• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Global Warming Scam Is Being Exposed

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Heissonear, Nov 1, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leftrightleftrightleft

    leftrightleftrightleft Well-Known Member

    +353
    Seeker
    Married
    The title of this thread is "The Global Warming Scam Is Being Exposed".

    You are thus making the claim that AGW is false. I and others disagree with you and think you are ill-informed or misinformed.


    Pray tell exactly what this thread is about if its not a debate about if AGW is real.
     
  2. leftrightleftrightleft

    leftrightleftrightleft Well-Known Member

    +353
    Seeker
    Married
    Nothing is a pollutant in and of itself.

    Any substance can be a pollutant. It depends on the concentration of the substance and whether it has harmful effects.

    For example, all natural water has lead in it. But it doesn't matter because lead isn't a pollutant in and of itself. It only becomes a pollutant when the concentration of lead in water exceeds some threshold. In most jurisdictions, the threshold for lead is somewhere around 15 parts per billion in drinking water.

    The exact same with CO2. CO2 exists naturally in the Earth's atmsophere. It doesn't matter because CO2 isn't a pollutant in and of itself. It only becomes a pollutant when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeds some threshold in which harmful effects begin to be noticed.


    Are there effects being observed as the result of increased CO2? That is one question which I absolutely answer with a resounding YES. There are certainly effects.

    Are those effects harmful and to what degree? That's a different question which can only be addressed when people wake up and at least recognize that increasing CO2 is causing effects on our planet.
     
  3. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Blatant propaganda. About 150 ppm extra CO2 created an unprecedented, unthinkable (whatever that means) typhoon.

    Meanwhile natural climate cycles have no mention of magnitude of involvement. CO2 has taken over, aye?

    These Dupsters. Lying Alarmists.

    So, extra CO2 in the air can only cause terrible things. It is a repetitive propaganda ploy.


    Super Typhoon Haiyan: 'Unprecedented, Unthinkable and Horrific' » EcoWatch

    Clear picture of Eco-Extremism and their ploy.
     
  4. hurste1951

    hurste1951 Member

    465
    +12
    Agnostic
    Married
    Natural climate cycles ARE explicitly discussed in all the climate science. As noted earlier you can go back to the first report from the IPCC and see natural factors listed and accounted for explicitly.

    They are not hidden, they are not suppressed, they are mentioned continuously.

    In fact much of what we know about human factors comes DIRECTLY from a study of natural cycles and factors.
     
  5. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    About 150 ppm extra CO2 in our atmosphere has created an unprecedented typhoon.

    Meanwhile natural climate cycles and factors were not presented. What is presented is CO2 has taken over our climate and now produce unprecedented Bad things - all because of extra CO2 in earth'e atmosphere!

    Lying Alarmists.

    They repeatedly present that 150 ppm of additional CO2 in the air can only cause terrible things.

    Is this not a repetitive propaganda ploy? A scam? An agenda?


    Super Typhoon Haiyan: 'Unprecedented, Unthinkable and Horrific' » EcoWatch

    This is a clear example of Eco-Extremism and their disinformation ploy active among us.
     
  6. hurste1951

    hurste1951 Member

    465
    +12
    Agnostic
    Married
    I actually agree that it is poor science to attribute one particular storm or one particular weather event to man-made global warming. Because I am familiar with the science I tend to take these breathless sorts of hype with a grain of salt.

    It works out this way: global warming will put more energy in the atmosphere which WILL, by definition, increase the likelihood of extreme weather. But because of how variable data is, it will be impossible to say with any certainty that any one particular typhoon or snowstorm is due directly to global climate change.

    In the AGGREGATE and many years in the future we may be able to go back and look at the population of exteme weather events and draw a correlation which only makes sense due to the increase in energy in the system due to our behaviors but it is irrational at this time to assign any one weather event to "global warming".
     
  7. leftrightleftrightleft

    leftrightleftrightleft Well-Known Member

    +353
    Seeker
    Married
    I'm going to step out here cautiously and agree with you.

    There is propaganda out there. There are alarmists which may overstate the effects of climate change and attribute it wrongly. There are eco-extremists who don't practice good science. Some websites use alarmist headlines as click bait.

    BUT, that does not negate the good and accurate climate science being practiced by the majority of scientists. Nor does it overrule well-established facts like: temperature is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.



    And, if you acknowledge that there is propaganda on the AGW side, can you not also acknowledge that there may be propaganda on the anti-AGW side? And when you stop and consider motives for propaganda, you quickly realize that the anti-AGW camp has a massive trillion dollar industry who's existence depends on CO2 production. The oil and gas industry is firmly entrenched in our society and has been so since the early 1900s. Things that are entrenched in society do not like to be uprooted and will fight tooth and nail to remain as the status quo. Friends of Science is a Calgary-based group which is largely funded by oil and gas companies which spreads misinformation about climate change. They have a trillion dollar motive to misrepresent facts.

    On the flip side, there is certainly money to be made in green energy industries. But the possibility to make some as yet unquantified amount of money is much different than the possibility of losing trillions of dollars.

    I think one side of the debate certainly has more incentive to propagandize the issue and spread misinformation.


    And what I still fundamentally don't understand is why people have such a problem with limiting our impact on the planet whether AGW is true or not. Leave the planet as it was when you found it to the best of your abilities, just like when you were a kid and had to clean up after playing with some toys.
     
  8. HonestTruth

    HonestTruth Member

    +905
    Christian
    Single
    Remember Solyndra and how the right wing attacked Obama because of its supposed failure?


    Hmmmm ~ looks like those attacks may have been a tad premature:




    [​IMG]




    U.S. Expects $5 Billion PROFIT From Program That Funded Solyndra

    By Justin Doom

    The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.

    The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.

    The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.

    A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.


    U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra - Bloomberg
     
  9. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
  10. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Another study about what CO2 WILL DO by 2100.

    Let's see, a positive outcome? Ah, no, another BAD thing.

    Keep the studies and film going, you are on an agenda, I mean on a roll.

    Dupsters who manipulate through propaganda studies.

    Mere "might, " should", "could", " high probability ", ................

    Climate Change Projected to Double Lightning Strikes by 2100 » EcoWatch
     
  11. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Making "alarming" news? Yep, a no brainer.

    Is it due to CO2? Yep, a no brainer.

    Since there has been no increase in earth's temperature for 18 years, and cold has set in, the talk is "Polar Vortex" induced by Global Warming. Warming mean cold, droughts mean blizzards. Right?

    Propaganda is now making Polar Vortexians! Such are manipulators.


    Winter forecast: Weather models show POLAR VORTEX will plunge UK into MONTHS of heavy SNOW | Nature | News | Daily Express


    .

    Oh my gosh! It is "unprecedented" and a "freak" event!

    Are you learning the song they sing now?

    The propaganda got stail a few years back. All they have is cold means hot? That blizzards mean droughts that bring crop failures? Andget this, "CO2 induced snow storms" that bring "misery"?

    Dupsters

    Bearers of disinformation

    Liars

    .
     
  12. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others

    Oh, even worse, now they want to claim that man-made global warming is what will cause that downward plunge that we have seen after every natural warming cycle in the past. :)

    Just turning one Fairie Dust theory into another, to try to explain why their theory doesn't fit reality or the past geological record.
     
  13. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I agree the shift in theories and predictions will occur.

    Within the mainstream it did in the 1930's and the 1970's.

    Should we expect anything else, particularly since such faulty science exists on "CO2 causes Alarming Global Warming", and the natural evidence you continue to clearly point out about major earth temperature drops after CO2 concentration increase?

    Some scientists play on railroad train tracks. They equate many things but don't have their act together.
     
  14. hurste1951

    hurste1951 Member

    465
    +12
    Agnostic
    Married
    Actually the mid-century cooling (starting in the 1940's) and the resumption of warming in the 1970's after we cleaned up the atmosphere is among the strongest indicators that AGW science is right.

    We know that sulfate aerosols are a negative factor (driving temperatures down). Massive industrialization due to WWII put a lot of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. The clean air initiatives in the 1970's were focused on removing them. When they were removed the temperature rebounded and continued increasing because the positive factor (CO2 and other greenhouse gases) weren't cut.

    So the thing you mentioned here is EXACTLY the kind of evidence that proves AGW to be pretty solid science.
     
  15. hurste1951

    hurste1951 Member

    465
    +12
    Agnostic
    Married
    I don't believe ANYONE in the AGW community is saying that. In fact just the opposite. Some climatologists are saying that we may have forestalled the next ice age. Our actions may have more forcing power than the MIlankovich Cycles.

    It actually DOES fit the past geologic record. If you were to read some PALEOCLIMATOLOGY literature you'd understand that many of the estimates for climate sensitivity that have been developed are DIRECTLY from the geologic record.

    Knutti and Hegerl (2008) line out the methods for estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 and show the role of paleoclimate-based estimates (HERE)

    NOAA has their paleoclimate data sets HERE as well.
     
  16. Justatruthseeker

    Justatruthseeker Newbie Supporter

    +962
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    US-Others
    No, natural warming models from sunspots cycles fit the data.

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/mguidry/Unnamed_Site_2/Chapter 2/Figures/Figure 1. Sunspot and T.png

    Maybe this will help more.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    All format, expression, and level of content details point to "MikeCarra"
     
  18. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
    CO2 centric climate models have been shown their worth.

    The science CO2 centric climate models were based on has shown its reality, it's accuracy in explaining earth's recent climate and events since the year 2000.

    The science was not settled, as promoted.

    The so called 97% of scientists had the science wrong.

    Observation and facts trumps the faulty science promoted in the 1980's and 1990's.

    Face the music.

    C3: Posts from September 28, 2014 - October 4, 2014

    .
     
  19. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
  20. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +953
    Non-Denom
    Married
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...