Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

The current promotion that the earth-atmosphere system has been ALL negatively and catastrophically altered by CO2 GHG properties is all hype. It is a scam.

The embodiment and works of the IPCC as the most clear example of the "Catastrophic Global Warming" scam!

The ones in control of the IPCC are fraudsters. They have twisted the science to promote dire catastrophic predictions. They are Agenda rather than Science Driven.

Those who do not think Global Warming is not scam can freely present their views and information on why they think Manmade Global Warming is not a scam.

But I will add to the discussion, the statement "The Science is Over" is pure propaganda. The Science Is Not Over. We are learning more that shows the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere does not take over earth's climate, particularly to induce catastrophic events to come about.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Interestingly, over the past two years, in 2013 and 2014, there have been more studies that have found CO2 does not cause the earth to heat up, but the opposite, to cool.

The greenhouse effect that wasn’t (Part 2) « Okulær

The Okulaer study is systematic. Pick the "most homogeneous regions" on earth and review the spectra databases and make observations on differences between two broad regions weather and climate related to their radiation history and features.

Pulling up some study that opposes the outcome of the Okulaer is parroting CAGW position as a believer. Studying science is not your field, but following others is.

 

[hurste1951]

Pulling up some study that opposes the outcome of the Okulaer is parroting CAGW position as a believer. Studying science is not your field, but following others is.

But pulling up a study that opposes the science of AGW ISN'T parroting a position as a believer?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok... Pollution is still bad in general though. What produces the excess CO2 always produces other toxins, such as the sulfur compounds responsible for acid rain. Plus, those sources of energy are going to run out eventually, so why be so resistant to moving away from them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Global Warming is a Scam

If I remember correctly, back in my days, scientists were alerting the world that this [Christian] nation was polluting the atmosphere with fluorocarbons that were busting holes in the Ozone layers.

While we were busy trying to evangelize the world for Christ, scientists were alerting the world that we were responsible for skin cancer and whatnot.

And all the while, it was scientists who created atomizers that used fluorocarbons in the first place.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I remember correctly, back in my days, scientists were alerting the world that this [Christian] nation was polluting the atmosphere with fluorocarbons that were busting holes in the Ozone layers.

While we were busy trying to evangelize the world for Christ, scientists were alerting the world that we were responsible for skin cancer and whatnot.

And all the while, it was scientists who created atomizers that used fluorocarbons in the first place.

Uh... Scientists technically don't create. Or at least, science directly doesn't. Applying science to invent is more an engineering thing.

Additionally, it isn't as if it was the exact same people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh... Scientists technically don't create. Or at least, science directly doesn't. Applying science to invent is more an engineering thing.

Additionally, it isn't as if it was the exact same people.

Are you familiar with a type of crisis management, where the general public is convinced of an impending global disaster, then scientists swoop in and save the day?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you familiar with a type of crisis management, where the general public is convinced of an impending global disaster, then scientists swoop in and save the day?

Hahaha, swoop in? You make it sound as if science finds answers quickly, when often it takes years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hahaha, swoop in? You make it sound as if science finds answers quickly, when often it takes years.

I knew an employee once where I used to work.

He was terminated because he once saved the company from burning down by catching a fire in its early stage and putting it out.

Turned out he was the one who lit it.

 

[hurste1951]

Uh... Scientists technically don't create. Or at least, science directly doesn't. Applying science to invent is more an engineering thing.

This is kind of incorrect. Many scientists (like chemists) "create" and "invent" all the time. Industrial R&D programs are filled with scientists who are inventing.

It isn't just engineering.

 

[Smidlee]

Anyone interested in buying a frozen farm? RayStevens - The Global Warming Song - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I wanna turn my heating up. So it must be a scam. he heh he.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dp

 

[DogmaHunter]

The current promotion that the earth-atmosphere system has been ALL negatively and catastrophically altered by CO2 GHG properties is all hype. It is a scam.

The embodiment and works of the IPCC as the most clear example of the "Catastrophic Global Warming" scam!

The ones in control of the IPCC are fraudsters. They have twisted the science to promote dire catastrophic predictions. They are Agenda rather than Science Driven.

Those who do not think Global Warming is not scam can freely present their views and information on why they think Manmade Global Warming is not a scam..

Gotta love this...

First, throw a bunch of empty accusations out there and then finish of with a classic shift of the burden of proof.

You are so hilarious Heiss...

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is kind of incorrect. Many scientists (like chemists) "create" and "invent" all the time. Industrial R&D programs are filled with scientists who are inventing.

It isn't just engineering.

Those people are engineers. They might be using scientific principles to develop new technologies, but those technologies are based on scientific theories that weren't developed by those people.

R&D programs are usually very secret as well.

To "do science" means to find answers to questions by testing, experimenting, publishing and having peers review your work.

Those people in R&D departments take the work of those scientists and see what they can do with it. How then can apply it.

There's a big difference.

For example, do you expect an employee of an R&D department in Silicon Valley to come up with an explanation about the nature of dark matter while doing secret work? I certainly don't...

An actual scientist might do that. And that employee in Silicon Valley will look at that explanation and see how he can exploit it to make something cool.

 

[hurste1951]

Those people are engineers. They might be using scientific principles to develop new technologies, but those technologies are based on scientific theories that weren't developed by those people.

Hate to disagree with you but this simply isn't how R&D works. R&D departments often hire scientists who are in the lab making the formulations and using science and then developing a workable, scalable solution to what the problem is the company is trying to solve with a new product.

Ultimately an engineer will get involved on the scale up or product delivery side. And certainly in some companies the type of R&D that is run DOES use engineers to do the R&D.

So the differentiation of who does what in an R&D setting is not so clear cut.

To "do science" means to find answers to questions by testing, experimenting, publishing and having peers review your work.

Or to work in a commercial R&D department where you don't have so much publication but you do have more patenting.

Those people in R&D departments take the work of those scientists and see what they can do with it. How then can apply it.

In the broader world of R&D there really isn't a break like that. Maybe in some companies but not in R&D in general.

For example, do you expect an employee of an R&D department in Silicon Valley to come up with an explanation about the nature of dark matter while doing secret work? I certainly don't...

But you do expect an R&D scientist to do the chemistry to make a coating or a drug compound.

An actual scientist might do that. And that employee in Silicon Valley will look at that explanation and see how he can exploit it to make something cool.

This isn't really how R&D works generally. Yes there are some cases where R&D is simply engineering to scale up more theoretical work, but in general, at least in chemical industries, the chemists are there doing the development work.

 

[hurste1951]

Is that why you're an agnostic? because God isn't overt enough for you?

You raised the concept of people praying and things working out better on this front.

 

[Heissonear]

Has Obama created an Authoritarian position in the White House.

Yep.

What is the Authoritarianism about. Oh, the so called Catastrophic effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has become an agenda, aye? Yep.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps it would not have happened in the first place, had "a bunch of people in a church been praying"?

Ow yes, but then again - nothing at all would have happened.

We'ld still be living crappy lives where a simple flu would kill millions, we'ld have no central heath, no interwebs...

We'ld have other things that we don't have today though... like witch hunts that result in being burned at the stake and such.

Your method has been tried before. Today, we refer to it as the "dark ages".

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you do expect an R&D scientist to do the chemistry to make a coating or a drug compound.

Yes. And he'll use the answers provided by the science to develop such a coating or compound.

I have yet to see an R&D department that doesn't exist to build technology of any kind. Explaining the nature of dark matter is not the development or search for new technology. And it's not something a commercial company will be paying for.

This isn't really how R&D works generally. Yes there are some cases where R&D is simply engineering to scale up more theoretical work, but in general, at least in chemical industries, the chemists are there doing the development work.

Which imo is applied science. Not actual science.