These are results of a public policy poll:
Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, or
Do ................................................................... 37%
Do not ............................................................. 51%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%
So 49% answered that they believe it's a hoax with another 12% saying they're not sure. This isn't a question about degrees. These are people who believe it is a hoax. In other words, all these scientists are in league together to promote this hoax.
What do you think of this?
Polling link is here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main … liefs.html
I think a more relevant question is: Why are so many people dubious of establishment scientists' opinions on this subject? It could be people are dumber than in decades before. It could be more people enjoy speculating on hoaxes these days. It could be the poll question, as it is phrased and/or advertised draws poll takers with a certain line of thinking. OR it could be that with the last couple of generations surviving other dire establishment scientist-endorsed predictions, the general populace has learned to take such predictions with a grain of salt. I don't know myself, but I have a strong feeling the world's scientific community might be able come up with a convincing theory on it.
I think of the problems is that, just like any theory, no one should *have* to believe it. I don't care if my neighbor believes in the Theory of Evolution, nor do I care if my cousin believes in the Theory of Relativity. I know people who don't even know the details of the String Theory or the Big Bang Theory.
When it comes to Global Warming (or what eve they're calling it today), why is it so important that we try to make everyone believe it? Yes, a good number of people DO believe in hoaxes, perhaps because we live in a world where so many people are only too happy to tell you a tale to get your money. We're warned not to give out our SS or credit card numbers over the phone if asked - it's probably a hoax. That door to door salesman? Probably a con.
But, there are other reasons people resist agreeing with global warming. It's become political and entities stand to make big bucks from the implementation of all sorts of things designed to counter the warming.
You ask why people are dubious of established scientist's opinions? Perhaps that's because established scientists that do not concur are shamed and disgraced. That's my biggest problem with the "push" behind this theory - the unwavering dismissal of established scientists who disagree. I just read a new article about another one.
Global Warming: A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial … z31xrF5XFF
He's just one of a growing push to silence any opposition and that, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. Science is not static. That's why we call these things, "theories," because we should always continue to research, gather data and improve on the theory.
For some odd reason - this specific theory has taken on a life of its own.
Big money is behind it. Grants to the tune of multi-millions are waiting for those "green" energy companies that can put fossil fuel out of business.
Even the fossil fuel giants are battling to run each other out of business. The natural gas industry, which is just a nice name for another fossil fuel, has paid for ads around the nation on the evils of coal-fired plants - under the umbrella of pretending to be a grassroots greenie group. You've probably seen some of them over the years and didn't even know who was behind them - or why. But they have effects on people.
We might, or might not, be in a warming trend that is or isn't of natural causes, but that does not excuse the strong-arm tactics.
We don't have to "believe." Instead, we should listen - inform ourselves - listen some more and try to life a life that does not harm our planet.
And, we should be cautious. Too many times in the history of the world, governments have pushed one agenda or another as incontrovertible fact and punished those who stepped out of line. In Galileo's day, the established science said the world was flat and when Galileo stepped out of line to say it was round, he was shamed back into his scientific closet.
We most certainly should protect our earth, but at the same time - we must protect our integrity. There is a lot going on behind the scenes on this one.
I believe in protecting the environment and refraining from over-exploitation of our planet. But to dismiss the natural cycles, shifts and changes the earth goes through, and to claim the weather and climate would remain stagnant if it weren't for mankind's carbon footprints here, is utter arrogance. The climate goes through cycles just as the earth's revolution around the sun, just as the solar system's movements within the galaxy. Nothing in nature remains stagnant, nor should it. Establishment scientists have become as blind and dogmatic on this issue as any religious fanatics. They preach a message of mankind's sinful nature, their crusade is succored by the elite and any that dare deny their doctrine are heretics. As with all cult leaders, their aim is to control the masses.. and luxuriate in a feeling of moral superiority while doing so.
You really don't know much about Climate Change, do you?
They're not saying that humans alone are bringing about the change--what they're saying is that, yes, these changes do occur naturally, but human activity is bringing them about much, much faster than would normally occur (for example, let's say a 2 degree increase would naturally take 5,000 years, but we would've caused it to happen in less than 200).
Ah, the "you are ignorant" allegation. It was almost overdue.
Of course humans are capable of accelerating temperatures. This would be the norm for any planet with a civilization that depends on manufacturing their own heat sources and power. The argument, however, fails to explain how the earth continues to experience ages of cooler global temperatures even during eras of excessive industrialization.
I am all in favor of stopping our dependence on over-industrialization, but I also want to see the cultish and hypocritical agendas removed from the equation. We have a scientific community that hails and promotes "advances" produced by materials which contribute to pollution and waste. It is a paradox they have created, and one exploited in corporate and political arenas. If the scientific world wants to curb detriments to the environment they must first curb their obsessive enthusiasm for gadgets, chemicals and technology that work against it.
It has nothing to do with scientists and everything to do with corporations who use their financial resources to fund the products they want to sell to the public. We are the problem because we buy the products, hence we fuel the detriments to the environment with our poor buying choices.
WalMart, for example, would not be the mega store it is without customers.
The real question that was not asked is if they care!
We know for a fact that it is a hoax because President Obama stopped the rise of the oceans right after he was inaugurated.
But it was cold in March where I live! THAT MEANS IT'S ALL A HOAX!!
I do believe there is the possibility of global warming, but you also have to remember that this world has been here for a very long time and has gone through a lot of changes, including weather, without the help, or cause, of man. Greg
John Oliver makes the point here:
First we heard about global cooling. Then, a several years later, we heard about global warming. Then, several years later, we heard about climate change, but now we hear that it's cooling in some areas despite global warming. It's kind of like hearing that a food cures cancer. Then, you hear it causes cancer. Then, you hear that the food interacts with cancer cells, both causing and curing those cancer cells depending on what kind of cancer you have. An emerging science is not always embraced, because it's. . .emerging, along with our understanding of what is happening. As time goes by and we have a consistent message about what is happening, more people will accept a scientific concept as fact.
Frankly, I wish we'd spend less time discussing climate change and more time talking about how we are going to become energy independent, how we're going to leave a cleaner environment to our children. Too much time is spent arguing about whether or not climate change is real and not enough time is spent talking about making positive change that virtually everybody can agree upon.
Remember when Al Gore warned 5,10,15 and 20 years ago that we had only 5 years left and the polar ice caps would be gone? Good times.
What is funny if some of it is not true then all of it must be false a funny human trait. Don't worry you are not alone.
When you realize that the whole scam is based on provably flawed computer models, then yes, the whole thing is a sham.
I'll let Kurt Eichenwald speak for me:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichen … -theorists
In the 1970's many of these same 'scientists' were telling us that we were headed for another Ice Age, then, with hardly a breath in between, began spouting what has now morphed from Global Warming to Climate Disruption.
I'll not go in to all the many instances of the AGW crowd manipulating data, fudging numbers, using a magazine article by and undergrad as evidence etc. etc. it goes on and on.
But as I said, this whole crap sandwich is based on flawed computer modeling. If their computers were able to predict the future weather the you should be able to take known data from a specific period, say 1980-89 and plug that in to their modeling software and it should return an accurate model of the other known data set of weather from 1990-99.
Guess what? It doesn't, not even close.
Yet we are supposed to believe that they can tell us what is going to happen 10, 15 and 20 or more years from now with any accuracy? Please.
How many failed predictions does it take to convince you sheeple that this is a hoax with no other aim than to loot the treasury of any country stupid enough to buy in to this lie?
Every time some breathless prediction falls on it's arse the AGW loons just make another prediction of doom just a few more years out, and their brainless minions just swallow it with out so much as a passing thought of what they had been told 5 years before.
Consensus? Consensus is not evidence.
Admittedly I am an uninformed skeptic. Mostly because of the political involvement and my suspicion of the motives.
But... the much touted consensus of "95% - 97%" of climate scientists does give me pause for thought. Can so many scientists be wrong?
Just as the "climate models are flawed" rebuttals also gives me pause. Are the skeptics just wrong?
So how about it proponents of climate change - is there any truth in the criticism of the models and the criticism that the entire concept is based on models and not verified empirical data?
This inquiring mind would like to know - and with more authority than just "97% of scientists" say so. Do they defend their models?
Does the claim of the so-called "aerosol and CO2 plug data," (guesstimated input to make the models work as desired), criticism have any basis in truth?
ps. your "the models are flawed" comment prompted me to check into the claim - thanks for the nudge SuperKev.
"But... the much touted consensus of "95% - 97%" of climate scientists does give me pause for thought. Can so many scientists be wrong?"
What percentage of scientists one believed in spontaneous generation? It was debated for centuries. . . Yeah, 95-97% of scientists can be wrong. I'm not saying they are or aren't wrong, but it's possible.
We keep hearing about "scientists" when we hear about the 95-97% claim. "Scientist" is a vague term that doesn't really specify field of study. Is a cancer researcher considered a scientist? Yes. Does that mean that he/she is the right person to poll when it comes to climate change? That's debatable. Shouldn't we be polling people who specialize in the climate, perhaps meteorologists. . .among others? The American Meteorological Society polled their members. Here is their finding:
"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll- … z32E6DA2io
This simply does not lend credibility to the 95-97% statistic that is so often quoted by some.
And there you have my quandary.... who to believe.
I believe the 95% - 97% rationalization could be wrong. But hey, that's a big nut to crack. Probably as big as the "earth is flat" nut.
I believe the political and leftist agenda could be in play. But even so, does that mean their "facts" are wrong?
I believe there is room for doubt. The "historical cycles" folks seem to have a valid point.
Most of all. I have little doubt that human generated CO2 is a real fact - but does it have he impact and importance that is being attributed to it?
Yours is a good point to consider - are pseudo-scientists, (as in interns, students, and support staff), to be accredited with the same credentials as "accredited climate scientists" in that percentage argument?
Is there credence in the argument that a bulk of the scientist are relying on the same models - which if proven wrong could invalidate the opinions of all involved?
Is one dissenter equal to one proponent, or are there degrees of expertise and experience that lend more credence to one or the other?
I must admit that at this point in my understanding - the nays have as much credibility as the yeas.
I am am not convinced that global warming, or global climate change if you prefer, is a settled matter.
ps. it is after 11pm which is martini time, so I may be wayyyyy off base. I will return with apologies - if needed, in the morning.
Actually, I believe you are exactly right. I'm not saying that the majority of "scientists" don't agree about climate change or that climate change is or isn't real. I'm stating that the 95-97% statistic is likely wrong, politically motivated to win a point.
Here's some nice "evidence":
Isn't this the same issue that was being debated when this thread started? After 5 months I thought your link ws some new data to digest.
We can all find links to support our pro or con position on global warning, so I won't include any.
But... maybe this comment about a draft report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could stand as a summary of why their are folks not sure or not buying into the "97%" concensus;
"A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate. "
I think I will stand by my last comment on this thread as my position.
Are all these drafts further evidence of global warming or did somebody just leave a door open?
So based on that statement it is "all" a hoax?
I don't know if it is real or a hoax. That is the crux of my original response. The one I said I still stand by.
My question hinges on the all or nothing argument that seems to pervade the topic. If it is all a hoax what significant proof must be presented to give it a definitive answer? If it is somewhat true what can be done to address the issue and to what measure? And if it is mostly true how much time do we have to curb or correct the trend? These are the questions that might just have a timer ticking before something bad happens.
That's fine, I guess.
The crux of the issue is this: do you choose to believe experts or non-experts? In the case of climate change denial or hoaxification, people are choosing non-experts over experts or they're choosing a vast majority of non-experts and maybe some marginally qualified people over experts.
Why do you believe the Holocaust existed then?
To quote Jodi Ernst, recently elected: "I can find as many people who believe it as those who don't". If that's our basis for non-belief, then our country is doomed.
It appears your opinion is that anyone that disagrees with the claim of climate change is a non-expert. Yet it was easy to do a quick search and find many legitimate scientists in climate and earth related fields that disagree with the "97%" consensus. And when you dig into the folks that are included in that "97%" group there seems to be quite a few that would fit you "marginally qualified" characterization. Hmm...
That you compare the legitimacy of this controversy with the Holocaust is beyond reason.
Your responses leave me with the impression that you think anyone who disagrees with your position on this issue is stupid for not seeing the obvious. (at least that is what I took away from your quote)
I hope that is wrong, because in this case, the truth is not obvious to me.
If you look at experts in climate the statistics do veer to over 95% feeling there is anthropogenic change, suggesting expertise does correlate strongly with holding this position.
Oh my! 36 minutes and 44 seconds of what appears to be verifiable data debunking man being responsible for climate change.
I say it appears valid because I am not scientist enough, or willing to dig deep enough to confirm what the video claims - but it made sense to me. (of course I was a skeptic before watching, so maybe I was too easily impressed)
It will be interesting to see how the pro-climate change folks debunk this video.
Thanks for the link.
ps. I thought the recorded data that showed the decoupling of the historical CO2 level/Temperature correlation - beginning in 2007 was particularly interesting. As was the point that the 97%'s models supposedly don't include any solar influences relating to climate change.
In my brief research on Ben Davidson, I found that he is not a climate scientist and that his area of expertise is law and legal research. That certainly doesn't mean that he can't adequately research climate science, but it certainly casts doubt on his expertise. One criticism of his research and this video indicated that he makes numerous unsubstantiated charges and uses a number of the so-called scientists who are recognized shills for big oil.
As for the Holocaust, how do you not see the analogy? There are conferences on Holocaust denial. There are many, many people who believe the Holocaust is a hoax. There are so-called experts who claim they have "proof" it did not happen. Why are you right about the Holocaust and they are wrong? Why is their expertise something we should question? All I'm saying is that if I'm going to question the climate scientists on global warming, perhaps I should question the so-called experts who claim the Holocaust was a real thing.
And I was hoping to be surprised.
- a researcher but not a climate scientist.... so he can't compile and present data?
- unsubstantiated charges... the charts presented, and their authors seemed credible. And several of the important ones were from the government, (NOAA climate.gov) hmm...
- so-called experts... did you check their credentials before deciding they were "so-called?"
- oil shills... hmm... all of them? Does that mean they provided fake data? That seems a bit of a stretch.
Oh well. I must be easy to impress. And the one point I suppose I should check out is the truth of the claim that the historical CO2 level/temperature correlation was broken in 2007 - since CO2 levels seem to be the "big stick" of climate change supporters.
Maybe you could look at that part of the video again and offer your thoughts. It looks like a deal-breaker to me. It starts at 6:45 with data charts from climate.gov and clearly shows the now-broken CO2/temp. correlation.
It's long been accepted that man can and does affect climate on a local level.
What is the mechanism for preventing this affect from becoming global?
I'll provide this link:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom … nd_is.html
It really boils down to simple science. If CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere, then the Earth is heating up. The question then is: what's causing the increase? (I think I have this right, but I'm not a scientist either, so one should probably consult them and absolutely not believe anything I have to say).
There really is no reason for debate. Believe what you want to believe.
Again, my Holocaust analogy stands. There's really no compelling reason for me to believe that the Holocaust happened because there appear to be credible people out there with evidence to the contrary.
Ah Ha! I was right. We can trade links until the cows come home.
Yours is weak, mine are strong. Mine are experts yours are pretenders, my facts are undeniable yours are irrelevant. And on, and on, and on...
And there will still be no new "acceptable" data for either side.
Again, back to the Holocaust.
Go ahead, try to convince me the Holocaust happened. I'll refute everything you say and find links to the contrary.
I guess I was too generous thinking my lack of reply to your Holocaust reference would be a sufficient message.
So I will be more blunt. It is an inappropriate comparison that I don't wish to discuss relative to this thread. Or any other thread.
how do you explain the still existing concentration camps?
And here's proof that the Holocaust is a hoax:
http://expeltheparasite.com/2013/10/28/ … -happened/
Pretty amazing the similarity in language one sees.
Here's one other link that boils things down pretty simply:
I actually know this scientist. He's a teacher mostly and he writes books. His research is not dependent on climate change being true. He has no political reason for writing what he writes outside of whatever views he might hold like any normal person.
Rajendra K. Pachauri -
Chairman of the IPCC. Was trained as an electrical and industrial engineer, that is about as far from climatology and meteorology as you can get. Yet his pronouncements are treated as if coming from the burning bush by AGW believers.
Former VP, failed presidential candidate. aka Saint Al of Climate. Took ONE class from Roger Revelle. 20+ years of failed predictions. AGW's Patron Saint.
I'll summarize, just for argument's sake:
1. There is no debating the fact that carbon dioxide warms planets. That is a fact.
2. There is no debating that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rapid rate. That is also a fact.
These are two facts. I'll leave it to you to draw a conclusion.
1) No, CO2 cannot be identified as an actual cause of increased global warming, especially on all planets, in every instance. There may be a correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 on Earth but correlation is NOT! causality. How do you explain rising temperatures on other planets in the solar system that do not have a high quantity of atmospheric CO2?
CO2 exists in solution in the Earth's oceans, as temperatures rise gases do not remain in solution - this is why your carbonated beverage goes flat as it warms.
2) Natural sources of CO2 far outstrip all human generated sources of CO2. Plants also absorb increased CO2 in photosynthesis - a good thing because it means more plant growth > more co2 absorbtion > more plant growth > and so on.
3) How in the heck is a world with more plant growth and longer summers a bad thing? How in the heck is Mars also warming? Do they have crazy polluting Americans driving what Obama doesn't want them to drive; keeping their homes at temperatures Obama doesn't approve of; burning fuels Obama wants to bankrupt;etc....
4) If there is global warming, and given the early arrival of winter like weather it seems fewer people will believe in it than last summer, how is the US to blame when the number one CO2 polluter in the world is China?
You are wrong. These are scientific facts. You might as well be arguing that the earth is flat. If you want to argue that blue is red and that the moon is the sun, go ahead.
Here is a really good site that refutes whatever stupid thing you want to say:
....3) How in the heck is a world with more plant growth and longer summers a bad thing? How in the heck is Mars also warming? Do they have crazy polluting Americans driving what Obama doesn't want them to drive; keeping their homes at temperatures Obama doesn't approve of; burning fuels Obama wants to bankrupt;etc....
Obama...the new Hitler. All conversations relating to the worst of actions or conditions end with a reference to Hitler. Your Hitler is Obama. What a shame you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about,.....almost.
I am sure the world feels like it is warming with your head in the sand. Hitler was the victor in a legitimate political process, it took access to power to make him the beloved character of Holocaust deniers everywhere. Obama has revealed himself, time and again, to have no respect for the constitution, rule of law, the government he presides over or the country that elected him.
Please try to provide evidence that the Holocaust existed and I will refute it.
I reiterate: "What a shame you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about,.....almost."
Still existing concentration camps? I've provided a link that proves that it was all a hoax. Tons of people obviously agree. What more proof do you need?
You are off on a completely different subject than you started, but I can say that the only thin that comment proves is that there are tons of ignorant people like you in the world, because there are millions who do believe their own eyes about the Holocaust. I visited the Anne Frank House and the cemetery in Luxemburg and felt the pain those people and soldiers went through. I know men who served in the war that witnessed the whole thing. I feel sorry for people that can't face reality. Greg
Another one that totally misses the point!
So, first of all, it's obvious that the Anne Frank house was built long after the war to create the idea that there was actually a Holocaust. Can you prove otherwise?
And apparently, since I was banned on my own forum for some reason, I need to explain what John Holden tried to explain about missing the point, that I, in fact, am no a Holocaust denier. That's idiocy. I apparently have to explain that what I've been trying to do is illustrate an analogy between Holocaust deniers and climate change deniers. Both groups don't have a shread of evidence to back up their claims and just throw out denial after denial no matter what you say to them, which makes debating them pointless.
Which also probably means I'm stupid since I'm debating them.
1. CO2 traps heat and makes the earth hotter.
2. Humans are putting lots of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Neither of these points are opinion. They are facts. When you openly deny that they are facts, then you are prone to being a Holocaust denier or a flat-earther or a heliocentrist.
The holocaust analogy is a bad one. Too much eyewitness and physical evidence to back it up. A better analogy would have been an evolution type. Bible vs science. Now that is one you will get a lot of opposition on.
1- CO2 is a minor player in the "green house: theory - methane and water vapor are major players.
2- Humans are a minor player in the generation of CO2.
The atmosphere is not simple. The earth is not simple. 2 minor facts do not make a major theory on how the atmosphere actually works. 2 minor facts do not make a horribly flawed and suspect computer model a fantastic scientific breakthrough. 2 minor facts do not justify the tragedy and poverty that eliminating the oil economy would entail.
Nit together 2 minor facts out of the hundreds of millions of events that make up physical reality and then seek the political power to FORCE everyone in America to live by whatever hair brained scheme you can justify, while ignoring all the rest of what happens in reality, is a diabolical tyranny on a scale with the holocaust.
The concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are far more likely to be a consequence of the natural solar cycle, which is also warming the other planets in our solar system, warming the atmosphere on Earth and causing CO2, disolved in solution in the MASSIVE oceans, to heat out of solution and into the atmosphere.
How large is the Earth? How big is a v8 engine?
AND - what is bad about global warming?
The sun has more to do with the heating of the atmosphere than does the presence of CO2.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. You probably think the earth is flat too.
It's not a question of how big a V8 engine is, it's more a question of how big are several million.
What is bad about global warming.
How about rising sea levels flooding many homes and much arable land.
Disrupting the gulf stream turning many areas with moderate climates into areas of extreme cold.
Disruption of eco systems world wide. Desertification of billions of hectares.
Decreased crop yields.
An increase in sever bad weather and on and on.
What's so good about global warming?
When earth was warmest it was also most fertile. What regions are the most fertile now, the warmest. Where does the greatest population live, warm regions or cold ones? Where is the greatest diversity of life?
The rest of this is merely "chicken little" fear mongering with little actual experimentally demonstrable proof.
During the Medieval Climate Optimum European populations expanded in areas that, previously, had been too cold to sustain larger populations because cold makes farming difficult - warm makes it easy. It isn't until the subsequent cooling that disease and famine kill millions in Europe.
Cold trumps hot, if it didn't why is there such a lucrative tourist trade in the Caribbean, its not like there is fascinating Roman and Greek culture to take in or Disney World - it is warm!
This is why I prefer the term "climate change" rather than "global warming". Many are naive enough to think that with global warming everywhere will get warmer and that is so wrong.
True, some places will get warmer, like the ice caps but equally many places will get colder and disappear under the mass of water released from the ice caps.
It might be a gamble you are prepared to take, many of us aren't-losing is too awful to contemplate.
It is a change in language that helps illuminate its status as a cult religion. There must be global warming, because people are wicked. Just like there has to be Revelation style end times, because people are wicked. There has to be an end to everything in 2012, not just because people are wicked but because the Mayan Calender ends in 2012. Or 2016 or was it 2032?
A Doomsday Cult typically names the date for doomsday and then moves the date, not because doomsday has been averted due to their reverence and adherence to articles of faith, but because they got the date wrong.
The Doomsday Cult of Global Warming has been calling the wicked sinners' product -- "global warming" --for decades only to switch to "climate change" when the "warming" part stirred wide spread skepticism among the population that had all the property to steal. The New, Revised and Improved Doomsday Cult of Global Climate Change works Summer, Winter, Spring, Fall, Blizzard, Drought, Growing Ice Caps or the increasingly rare (despite the predictions of that old and tragically ungodly, Global Warming) Hurricane.
Even deniers accept that hurricanes are becoming more common, not rarer!
It has long been accepted that man influences climate on a local scale. I would like you to tell me why this influence can never extend to a global scale.
The Earth is indeed a profoundly complex system that extends far beyond the borders of the USA.
So, no comment on local climate change then? Why is that, either you know it happens or your mentors have not told you what to think?
One volcanic eruption belches more waste in one event than all the V8 engines in the world in a year. All animal life belches far more CO2 into the air than all the v8 engines. Using your computer produces CO2 pollution. Your respiring produces CO2 pollution. If the Global Warming believers simply, VOLUNTARILY, stopped living it would end the unsubstantiated risk of Global Warming.
Those committed to the unproved idea that humanity is causing "global warming" want to compel everyone to suffer through the death of prosperity, when they hold the solution in their gun, medicine and liquor cabinets.
So that's your answer! Those who believe global warming has a large man made contribution should simply kill themselves!
I suggest it as one rational response to the impact that those who subscribe to the fanciful notion of global warming might undertake in order to prevent the expected catastrophe.
Unlike those who subscribe to the un-provable, I would never compel anyone to destroy themselves.
Global warming cultists would destroy the engine of prosperity and plenty, therefore compelling all to live within their nightmare cult driven world.
I merely suggest that if one is so dedicated to saving the world and relieving the dire threat to the Earth posed by man made global warming, it only seems reasonable to eliminate a significant portion of humanity to alleviate the threat.
I am no monster, I don't propose eliminating the fuel necessary to run all the means by which modern humans have staved off disease, hunger and privation. I don't propose anyone be forced to do anything they do not chose to do based on their own personal, deeply held beliefs.
I merely suggest that it is utter hypocrisy for global warming believers to not expunge their contribution to that dire threat by permanently removing themselves from the system they purport to abhor.
Some added bonuses are the restoration of soil fertility, if their remains are handled properly; the reduction in clear cutting forests to supply grazing land; reduced run off from farm fields and finally, a 30% or more extension in the available energy from all sources, even the goofy windmills and solar panels.
It just makes sense.
Pretty obvious that when people can't even agree on basic facts (like CO2 in our atmosphere increases temperature) all debate becomes absolutely pointless.
63% OF AMERICANS believe climate change is real or are unsure. only 37% have been fooled by the expensive, dishonest campaign of big oil and coal to discredit the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. same statistics, framed differently.
Or is it the massive corruption of science by a redistributionist, interventionist and aggressive United Nations that has seized the opportunity to strip wealthy nations of vast sums of money and productive capacity. There are sinister forces afoot that make "evil oil" look impotent.
What the heck is so bad about oil and coal. Wind and solar can never replace them. A solution to the battery problem and fusion energy are still decades away. There is no substitute for oil, yet. Why do we attack the bounty from which prosperity flows? If there is a global human suicide movement it is the one that continually attacks prosperity and productivity - OIL.
If you think oil is so terrible, look at the entire world, from what fires the engines of productivity, prosperity and plenty? Oil feeds the world.
solar and wind are almost cheap enough to replace dirty fuels already. not only would this decrease global warming, but less folks would die from particulate pollution. more people work in solar than in coal. clean energy is a boon to, not a drain on, the economy. the only folks who would suffer an economic downturn are charles and david koch, who fund the lies that you have swallowed.
How does one produce sufficient energy to manufacture massive wind turbines and deliver them to the massive tracts of land required to produce the minuscule amounts of energy that only is produced when the wind is blowing?
How does one produce sufficient energy to manufacture the massive number of solar panels to cover acres and acres of land to produce the tiny amount of energy that is produce ONLY when the sun shines?
Efficient energy requires more than warm feelings and hate for the Kochs. The Koch obsession is comical. I don't spend on moment of my life thinking about anyone named Koch, unless I read something some liberal has said or written in their Koch-aine induced paranoia and Kochmania.
Gasoline is the King of Fuels and until you find one that provides as much easily produced, easily stored, easily transported and easily converted in such an efficient density, than you will NEVER replace Gasoline. Batteries don't even come close - yet.
Is a subsidized price for a product that receives constant injections of tax money all along the process an actual market price?
It is a dangerous and comically absurd position lefties have staked out for themselves that OIL can easily be replaced as the engine of prosperity.
Try driving a windmill cross country on your car hood. There is no reasonable substitute for oil, yet. Lefties are surrounded and fed by the incredible prosperity of the OIL economy and deny its profound contribution to world wide health and prosperity.
They would rather adopt the fantasy that economies work best when centrally directed. The internal combustion engine is a boon to humanity with NO REASONABLE substitute about to displace it mostly because it creates an autonomous population that can engage in uncontrolled, un-directed activities like transporting food or patients or medicine or goods or livestock, etc...
Freedom is messy and chaotic and must be eliminated to create a worldly paradise - that is the ultimate goal of a centrally directed energy plan. The freedom produced by gasoline is dangerous to the Utopian goals of leftists. A population chained to windmills and solar panels is a population chained to the State and subject to the caprice of nature. That way lies tyranny and starvation.
Will oil disappear as the primary source of energy for humanity? YES!! it is inevitable that one technology yields to a better one. Is that better technology dependent on warm breezes and pleasant days? NO!! the inevitable replacement for oil will cause the same people who worship the wind and the sun to fret, complain, worry and attempt to destroy it.
The next energy revolution may likely be fusion power, you know THE H BOMB
H---O----R----R----O----R-----S!!!!!!! you mean that we will live in the shadow of the bomb and bake our bread with the evil weapons of mass murder you Americans love so much, blah blah blah.
It is adorable how enviro-mentals trumpet their understanding of science yet little things like economics and chemistry confuse them all to heck.
Wind is not the best form of power generation, though you will note that the wind is generally stronger when cold and wet.
Solar panel technology has increased phenomenally, now they only need light to generate.
Oil is one of the least efficient energy sources. Who are these Kochs that you seem obsessed by?
There will probably never be batteries to replace oil. Then technology is finding ways of generating and storing electricity without the use of batteries
Oil is heavily subsidised. Nuclear power is heavily subsidised.
Though a leftie I have never argued that oil can easily be replaced by anything. In fact it is the fact that oil is not easily replaced that makes me want to conserve it for essential purposes, the fact that doing so will help to conserve the planet is a plus point.
Tell me, why is driving on speed restricted roads any better for you than driving at the same resricted speed in an energy efficient gas engined car?
This is the thing that really tees me off about deniers, they have to resort to silly impractical ideas! The only alternative to gas guzzlers is not wind mills.
Now you are really just ranting, whilst demonstrating your own lack of understanding of even simple concepts.
"Oil is one of the least efficient energy sources."
Interesting comment, but it needs fleshed out just a bit. On what are you basing the efficiency? $$ to construct? $$ to operate? Land (always valuable) vs KW produced? Length of transmission lines? Energy needed for construction or production vs what is produced? Requirements for supplemental sources (to provide energy when the wind doesn't blow, sun doesn't shine, etc.)? Expected lifespan of the plant, farm, etc.?
Energy input in relation to energy output.
Not sure it's true, then, if you include energy of construction and maintenance. For a given output, oil plants are about the cheapest we have and doubly so when auxiliary power requirements are added to the mix.
After all, if you built your plant on the site of wells and refinery the energy of those would be provided by the power plant, giving a net energy operating cost of zero just as wind and solar are.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot more effort put into fusion - I think that is the way of the future. Bottle up the energy of the H bomb and use it to make electricity.
If you could only run your car at the source of the power . . .
I liken fusion to blasting your kitchen with a flame thrower to boil the kettle.
That is a shame. There are breakthroughs in fusion power coming. I will drive anything that does what my 4400 pound 5.0 litre V-8 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor does. I do not care about the fuel source. There are no fuels that will do what gasoline does. 100 gallons of gasoline will take me from my home to my son's apartment in California at 80 mph with the air conditioning running while stopping every 400 miles to refuel at $57 dollars and 5 minutes per stop. Match that and give me the comfort, quiet, agility, speed, acceleration, safety, durability and reliability at the same price and I will drive a car fueled by unicorn tears - it is all the same to me. The reality is that nothing does what gasoline does. Yet. Fuel cells, fusion or lithium air batteries(if they can ever be made rechargeable) might suffice, if the aforementioned conditions can be met, otherwise I will keep my gasoline eating steel behemoth, thank you very much.
Now I understand why you are such a staunch denier!
How quickly this has descended into school yard banter.
I find it easier to address people on their own level.
You still haven't answered my question (too busy with school boy rhetoric no doubt) It is accepted than man influences climate on a local level. What is the mechanism that prevents man from having a global effect?
I gave you an answer. Stop breathing is the best thing environmental true believers can to do stop global falderol and local silliness. The flawed assumption is that profound and lasting changes in the global system can be affected through the gasoline engine and not the natural cycles of the local star. There are significant changes in every planet of the solar system with every change in the solar cycle.
Flawed and manipulated computer models do not a climate change make.
So you either can't or won't answer my question!
Why would that be? Couldn't be because you can't could it?
There is no assumption that profound and lasting changes can be affected by the ICE and not natural cycles. That would be absurd. That man is overloading natural systems is not absurd.
All the efforts of all the people on the planet could NEVER off set the natural cycles of the Earth's oceans of water and air. The replacement for the oil economy is most certainly coming, but it will be no government action that heralds it. Just as wood gave way to coal and coal to oil, oil will yield in its turn to the next energy. What will that be? Currently it is all speculation.
But they do off set the natural cycles, only a blind man could fail to see it.
Really, what is the natural temperature of the Earth? Is it some how a fixed thing? What about the jet stream, is its location fixed? How about thermohaline circulation, is it a fixed thing?
The history of everything is change and chaos. If you want to control the chaos, than you better prepare to be the tyrant.
The problem isn't blindness. The problem is the conceit of the contemporary. It is the ridiculous belief that the most significant generation in the history of the world is the current one.
As if that heat wave in Cali wasn't enough proof...literally.... So when later in the century we face even bigger climate change issues does this mean I get to laugh at half of this nation? (rhetorical, obviously *laughs*). Why do they think that scientists have been trying to get into space travel? It's because they're aware of the issue that is climate change that will threaten the human race in the near future. It may not be much of an issue now (MAYBE), but in, say, the next few centuries or so, it will be. And even if (key word: if) it doesn't become an issue in the next 50 to 100 years, overpopulation certainly will.
Didn't you know the entire population of the world would only have 4.75 square feet of room each....
if you made them all stand in Rhode Island at the same time!
There is a prediction that in the near future, the world will become too overpopulated for us all to live on. Look at India and China. They have more people living there than everywhere else in the world combined (and compared to the rest of the world, even India and China are incredibly small in comparison to the rest of the world).
I read about this here: http://futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/21stcentury.htm
Most of the predictions they've made about this year have been all but accurate, so I do trust what they're saying, but nonetheless I'm still wary about what I read here. Never a bad thing to be too cautious.
There's also this site: http://www.worldometers.info/
It's a site with real world stats about the population of the Earth, among other things.
Then there's that estimate of the world pop reaching 8 billion by 2024. If that's not enough proof, I don't know what is.
How is 8 billion over population? You can fit the entire population of the world in the United States with a population density less than New Jersey - by the way New Jersey has large tracts of farm land and some rugged wilderness. Population is not the problem. The problem is the distribution of liberty and prosperity - these tend to cause populations to level off.
That's not even my point tho?
I was giving an example as to how quickly the population is rising. Don't you think it's a little unnatural for their to be 8 billion people in such a short time? And get this, by the end of the century, there may be up to 11bn people in the world, maybe even more. When the world is overpopulated, resources become scarce. By saying that overpopulation isn't the problem--like literally, why do you think that the US and the Middle East are scrambling trying to grab as much oil as they can get from each other?
Also, if you think there's a lot of space on Earth for that many people to live, this article would like to have a word with you: http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if- … ived-like/
The entire world in less than the size of the United States and you find that disturbing? Is the USA the world to you? It is merely a tiny portion of a much greater whole. Populations level off as countries become free and therefore, prosperous. No worries.
Not sure what this actually means. The number one supplier of Oil to the US is ... THE US!!!
Dude, you literally just proved my point. That's exactly why the Middle East is on our arses.
And anyway, if overpopulation wasn't an issue, we wouldn't even be discussing this rn. Climate change can only happen when there's too much CO2 emissions, and CO2 is emitted by overuse of coal, oil and gas.
Look at how little CO2 was up in the air before the industrial revolution. Now fast forward some 2 or 3 centuries later, and take a look at how badly the air is polluted. It's because of human overuse of gas to run our cars, oil that some idiots dump in the rivers (and sometimes accidentally too), and how we use coal to run factories.
This is all because of overpopulation. Too many people are using these resources because the more people there are, the less resources there are to go around. And so everyone's trying to get some.
And what happens when there's too much CO2? The climate gets warmer, and when the climate gets warmer, ice giants like Antarctica, Alaska, Russia, Siberia, etc. start seeing a lot of ice caps melting. And when so much ice from so many places in the world starts melting, sea levels rise. And when sea levels rise, what happens to cities that are along the coast? That's right. They start getting flooded.
Point is really is that climate change can only happen when there's too much CO2. The proof? Go to any big city and you'll notice how hilariously smoggy it is. Or, hell, you could even do a simple google search and compare the smog from before the Industrial Revolution to rn. It's not rocket science folks.
So the answer to humanities actual woes is to destroy the energy source that drives the world economy on the outside chance that non-existent woes may occur if all the dire predictions based in marginal computer modeling are correct. I will take the actual over Jean Dixon or the daily horoscopes any day.
Your missing the point.
I'm not saying we need to get rid of it. I'm justifying why its wrong for half of this nation to think climate change is a hoax. It's stupid.
Bogus figures, conspiracies to conceal results, manipulation of data to create desired outcomes, shifting reference points, continual redefining of terms, rejecting all contrary evidence, failure to establish experimental parameters, refusal to test hypothesis through identifying predictable events.
Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax because it fails as science - experimentally and ethically.
This is a gigantic planet and we are the size of ants on the face of it. How could we affect the climate of the globe? Have you ever seen how small little cities are when riding above them in a jet plane?
Have you seen the huge expanses of open free land in between those little tiny clusters of cities?
- compared to the size of the Earth, we are very teensy weensy. !
Ma'am, it's not a matter of humans affecting the earth. It's a matter of the cars we drive in, the coal that is burnt in factories that goes up into the air, and all the oil we use that ends up going into the ocean at some point. It's the CO2 that comes from it that affects the Earth.
Though I do appreciate your innocent and lithe thinking, hehe.
If everyone who believes that CO2 is the real culprit then they should remove themselves from the problem, entirely, thoroughly. That would solve the problem. Stop everything that produces CO2, including breathing - exhalation by oxygen breathers is a major contributor to the dreaded and deadly CO2.
humans breathe out about one gigaton of CO2 per year. burning fossil fuels releases about 50 times that much. check your facts. also, humans are in equilibrium with living plants, which consume CO2. burning fossil fuels distorts the natural balance. your theories sound good until they are looked into.
Humans and all the things they keep as pets, prevent from dying by depredation and disease or raise as food? Perhaps your 50 times as much isn't quite so accurate a fact.
Global warming believers shouldn't look to closely at scientific theories.
And yet tiny as they are, ants can bring down edifices many many time their own size.
The O.P.'s even a little slanted , As if ALL scientist's agree that this global warming is the absolute truth ! And that's my only point , never more does everyone , especially scientists , agree on any one thing . Show me two scientists' that say global warming is going to destroy the world , I'll show you two that disagree . And before you attack me , my feeling is that I am not all sure- because they are not all sure ! So you know more than the scientific Community ?
This is becoming a habit!
I too am not sure, unlike those who definitely see climate change as some sort of hoax with no other proof than their gut feelings, but because I am not sure I would rather err on the side of caution and actively work to reduce carbon emissions.
You and I differ on so many things. I do think there is climate change, always has been, always will be. I do not think that human activity trumps the natural cycles of the Sun and the Earth. I do not think that carbon is the culprit. I do think that if we are to continue to prosper during changes in climate we had better have a powerful, flexible and responsive economic system operating. That system currently runs on petroleum. In a hundred years it could be running on fusion power or something more, or less, exotic.
Of one thing I am certain, we had better be aggressive in the spread of liberty and prosperity or any number of calamities will undo us all.
by emievil7 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is...
by Holle Abee8 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by My Esoteric7 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by Tumbletree6 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
Could it be that all this Ebola hysteria is just another hoax?After all, with scientists trying to trick us with this climate change crap and trying to convince us that vaccines really work, seems to me that we can't...
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.