Global Warming - The New Socialism

[twawki]

despite CO2 being a basic building block of life and plant food.

Unfortunately, there's no-one playing lego with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

You apply the scientific method to AGW and you realise that it is an unproven theory that has no real empirical data to back it up.... If you look at reality satellite temps say the world is cooling, the poles are growing, as are glaciers, theres record cold and snow around the world, polar bear populations are increasing etc etc.

Perhaps provide some references instead of simply making statements with no evidence to back it up.

AGW is the biggest hoax out and theyll use every emotional argument to get at your heart strings and ignore facts and science.

The word Hoax suggests deliberate misleading, you made vague references to "money-making", care to expand on the motives for the "hoax"?


On mentioning political stances, I wasn't trying to polarise the debate at all, simply making an observation, and trying obtain an explanation.


As an undergraduate physicist, I've recently taken a ten week course on global warming, so I understand the science reasonably well. This is a scientific issue, if you'd like to debate the science I'd love to, but "It isn't true because I say so" adds nothing; if anything that's the replica of religion.



EDIT: twawki what do you mean when you describe yourself as a "christian atheist"? That you're an atheist only with respect to the christian god? or a christian starting to disbelieve? or....?
Sorry, not on topic, but it confused me

Hey Lilphil lots of questions so will answer briefly;

No proof Carbon dioxide provides warming
http://www.co2science.org/education/expe...global.php
Carbon dioxide - building block of life - growers normally increase CO2 levels to 1000ppm to increase plant growth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effec...th&id=1607
Satellite temps showing cooling
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/na...s-go-poof/
Arctic sea ice
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/ind...46&page=29
Antarctic sea ice
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image..._hires.png
Growing glaciers
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
Record cold and snow
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...l_warming/
Polar bear populations increasing fivefold
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...852551.ece
Sea level rise diminishing
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3116

Yes the hoax is deliberate. After 30 years have any of the scary predictions come true? No. What is the whole AGW case built on? computer models! What is the climate doing? Cooling!

IPCC under the microscope
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Al Gore hypocrisy and refusal to debate
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0...17,00.html

James Hansen fiddles the figures
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-...ate_chief/
Regarding politics - there are those on both sides of the political spectrum in support of and opposed to AGW - I think to debate it rationally we stic to the facts

One other thing that needs serious attention is the sun. The AGW crowd claim the sun has minimal influence on our climate. Yet the grand maxima of the sun in the late 20th century correlated well with the brief period of warming, as did the warming PDO. Now however the sun has gone into slumber - when this has happened before deep cold hits the earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/...htm?friend

Christian atheist - means at the moment Im open to both views

---

No offence,but why should I give any credence to a confused individual who refers to himself as "a "chrisitian/catholic' atheist? Imo those terms are oxymorons,period. IE a 'Christian' is one who believes in the teachings of Christ, which specifically include a belief in God.(simplest example ;"The Lord's Prayer").An atheist is one who does not believe in god(s)


My standard reference for word definitions is The Concise Oxford Dictionary.One may of course change the standard meaning of a word,but it seems a bits pointless if others simply don't understand or agree with your meaning. Standard meanings of words is the basis for meaningful oral and written communication.


The post itself seems to me more like a paranoid polemic than a reasoned argument.

No offence taken but I am certainly not confused - I know what I beleive but realise that life and experience affects belief. But to say because i dont fit your paradigm therefore I have no credence in your eyes is simply a value judgement on your part. Is it OK for people to discard you because they may not agree with something about you? Worth thinking about.

Back on topic - more and more scientists speak out AGAINST global warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/31/dr...rtisement/

---

Sorry for jumping in late, but I have some thoughts to share.

Anyone been following the whole global warming movement? I suppose it's hard to miss with it being in every newspaper, everyday. Or did anyone hear about the 89 new snowfall records on just one day, that Antarctica's snowfall has doubled, or that world sea ice is at a 25 year high?

I doubt it.

That's not proof of anything. In fact Global Warming doesn't mean it will be warm all the time, it actually means the weather will get freaky. Just pointing to some high records does not disprove it at all.

The media hypes global warming to no end, but despite there being evidence to the contrary, they refuse to recognise it. The global warming movement has become a religion, with sceptics being silenced by global warming converts.

Actually, I find people who deny global warming to be far more dogmatic than those who go around promoting it. Now I have no love for greenpeace or crazy environmentalists but the deniers are worse IMO. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ being one example.

There are a couple of things I noticed in your posts that raise alarm bells for me. One being the topic name. There seems to be a general "distrust the scientists" and conspiracy vibe in the beginning of this thread. Saying you don't believe something because it comes from the media seems silly to me. It's perfectly healthy to say you're skeptical of the media but to flat out deny it because the media reports it is not.

The thing is is that global warming is happening but there is a legitimate debate on the cause, level, and consequences of the phenomena. More research needs to be done and I have no love for those who deny it or promote it as a doomsday event.

Please note, I have never even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and don't plan to, my opinions on global warming have come from scientists.

I highly recommend listening to this podcast episode: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/...=1&pid=174 and if you go straight to 50 minutes in there's a good segment on it global warming and I'd like to note the guy talking about it is a scientist. -_^

The field of climate science is an emerging field and there is much we keep learning every month. However when one looks at the basics and sticks to facts we know the following for sure;

1. The climate acts and has always acted in natural cycles

2. The current theory of CO2 causing global warming is unproven - even the IPCC acknowledges this

3. For 30 years the scary predictions about earths fever, drastic sea level rise etc is not based on observation but on computer model projections. If we still dont know everything about the climate then how can these models be accurate. If the climate continues to behave opposite to the climate models (the wolrd is cooling and not warming) then we have to say the models are wrong.

4. We need rigorous scientific debate on the topic. If as the natural climatic observations and numerous scientists say we have entered a period of 20-30 years cooling and we are spending trillions on warming - we will be unprepared for the cooling, many lives will be lost (see little ice age).

5. Extreme weather is a result of cooling and not warming.

I would hope we would have global warming because the warm periods of the earth are when life (including mankind) flourishes, there is greater diversity of species etc. It is the cold that kills.