Global Warming: True or a Hoax?

[pelaut]

Manzana, Cobraboy, Rafael: thank you for reasoned argument.

GW? Why should we care anymore than the Global Cooling scare the same bunch gave us for the same reasons a generation ago? Or when water was running out by 1965, or when oil was running out by 1984, etc., etc., etc. All true, all not imminent, and all malleable by Nature of which we are an important part.

It's ironic that the Radical Left a-theists twist science to create pseudo religions to gain power over others through fear, through periodic Inquisitions and by playing on the human needs of Stasis and Adherence (to groups).

Stasis???? Another name for death and Kelvin degree zero. Nature thrives on change. Nature IS change. It's why Greenland shall again be green some day, and the Danes can return.

[cobraboy]

Manzana has nailed it. GW is primarily politics wrapped in science.

GW is a secular religion.

I see nobody here has had the 'nads to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle.

[Keith R]

Actually Cobraboy, you are wrong. I saw it when it was first posted on YouTube. I was not persuaded -- perhaps because I have being following the science for over 20 yrs.

[jackieboo]

Originally Posted by sjh

the problem with the gaia hypothesis is that it attributes personifies what is little more than a giant system of living creature with no long term plan or goal.. The idea goes so far as to assign a gender to it. that aside, the gaia concept/religious belief does promote a globally responsible lifestyle.

most biologists would propose that all living systems reproduce until they reach an upper limit imposed by the effects of stress on the environment. Disease, fighting, starvation are some of the results. Humans are in one of three states, growing to the point of disaster, in a state of disaster, or using intelligence to find a steady state.

Although there are those that would consider the GH a religion my view is that the ‘system’ makes since.

Why does it make since? Because everything on this planet has basically the same cycle. Take a rock for example; it has a beginning and an end, although the cycle may take several billion years to complete the cycle. Then take organic matter, also a beginning and an end, just much, much faster. Finally take the earth as a whole and apply the same principle that the earth had a beginning and will eventually have an end.

If everything on this planet and in the known solar system has the same basic cycle how can anyone dispute that there isn’t cause and affect? Hence my point that humans are causing global warming and the affect is that the earth is taking measures to correct the problem.

As far as the earth being a conscious living being that is a topic best left to philosophers and theologians.

What is fact is that humans are the ultimate narcissists in that we believe that we are the beginning and the end of all reality when in actuality we are just a tiny blimp on the earth’s time radar.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Actually Cobraboy, you are wrong. I saw it when it was first posted on YouTube. I was not persuaded -- perhaps because I have being following the science for over 20 yrs.

Keith, I wouldn't expect a True Believer to accept anything but the ordained scripture.

Specifically, What part of The Great Global Warming Swindle do you ~scientifically~ disagree with? Not a generality as you stated, but specifics?

But to say those who are not as easily persuaded because we see the REAL agenda are "deniers" is also incorrect. To say the "deniers" don't understand the science is baloney.

Reasonable, educated men can disagree.

My personal intellectual journey re: GW is-

1) The earth is warming. .7 degrees C in the last 50 years. That is NOT a whole lot. The hottest year recorded is NOT the recent ones as the alarmists claim, they were in the mid 30's. I disagree with the apocalyptic future vision the Alarmists paint: 20' sea level rises, etc. IMO, the current increase is marginal.

2) CO@ being THE culprit is debatable. Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, a generator of oxygen. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere; the increase is also marginal. There really isn't convincing science that CO2 is the total cause.

3) Man is not the primary cause of CO2.

4) The sun is the PRIMARY cause of changes in temperature on earth. Mars and Venus are going through temperature increases today, just as the earth is, and I'm not aware of one SUV or evil capitalist on either.

5) The cost/benefit analysis of Kyoto is extremely poor, and the final result is nearly ~zero~.

6) The earth has gone through thousands of heat/cool cycles in it's many billion year existance, of which man has only been a part for a tiny fraction of it's existance. It will continue to go through cycles.

7) The earth is NOT in it's solar orbit. It wobbles, tilts, moves closer and farther from the heat source, the sun.

8) The sun goes through solar cycles that effects the earth's temperature. Always has, always will.

9) Marxism/redistribution of wealth will do nothing to prevent GW. All solutions for GW tend to be control of wealth by Marxists to be spent as *They* think it should in the name of GW.

10) I've yet to see a MMGW advocate discussd the complete role the sun plays in GW. Until they do, their science is bajamama. I don't buy bajamama.

11) Man should be a better caretaker of the earth. I try doing my share, and think everyone should.

12) MMGW advocates look toward the wealthy developed economies to change. Little, if any, "pressure" is applied to the worse environmental offenders: China (who has surpassed the US in CO2 emissions, and getting much worse), India, and much of the Third World. Heck, Santo Domingo has a far worse air problem than the entire Philly/NYC/Boston corridor does.

13) There IS no "consensus" on the MMGW science. Science does not work on consensus. Politics does. Mixing science and politics has bad mojo. Ask Hitler and his "science".

14) The totality of the "science" is far too voluminous to fully discuss on ANY BBS with any credibility.

15) There is NOTHING that can be presented to a True Believer to change their mind, so why even try it? Waste of bandwidth and electrons.

16) In the early discussions about "climate change" (Global Cooling at the time), I was an early adopter. I was an early adopter of MMGW in the early discussions. But by keeping my mind open and applying a good portion of common sense, I began to see the True Believers, almost to a man, were also anti-capitalists. When probing past the words, I saw the agenda. I saw the junk science. I saw how they did NOT include the single biggest component in the argument: changes in the sun, the 100% heat source of the earth. I changed my opinion; at least I'm honest in my assessments.

17) The genesis of the IOPCC is political. Once again, mixing politics and science is not a good idea.

18) The MMGW advocates have created a cottage industry; promoting it insures continued employment for the True Believers. The "deniers" find themselves quickly unemployed.

19) The very fact the "science" is so polarized and politicized should show folks that the science is badly incomplete.

I am not a True Believer. But I refuse to be bullied and put down as a lesser intellect by them, either. I will not change their minds, nor will they change mine.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Jacobo

What is fact is that humans are the ultimate narcissists in that we believe that we are the beginning and the end of all reality when in actuality we are just a tiny blimp on the earth’s time radar.

Dude, a real narcissist would be so arrogant to think that man is so powerful and important to be able to actually change the climate and weather.

Go look at Mt. St. Helen's. When it blew up (I lived very close by at the time) the devastation was exponentially beyond anything GW could create. Beyond a moonscape. Now less than 30 years later, it's living again. And 30 years isn't even a fraction of a blink of the eye in terms of geological time.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Specifically, What part of The Great Global Warming Swindle do you ~scientifically~ disagree with? Not a generality as you stated, but specifics?

The part where the scientists interviewed tell us that they were deliberately misrepresented and their facts cast in a different light than what they portrayed.

[Keith R]

Cobraboy, did you read my prior posts carefully? If so, then you might wish to reconsider the "true believer" label. I have my doubts and have detailed them, and I do not advocate "marxism/redistribution of wealth." You are far too quick with accusations, labels and straw men.

You say that you refuse to be bullied and put down, and yet throughout this thread you have sought to bully anyone who has disagreed with you and ridiculed them. I think perhaps you need to start practicing what you preach.

Are you implying (or perhaps stating baldly, I am unsure) that I am a "lesser intellect"? Even if not me, can you honestly say this is not a form of put down?

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Cobraboy, did you read my prior posts carefully? If so, then you might wish to reconsider the "true believer" label. I have my doubts and have detailed them, and I do not advocate "marxism/redistribution of wealth." You are far too quick with accusations, labels and straw men.

You say that you refuse to be bullied and put down, and yet throughout this thread you have sought to bully anyone who has disagreed with you and ridiculed them. I think perhaps you need to start practicing what you preach.

Are you implying (or perhaps stating baldly, I am unsure) that I am a "lesser intellect"? Even if not me, can you honestly say this is not a form of put down?

I'm waiting for ~scientific~ specifics that you disagree with from The Great Global Warming Swindle.

YOU may not advocate Marxism as a MMGW advocate, Keith, but the other 90+% do. Consider the company you keep.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

The part where the scientists interviewed tell us that they were deliberately misrepresented and their facts cast in a different light than what they portrayed.

Links, please.

But you don't have any problems with the "facts" presented in Algore's film?