Global warming is a total myth

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
29 posts Page 1 of 2
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Oh wait, no it's not!

Island vanishes under the sea

An island in the Bay of Bengal, claimed for years by both India and Bangladesh, appears to have vanished beneath rising seas.

Scientists in Calcutta say satellite images show the island is now fully under water.

It is known to the Indians as New Moore Island and to the Bangladeshis as South Talpatti Island.

There has never been a permanent settlement there as the island only ever reached two metres above sea level.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2855435.htm
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


how do you know it didnt sink into the sea like atlantis?

it wont be long before the island is a myth, just like global warming. :P
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


how did Atlantis sink into the sea ??

The oceans where much lower 10 000 years ago than today , you know..
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


it was all those quartz power crystals, they made it too heavy. :P
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


Marsoups wrote :
how did Atlantis sink into the sea ??

The oceans where much lower 10 000 years ago than today , you know..


no idea. ive just heard rumours. :P

kayhat wrote :
it was all those quartz power crystals, they made it too heavy. :P


lol
Galactic Monkey
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:03 pm


I don't doubt global warming. Question is, what's causing it? Human activity? Or natural processes?

It looks as though Earth is not the only planet undergoing global warming, in fact, 4 other planets are as well, and NASA says it's the Sun that's causing it.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1980998/_four_other_planets_experiencing_global.html?cat=9

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

in the mean time, this gives our governments a nice excuse to create a sense of crisis and implement the measures deemed necessary, such as carbon trading, new taxes and to legitimize the chemtrailing (yes legitimize as it has been going on above our heads for many years, but now they want us to to accept it as a fact).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1168637/Obama-pollution-particles-stratosphere-deflect-suns-heat-desperate-bid-tackle-global-warming.html

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/chemtrails/pp_geo_eng_2009_04_08.php
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


Galactic Monkey wrote :
I don't doubt global warming. Question is, what's causing it? Human activity? Or natural processes?

It looks as though Earth is not the only planet undergoing global warming, in fact, 4 other planets are as well, and NASA says it's the Sun that's causing it.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1980998/_four_other_planets_experiencing_global.html?cat=9

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html


These first two articles are just opinionated editorial pieces.
How can you tell? By the use of terms like, 'can finally be laid to rest', 'AGW simply doesn’t pass the smell test.' and ' this silly theory that our puny SUVs and power plants are causing earth to warm up'
The third one is a little more balanced in its views, though none of the URLs link to actual scientific studies, just more unsubstantiated waffle, so I would doubt the accuracy of its claims.

There are a myriad of reviewed papers that state that although the Sun does have an effect on temperature, the overall global warming over the past 50 years is too great of an increase to be attributed to solar radiation alone. From the two latest studies, one attributes a 14% and the other, a 7% component of the total warming that we have experienced is due to the sun.

Read their conclusions for yourself:


Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf


Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B


Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.abstract

Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full


Galactic Monkey wrote :
in the mean time, this gives our governments a nice excuse to create a sense of crisis and implement the measures deemed necessary, such as carbon trading, new taxes


Assuming this is happening, how else are are the governments of the world meant to pay for the development and manufacture and then subsequent roll out of new energy technologies? The problem requires capital. Capital is either supplied through private investment in the market place (Carbon Trade) or through a direct tax on population (Carbon Tax). Now which would you prefer, because they are the only options. There is no magical third since we don't live in a dictatorship.

We pay taxes for roads, hospital, social security, the military. Somehow society having to foot the bill so that our children don't live in a polluted shitpit of ecological collapse doesn't sit right with people??

Galactic Monkey wrote :
and to legitimize the chemtrailing (yes legitimize as it has been going on above our heads for many years, but now they want us to to accept it as a fact).


I'm assuming your referring to the use of Sulfur Dioxide? Yeah that's a fucking terrible idea. As something of a last resort measure, here's hoping it doesn't happen and people wake up!
Last edited by ionized on Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


Galactic Monkey wrote :
I don't doubt global warming. Question is, what's causing it? Human activity? Or natural processes?

It looks as though Earth is not the only planet undergoing global warming, in fact, 4 other planets are as well, and NASA says it's the Sun that's causing it.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1980998/_four_other_planets_experiencing_global.html?cat=9

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

in the mean time, this gives our governments a nice excuse to create a sense of crisis and implement the measures deemed necessary, such as carbon trading, new taxes and to legitimize the chemtrailing (yes legitimize as it has been going on above our heads for many years, but now they want us to to accept it as a fact).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1168637/Obama-pollution-particles-stratosphere-deflect-suns-heat-desperate-bid-tackle-global-warming.html

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/chemtrails/pp_geo_eng_2009_04_08.php


Those links are a load of codswallop. I dare you to find me one link on NASA site (which excludes a wanky, biased newspapers interpretation) that says the sun is causing global warming at the moment. Those papers have taken things out of the scope we should be looking in.

Trends have been that the sun has been cooling over the last 50 years.

Read this link dude http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm






If these don't convince you perhaps a dip in the Yangtze might ;)
dranged
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:44 pm


ionized wrote :
Galactic Monkey wrote :
and to legitimize the chemtrailing (yes legitimize as it has been going on above our heads for many years, but now they want us to to accept it as a fact).


I'm assuming your referring to the use of Sulfur Dioxide? Yeah that's a fucking terrible idea. As something of a last resort measure, here's hoping it doesn't happen and people wake up!


No dude, I think he's talking about the vast right wing conspiracy
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


While having nothing to do with contrails or chemtrails, I found these amazing images of a recent volcanic eruption taken from the ISS. The white cloud is condensed water vapor caught in the plume.

Link to the article here http://contrailscience.com/a-very-unusual-contrail/comment-page-1/#comment-44359


Image

Image

Image

silly the kid
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:26 pm


Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm

Interesting reflections.
Marsoups
Posts: 1368
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 3:57 pm


Trouble is, teh ABC supports openess...

Yet, the big media , Rupert Murchock etc. empire, only publish articles denying climate change...They favour a certain opinion...

It's so astounding how many Aussies think it's all a hoax etc.. Unbelievable.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


silly the kid wrote :
Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm

Interesting reflections.



Interesting collection of talks, thanks for posting. :)
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


Marsoups wrote :
Trouble is, teh ABC supports openess...

Yet, the big media , Rupert Murchock etc. empire, only publish articles denying climate change...They favour a certain opinion...

It's so astounding how many Aussies think it's all a hoax etc.. Unbelievable.


And?

The earth's climate has been changing way before the likes of us were produced by the earth, and will continue to change long after we're gone.

I'm skeptical of the amount of resources we're planning to put in to stop climate change, which may or may not change things for the better. I think we're best off putting in more energy into researching and developing alternative energy schemes, rather then these obscure proposals for climate change.
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


I now understand after years of faith in man made climate change that there is no hard science to prove it's existence. This is due to research conducted after discussions with several of you lot.

Thing is, the data being inconclusive, what if it's true?

It's a form of Pascal's Wager really, in that if it's true, and collectively we agree with it, then there is nothing to lose, and the survival or our species to gain.

Might add that my environmental credentials are sketchy right now as I have some delicious tuna sashimi in my mouth as I write this.
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


^Pretty much everyone's environmental credentials are sketchy one way or another. And climate change will always be with us whether it's human influenced or not. Probably time people started getting used to the fact that water front real estate is transitory just like everything else and started working out how to adapt to it. A bit of genetic modification may be the easiest way out for the species.
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


We'll always find a way to screw up things one way or another, as long as humans survive! The only sensible decision to stop manmade climate change is to destroy the human race! Then the planet is safe again, of course. :mrgreen:
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


^Safe?
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


For anything not human, yes. :mrgreen:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


kayhat wrote :
I'm skeptical of the amount of resources we're planning to put in to stop climate change, which may or may not change things for the better.


That is because you are a collossal fucking moron.

herbsandspices wrote :
Thing is, the data being inconclusive, what if it's true?

It's a form of Pascal's Wager really, in that if it's true, and collectively we agree with it, then there is nothing to lose, and the survival or our species to gain.


Exactly. If it's true and we do nothing, we're fucked. If it's true and we act, we will not be fucked.
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


venatrix wrote :
That is because you are a collossal fucking moron.


Oh snap? :mrgreen:
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


herbsandspices wrote :
I now understand after years of faith in man made climate change that there is no hard science to prove it's existence. This is due to research conducted after discussions with several of you lot.


Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but from what I've read there is considerable evidence to support a consensus of CO2 being a major contributing factor. I'm not sure what you mean by hard science either. The field itself relatively is new and developing mainly in response to the problem. As a multi disciplinary science, it applies hard scientific laws to the complexities of the climatic system to reach its conclusions.


herbsandspices wrote :
It's a form of Pascal's Wager really, in that if it's true, and collectively we agree with it, then there is nothing to lose, and the survival or our species to gain.



That's not actually true. We do have a lot to loose if we do something about it. The economic implications are massive to both developed and developing countries. Its a common argument that 'we should just do something for the hell of it'. The time frame that action needs to be taken to avert a tipping point, ie: somewhere between 20-40 years, is incredibly short and requires massive re-allocation of funding as well as a large psychological change on the behalf of the population. Fixing this problem will mean kissing goodbye to the society we live in now. Not saying we shouldn't do it, but people need to be aware of what they are agreeing to.
silly the kid
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:26 pm


If it's true is a totally separate issue to what should be done about it.

Centralised government tax funded schemes = massive fuckup's and corruption, cost blowouts lack of accountability, loss of localised adaptability.
e.g in Oz the recent roof insulation scheme farce, the Northern Territory home renovation scheme, the public school building scheme.

A global government controlled carbon scheme has the potential to be the most monumental fuckup ever - imagine multiplying the above scenario's exponentially. Imagine politicians of the world trying to agree on something of this scale!?

Increasing taxes dampens the economy by reducing people's take home expendible pay and making it harder for businesses to make enough profit to continue operating. If energy bills go up significantly loads of businesses will simply go under leading to more unemployment. Low to middle income homes may not be able to afford their bills and then would be without power. Tax revenue needed to fund the whole thing would go down if businesses close and people lose their jobs. The very wealthy will simply shift their assets elsewhere to avoid paying higher taxes.

The potential taxation needed to implement any such system could be staggering. And just like in the US with their recent health care bill, the process of securing votes for the bills to implement the scheme will inevitably involve payback obligations for various side-interests that costs loads of money but have nothing too do with the carbon issue. This would increase the taxation needed.

The whole thing could so easily be a massive flop that stifles the economy at a time when there are already genuine fears of a global depression.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


silly the kid wrote :
Increasing taxes dampens the economy by reducing people's take home expendible pay and making it harder for businesses to make enough profit to continue operating. If energy bills go up significantly loads of businesses will simply go under leading to more unemployment. Low to middle income homes may not be able to afford their bills and then would be without power. Tax revenue needed to fund the whole thing would go down if businesses close and people lose their jobs. The very wealthy will simply shift their assets elsewhere to avoid paying higher taxes.



Not only is the cost to develop the new energy infrastructure going to cause significant economic headaches but everything from the amount of food we produce to overnight international air flight is based around the fact we use relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. As the implementation begins I can imagine further disruptions to the economy. Imagine the governments botched home insulation scheme but on a much larger scale. I agree with what you are saying also about the feedback on effect of revenue being cut back if the economy was suffer too. However if there was a new energy 'boom' there could also be job creation in the manufacturing and installation of such technologies.

silly the kid wrote :
The potential taxation needed to implement any such system could be staggering. And just like in the US with their recent health care bill, the process of securing votes for the bills to implement the scheme will inevitably involve payback obligations for various side-interests that costs loads of money but have nothing too do with the carbon issue. This would increase the taxation needed.

The whole thing could so easily be a massive flop that stifles the economy at a time when there are already genuine fears of a global depression.


Both good points and one wonders how we are going to pull ourselves out of the economic mockery we are in aswell as address one of the largest ecological issues of our times.

I've posted this talk up before in another thread but it really is quite good so I'll post it again.

Paul Gilding talks about the fundamental limits being reached within the earths ecosystems as they collide with the consumer model of economics that we are now dependent on. He also proposes that the situation will be so dire by the time we actually start to fix it that we will be presented with either civilizational collapse or social and economic transformation. Obviously we will fix it but the scenario he envisions is quite interesting.

http://www.usyd.edu.au/podcasts/2009/paul_gilding.mp3
29 posts Page 1 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests