July 6th, 2011, 08:17 PM
is global warming just a scam to make money?
the evidence is overwhelming. taxes on people and companies just on global warming is incredibal. you can make 'greenhouse gases' if you buy it.
noone is saying climatechange does not happen, it is just natrual is all.
discuss.
no it i'snt my friend....... do a little research on net and u'll understand...........
o global warming is a scam. think about all the money that goes into it. if you look up things on the subject, you will find evidence for what i am saying.
(it is one of the biggest scams! howmany people believe it? lots.)
i see no evidence for what you say other than facts that, with enough money could become believed by people around the world.
(how is carbon credits going to help with global warming. how wil australias carbon tax help. all it does is empty the peoples pockets.
Lewis, I realize at your age you think you know it all, but you don't. I have been reading scientific journals since I was your age (45 years ago) and have watched the overwhelming case for global climate change develop, as the pronounced effects have begun to show up.
You would be well served to realize that you still have a LOT to learn, not only on this subject, but in fact on every subject you post on where you think you know it all. You might also spend some effort in learning how to write and spell better so you might be taken more seriously.
Wayne
Therein lies the problem!i see no evidence for what you say other than facts
Well said, MeteorWayne.
Let's be more specific than this, since there are a lot of lies on the internet, too.Originally Posted by Alex-The Great
Sites like the one below will address nearly every specific argument which deniers make and post to the internet. It's too bad so many people believe them and they've been so effective.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
i don't think i know it all. climate change happens naturally. the earth has begun its presetion towards the sun. this explains weather changes (and were i am its getting colder!) and those earth quakes and stuff.
No, it doesn't.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
riiiiight, look, that website provides litte proof, other than what i have said already.
global warming is a large scam that is resulting in the one thing that everyone seems to be obbsesed about. money
Actually, it's very well supported and referenced, and also breaks information down into levels. There is a "Basic" page for people who are less well read on the topic, an "Intermediate" page for people who know a little more, and an "Advanced" page for people who know a lot. Each contains references to a lot of research, and that's only one page against one argument we hear from people who deny climate change (that "the sun did it").
Yes... There is money involved in dealing with climate change, and yes a lot of people care about money. However, the economics and the politics of the situation do nothing to change the science. The science is valid, and the assertion that humans are impacting our climate by digging a shit ton of CO2 out of the ground, burning it, and releasing it into our atmosphere is a fact.
I will try to answer your questions. I will try to educate you and help you understand. However, you need to try to accept that you might just very well be mistaken on this subject so you can meet me in the middle.
believe it or not, i do accept that i could be wrong. even in this. however i do not need you to educate me in any such matters. I used to believe in this. i found it very interesting, and though i am only 14, i have been studing it from about 7-11 yrs old. sure i might not have picked up much, but i could still make up my own mind and attempt to grasp sciences of different kinds. i found myself to be in a bit of a dilema. i saw proof for both arguments of global warmings existence, and its possibilities as a scam. as time went on, i found it more and more likly to be false. it is, when looked at closley, there perfect scam-so to speak.
Yeah, you say you accept you might be wrong, but you don't believe that,
I'm 59, and have been following the accumulating ecidence since I was your age.
You have a lot to learn. Your attempts to grasp the science have clearly been insufficient.
Lewis, you are making a very big mistake right there. At fourteen I think you will agree you are in need of an education. I am sixty three and I sure as hell need one. So where do you get that education? In the matter of learning more about the debate on global warming you could do very much worse than listening to inow. He has a studied this more than most laymen and has a good grasp of the main issues. Listen to him and learn, or ignore him and remain ignorant. It's your choice.
Well two can play at that game. Your suspicions about the motives behind the 'global warming' fiasco do not have any backing in evidence, and thereby remain nothing more suspicion.
Your argument is comparable to the old (and very much hated) Creation vs Evolution arguments. While evolution undeniably crushes creation with mountains of evidence, there still exist those who claim "Evolution is a lie! The scientists are just liars and want to poison the minds of our children! God is the only truth!!". Lewis, you are taking on the denier's roll by not accepting the many scientific studies shown in the articles posted in this thread.
You claim to be scientifically literate. If so, you should understand that the basic chemistry of emissions of human machines/technologies interact with the atmosphere in a way that promotes warming effects. You should understand that with the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted from vehicles, not only is this gas becoming more abundant in the atmosphere resulting in a larger greenhouse effect, but the oceans continue to absorb it, and thus become acidified. The process is called ocean acidification, and I recommend you read up on it. If you are scientifically literate, you should know that chemically, global 'warming' is a rather obvious result of all the garbage gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere, which we have for so long thought of as an infinite dump.
There are many detrimental side effects of global 'warming', and frankly, it is very dangerous to think that we have no hand in climate change. If people think we have nothing to do with it, people will simply shrug it off as something we can't control and we'll end up with everyone simply not trying to stop it. The fact is, and the science is everywhere to see it, that it is real, and it is happening, and it requires action on our part. Ignorance spawns inaction. Your opinion is dangerous.
Why do all anthropogenic climate change deniers always use the same outdated arguments?! Just because it is "getting colder" (or so you say, I haven't seen the temperature records for where you live) where you are does not mean that warming is occurring- you must understand that by "global warming", scientists mean:
Global average surface temperature is increasing, this does not mean everywhere on Earth will get hotter- climate change models actually predict certain areas to become much colder due to certain feedback mechanisms such as cloud cover etc.
Because they don't understand the science, or science in general. And they don't understand the difference between weather and climate. And they think two weeks is long enough to prove the climate is cooling. And they're driven by politics, not science. I could go on...Why do all anthropogenic climate change deniers always use the same outdated arguments?! Just because it is "getting colder" (or so you say, I haven't seen the temperature records for where you live) where you are does not mean that warming is occurring- you must understand that by "global warming", scientists mean:
Global average surface temperature is increasing, this does not mean everywhere on Earth will get hotter- climate change models actually predict certain areas to become much colder due to certain feedback mechanisms such as cloud cover etc.
You're right, I suppose. It is true that I've never actually spoken to an anthropogenic climate change denier who is competent within science; especially physics and chemistry, the main fields behind climate science.
Well, I do wonder how long it will be before the money grabbing politicians of this planet realise that something should be done- the question is, what has to happen for them to realise this? The complete submergence of Bangladesh? Another series of devastating hurricanes? Another load of heatwaves?...
As long as all these disasters don't put a dent in the profit margin, they won't even blink.
look up the earths pre-setion towards the sun. climate change is natural-and is explainable by science. the argument that people are the cause of this is absured-and does have a political agenda.
also- i did not decide this on a two week basis at all- but closer to two yrs. during summer, it usally is between 35-45 degrees celcius. now its more like 25-35.
in winter, it was between 15-27. now its about 8-25
I believe the word you are looking for is "precession". I don't think it means what you think it means.
Here's the Wiki on it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precess...isambiguation).
oh, two whole years of weather, and climate change is a scam. What a foolish, ignorant idea.
I've been observing weather for 50 years. I've read (and understood) several hundred articles in actual scientific journals that concern the subject over the last 45 years.
I look at actual evidence like this:
and this:
and this
and this:
So, I have actually educated myself on the subject. You haven't even begun.
i am not saying there is not CO2 in the air, or that it is a good thing. but the heat change is credable becouse the earth has began, as i have said, its Precession towards the sun. i don't know much about this, but i know that it means the earths axis changes and goes closer to the sun.
CO2 is in the atmosphere but that does not mean it is the couse of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy)#Astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gyroscope_precession.gif[/img]
So you admit you don't understand what you are talking about, but insist your conclusions are correct.
Sheesh!
This was already covered on page 1.
No, it doesn't.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
From that link I shared:
Bond et al. (1999) added further evidence that the timing of D-O events disqualifies them from being responsible for the current warming, by showing that the most recent D-O event may have contributed to the Little Ice Age (LIA):
And a study by Rahmstorf (2003) also concludes that the LIA may be the most recent cold phase of the D-O cycle, and his research suggests that the 1,470-year periodicity is so regular that it's more likely due to an orbital cycle than a solar cycle."evidence from cores near Newfoundland confirms previous suggestions that the Little lce Age was the most recent cold phase of the 1-2kyr cycle"
However, according to Braun et al. (2005), D-O events could be caused by a combination of solar cycles and freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean. But their study also concludes that D-O events are not expected to occur during the Holocene (the current geologic epoch)."While the earlier estimate of ±20% [Schulz, 2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the 11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much higher precision would point more to an orbital cycle. The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470-year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery."
The bottom line is that regardless of whether or not the D-O cycles are triggered by the Sun, the timing is clearly not right for this cycle to be responsible for the current warming. Particularly since solar output has not increased in approximately 60 years, and has only increased a fraction of a percent in the past 300 years, as discussed above."the 1,470-year climate response in the simulation is restricted to glacial climate and cannot be excited for substantially different (such as Holocene) boundary conditions...Thus, our mechanism for the glacial ,1,470-year climate cycle is also consistent with the lack of a clear and pronounced 1,470-year cycle in Holocene climate archives."
For those who are unable or unwilling to actually read, I bolded the most relevant bit above.
There's a lot more money to be made from denying it, which is why you tend to find that the (very few) scientists who challenge climate change also happen to be funded or closely linked to the fossil fuels industry.
| « i redorded an hallucination | Is this in relation with quantum entanglement...? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
