Global Warming is a Fraud

[Chip]

Not to be argumentative, well, yes, to be argumentative since it is my nature, I would like to ask 3 questions since you have examined the evidence.

1. Of the total amount of earth's CO2 emissions, what is the percentage of human contribution of those CO2 emissions?

2. What laws of physics, thermodynamics, or natural science support how the percentage of human emissions can effect global temperatures?

3. Earth is a dynamic, open system with a multitude of feedback loops. Again, using the percentage of human CO2 emissions, describe to me the mechanism or system archetype's that explain Global Warming or Climate Change and how can they be used to predict future CC trends.

I'm not a scientist in the matter.

I'm also not a pseudo scientist egotistically vested in defensively spinning a ubiquitous incomplete set of irrelevant facts with which to "debate" the matter.

I posses a genius IQ with an EQ to match, and I examined the information as an intelligent lay person ...

... I also examined the political dynamics in the matter ...

... The socioeconomic bias ...

... And the psychological state of the two collective mindsets in the debate (about which I am qualified to do) ...

... And I reached my conclusion.

I'm confident in the accuracy of my findings.

The bottom line in the debate does appear to be who will pay for the cleanup of our pollutant waste ... and my qualified guess is that is what motivates your ubiquitous incomplete and thereby irrelevant set of fact-spinning in the matter.

It appears to me that the "anti global warming" side may be stumping for a Darwin Award.

So my question to you is this: since it is way beyond rational conjecture that our excessive pollutant waste is a significant detriment to our planet's health, regardless of which way it effects the temperature, the temperature which is merely a symptom of the problem, not a cause, why not spend whatever money it takes to clean up and prevent this very serious health hazzard?

 

[palerider]

I'm not a scientist in the matter.

I'm also not a pseudo scientist egotistically vested in defensively spinning a ubiquitous incomplete set of irrelevant facts with which to "debate" the matter.

I posses a genius IQ with an EQ to match, and I examined the information as an intelligent lay person ...

... I also examined the political dynamics in the matter ...

... The socioeconomic bias ...

... And the psychological state of the two collective mindsets in the debate (about which I am qualified to do) ...

... And I reached my conclusion.

I'm confident in the accuracy of my findings.

None of which have anything at all to do with the actual mechanism by which the earth's climate operates.

A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.

The bottom line in the debate does appear to be who will pay for the cleanup of our pollutant waste ... and my qualified guess is that is what motivates your ubiquitous incomplete and thereby irrelevant set of fact-spinning in the matter.

Pollution and climate chage are two different things. I am all for cleaning up the environment but not at the expense of economic growth.

It appears to me that the "anti global warming" side may be stumping for a Darwin Award.

Appearances don't mean much unless you can explain them. You say that it appears that humans have some hand in climate change but can offer no explanation as to how it might be happening. Don't feel bad. If I asked those same questions to a PhD meterologist, if he were honest, he woud say that he doesn't know either.

Neither the laws of physics, nor thermodynamics support the idea that the 0.117% that man contributes to atmospheric CO2 has anything, or could have anything to do with global climate change.

So my question to you is this: since it is way beyond rational conjecture that our excessive pollutant waste is a significant detriment to our planet's health, regardless of which way it effects the temperature, the temperature which is merely a symptom of the problem, not a cause, why not spend whatever money it takes to clean up and prevent this very serious health hazzard?

Temperature is not a symptom of the problem. Temperature is the result of a great many influences; none of which has anything to do with pollution.

None of

 

[Chip]

I am all for cleaning up the environment but not at the expense of economic growth.

Yes, that does appear to be the issue, doesn't it.

As I said before, I'm confident in the accuracy of my findings.

 

[palerider]

As I said before, I'm confident in the accuracy of my findings.

And yet, you can't name a law of physics, thermodynamics, or natural science that supports, or corroborates your confident analysis. Don't you find that odd, or at least, suspect?

 

[Pidgey]

Goodness, gracious, you're still at it, aren'tcha', Pale? I've been slummin' other places, but trying to get some serious work done. Anyhow, you might have an easier time with your argument if you include some colorful show-and-tell kinda' like this stuff:

...with the obvious question of how such a pervasive positive OLR anomaly can persist for the three months represented by the graph if CO2 is such a wonderful energy checkvalve (like a roach motel--heat checks in but it can't check out!)?

I'll PM you a link to a thread on another site that you might really enjoy. G'day!

 

[Pidgey]

Well... back to the idea of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) being a fraud, here's an interesting new discovery of an 1800 year record:

http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N53/EDIT.php

Looks like Mann et all (The Hockey Stick) is the "odd man out" in the various records, lending even more credence the idea that it's a bunch of ****.

 

[Pidgey]

By the way, this indicates that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was both global and warmer than today without the benefit of our CO2 level.

 

[Dr.Who]

As unofficial state moderator to this thread I must inform you all that 13 of the last 18 responses have been anti-global warming. The new application of the fairness doctrine demands that I lock this thread to all anti-global warming proponents until a sufficient number of pro-global warming proponents have posted.

 

[invest07]

Even if CO2 levels are rising, it ain't all bad. When CO2 goes up, plants really dig it and take off growing faster and bigger. This means more trees and bigger trees and more oranges and more bread on everyone's table.

Make sure and click the chart below to enlarge. The pink bars represent CO2 levels in 1887 and the blue bars are for 2007. Wheat, citrus and pines seem to love higher concentrations of CO2. If you project this chart a few more decades into the future, we will have ag products out the yin yang. More food and more paper and more lumber and more green stuff everywhere. Could this mean greatly reduced world hunger?

If this is what rising CO2 means, I say BRING IT ON!!!!

 

[Pidgey]

Even if CO2 levels are rising, it ain't all bad. When CO2 goes up, plants really dig it and take off growing faster and bigger. This means more trees and bigger trees and more oranges and more bread on everyone's table.

Make sure and click the chart below to enlarge. The pink bars represent CO2 levels in 1887 and the blue bars are for 2007. Wheat, citrus and pines seem to love higher concentrations of CO2. If you project this chart a few more decades into the future, we will have ag products out the yin yang. More food and more paper and more lumber and more green stuff everywhere. Could this mean greatly reduced world hunger?

If this is what rising CO2 means, I say BRING IT ON!!!!

It's a paradox: More food means more survivors who make more people and therefore... more world hunger!

Put another way: When Yin and Yang have more to eat, Yang tumbles Yin out the yin yang to the tune of more Yinettes and Yanglings.

 

[invest07]

To Pidgey

You know, I never really noticed before that the yin/yang symbol has all sort of sexual connotations.

To reduce your observation to math:
More CO2 = more food = more little yins and yangs to eat the extra food = SOS as before.

 

[invest07]

Al Gore's fraud revealed and defined

Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

"Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Global Warming and Al Gore's actions meet all 5 of these criteria:

1. He has presented global warming as being caused by humans and has stated "the science is settled". The science is far from being settled, as evidenced by the huge amount of material dusputing Gore's pseudoscience.

2. Gore can read as well as any of us. He knows the science is not settled.

3. By continuing this charade, he is attempting to convince us of something that is not true: Namely, that the science is settled when it is not.

4. Anyone who has, in any way, shape or form, changed any of their behaviors and has relied on Gore's untruthful statements.

5. We have all suffered injury as result of Gore's fraud. We are all paying carbon taxes in several unseen ways and are about to see those carbon taxes go through the roof with the Black Panther in the White House.

I say we sue Gore. Anyone out there want to join the movement?

 

[dahermit]

Re: Al Gore's fraud revealed and defined

1. He has presented global warming as being caused by humans and has stated "the science is settled". The science is far from being settled, as evidenced by the huge amount of material dusputing Gore's pseudoscience.

2. Gore can read as well as any of us. He knows the science is not settled.

3. By continuing this charade, he is attempting to convince us of something that is not true: Namely, that the science is settled when it is not.

I watched his video recently. What he said, and what you do not say, is "...the overwhelming majority of scientists have reached the conclusion that global warming is man made..." And then he gave his sources and the numbers stated by those sources.

 

[Hobo1]

Re: Al Gore's fraud revealed and defined

I watched his video recently. What he said, and what you do not say, is "...the overwhelming majority of scientists have reached the conclusion that global warming is man made..." And then he gave his sources and the numbers stated by those sources.

The problem with this statement is that an "overwhelming majority of scientists" do not have a full grasp of all the available data and are not capable of rendering an opinion. In reality, the entire field of science which studies global climatology is relatively small. Unlike the human genome project which had a central clearing house for research, global climatology is still unorganized, and in its infancy. No doubt a lot of research has been conducted in specific areas or on a global level. But we have yet to develop enough fundamental knowledge of climate to know how the entire global system interacts with one another.

We must produce a computer model, including the proven mathematical formulas, which can validate and correlate with all the information collected to date. Until such a conclusive model is produced, then no reputable scientist should draw a conclusion that is indisputable. Remember, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. He may not even capable of understanding exactly those multitudes of scientists are saying. Suppose a scientist says, "We have plenty of anecdotal proof that global warming is man-made." That is NOT the same thing as saying "I have conclusive proof that global warming is man-made." Subtle difference in wording; huge difference in meaning.