<p>As was said before, Global Warming is one of radical tactics used by leftists to control the government and engineer socialism into the United States.</p>
<p>Along with universal health care, lax immigration standards, and government interference on private industry, we are much farther from the dream of liberty than the founding fathers would have imagined.</p>
<p>The ignorance I’m hearing is truly amazing.</p>
<p>I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve spent posts and posts actually laying out the scientific evidence. I’m not shouting “Global Warming is caused by man and ruining the world and the conservatives are trying to discredit the issue”. No. If you want to have a meaningful debate about global warming, then discuss the science! You’re no different than these ridiculous “Birthers”: you totally ignore all the evidence, don’t present any of your own, and scream socialism and scare-tactics. The only reason I can imagine that no evidence is being presented is because… you don’t know any of the science, one way or the other. So than why do you think you are in such a keen position to determine what is real and what isn’t?</p>
<p>I don’t get it. If you don’t believe the science in favor of GW because you think all the scientists are being paid out of the pocket of leftwing groups and companies…how do you believe the people saying global warming is made-up? How are these commentators (or even scientists) absolved from biases from their own constituency? Which again brings you to the point that we should discuss the science… which none of you seems capable of doing.</p>
<p>You’re just relaying the same un-informed rants of whichever conservative commentator, someone who has no scientific background and has no clue about climatology, one way or another. All they do is bring on people who support their viewpoints, and blindly accept it. That’s what you’re doing. Stop looking so ridiculous: actually explain why you think man isn’t influencing global warming, why you believe it is over-hyped. Do you think you sound reasonable when all you’re doing is covering the conservative talking points again and again without any substance?</p>
<p>Here come the meaningless rantings…</p>
<p>You still haven’t addressed the part where the more reliable of our two monitoring systems says that the warming essentially stopped around Y2K.</p>
<p>The evidence that the warming happened is pretty staggering - you can’t validly say that the average temperature of the planet didn’t rise over the latter half of the 20th century. The evidence that carbon emissions specifically have played a significant role in the process, however, is very tenuous, in no small part because of the plateau in temperature elevation over the last decade despite the rising emissions.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that there is no global warming, and I’m not saying that humans aren’t responsible. What I AM saying, however, is that my (hardly infallible) analysis of the data indicates that the carbon dioxide contribution to the process is essentially negligible.</p>
<p>WHO CARES. Again, bickering about it endlessly won’t accomplish anything. No one really knows. </p>
<p>If you’re really advocating pollution and waste of resources, you’re just an idiot.</p>
<p>“The ignorance I’m hearing is truly amazing.”
<p>“I can imagine that no evidence is being presented is because… you don’t know any of the science, one way or the other. So than why do you think you are in such a keen position to determine what is real and what isn’t?”
<p>The following article is a good read.
Huber, Peter. 2008. “FAITH-BASED MODELS.” Forbes, October 27. 105</p>
<p>Basically, it says how global warming - as it is - must either be accepted or rejected on the basis of faith. Public faith in the results of horribly complex computer programs which depend on our current - incomplete - scientific understanding, which make certain assumptions which cannot be entirely divorced from the what’s trying to be shown (parameterizations, as they’re called in the business), and which produce results which seem to say something, but nobody knows why they’re saying that, really. That’s basically the state of the art.</p>
<p>Basically, Small, you’re making a lot of assumptions about the people who don’t necessarily hold your views on the subject. There is room for disagreement, and if you ever talked to any scientists, they would tell you as much.</p>
<p>
…
</p>
<p>So I’m not sure which report you’re specifically talking about, but I’m guessing you’re referring to the survey that says global warming has remained constant (or even decreased) since 1998, most commonly known by the article written by Mr. Bob Carter. This report is misleading, as I’ll try and explain.</p>
<p>1998 (or circa 2000) wasn’t picked by random. This year was marked by unusually warm temperatures because of El Nino. Of course, once you compare the next few years after an unnaturally warm one, you’ll get cooler temperatures, leading some to conclude GW must somehow be over. Similarly volcanoes can cause temporary cooling… these are all short-term variations. If you plot a moving average (an average calculated over the year itself and five years on either side) you can remove these irregularities. NASA, the NCDC and HadCrut3 did 3 different plots, all showing an increasing temperature trend. I’ll try and find links to these plots so people can view them.</p>
<p>There is also no debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These gases are those that absorb infrared radiation, we feel it as heat. Different atoms/molecules emit/absorb different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. Hydrogen, for example, emits at the 21cm (1.4Ghz) line, a radio frequency. That means that whenever a radio telescope picks up that frequency, it means hydrogen is present. CO2, as well as other greenhouses absorb (and thereby re-emit) light in the IR spectrum. That is very well known and documented in labs. That leads to warming because when the earth emits IR radiation towards space, these gases absorb and then re-radiate in quasi-random directions, causing a percentage to fall back to earth, thereby “trapping” them on earth, leading to warming. A greenhouse gas is defined as the molecules that absorb/emit these IR bands. We know that more CO2 equals greater greenhouse Gas emissions equals greater temperature averages.</p>
<p>You keep talking about how it is getting warmer, but not about the consequences. If it is getting so much warming, why aren’t more glaciers melting than are growing? The oceans haven’t been rising. I don’t see why people are running around yelling “GW, we’ve all got to commit suicide”. </p>
<p>I’m against pollution, wastefull energy usage (not I’m worried about the environment, but because it wastes money), poaching, and species of animals dying out; but global warming is just so low on the realities of what is important today. </p>
<p>I want to drive a gaz guzzeling Aston Martin when I grow up and I’ll punch any environmentalist who tells me not to. They need to find a new hobby because they don’t know what they are talking about, are hypocritical, cry wolf, and eat wasps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right…</p>
<p>(10char)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, this thread is about the “Global Warming Scam,” not the “Consequence of Global Warming Scam.” I am only trying to show the science behind global warming, attempting to show the evidence and how we know it scientifically, as opposed to philosophically or politically. I’ve briefly mentioned consequences like melting glaciers leading to animal extinction, and ocean current adjustments, but I’m not trying to extrapolate doomsday scenarios for the future… just what we know today. And if you’ve read my previous posts on this thread, you know that the last thing I’m doing is claiming we’re ruining the world, this is all our faults, humans should be wiped off the earth etc. I am against the extreme left’s view as much as I am against the extreme right’s view, which I’ve stated previous times. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This statement that there are more glaciers growing than melting is incorrect. Now, there are some glaciers in South America (Argentina’s Perita Glacier is one) that is actually growing whilst the vast majority are in fact decreasing in size. This is confusing and scientists don’t know why this area of the world seems “unaffected”. Is it a piece of evidence against global warming? Maybe, but this is just one small variant, just like El Nino provides momentary heating and Volcanoes provide momentary cooling. But when you average it out, glaciers are decreasing in size. </p>
<p>Oh, and when sea glaciers melt ocean levels don’t rise. Just like a glass filled with water and ice has a certain level, and when all the ice melts… it remains at that level. Property of matter. Oh, and by the way, sea levels are rising (via land glacier melting, and other sources): the average increase over the last 20 years has been about 6 cm. However, tidal measurements are made in feet and it means nothing to say that “tides increased 1/8th of an inch” especially since tidal variants from other sources would easily overshadow that slight difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet everything you’ve brought up so far has been wrong and misleading.</p>
<p>pandem when I say ‘pollution’ I am talking about pollution like the Ganges River in India that the population revers as the most holy river in their country, yet it is so polluted with trash and waste that it is life shortening to requent bathers and drinkers. I have never heard of a river being so polluted with CO2 emission that it killed those who swam in it.</p>
<p>[The</a> Ganges - India’S Holy River](<a href=“http://www.allsands.com/travel/places/riverganges_auh_gn.htm]The”>http://www.allsands.com/travel/places/riverganges_auh_gn.htm)</p>
<p>And when I say wasteful energy usage, I am talking about leaving the lights on in your house when you’re gone or having windows that effectively ‘bleed out’ your cool air conditioning. Driving a beautifly fast car, though, I do not regard as wasteful.</p>
<p>And smallz3141, I include you in the group that speaks before they think for the purpose of feigning intellegence and information. The water level in a cup of water wont raise because the ice is already in the water. When ice falls off of a glacier (which is above sea level in fact) it adds to the amount in the ocean, kind of like turning your tap on to fill the glass of water you were telling me about.</p>
<p>And as far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any consequences to the Global Warming except for the increased amount of self-righteous lunatics driving their Priuses thinking they’re are saving the world when they are actually, according to you, contributing to its demise.</p>
<p>Why would it be a “scam?”</p>
<p>I certainly haven’t spend any money on it.</p>
<p>I don’t know about these other theories about global warming, but the ozone does have a hole…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I speak before I think? Well at least I speak things that are actually true. Every “point” you have made on the supposed “evidence” against global warming has been wrong. You are either uninformed or making things up to try and support your claim. The most surprising thing is you don’t even refute that! You don’t know what you are talking about. You’re throwing out one argument after another, hoping one will stick. When I debunk one of your ridiculous claims, you shout out another one! It’s pretty obvious you’ve adopted the “plug your ears” method: ignoring physical evidence and shouting your opinion over and over again. FYI: that isn’t evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And an increase of self-righteous people who truly know nothing of the subject but act like they are experts.</p>
<p>You ignored my cute description of the ice falling ‘into’ the water as opposed to melting in it so I guess you’re just ignorant like me…takes one to know one.</p>
<p>Quote:
[environmentalists] need to find a new hobby because they don’t know what they are talking about, are hypocritical, cry wolf, and eat wasps. </p>
<p>And yet everything you’ve brought up so far has been wrong and misleading.</p>
<p>The difference between you and I is that I don’t eat wasps. Does that make sense?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My gosh, that is absolutely wrong. Your physics is incorrect. A glacier floating in water does not increase water levels when a piece of it above the water falls off. You are absolutely incorrect. If I have a bowl of water with a large ice-cube floating in it, and I chip off a large chunk of that ice cube (that is above the water) and let it fall into the bowl… that water level does not rise. The ice (which is water) displaces the liquid water underneath equivalent to that mass… i.e. if you measure the ice cube and the amount of water displaced by that ice cube, it is equal! It doesn’t matter if it is broken into pieces or a chip falls off from the above-water section. </p>
<p>You’re right, I’m sorry I didn’t mention this before, because you were totally wrong.</p>
<p>So why are all the scientists talking about rising water levels due to melting glaciers. Are they wrong too? I never would have questioned them</p>
<p>Do you know anything about anything? Pollution is pollution. Ever heard of the smog in Los Angeles? Or the smoke that covered Pittsburgh for decades? Anyone can see it’s from the automobiles in LA and factories in Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My gosh buddy, are you not evening reading my posts? The increased water level is coming from glaciers that are on land and as they melt they stream into the ocean. That is 100% different from melting glaciers already in the ocean. I shouldn’t even waste my breadth anymore; it you’re not going to take the time to learn even basic science, who are you to question and make outlandish claims?</p>
<p>I’m talking about how the satellite monitoring systems have shown no statistically significant deviation in global temperature since the turn of the century. The typical response I’ve encountered to this has generally been that the ground-based monitoring systems contradict the satellite measures, but unless someone is falsifying several hundred photographs of the terrestrial systems, I would hardly regard them as reliable measures of atmospheric temperature.</p>
<p>I also never stated that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I am, however, quite skeptical of the magnitude of its effect on global temperatures, largely because of the above.</p>
<p>There are people who live among us who believe that Obama was born in Kenya, global warming is NOT real, 9/11 was an inside job, and that health care reform is un-American. Democracy is NOT perfect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re going to have to send me a link because there are only two satellite monitoring data sets that I am aware of, the first is the one I already talked about (focusing on El Nino). The only other system I know of is the study of the troposphere starting in 1980 (also written about by Bob Carter). I hope you’re not talking about that one, because it is pretty infamous: it did say that warming ceased in the troposphere, but two independent studies on that program found that the satellite had an error in the algebraic algorithm, giving them wrong data. These two groups did the experiments again, and found steady increases in tropospheric temperatures.</p>