#1
I know there is already a thread on this, but I thought that its a few months old, so I might as well breathe some life into this issue with a new thread.

This was spurned on by a programme I saw a few days ago about how Global Warming in nothing but an elaborate hoax. I want to hear your opinions, not get into a big debate. I dont intend to call into question your convictions. But, just accepting one point of view, based on emotion or other coonscious, is not helping. While I do believe most Global Warming supporters do just that, not all have. There are some good people out there doing some good work. Trouble is many exploit the work for there own gains , ie money. Anything or anyone threatens it is labeled a threat and attacked accordingly, bringing the masses along with emotional rhetoric. (Im not the one screaming we're all going to die)

For example;

In May of 1996, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summary. Among them, two key paragraphs written by the scientists, and agreed to, were deleted.

They said:

1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.

2. No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes.

Hummmm….. A lot of credibility in that report. I wonder who took it upon themselves to correct it and why???

I have read many reports and studies that show this apparent correlation. As a skeptic, the first question that comes to mind is, does temperature follow Co2 or Co2 follow temperature? Or are they a result of something else happening? I simply ask show me the study that says a 200,000 year old ice core is not going to have the quantity of Co2 change over time (not to mention pressure). It is a fact that water is a Co2 sink. Ice is water below 32 deg, another fact. What is their correlation? Does the trapped air simply remain inert, or does the sink processes continue at a much slower rate. I have not found that answer in any unbiased report that didn’t start out with a "if we don’t do something we going to distroy the planet" preface. They all seem to gloss over the frozen in time part as a fact that nothing changes. I also find it odd that the very graphs that support global warming show the sudden temperature spike happening 10,000 years ago. If I recall correctly, there were no cars, no planes, and no trains. Maybe it was natural, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the data is flawed. Maybe Co2 has a shelf life in ice. But nothing to date can definitively point to a cause, however we are to accept it as FACT it is happening BECAUSE of us.

And yes, I am "big enough" to admit there are just as many of those on the other side of the issue. I give them the same consideration. Are you "big enough" to accept the fact you may have been duped?

Sadly I think most of the Global Warmer's have fallen for the "cart before the horse scenario". They have accepted global warming as a man made issue. I haven’t accepted it’s even an issue yet. Any study of written history shows many climate changes in the last 5,000 years. Some subtle, some not. Some permanent, others temporary. Even more and more drastic before man walked on two legs. Beyond that, much, if not all of the “ground” we stand on was the bottom of a sea at one time, is that going to be our fault when it happens again?

One last fact; any modeling or predicting is based on a set of facts/data. Those facts/data are based on what has happened and compared to recent/current events. What they can not do is predict events that have not taken place. So, missing these future events, projections follow the prevailing curve. If it is heading down, the projection is a continual down curve. Conversely, if heading up, the projection is up.

Simply put; to predict my life time income, based on the position I started at, and how much my raise was in my first year of employment is possible, ONLY if there are not ANY other events and everything remains static. Any change in employment; position, company, health, declining sales, automation, etc. makes that projection worthless. Nothing is static, and it is always changing. I am not sure it I find it scary or foolish someone would expect different. Or that one could control it.

Now if by chance someone has some information that clearly shows:

1) we are out of our natural cycle, and

2} a .7% (thats point seven percent, not seven) contribution has pushed us out of that cycle

please, by all means, share it.

I apologize for the wall of text there.
#3
go back in time 5 years ago in summer and go outside

come back to 07, summer, go outside


then tell me its a consipiracy
#5
zOmG, C0nsp1r4cy!!1!
Quote by lizarday
oh yeah? well larry king the slayer guitarist owns bc rich guitars. (i think)
#6
Quote by FeatherBreeze
go back in time 5 years ago in summer and go outside

come back to 07, summer, go outside


then tell me its a consipiracy

Before an Ice Age, the temperature peaks, then declines into the Ice Age itself. Whos to say the temperature increasing isnt natural?
#7
Quote by FeatherBreeze
go back in time 5 years ago in summer and go outside

come back to 07, summer, go outside


then tell me its a consipiracy


It's because the American government have stationed men in the clouds to constantly blow hairdryers in our direction.

Yes folks, it's all one big conspiracy.
Quote by justinb904
im more of a social godzilla than chameleon

Quote by MetalMessiah665
Alright, I'll give them a try, Japanese Black Speed rarely disappoints.

Quote by azzemojo
Hmm judging from your pic you'd fit in more with a fat busted tribute.
#8
The earth is 4 billion years old. A century and a half of factories is going to mess it up that badly? I doubt it.

Any climate shift is a natural happening; one of the cycles the earth naturally goes through. Has gone through before us. And will go through after us.
When crying don't help
You can't compose yourself
It's best to compose a poem
An honest verse of longing
Or a simple song of hope...
#11
I am assuming you mocking the idea of a "conspiracy" haven't actually read what the threadstarter is saying. They're not claiming the world isn't warming, they're saying it's not man-made.

I saw a program on it last week and it convinced me, not that I actually cared before.
#12
Hm... I just don't see how hundreds of millions of cars polluting constantly can't have a negative effect on our atmosphere, and global warming seems like a reasonable effect.
Main Gear:
Cort G-Series 254
Takamine EG345C 12-String
Fender Squier P-Bass

Peavey Classic 50
Laney HCM65B

$75 Junk Drums w/ B8 Hats/Crash/Ride
#13
Quote by Green_Jelly
zOmG, C0nsp1r4cy!!1!


N0 w4i!!!eleven1
Quote by lizarday
oh yeah? well larry king the slayer guitarist owns bc rich guitars. (i think)
#15
I spent alot of time responding to the thread that started just after An Inconvenient Truth came out. Don't remember what the title was and don't have time to search for it. If you want you could find some good info there.


Even if global warming was just a hoax we have plenty of other problems to think about and deal with as it is. Genetic engineering and sustainable development to name two off the top of my head.

Whatever, in any case the evidence to support Global Warming is pretty damn solid scientifically, which means its pretty damn solid overall given that within the scientific community things get scrutinized far more than the FDA or any government organization would. People can cry whatever they want, but until they come up with evidence that is explicity contrary to the theory of Global Warming and is damning enough to incite a good deal of doubt as to its veracity I'm going to go ahead and consider currently held views of the scientific community (which may vary to a degree, but again, are still very well cohesive) to be the most likely case.


You raise some good questions, but don't go ahead and think the scientific community hasn't tried answering these. Get rid of the middle man and get your information from the mouths of researchers themselves. Be sure to see who these scientists get their funding and paycheck from too, as that was an issue in the last thread.

Remember, these people have devoted their life to academic research and the pursuit of knowledge. It may be easy to make arguments against theories they create, but remember that they have a great deal more knowledge and experience than you so it would be beneficial to at least listen to what they have to say and why. Screw ignorant outsiders trying to comment on things they don't really know enough about to really evaluate, such as Congress, the Senate, and the White House have demonstrated in just about every single medical and scientifically related ruling they have made in the last century, many of them over the objections of much of the scientific community.
#16
Quote by umop-3p!sdn
I have read many reports and studies that show this apparent correlation. As a skeptic, the first question that comes to mind is, does temperature follow Co2 or Co2 follow temperature? Or are they a result of something else happening? I simply ask show me the study that says a 200,000 year old ice core is not going to have the quantity of Co2 change over time (not to mention pressure). It is a fact that water is a Co2 sink. Ice is water below 32 deg, another fact. What is their correlation? Does the trapped air simply remain inert, or does the sink processes continue at a much slower rate.


It doesn't matter wether or not there is a CO2 change over time. What matters is that they can estimate the amount that has been lost. All that means is that they can perform an experiment which to find out to what extent CO2 will absorb into ice (which is a really basic sort of experiment). My guess is that very little CO2 will absorb into the ice, but I'm certain that the scientific reports account for this effect if it's significant.

By the way, water and ice (if ice is indeed a CO2 sink) are CO2 sinks because of entirely different reasons i.e. ice being the physical form of water has nothing to do with it. Water's chemical properties make CO2 soluble in it. Ice's physical structure (i.e. crystalline, with some microscopic cracks) determines whether CO2 will absorb into it (via microscopic pores).

Quote by umop-3p!sdn
I also find it odd that the very graphs that support global warming show the sudden temperature spike happening 10,000 years ago. If I recall correctly, there were no cars, no planes, and no trains. Maybe it was natural, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe the data is flawed. Maybe Co2 has a shelf life in ice. But nothing to date can definitively point to a cause, however we are to accept it as FACT it is happening BECAUSE of us.


The current scientific consensus is that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC report, 2007)

Quote by umop-3p!sdn
And yes, I am "big enough" to admit there are just as many of those on the other side of the issue. I give them the same consideration. Are you "big enough" to accept the fact you may have been duped?


No, there are more on the other side of the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I find it really hard to believe that anyone has been "duped". There's no motive for duping anyone. A good question to ask is:

"what is the benefit to be had by exaggerating the effects of global warming? and what is the benefit of downplaying it?"

In my opinion, there are far more reasons for downplaying it. After all, modern economies basically run on the idea of short-term profits. Taking into account long-term issues such as global warming are very much against business interests.

For example: George Bush decided to pull out of the Kyoto treaty because he could see that the US economy would benefit if all the other industrial nations were tied back economically by their long-term fear of global warming. Why would those other nations do it if not because it was real? It's often cheaper to do stuff when you don't have to worry about CO2 emissions.

There is very little opposition to the consensus point of view amongst the scientific community. But very often when the debate is happening on TV or whatever (including the TV show you watched) there is relatively equal weighting placed on both sides of the debate. That's absurd, but it happens because a lot of money rides on being able to continue our current economy for as long as possible.

Quote by umop-3p!sdn
One last fact; any modeling or predicting is based on a set of facts/data. Those facts/data are based on what has happened and compared to recent/current events. What they can not do is predict events that have not taken place. So, missing these future events, projections follow the prevailing curve. If it is heading down, the projection is a continual down curve. Conversely, if heading up, the projection is up.


I can't emphasise this point enough.

THAT IS NOT HOW MODELLING WORKS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

I had a position as an undergraduate research assistant last summer, doing mathematical modelling. Even though I did most of the work by myself, my final model was a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Certainly, there are uncertainties involved with modelling things as complex as the earths atmosphere. But the fact is that the picture you paint of modelling is fatally flawed.

Quote by umop-3p!sdn
Simply put; to predict my life time income, based on the position I started at, and how much my raise was in my first year of employment is possible, ONLY if there are not ANY other events and everything remains static. Any change in employment; position, company, health, declining sales, automation, etc. makes that projection worthless. Nothing is static, and it is always changing. I am not sure it I find it scary or foolish someone would expect different. Or that one could control it.


The laws of nature are unchanging. The laws of economics are not. So the analogy doesn't really work. I mean, if a model was created which didn't account for a natural phenomenon that turned out to be significant, or if a new natural phenomenon was discovered, then sure. But our understanding of the laws of nature is really very good, overall.

And you should remember that all of these reports contain assumptions about future human activity. For example "assuming human industrial activity remains at the present rate". That's the only area in which your analogy could work, and it's covered by the reports.

And the model predictions are quoted along with an uncertainty. For example, the current, IPCC endorsed, estimate is 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C between 1990 and 2100. That's a pretty big range.
Last edited by suffer some at Mar 12, 2007,
#17
Its DEFINITELY been warmer in Ireland the last few years.
Metal Forum Popular Vote Winner!!!

Quote by webbtje
Quote by dead-fish
And you're obviously here because you fancy Phill.
Phill is a very attractive guy...

"I'm so tempted to sig that, Phill" - Sig it then

Unless otherwise stated, assume everything I say is in my opinion.
#18
Even if the pollution created by manufacturing, power plants, and transportation hasn't made a major impact of the Earth's temperature, what's to say that we should still not treat the pollution as a serious issue? As Revalk had said, this pollution cannot have had a positive effect on the atmosphere or the environment in general. I think it is important in either situation to make major, world-wide changes to our Industry, as already started by some governments in response to worries about Global Warming. Either way, we still have to seriously get our shit in gear and change things.
Quote by bretws
Im a diesel truck
#19
Most people who think global warming is a conspiracy are American.

Work it out.
Quote by BrianApocalypse
Now i bet people are gonna stick "i remember when comeback road diead" in their sigs
#20
Quote by authoritarian
Most people who think global warming is a conspiracy are American.

Work it out.

They also tend to be the people who don't believe in evolution. Come on! THUMBS!!!
Metal Forum Popular Vote Winner!!!

Quote by webbtje
Quote by dead-fish
And you're obviously here because you fancy Phill.
Phill is a very attractive guy...

"I'm so tempted to sig that, Phill" - Sig it then

Unless otherwise stated, assume everything I say is in my opinion.
#21
I don't believe it's a conspiracy, per se; just that it's over-hyped, and people are making it to be something it's not. We need something to be scared of, so people latch onto that.
When crying don't help
You can't compose yourself
It's best to compose a poem
An honest verse of longing
Or a simple song of hope...
#22
I saw an article on slashdot.org that global warming is not caused by us and that it's natural. Mars' 'ice caps' of gas have been getting smaller for the past 5 summers.
Quote by primusucks
"i am so proud that by chance i am living in a place that during a territorial divide it got the largest mass of land."

hey texas, nobody cares.
#23
Quote by Phill-Rock
They also tend to be the people who don't believe in evolution. Come on! THUMBS!!!


Nah - beers!
Quote by BrianApocalypse
Now i bet people are gonna stick "i remember when comeback road diead" in their sigs
#24
Quote by Allnightmask22
We need something to be scared of, so people latch onto that.


lolz, like there isn't enough to be afraid of as it is. I'm surprised Global Warming has gotten as much coverage as it is now, considering we don't openly debate all the other big issues that could be very dangerous to the species as a whole.
#25
Quote by authoritarian
Nah - beers!

I prefer cider.
Metal Forum Popular Vote Winner!!!

Quote by webbtje
Quote by dead-fish
And you're obviously here because you fancy Phill.
Phill is a very attractive guy...

"I'm so tempted to sig that, Phill" - Sig it then

Unless otherwise stated, assume everything I say is in my opinion.
#26
It's funny how all serious reports on global warming concludes with global warning as a serious threat, but at the same time only about 50% of media reports concludes with the same thing.
Quote by p o e
lmfao man thats so sick and depraved and yet funny all at once

my hats off to you IbanezSA160, you have embodied the Pit into one little poem
#27
There is no debate about whether global warming is happening and whether it's a real threat to humanity (and life in general), the only debate is whether it's caused by us (and if not entirely, exactly how much we contribute).

I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that we do affect it, and not wasting oil and cutting back on CO2 emissions seems like a sensible plan regardless of whether we affect it or not. Seems entirely possible that we have some effect, even if we're not the only cause.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#28
Global Warming itself is not a conspiracy, merely a cover up that todays governments are using to hide real issues. Throughout history, stuff changes, thats the way it is. Now we have something that is out of our hands and that is what we spend all of our time discussing instead of things that we could help. Governments have done this forever and it will probably never stop. The only thing we can do is not lose sight of what realy matters and not get all to caught up in global warming(dum dum dummmmm)