Global Warming is a Hoax

**Learning Newbie** · 08-14-2007, 07:36 PM

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine

I normally don't read print news except for a couple of venerable papers that have been around for centuries. But I hope everyone goes out and has a chance to read Newsweek. You don't even have to pay for it - spend an hour at the library. Or read the article I just linked to. Some outtakes:

As [Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)] left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new [IPCC] report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

And:

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

The thing is, there's only one place in the universe humans can live. Politicians are so busy demagoguing silly terrorism issues, like saying "people who've never met you want to kill your dog because you have freedom." And yet deniers get offended when the overwhelming consensus of virtually all educated people worldwide, across all cultures, point out that our "lifestyle choices" are in conflict with our short and long term viability.

Frankenstein was a monster, but also an unintended consequence of Dr Frank's ambition and neglect for his creation. Drought, extreme storm patterns like Katrina and Rita, deep freezes like the one that stranded all the cows in eastern Colorado this past winter, when the national guard had to airlift food to them, and so many other bizarre weather patterns are, like the Frankenstein monster, a monstrous set of unintended consequences of our lifestyle choices.

The wife and I never had kids, but my step brother did, and my nephew, Mark, is like the son I never had. I want him to have a better standard of living than I do, and all the money in the world won't fix asthma that's becoming so common from polluted air, or skin cancer from the shrinking ozone, or, as Americans, what will probably happen is we'll basically be ok but without irrigation we'll be paying $10 a bowl for rice, and that'll be the only food available.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

**vangogh** · 08-14-2007, 08:39 PM

Let's pretend for a moment that we aren't doing anything significant to increase global warming. Again we're pretending here since I think we we are.

Everything that we would do to fight global warming is also beneficial in so many other ways.

Developing alternative fuels helps prevent pollution and also reduces dependence on nonrenewable energy sources. Aren't those good things regardless of the effect on the earth's temperature.

I understand the greed motive, though I don't particularly like it, but you'd think even the greedy would want to leave the world in good shape for their children and children's children.

**ForrestCroce** · 08-14-2007, 09:02 PM

I predict a fight in this thread ... so all I'll say is I hope against all hope that natural beauty isn't an "endangered species."

**KML9870** · 08-14-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I predict a fight in this thread ... so all I'll say is I hope against all hope that natural beauty isn't an "endangered species."

I think 99.9% of our members are intelligent enough to see the same things that we do. Arguments against global warming just don't make sense.

It saddens me deeply to see the things that we do to the earth. I live very close to one of the wonders of the world - Niagara Falls. If you travel toward the falls from Buffalo all the waterfront is industrialized. Canada has done a much better job than the US. You look across the Niagara River and you see homes and parks. But, at the brink of the falls themselves, Canadian development has changed the natural mist by building high rise buildings that disrupt the air flow.

Even if discount global warming, you have to see that we are definitely making a major impact on nature.

**highanddry** · 10:07 PM

PFFT.

I think "Newsweek" is a hoax :P

**Bouzy** · 08-15-2007, 12:06 AM

I think global warming is the biggest threat to me personally right now. I mean I know it has a better change of affecting me then the chance that I will get murdered in the next 10 years. No lie its fact.

**vkw91** · 08-15-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highanddry

I think "Newsweek" is a hoax :P

I agree, but at the same time, us humans (and geeks) have only been recording the temperature of the earth for the last 300 years, which is a tiny amount of time in the grand scale of things. Hence we haven't got a detailed pattern of temperatures on earth (ie when they go up and when they go down) . So from that we cannot exactly know when temperatures increase and decrease. This is used in conjuction with the fact that we had an ice-age 10,000 years ago (small amount of time in a 2 billion year history) so perhaps the earth is still warming up as in the even times of the 300 years of temperature recorded (before major use of cars & co2 emmisions etc) it has always been warming up (give or take a couple of anomalies).

thats my understanding of it anyway....

**hamesy** · 08-15-2007, 06:28 AM

We all can't deny that the Earth is warming up, but like Vicky said we have only been keeping records for around 300 years which is a small amount of time. For all we know the Earth is still warming up from the last ice age.

**KML9870** · 08-15-2007, 07:23 AM

We have only been keeping records for a short amount of time compared to the Earth's age, that is true. However, geologic records show what the environment was like and from this we can tell that the weather anomalies we have been seeing are not a normal part of the natural weather patterns.

**Cheshire_cat** · 08-15-2007, 09:27 AM

This thread does not surprise me coming from newbie.

A couple of things to remember – I completely agree with Steve, with or without global warming we should look for ways to help the environment not hurt it.

The earth is always changing, as someone has already pointed out there used to be an ice age.

Global Warming apologist is also a well funded machine (thanks to all our liberal friends who spend a lot of our money who we rarely hear about.)

Whether you like it or not Global Warming (that is our earth is warming due to what we have done) is still a theory.

I think it is really funny that it is popular to hate Bush, one of the main reasons was due to the fact that everyone said that he lied about having knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and that’s why we gave him the go a head to spend the money and go to war, in the end we found out that it was just a theory. Now these same Bush hating liberal magazines (Newsweek) is treating a theory as fact to try and get their point across. Does anyone else see the double standard?

I’m not a die hard conservative; Ann Coulter is my cousin.

**highanddry** · 11:23 AM

Quote:

geologic records show what the environment was like and from this we can tell that the weather anomalies we have been seeing are not a normal part of the natural weather patterns.

There is enough significant data to show definite negative changes in certain areas. I suppose that is vague. I feel like I get wrapped up in topics and spend too much time discussing them but I will say that the vast majority of scientists and higher level educators support the notion that there has been substantial human damages to the envorionment which further warming. Like Gore or not, his movie did a good job displaying the information about warming.

**ewomack** · 08-15-2007, 11:41 AM

"Global warming" is a misnomer. "Climate change" better describes what we're facing. Some areas will get warmer, but some might get colder due to rising temperatures, changing sea patterns, etc.

There have been some attempts at long term studies, via the Vostok Ice Core which shows massive fluctuations over time in CO2. Based on this, some have suggested that not all of the change we're experiencing is due to human action, but that doesn't mean we should cut back on emissions or pollution.

**Learning Newbie** · 08-15-2007, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Whether you like it or not Global Warming (that is our earth is warming due to what we have done) is still a theory.

Yes, but what you say is out of context. Gravity is still a theory. In fact it's also known as the "unified theory of gravity."

We've been measuring weather patterns for 300+ years, however, we've only been measuring anything for a few thousand. Everybody raise your hand if you believe dinosaurs having existed is a liberal conspiracy?

**highanddry** · 08-15-2007, 02:34 PM

Also, we have been burning /engine polluting for 100 years and by coupling that with Data you can plainly see the effects. Yes we havn't been monitoring for all time, but does that exclude scientific data?

**Cheshire_cat** · 08-15-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

We've been measuring weather patterns for 300+ years, however, we've only been measuring anything for a few thousand. Everybody raise your hand if you believe dinosaurs having existed is a liberal conspiracy?

I don't see your point.

**highanddry** · 08-15-2007, 03:11 PM

I think the point is that we haev a fairly limited knowledge of measuring things compared to the amount of time that has passed in total.

**Learning Newbie** · 08-15-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

We've been measuring weather patterns for 300+ years, however, we've only been measuring anything for a few thousand. Everybody raise your hand if you believe dinosaurs having existed is a liberal conspiracy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I don't see your point.

You also didn't answer the question. Waiting to understand what I'm getting at before you answer, to make sure you don't validate my point?

As you say, we've been "measuring" temperature (in an active and current way) for around 300 years. And you're implying that we have no idea what happened 301 years ago, by pointing this out. I'm agreeing with the fact you pointed out, but giving the #1 reason I disagree with the conclusion you draw from this fact.

No humans were around 65 million years ago to "measure" the existence of dinosaurs - say by taking a census to see how many t-rex there were per household. This is a fact, as sure as the one you pointed out about only having measured the dew-point for 300 years. But I think almost everyone would agree that even though we weren't there 65 million years ago to measure dinosaurs, we can be pretty sure they really did exist. (And I say this as a firm Christian.)

So getting back to my question:

Do you believe dinosaurs existed even though human scientists weren't there to measure them? In other words, do you believe in the human ability to learn things we don't already know? Or:
Do you believe dinosaurs are a liberal conspiracy, because without having been there, we can't know anything about them?

Quote:

Global Warming science is also a well funded machine (thanks to all our liberal friends who spend a lot of our money who we rarely hear about.)

AIDS research is also well funded. So is diabetes treatment and space exploration. Science is a priority in Western budgets.

Quote:

I think it is really funny that it is popular to hate Bush, one of the main reasons was due to the fact that everyone said that he lied about having knowledge of weapons of mass destruction and that’s why we gave him the go a head to spend the money and go to war, in the end we found out that it was just a theory. Now these same Bush hating liberal magazines (Newsweek) is treating a theory as fact to try and get their point across

Now it's my turn to be unsure what you're getting at. Approaching five years after the invasion, no WMD have materialized. You're not saying because Bush's lies turned out to be wrong, that all theories are wrong, are you?

If you actually read the Newsweek article, they're treating Global Climate Change as a theory. Just like they treat gravity and quantum mechanics as a theory. They point out the evidence to support the theory. This is how science works. Theories are never proven, only refined.

**Cheshire_cat** · 08-16-2007, 11:22 AM

Ok I understand your question now. First, of course I believe that dinosaurs existed. It is not my intention to say that if we were not there than we cannot know. I believe in evolution to a degree, because there is enough evidence that points to it. On the flip side I also have no doubt that our climate is warming and we as humans have done harm to our ozone, having said that I cannot say at this point that I believe that humans are causing the climate to change, there are enough creditable reports out there that dispute global warming, only that is not politically correct so they get pushed away. And what I do have a problem with is people taking actions in the name of global warming (e.g. millions of people in California having blackouts because of regulations on plants). Again let me say that I think we should do as much as we can to find better fuels that will not hurt the atmosphere, but we cannot go around blaming all the natural disasters in the world on global warming.

Just a side note, I was watching a documentary the other day on the Revolutionary War, and it was saying that during that war they had some of the coldest winters ever recorded in history. Now I ask, was global warming a factor back then?

**Learning Newbie** · 08-16-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Again let me say that I think we should do as much as we can to find better fuels that will not hurt the atmosphere, but we cannot go around blaming all the natural disasters in the world on global warming.

But you have to admit it does make sense. With the greenhouse gases we're pumping into the atmosphere and having sat in a car with the windows rolled up under the sun, plain ol' me can see the connection. And I'm a firm believer that "for each and every action there's an equal and opposite reaction." In other words, burning carbon fuels and releasing the stuff into our atmosphere is bound to have some effect. And probably not a positive one. We've been doing it on a massive scale since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, and have changed the natural balance enough that the consensus of scientists and educated people is plausible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Just a side note, I was watching a documentary the other day on the Revolutionary War, and it was saying that during that war they had some of the coldest winters ever recorded in history. Now I ask, was global warming a factor back then?

To some extent, maybe. There was a volcanic eruption in the Alps, over in Europe, that drastically cooled the planet for several years. If you read Marry Shelly's Frankenstein, the letters she sent to family and friends, and weather reports showing snow in July in what are typically hot parts of Europe, it explains why the doctor always met with his monster in icy caves and other cold environs.

In the 1970s people feared the onset of another ice age, and called it "Global Cooling." It was because of air pollution, specifically particulate matter blocking enough of the sun's light to actually reduce the surface temperature here on Earth. We identified the cause, we took corrective action, and it solved the problem. I personally can't see any reason to think the same pattern isn't emerging now, with 30 years more knowledge, and knowing that burning millions of tonnes a year of carbon-based fuels as a cause will have some effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

only that is not politically correct so they get pushed away

Borrowing from Steve Colbert: "Folks, global warming is worse than politically correct: it's factually correct."

Sorry, I threw that in for humor only. It's a contentious topic, and I'd like to understand more about how an intelligent person like yourself could reach other conclusions. I personally am so wrapped up in this topic because I think humans are God's finest creation, and I want our species to continue beyond my own short lifetime. So the comment above is just a little bit of levity and nothing more.

**D-not** · 08-17-2007, 04:45 AM

Global Warming a theory? What have you been smoking. I used to live in an old forestry town. The trees up there are brown a red year round. Any guesses why? PINE BEETLE

When I was younger we used to have winters down to -35 to -45 Celsius and at least a a meter of snow. Yet now the winters there (within my lifetime no less) are barely making it below Zero. You mean to tell me that the climate there is not changing drastically and negatively? Without cold winters the beetle doesn't die in the winters, their numbers grow year round and they swarm the trees of the area and kill everything off in a matter of years.

Theory? I think someone here is full of crap!