Evidence of the Climate Hoax

[tcaudilllg]

He said that global warming exists:

* Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]

He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

* "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]

* "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

It's stupid to say that there is no such thing as greenhouse effect or climate change, of course there's climate change and humans are a factor in it no doubt. How much, what policies and etc are what's important. In the creation of more efficient technology, new methodology and regulation against the excesses of industrialization, these are important contributions to the enviromental effort that's beyond the alarmists.

Most of the people who are really heavily into debunking climate change are actually in a real conspiracy to deregulate industry and these are the same people that hide toxic waste dumping amongst other reprehensible activities. Their motives are even more reprehensible then the alarmists.

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

^ this

Global warming is real. Mankind is a major cause of it. Airborn toxins aren't going anywhere, they've shown that in the lab, with chemistry.

I agree that the anti-global warming people should be frozen out of science journals. Same bunch which said we should deregulate the banks.

[DirectorAbbie]

My seventh grade textbook had a chart showing the weather patterns over the years. Nothing abnormal. My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid. Of course it's a conspiracy, though not necessarily on purpose. I wish global warming did exist; it's below 60 out, and it's cold.

[ragnar]

My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid.

A quick search on google gives links to the classic article in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek, where we were informed "scientists" had found out the world was about to perish from global cooling.

There has been all kinds of scares, ranging from global cyanide poisoning due to Earth's orbit crossing the tail of Comet Halley (early 1900s) to Martian invasion to an "ozone hole" caused by refrigerators to " Nuclear Winter" to ...

[electric sheep]

My seventh grade textbook had a chart showing the weather patterns over the years. Nothing abnormal. My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid. Of course it's a conspiracy, though not necessarily on purpose. I wish global warming did exist; it's below 60 out, and it's cold.

My 7th grade text book didn't know what Vitamin E was. In a chart with all the vitamins and what they did, under Vitamin E it said "unknown". No joke.

[ragnar]

My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid.

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

as Rick stated, it's the ecological shock of a quick increase in CO2 that causes problems.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

[Rick]

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

First of all, note that the overview talks about nonscientific publications ("Times," "Newsweek," etc.) and the writings of journalists. Surely scientists do not have to answer for claims made by journalists looking for a catchy headline and a shocking story. This article is not an accurate overview of peer-reviewed research. Journalism and peer-reviewed scientific research need to be examined separately; when done so, you will find that while a great deal of "controversy" exists in the popular press and political circles (which feed on controversy, duh), remarkably little of it exists in the climate science community.

(Who, for instance, is Lowell Ponte, author of "The Cooling," prominently mentioned in the overview?? He's not even a scientist, and his book was blown off by scientists; see http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)

Contrast the contents of the businessandmedia report with the Wikipedia article on Global Cooling: Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The remarkable thing as that even in the 1970s, when a multi-decade cooling trend had been in place, there were still over 3 times as many peer-reviewed (i.e. nonjournalistic) research articles predicting global warming than global cooling (see video posted above). This was because the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2 was already well understood, and during this time researchers realized that manmade aerosols caused a cooling effect, and this might account for the much of the recent cooling trend.

Many or most of the statements by scientists predicting cooling referred to some time thousands of years into the future when the Earth would settle into the next Ice Age, because the cyclical nature of recent ice ages was beginning to be well understood. However, many of these statements were taken out of context and made to appear that scientists were predicting cooling on a much closer timescale.

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

Now, however, voices predicting imminent cooling among _scientists_ are basically nonexistent, as the mechanisms of warming and cooling are well understood, and the warming is well documented.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

I personally have not read anything suggesting that rapid changes in CO2 concentration are a significant danger to plants directly, although the beneficial effects of CO2 for plants (so-called "plant fertilizer") supposedly begin to taper off after some level of atmospheric concentration higher than what we're at today (sorry, can't find link offhand). Rather, the dangers come from changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns that could make things harder for many different species all at the same time, and also from growing oceanic acidification, which is a result of rising atmospheric CO2.


2Tcaudilllg: Aha, I was making a point not that numbers were fudged (I am an AGW "believer"), but that if they were, that would not be a powerful enough force to induce countries to join together in a common cause such as climate change mitigation. The forces would have to be imminent, powerful, and undeniable.

[tcaudilllg]

@Rick: Sure thing, but my advice is to be more precise next time in your wording. I'm trying to follow that advice myself. Another thing: it pays to anticipate the arguments of your opponents, and to rebut them before they can speak. Kills the conversation, but makes you look competent and in command of the issues.

[Jimbean]

I think Rick is more researched in this area than I am; ultimately this debate has changed no one's minds, and it won't, unless any certain individual decides to change. I have gathered up more evidence supporting my argument, but after some time I figured this would be a waste of time. As Sun Tzu would say, “There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, and commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.” In short, what I am getting at from those who think global warming is man made is that the powers that be do not want instruments such as the carbon tax. On the other hand, what I am getting at basically is that the powers that be are falsifying publications through foundations and using “useful idiots” to rationalize more control (i.e. carbon tax and global governance). It is what it is.

[olduser]

I really am becoming an expert on atmospheric chemistry, for all concerned, and will soon make valuable contributions to this thread.