The earth has been cooling for the last decade plus and yet the CO2 level has increased.
That should be enough but the fact that even the politicians know it is a hoax.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
You can clearly see that it is totally a political issue, not a scientific one. All the solutions are political. You never see any scientific solutions.
Over 31,000 scientists in the US alone agree. (see petitionproject.com)
Many scientists have lost their jobs because they do not support AGW.
Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Clim... (Go to this site and you will see a lot of comprehensive reports on the AGW hoax.)
Nobody here has come up with an argument supporting the hoax idea, they've just provided some reasons why they think global warming is unlikely. The hoax concept stands up to about ten seconds of analysis. Is this some ingenious scam that AL Gore has devised? Are greenies all over the world in some kind of secret plan to create a green world government? Have tens of thousands of other scientists tacitly understood this wink nudge stuff and fabricated data, data which is independently consistent with each others research? Have they greedily gone along with it knowing they will receive funding for their projects? You're giving them too much credit by even acknowledging the hoax idea. It's the most embarrassing of all the conspiracy theories out there.
As for your second comment it's pretty juvenile, but obviously warming isn't the real concern which is why it's generally called climate change these days.
The most compelling argument that I have seen supporting that global warming is just a hoax is in the number of people who know so absolutely that global warming is just a hoax. Check it out yourself-just go up to random people and ask. Go to the local convenience store and ask the clerk at the counter...or the fast food guy at the driveup window at McDonald's. Stop some guys in a pickup truck in the Walmart parking lot. Go to the food court at the mall. Stop at a Tarot place in the old part of town...or try a seance and ask the dead. Wander into an executive office building and ask the security guard, then ask to speak with the CEO of the company. Don't just rely on what you read on the internet because there are a LOT of people who claim to have scientific credentials that you can't verify...check for yourself by actually talking to people who KNOW beyond a doubt what the facts are. Most of them, when pressed, will even tell you that they are TRUE facts that they know regardless of what anyone else says.
We should not care if the planet gets a little warmer, just like needn't care about gay people unless and until we find out that our son or daughter is gay and then we should care. Or we shouldn't worry about the homeless or hungry as long as we have homes and are well fed. And we shouldn't care about sexually abused children unless we were sexually abused as children ourselves.
Oh wait...that last one isn't a very good analogy. But some people can skate through life without caring about anything if they want to, their minds completely uncluttered by anything that may affect your fellow man...or harm an innocent child. The fact that a life lived like that disgusts other people has no bearing on the skaters.
Are we or are we not emerging from an Ice age? If in fact we are then we could assume we would experience warming, am I getting ahead of you here?. They taught us about our past ice age back in grade school, before electricity (or was it Independence?). If in fact we are emerging from an ice age that means (ignoring for the moment all the armloads of scientific printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are in fact warming and have been for several thousand years deviations in the climate history charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline ocean current anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, a natural function of desalinization due to glacial melting due to natural "warming," The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are causing these Hot/Cold cycles. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. Providing a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 millions of years tells the real story, but we are now faced with arguments based on data going back less than 50,000 years, the Gore fraud, obscuring the long term picture exposed by old accepted scientific climate history methods. How can man have such a profound effect on the climate in only the past 300 years when normal climate cycles established 6 Million years ago are proceeding as scientifically predicted, the projected temperatures and Co2 values in the mean. That man may be contributing to this climate change is obvious, but the EXTENT to which he is contributing is most assuredly in question. No one to date has been able to address that issue with any degree of Certainty, just a lot of unfounded opinion and fear mongering. Several scientific sources sets the percentage of mans contribution to global greenhouse gas at less than 3%, casting some pretty serious doubts that any changes we make in our energy usage will cause any major change in existing Climate conditions, at least in the foreseeable future.
Okay, "hoax" is a little harsh. It wasn't an intentional deception. It was more along the lines of a little white lie to get everybody to moderate their use of gasoline and coal. Then it branched out, and caught fire, so to speak. It is a classic case of "Groupthink". That is a euphemism for "sadistic take over", but it seems appropriate.
Hoax is the wrong word. Santa Claus isn't a hoax, he's a fantasy. I remember my son wanted to believe in Santa Claus so much he refused to believe me until I showed him video of me putting out gifts.
We all care about what happens to the planet, some of us care so much it hurts they're ability to use reason and logic when trying to determine the cause or possible solution even to the point where they're satisfied with a flawed explaination of the cause and a solution that makes them feel good but doesn't come close to making a difference.
Well we could do with some warming, a warmer wetter world would be better for the 7 billion people that live here, more food crops, less energy for heating, deserts receding, yep lets have some warmth.
I hope we don't get the mini ice age that people are talking about.
Humans have only started studying global warming fairly recent. There's evidence that there's cycles of change. No one can prove it's a hoax or absolute truth either.
Is this a multiple answer question?
1) Humans have a less than 1% net effect on GHG warming.
2) CO2 is not a poison and is a natural atmospheric gas (at 150ppm plants don't grow)
3) CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas
4) CO2 has increased 0.00248% as part of our whole atmosphere since 1880
5) Just because the planet is in a warming trend doesn't make it a human caused problem
6) The extra CO2 in our atmosphere creates more biomass in food plants and trees (recent analysis shows a 20%-30% increase in food products)
7) A doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere will only create about a 0.3 degree celsius rise in global temperature. CO2 has limits of physically being able to raise temperatures and most of the temperature rise from CO2 happens in the first 20ppm. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...
Modern warming is not unprecedented. The early 1900s to the mid 1900s experienced a much greater temperature increase (0.45 Celsius) than what we've experience in modern days and CO2 emitted by humans was still relatively low before 1940.
8) Alarmist scientists use a trick when presenting their evidence. They make the graph based on a smaller gradient to show a steeper rise (or fall). I larger gradient (2 degree instead of 2/10ths of a degree) shows a more stable temperature graph. Most all of us have lived through a 40 to 50 degree (F) swing in temperatures.
9) Global mean temperature has fluctuated over the billions of years of this planet. It's not constant. Never has been. Natural Climate Variability (Geological research) in our past has shown that the Arctic was at least 10 degrees Celsius warmer and the Antarctic has also been warmer. Glaciers have been much farther south south (They can't form at latitudes of 20 to 27 degrees north and south of the equator). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogives_(gla...
When you understand the facts about CO2 (instead of listening to unfounded alarmist claims), then you can make a judgment about what is actually happening and make more responsible decisions.
Nobody is saying that we all can't be good stewards of the planet.
Arctic Sea Ice goes through cycles. The Arctic melting as a reason to show climate change/global warming is a scare tactic.
Global Warming is based on the forcing effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The current change of CO2 in our atmosphere from 1880 to our present time is an increase of around 120ppm (a 40% increase).
The actual change in our atmosphere is 0.0012%. If a forced change in our atmosphere is only 0.0012% and the forcing agent (CO2) is something that is already a natural product of our climate system, doesn't that give you a bit of skepticism that people are driving the climate astray?
Human CO2 emissions are responsible for less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas effect at any given time. 99%+ of Climate change therefore, is caused naturally. That's called "Natural Climate Variability". CO2 is not driving temperature rises and history shows the direct opposite. If you ever hear a climate scientist claim that 99% of the climate is driven naturally please let me know. I'd like to hear his explanation of that less than 1% forcing by humans being catastrophic.
Trials nowadays defer heavily to expert witness because the judicial system is for sale. However, if we were to revert to the days of justice (like on Perry Mason) a preponderance of Global Warming evidence would depend on "hard" evidence or on the confession of a tormented conscience. There is a shortage of conscience ("experts" will say anything, depending on the price), and carbon dioxide has nothing to confess. It is a victim, itself, of association with natural forces. It is little more than a member of a crowd at their legitimate work, accused of mob action.
Where are the rising temperatures in the mid-troposphere that can be traced directly to the violent action of carbon dioxide? And, where carbon dioxide was sequestered, the dead bodies (slight warming) continues, or does it? Ozone and methane, those vile accomplices, would show up at the tipping point and create a mass murder. If I was on the jury: not guilty. The judge should dismiss the case for lack of evidence, no commission of a crime even.
Bolted's claim that it hasn't warmed for 17 years is a hoax. All ten warmest years in history happened since then. The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Kano
Why would a warmer world be wet? Saudi Arabia is warm.
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/saud...
And denialists love to talk about how warm 1934 was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
On the other hand, I suppose that a warmer world would be wet.
http://sustainabilitymedia.com/blog/0201...
And even if it's not a hoax, who cares if the planet gets a little warmer.
There are no such arguments, just fossil fuel industry lies.
Spend 10 minutes researching global warming (but using science sites, not anti-science fossil fuel industry deception sites), and you will discover that the average temperature increase is not a concern, but the secondary effects on weather patterns, ecosystems, water cycles, etc.
It is a hoax . The IPCC have agreed that there has been no global warming for the last 17 years .
And read this in yesterdays paper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Moon aliens are blasting the planet with heat causing death rays and they will switch to cooling rays soon so be prepared. I have earmuffs.
There is no good argument for that.
