The more I've looked into Global Warming, the more I'm realizing our human activities have exceedingly little to do with it.

Before you blast me with thousands of links to the tired old "fund my research" rhetoric, please follow this link and, at the very least, take the time to review the video. If you're one of those whose paycheck is funded in large part by the global warming extremism and alarmist rhetoric, I apologize, as I'm not trying to starve your family. Regardless, I'll not respond to anyone who simply rechants the current media frenzy.

But given facts such as 9% and 26% of global warming being caused by CO2, while between 40% and 70(some)% caused by water vapor, along with the fact that the current global warming trend began before the 1940s, while the post-war global ecomonic boom began in the middle to late fifties, and that during the post-war economic boom, lasting four decades, the temp decreased, and didn't rise again until the econominic recession which began in the 1970s, the fact that the Medieval Warm Period lasted three centuries, during which temperatures were higher than they are today, the fact that CO2 levels have been 3 times higher than they are today while temperatures were cooler...

All of these facts are either proven by the geological record or by measured events during modern history.

So why are we still listening to the the global warming alarmists who would have us believe that by spending half the current domestic product of the entire world we might actually reduce worldwide temps a degree or two?

Big freakin' whoop.

I'd rather given half my paycheck to relocating, if it were even necessary.

As mentioned in the video, the Medieval Warm Period was a time of prosperity, with the warmer-than-today climate contributing to significantly increase crop production, including vinyards which flourished in Northern England.

That's a bad thing???

When are all the supposedly "brilliant" scientists going to realize that while we may contribute very slightly to any warming or cooling trend, the planet has gone through many global warming and cooling trends, and will continue to do so, regardless of what we do?

Why spend the first freakin' penny, $0.01, when even spending quadrillions of dollars will have very little effect (less than 10%), compared to serious historical temperature swings that have occurred over the last couple thousand years, yet long before humans were ever capable of having any effect on the world's climate?

When are you going to stop allowing yourselves to be fooled by an over-reactive media fueled by the "this is my ticket to 50 years of global warming research grants!" scientists who're lining their pockets at your expense (taxpayer dollars)?

Rule Numero Uno of Statistics: Correlation does NOT imply causation. The very fact that we've had significantly higher temperatures during record human civilization when CO2 output was well less than 1/100th of what it is today is rather telling. What caused the global warming then? It certainly wasn't CO2. Sunspots? Cosmic radiation? Perhaps water vapor? If so, what caused the increase in water vapor?

Our planet breathes, folks. It's the way of life. Nothing in nature is static. Seasons come, seasons go. Our planet has been both hotter and colder than it is now, both wetter and drier, both more and less teeming with life.

And we're allowing others to convince us that we're somehow ruining the planet because some non-statistical idiots never learned Rule Numero Uno, because the Media is capitalizing on the fact that sensationalism sells advertising, and because most of the American public is unable to discern the difference between sensationalism with a ton of facts attached and true science.

Heck, I was fooled for several years, yet I'm a card-carrying (well, actually, card-burning) member of Mensa.

It takes time to learn all the ins and outs of the global warming debate, regardless of how smart one might be. It's not uncomplex stuff.

But it's not incomprehensible, either.

Please watch the video.

Thank you.

Thread moved from OTB to ATM.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Nice to see you starting with an open mind.

No, I won't download an hour-and-a-quarter-long video!

So, you admit the existence of "thousands" of links to websites that support global warming, and you supply one link to counter the idea. [sarcasm] Well, that's me convinced, already[/sarcasm]

Irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the mass media do overhype the message. This does not change the fact that the message is backed up by a great deal of sound science.

But we haven't changed the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and we have increased the atmospheic content of CO₂ by about 50% in the last hundred years or so. Besides, it is known (hey, this is an astronomy site, and astronomers have known this for decades) that, without all the water vapour and CO₂, the Earth would be very much colder than it is now: probably too cold for life as we now know it to exist.

Source?

Did you take all this from that one video? Did you bother to check any of these figures?

So don't just regurgitate them! Check them and give us the sources!

That's an ad hominem. Calling someone an alarmist does not make it so.

Not so. By creating different economic opportunities (i.e. carbon-neutral technologies and better fuel efficiancy, inter alia), we can preserve our way of life, our economies, and the present sea level.

Precisely.

Eh?

Given the present population of low-lying regions, yes, indeed. Besides, I'm not convinced that the Mediaevel Warm Period was actually significantly warmer in terms of average annual temperature than today.

The planet will continue without us, regardless of what we do. What is at stake here is our way of life, and the proportion opf the Earth's surface available to humanity. I don't recall the figures, but a relatively modest rise in sea level will render very large areas of the Earth's surface underwater. And it only takes a very small rise in average temperature to do this.

Thanks for helping me understand what a penny represents.

The amount spent is irrelevant. It is not a question of spending huge sums of money. It is a question of (a) finding and developing sources of power that do not add CO₂ to the atmosphere; (b) becoming more fuel-efficient; and (c) in the very-long-term, finding fuel sources that do not deplete any natural resources. These things can be achieved using no additional expenditure, but by re-directing the way in which money is spent (for instance, by oil corporations on exploration).

This is slanderous. Those scientists operate to the same standards as scientists all over the world in all fields of endeavour. I am not convinced by the "over-reactive media", I am convinced by sound science.

Why are you not? Why are you convinced into complacency by those same "over-reactive media"?

True, but the Greenhouse effect was first identified in ... erm ... greenhouses, with no dependence on the atmosphere as a whole. CO₂ is known to absorb and re-radiate infra-red at certain wavelengths. It is the only convincing explanation for why greenhouses get so warm.

What prevents it from applying to the atmosphere as a whole?

Tell me: how is what caused warming then relevant to what is causing warming now?

What do you mean, "certainly"?

I think it probably wasn't CO₂, but, as I mention above, then is not now.

No, it doesn't. That is animism. Our planet is a rocky body.

But it is only now that the planet is covered by a "civilisation" of 6 billion individuals, many of whom will lose their homes, land and/or livelihood in the face of rising sea levels. It is only now that a modest rise in sea levels will have an enormous impact on people's lives.

Another ad hominem. Tsk.

Whereas you, my statistical-expert friend, have never learned any chemistry. Or horticulture.

What, and this is news now?

Well, judging from your post, I would agree with this bit. You included.

Then you should know better. Go and look at the original sources. Read about the research that is being done. Don't rely on "over-reactive" media to interpret this for you, find out for yourself. Give the scientists a chance to have their work speak for itself!

Then why have you not?

Overall, I feel this belongs in ATM.

You are ranting, denigrating the work of scientists without backing up your claims, and doing some of the very things you yourself are complaining about. You sound as if you have swallowed the "global warming is hogswash" propaganda hook, line and sinker.

The mainstream science supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming. When you claim to the contrary, you take up the burden of proof. Yet, despite an extraordinarily long post, you present no proof.

So, it comes to this, Mugs: back up what you claim. Check the sources of those figures. Look at the modern state of global climate science. Go and see how far the world's glaciers have retreated. Go and see the Greenland Ice Shelf falling apart (Did you know, a new island was recently discovered off the coast of Greenland? As the ice melted, a new channel was discovered that was completely unknown, dividing the mainland from what was previously thought to be a headland). Go and see the ice shelves around Antarctica falling apart. Go and see the glaciers of Antarctica speeding up due to increased meltwater causing additional lubrication.

Irrespective of how warm or cool the earth was a thousand years ago, our modern global civilisation is very much dependent on a stable climate. It is known that CO₂ causes warming. It is known that human activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ since the Industrial Revolution. Join the dots.

Finally, even if the scientists are all wrong, what harm is there in playing it safe? Where's the harm in being more energy-efficient? Where's the harm in using renewable energy sources?

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

ToSeek pre-empted me, I see.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Bear in mind, Dr. Nigel, that three years ago I was writing Congress about global warming. As recently as three months ago I was still writing them encouraging the use of nuclear power as an alternative to greenhouse gas-emitting coal/oil/natural gas power plants.

I still think that's best, but for differing reasons now than then.

Given the timeline, you've not reviewed the video, so you've not yet accessed the information contained therein (along with the quite numerous interviews with leading climatologists). Please review my original post, particular the part concerning a request for reviewers/responders to view the video.

Since you haven't taken the time to do so, I refuse to waste time responding to your ill-advised replies.

Let me know when you've taken the time to review the video, and I'll take the full time to respond to your derrogatory comments.

NEXT!

Addendum:

It's a 1:13 video, Dr. Nigel, and you posted your half-hour-crafted response just 1:11 minutes since my original post.

Thus, I would remind you of my opening pargraph:

Before you blast me with thousands of links to the tired old "fund my research" rhetoric, please follow this link and, at the very least, take the time to review the video. If you're one of those whose paycheck is funded in large part by the global warming extremism and alarmist rhetoric, I apologize, as I'm not trying to starve your family. Regardless, I'll not respond to anyone who simply rechants the current media frenzy.

Since you're obviously one of those who're more adept at shooting from the hip from your media-fueled opinions, rather, than someone who's open to reviewing less-favorite and non-media-significant information...

NEXT!

PS: Let me know when you've reviewed the video, by responses containing sustained excerpts from the video, and I'll be happy to respond to any subsequent comments.

In the meantime...

NEXT!!!

I've read, and for many years, believed the media rhetoric.

Significant comments based on the video only, please.

...he did clearly say:

This isn't a video-review forum, it's a discussion forum.

Perhaps you could tell us what the arguments are in that video? Being able to write them will help you to show yourself whether you understand them; and will allow them to be debated.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

A few notes from what I've watched so far:

- The Medieval Warm Period is claimed as a wonderful time for everyone, but the only evidence shown is from England.

- The graph showing the cooling during the mid-20th century is ten years old and has been replaced by one showing less cooling. In any case, the cooling is explained by the quantity of particulates in the atmosphere at the time. There are fewer of them now, hence the warming.

And from my research, not directly related to the content of the program:

- The last time this producer did an anti-environmental documentary, Channel 4 had to apologize on the air for some of the content, most notably for misleading some of the scientists interviewed and for editing their interviews in a misleading way.

- Several of the scientists interviewed for this documentary have claimed that their quotes are taken out of context.

I do not know that I will watch the rest of it as it's clear that this is a polemic, not any attempt at an honest treatment.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Shallow

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

You didn't say in the OP. Now I know, so I shall.

It would help if you could share with us what changed your mind...?

If you had read my post, you would see that I don't have the spare bandwidth to download such an enormous video file. At least I had the courtesy to read what you posted before replying.

I did review your original post, and I found it to be without substance.

You made several claims that contradict the mainstream scientific view, but you did not back these up with evidence.

Remember : when you make a claim, you take up the burden of proof.

You made slanderous accusations about climatologists who support the mainstream scientific view, but did not back these up with anything.

You whined a lot about money, but there did not seem to be any substance behind your words.

Since you have not read my replies, how are you placed to comment on them in any way?

As I stated in my first response, I shan't.

This does not seem to have stopped me from shredding your arguments.

If that video is your only source of data, I strongly recommend you check the original sources. Perhaps you could share some references to actual research that supports your view.

BTW, it is hypocritical of you to call my comments derogatory. Not only did I restrict myself to addressing the content of your OP, but you yourself were highly derogatory to the bulk of the world's climatologists.

Hey, how about you start? Start by addressing my critique of your position. Start by looking up the sources of the figures you have quoted. Share the data with the other poor fellows on this board who can't afford to download an enormous video file. Then we shall have some substance around which to form a debate.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

If you take the 5 minutes to read the first couple of paragraphs of my post, or any of my latest (before this one) you will see that I have no intention of downloading such an enormous file to save you the bother of supporting the position you have adopted.

I will reiterate: you made the claims, so you have taken up the burden of proof. Supply some, or recant.
That's an extraordinary leap of logic. And one that, I think you will find, is erroneous. On what evidence do you base the view that my opinion is "media-fuelled"?

Judging from your lack of any response to the content of my first response, you seem to be the one shooting from the hip.

Hey, if you share some actual information, I'll review it. Your OP lacked in substance, it lacked in courtesy, and you relied on readers following the link to download and watch a long video.

What would have served you better would have been to abstract what you consider to be the most convincing arguments, research the original sources for the information, and present it to the rest of us. Not because I can't be bothered (or can't afford the bandwidth), but because it would have made for a significantly more substantial argument. It would have given us some science around which to form a debate.

Is there some kind of strange echo in here?

See my other posts.

No. You supply some scientific arguments and data to suport the position you have adopted, and I'll review those.

Alternatively, you could actually go back and read my first response.

It is highly discourteous of you to make such aggressive responses without at least having read what I have posted.

That echo's getting louder.

Well, maybe if you had taken the trouble to become informed about the science underlying the global warming debate, you (a) wouldn't need to rely on Channel 4 to form your opinions for you, and (b) would actual have something to discuss.

I can assure you, it is quite possible to undermine the position you adopt without first watching the propaganda. Perhaps if you took the time and trouble to become informed before speaking out you would have something to discuss. Instead, you rely on a single biased video (I don't need to watch it to read reviews of it) and expect other people to do your research for you.

I reiterate: when you make the claim, you take up the burden of proof. Please provide some proof if you wish to be taken seriously.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Meaning what?

I think ToSeek has taken the time and / or trouble to become informed. Maybe you should, too.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Gore is at it again, this time delcaring a state of "Planetary Emergency".

What an idiot. When are those who're in the know going to shut him up or, at the very least, severely discredit his busted science?

Ok - now that I have your attention once again...

A wise man recently informed me that the majority of those involved in science believe in Global Warming, insinuating that because of this, Global Warming must be true.

Let it be understood by all that I don't debate Global Warming in the least, as the data clearly shows a rapid increase in worldwide temperature averages.

What I debate is that even a radical change in human activity will have any significant effect on the trend.

The data over the last 10,000 years clearly indicates the Earth has been both much cooler, for long periods of time (hundreds of years) as well as much warmer, for similar periods of time. The only difference is that human-caused production of greenhouse gases was but a tiny fraction of what they are today.

Therefore, logically, there's no way we can use historical fluctuations of temperature to prove that we're not causing these fluctuations today. What we can do, however, is examine recent history, as detailed in the video, and examine what the effect of our output of greenhouse gases on the climate. Furthermore, we can examine our output of greenhouse gases in light of nature's output of greenhouse gases.

That's what the video does. Instead of assuming that correlation implies causation, it puts our outputs, which are rather minscule compared to nature's outputs, into perspective. Furthermore, it examines what effect we can actually have, even if the entire world implemented every measure contained in the Kyoto accord.

Three extreme greenies would have you believe that we can "save the world." I would have you believe that the changes of a few degrees will be slight, mildly inconvenient, and not worth the cost of trying to avoid the mild inconveniece.

Before the alarmists copy the previous paragraph and blast me for being insensitive towards those who will be most inconvienced, please consider this: Perhaps we should stop trying to stop Global Warming, and start moving towards a nuclear-based hydrogen economy that will kill two birds with one stone. Go nuclear, worldwide. Get rid of our dependance on oil, which will run out long before global warming will ever cause anything beyond mild inconvenience. Don't forget that natural gas is slated to run out much sooner than oil!

Why nuclear? Because it gives us several hundred years of non-CO2-producing energy production during which we can perfect fusion, which will last us billions of years, literally to the end of our sun.

Then there's the "majority is right" arguement. Hmmm..., sorry, but history doesn't agree with you here. Throughout history, even recent history, the leading experts in any field would tell you one thing, while the leading innovators, almost always in the minority, proved them wrong. From Da Vinci to Galileo to Copernicus, to the Vikings, to Columbus, to the Oceanics who first settled South and North America, to Einstein, to the Wright Brothers, to Bohr, to, oh, you get the idea. Those who made the breakthroughs in science have always been in the minority. During the Golden Age of the late 1800s early 1900s, most reknowned scientists believe that everything that could have been discovered had been discovered. Yet everything from the internal combustion engine to computers to radio to TV to HDTV to quantum mechanics to nuclear energy to flight was discovered/invented AFTER that time when the majority of leading scientists believed that "everything that could be discovered has been discovered." I can't even begin to do justice to biology and astronomy, the vast majority of which has progressed since 1950.

So, sorry, the "majority is right" arguement holds little water. I'd rather I'll throw my lot in with disinterested third parties who've done the hard science and who have nothing to gain!

Then there's the integrity issue.

Studies done in the 1950s showed that few high schoolers ever cheated on tests. Studies done during the 80s and 90s showed that most high schoolers cheated on tests.

What happened to sound morals?

Evidence abounds that, societally, it took a back seat to getting ahead, whether that was by way of better grades, more prestige, or a fatter bank account. Sociology is a science, too, and sociologists are the ones who discovered and reported these declines in integrity.

So how does this play into global warming?

First, the current level of integrity isn't anywhere near what it used to be.

Second, there are HUGE bucks to be made by joining the global warming debate.

Third, the fact that some rather well-respected climatologists (see the video) refute the man-made global warming claim vehemently, while risking much ridicule while forfeiting any gain, is rather telling. There's nothing in it for them, and a lot to lose, but they speak out nevertheless.

Why?

Perhaps it's because they, as am I, are tired of the BS.

Did you ever see the Penn & Teller "That's BS episode about recycling? Penn & Teller aren't scientists, but they talked to a few scientists who're more than in the know and have hard science to back up their claims than the extreme greens who've pushed recycling to the extreme. Turns out the only economically and ecologically sound material to recycle is aluminum cans. Recycling paper saves trees, but costs more than new paper. Recycling plastics reduces oil consumption only by a small fraction, and costs more, too. I find it interesting that composting is now banned in some geographical areas in the States because it produces methane, a greenhouse gas, but landfills use methane for power production, producing CO2, a far more important greenhouse gas. Yet the methane produced by composting and the CO2 produced by man are many tens of thousands of times less than the methane and CO2 produced by nature, hence the extremely limited effect we're able to have towards slowing the temperature rise.

I think you'll like the video, as it discusses things along these lines from a rather interesting perspective.

If you haven't watched the video, please reconsider. That hour and thirteen minutes of your time might very well save you and your descendants $50,000 by helping to focus our efforts on issues which really do make a difference, rather than on issues which self-serving alarmists would have us waste our taxpayer dollars lining their pockets.

I guess Barnum and Bailey were right: There's a sucker born every minute.

Don't be that sucker.

Instead, do something right which will benefit mankind for the long term, INCLUDING seriously reducing our contribution to greenhouse gases. Tell Gore to **** off, write your Congressman about the importance of moving towards a nuclear, and away from a fossil fuel energy cycle, and let them know that this approach is a far better solution than worrying about the very miniscule effect quadrillions of dollars would actually have on global warming.

While you're at it, call your local media and tell them either to get a clue or that they no longer hold any credibility whatsoever with the American Public because they're totally unable to separate fact from fiction and their ill-informed alarmist reports continue to waste billions, if not trillions, of dollars of the taxpayers' money each year because they report on issues about which they don't have a freakin' clue, thereby being lead by the nose towards those who stand to gain, while leading the American public into the domestic production of wasted dollars which fund numerous programs which have little to no actual societal benefit.

The brilliant have become the new farmers, and those who buy into all these programs have become the sheep, providing flesh for the slaughter.

Stop it!

It doesn't take a revolution, but it DOES take a healthy dose of skepticism, of the Missouri "Show Me" type, without accepting the first answer that comes your way. The first question in your mind should be, "In what way might this person be profiting if I accept this as the truth?"

As for those who support the human-caused global warming argument, the answer to that question is usually "a ten-year government-funded study with a serious promise of more for many years."

All I ask is that you who're reading this realize that there are very strong media biases (selling stories pads the bottom line), as well as biases throughout the scientific community. After all, they must both gain the respect of their peers while simultaneous making a living. EVERY profession suffers from these biases, whether you're an international chess player, a Southwest pilot, a nuclear engineer, Congressman, or a member of the clergy.

It's sociology 101. That's why the social science aspect of this issue can NOT be ignored. It affects how people take sides, form their opinions, and make stands. If you think the general consensus is based entirely on science, you're totally unaware of the impact of social considerations on people's opinion.

Well, I hope this generates more inciteful and well-informed commentary.

If you're willing to forfeit your share of quadrillions of dollars because you can't spare a little over an hour of your time, all I can do is say, "Ok."

However, anyone who so flippantly refuses such a simple, non-time-consuming request which has so much potential personal, monetary rewards...

Sorry, but given the above, I'm not going to waste the ten minutes it would take to read your response, particularly as my post was never intended to stand by itself, but in conjunction with the video, but instead you voluntarily chose to pick it apart after refusing to watch the video.

Thankfully, you're in the minority.

Anyone who's been an observant member of this board for more than a few weeks knows that links to photos and videos is both common and well-accepted on this website.

No, I'll not translate the key information in the video.

If you're not interested in watching the video, then please don't bother to post an ill-informed, non-video-watching reply to my original post, which hinges on the video.

Thanks.

Anyone who's been an observant member of this board for more than a few weeks knows that links to photos and videos is both common and well-accepted on this website.

No, I'll not translate the key information in the video.

If you're not interested in watching the video, then please don't bother to post an ill-informed, non-video-watching reply to my original post, which hinges on the video.

Thanks.

Credible information other than what's been blast throughout the greenie, Gore-bound, and political mainstream.

I didn't bother for reasons noted above. No disrespect, but as a former greenie, I entered this issue with an open mind. I've little time with others who don't, particularly when they refuse to spend a paltry hour and 13 minutes of their time reviewing an outstandingly well-done video upon which some of my arguement hinges.

You refuse to review the video? I refuse to respond to any more of your posts. Your choice, my response.

Have a nice day!



Let me know if you change your mind.

PS: It's only worth $50,000 of your tax dollars over the next many years... You want to forfeit that to prove a point? Go ahead. I'll move to Tahiti.

(This was in response to my comment that "our planet breathes."

Figurately speaking, Nigel, it does. It gets warmer, it gets colder. Less humind, more humid. More pressure, less pressure.

There's nothing animistic about it, dude, so stop misrepresenting my comments with slander.

Our planet lives. This isn't animism. It's simply nature. It's not intelligent, but physical laws do apply.

It is far more than the "rocky body" to which your limited vision constricts it. Even the rocky geological record undermines your insinuation of our planet possessing some static nature. It's always been in a state of change.

That's life, dude. Get over it.

I have closed this thread for reasons that I hope are obvious. Please note that global warming seems to be a topic that gets people fired up.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak