.
_________________
You may be an idiot, but that doesn't mean you need to act like one. My art teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
Cat; Activist have been around for some time. To exaggerate the point, think was Nero, during the Roman Empire was upset about smoke and banned fires in Rome. In my years and I feel where the current hysteria comes from, started in the 50's, with issues on population, no room, food or water to support -X- number of people. Factory pollution into the streams, then into the air. The GW probably did stem from the Global Cooling which many were concerned about in those days. Those and many other viewpoints, that almost made the activist seem unable to be satisfied, led to political movements and today those same people are objecting to some really trivial things. Incorporating into GW, has given new life.
Thatcher, I heard today, stockpiled food for a period, thinking a food shortage was pending. Today, activist including a lot of people not normally involved are trying to blame bio-fuel production on food shortages around the world. No doubt some truth, but the real fact is the cost of transport and/or distribution has tripled in a short period. Most product used for bio fuel, has a by product used to feed animals etc., net loss to the markets, very little. My point hysteria, leads to most problems in society, which includes potential GW, IMO.
On referencing or arguing with sites, it seems useless to me, especially on GW, man made or not. As you suggest, there are probably thousands of reason, which could be reasons for any trend in actual weather patterns or even changes in atmosphere make up. High BP zones tend to set over areas for long periods, for instance and play havoc on both local weather and local atmosphere condition. As for moisture, with 70% of the earth being oceans, in any given period the majority is over those oceans, your going to have some long term effects over land areas...and so on.
On carbon storage, trees and plant life are 50% carbons. Even our increased food supplies has helped hold down CO2 levels, even NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet. This is to me, just natures way of balancing the current. This doesn't mean natures is protecting humans or any life, just a natural action/reaction to what exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 216
Location: UK
|
I’ve just stumbled across the following BBC News article which I think may be relevant to the discussion here:
Nature’s carbon balance confirmed
Scientists have found new evidence that the Earth’s natural feedback mechanism regulated carbon dioxide levels for hundreds of thousands of years.
But they say humans are now emitting CO2 so fast that the planet’s natural balancing mechanism cannot keep up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7363600.stm
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know?
Last edited by JaneBennet on Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
|
| Quote: |
| NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet |
Reference please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 309
|
| Additional forestry, or forests?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 530
|
| I assumed jackson33 was referring to reforestation of previously deforested areas, or afforestation of previously un-forested areas. This is occurring in some areas. I browsed the NASA website without finding anything to support the idea that the rate of reforestation might approach or exceed the rate of deforestation, if this is what he meant. Perhaps he'll clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1061
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
| I assumed jackson33 was referring to reforestation of previously deforested areas, or afforestation of previously un-forested areas. This is occurring in some areas. I browsed the NASA website without finding anything to support the idea that the rate of reforestation might approach or exceed the rate of deforestation, if this is what he meant. Perhaps he'll clarify. |
Since NASA has not been around very long, much is probably reforestation, at least by them. There is other evidence, that plant life has expanded, often used as a sign of GW itself. Tree lines climbing in elevations on mountains and growth of many types growing further north than before etc...
Having spent some time of farms, their problems in part are keeping the natural process from reforesting (even forestation) from happening. Pasture land as well. I might add, in many places on the planet, orchards are fed CO2 to stimulate growth today, not so much in the US.
Certainly from the mini ice age of about 1k, 14k or 100k years ago, conditions for vegetation growth is or could be peaking.
For the record...
The actual quote, was taken from a 'Rush Limbaugh' program, mentioned several times about a year ago. I don't remember where/what article he was quoting and its now off his site.
Jane; CO2 is NOT a stable element. The actual time offered before breakdown is disputed, but 30-100 years are mentioned. There are already means to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and in part, Catalytic Converters removed some from auto emissions today. In declaring CO2 the total problem for earths future existence or even just the humans on the planet, don't you think a little more emphasis would be in that extraction. To complicate the issue, Oxygen is a stable element, 22% or so of the total air we breath. Below 16% or above (think 25%), with our barometric pressure, we as humans will have an even larger problem.
Mess with natures ability to handle .001% (or less) of CO2, you are more likely to compromise Oxygen production...in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
Page 1 of 3 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
