Jump to content
Science Forums

Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?


Theory5

Recommended Posts

So lately there has been a lot of controversy about the so called global warming scandal. Go and take a look at some of those other posts that have been around.

Such as:

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/21544-gw-denialists-winning.html

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/7463-global-warming-fake.html

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21505-climategate.html

 

Everybody is so upset. But really, if global warming was a fake, would you stop recycling? Would you start drinking bottled water instead of using a water filter and water bottle? Would you leave your heat and electrical devices on 24/7? If so, you really need to re-examine your commitment and thought process. We already have developed so much to aid in helping the environment. But it doesn't just help the environment. Take Energy Star for example. Under the VOLUNTARY Energy Star label companies have created energy efficient products that don't just help the environment, but they also keep our electrical bills down.

Everything is becoming better for the environments and better for ourselves, and even our wallets.

If global warming isn't real or not as extensive, who cares? It has led to better practices all around and the only people complaining are the types who toss trash out the windows and refuse to turn off the lights because its INCONVENIENT.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraud science is always bad, it's a rejection of real science and logic. It would be more difficult to tax and restrict energy and fuel use, if we could show CO2 restrictions for climate change mitigation won't help. People would still want to live in a clean environment and many voluntary behaviors would continue, but there might be a backlash against some of the draconian prohibitions foisted onto the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest opposition I've seen, recently, is for economic reasons. It wasn't always this way. It wasn't until the scientists starting urging world leaders to make changes in national policies that people started to make a fuss. That's when I noticed it anyway.

 

What is sometimes troubling for me to see is when people dismiss the *science* because of their dislike for the possibilities of an *economic* change. One can acknowledge the science and still not like economic policies that result from the science.

 

To answer your question, yes, it does matter. If global warming turned out to be a fraud, it would be a huge discredit to all science. It would likely take decades for climate scientists to be taken seriously again. But, if it did turn out to be a fraud, it would be the largest and most coordinated worldwide fraud in history. That's not very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere is well-demonstrated, well-known and rock-solid.

 

:P So you take a species who loves to dig old carbon out from under ground, carbon that's been removed from the cycle millions of years ago, and light it up for their amusement in automobiles and power stations, etc. This carbon is injected straight into the atmosphere. It does not pass Go, it does not collect $200. The carbon injected into the atmosphere was not part of the cycle for millions of years.

 

C) Let this species do this for a hundred+ years, and taken together with the first point in this post about CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere, you have Global Warming.

 

If some individual scientists have cocked up in research to pad their own pockets to fake climate research to impress bunny-hugger greenie-beanie funders, it's fraud - on an individual basis. But it does not change anything in the above, where A+B=C. It really is as simple as that.

 

When looking at the Global Warming debate, take note of how the denialists are following the exact same process of breeding doubt (instead of offering evidence to the contrary) about Global Warming, as Big Tobacco have been doing over the years to protect their interests. And why? Yes - you guessed it - it's because a good number of the scriptwriters, the "scientists" and other "professionals" involved in GW denialism, are the very same people who have been involved in Tobacco's denialism. Professional deniers, if you will. The one product will kill you with cancer, the other will fry you. What is it with the protection of vested interests? Are they afraid of change? Don't they see the opportunities in not smoking/not screwing up the planet?

 

Anybody who cannot connect the dots in the above, with A+B equalling C, probably deserves to fry on a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

A+B=C. It really is as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere is well-demonstrated, well-known and rock-solid.

 

:P So you take a species who loves to dig old carbon out from under ground, carbon that's been removed from the cycle millions of years ago, and light it up for their amusement in automobiles and power stations, etc. This carbon is injected straight into the atmosphere. It does not pass Go, it does not collect $200. The carbon injected into the atmosphere was not part of the cycle for millions of years.

 

C) Let this species do this for a hundred+ years, and taken together with the first point in this post about CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere, you have Global Warming.

 

If some individual scientists have cocked up in research to pad their own pockets to fake climate research to impress bunny-hugger greenie-beanie funders, it's fraud - on an individual basis. But it does not change anything in the above, where A+B=C. It really is as simple as that.

 

When looking at the Global Warming debate, take note of how the denialists are following the exact same process of breeding doubt (instead of offering evidence to the contrary) about Global Warming, as Big Tobacco have been doing over the years to protect their interests. And why? Yes - you guessed it - it's because a good number of the scriptwriters, the "scientists" and other "professionals" involved in GW denialism, are the very same people who have been involved in Tobacco's denialism. Professional deniers, if you will. The one product will kill you with cancer, the other will fry you. What is it with the protection of vested interests? Are they afraid of change? Don't they see the opportunities in not smoking/not screwing up the planet?

 

Anybody who cannot connect the dots in the above, with A+B equalling C, probably deserves to fry on a planet with a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

A+B=C. It really is as simple as that.

 

Yes, it is. But that really wasn't what I was asking. personally I have no doubt that there is a problem with our atmosphere, caused by us.

Everybody is expending all this effort and energy to claim one side or the other. I try not to join in because I know the opposition is lying, but still. Is this all nessesary? My point is that, even if global warming is a fraud, would we have been better off without all these advances? I doubt it. These advances in technology have made our lives better, and should continue regardless of the status of global warming.

I'm just saying that we should stop all this arguing. Its pointless, useless, and should be ignored. Global warming can't NOT happen just because some people made up some numbers (not saying they did). Polar bears know for sure that global warming is happening. But for some reason us humans ignore the signs.

Science is just getting way too political. We need to focus on the bigger picture and not on a news station that regularly publishes bull-sh*t. Besides, only their own people watch or read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere is well-demonstrated, well-known and rock-solid.

 

Experimentally the effect seems to be less than [math]1\celsius[/math] for each doubling of CO2. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it takes more to cause the same heating.

 

B) So you take a species who loves to dig old carbon out from under ground, carbon that's been removed from the cycle millions of years ago, and light it up for their amusement in automobiles and power stations, etc. This carbon is injected straight into the atmosphere. It does not pass Go, it does not collect $200. The carbon injected into the atmosphere was not part of the cycle for millions of years.

 

Hardly for amusement, we use fossil fuel to warm ourselves in winter, to farm and move food to our stores, to work, to learn and to live. By your own argument, the CO2 was in the air before and we are merely putting it back.

 

C) Let this species do this for a hundred+ years, and taken together with the first point in this post about CO2's thermal properties in the atmosphere, you have Global Warming.

 

By this same argument, we can say we are mitigating against climate cooling, the catastrophic ice age climate scenario. The difference is, we've seen many ice ages but never a catastrophic global warming from fossil fuel use.

 

If some individual scientists have cocked up in research to pad their own pockets to fake climate research to impress bunny-hugger greenie-beanie funders, it's fraud - on an individual basis. But it does not change anything in the above, where A+B=C. It really is as simple as that.

 

There is no excuse for bad science. Climategate papers discuss a conspiracy to keep contrary views out of the journals and the IPCC.

 

When looking at the Global Warming debate, take note of how the denialists are following the exact same process of breeding doubt (instead of offering evidence to the contrary) about Global Warming, as Big Tobacco have been doing over the years to protect their interests. And why? Yes - you guessed it - it's because a good number of the scriptwriters, the "scientists" and other "professionals" involved in GW denialism, are the very same people who have been involved in Tobacco's denialism. Professional deniers, if you will. The one product will kill you with cancer, the other will fry you. What is it with the protection of vested interests? Are they afraid of change? Don't they see the opportunities in not smoking/not screwing up the planet?

....

 

This is just ad hominem attack, not argument. Note the terms, denialists, and the attack on motives. It seems warmists can't believe we are interested in providing a world for our children free of groundless superstitions and fears. They don't believe we have a vital interest in producing and using energy, that our love of personally owned vehicles is a freedom worth defending. I have no doubt they sincerely want a better environment, but they attribute the most base motives to those of us with contrary views.

 

CO2 may be the most benign waste product from energy production barring water vapor. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much of our fossil fuel CO2 is influencing climate, and how positive and negative feedbacks work on that effect. We've seen experimental tests of man made aerosol particulates and cooling, but never atmospheric tests on CO2 and warming. The science may not be advanced enough to give us the answers we need at this time.

 

I get it, A + B = C, that's very neat. In my experience, things are seldom so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is just ad hominem attack, not argument. Note the terms, denialists, and the attack on motives. It seems warmists can't believe we are interested in providing a world for our children free of groundless superstitions and fears. They don't believe we have a vital interest in producing and using energy, that our love of personally owned vehicles is a freedom worth defending. I have no doubt they sincerely want a better environment, but they attribute the most base motives to those of us with contrary views.

 

What? Warmists? Are those the people who believe in global warming or who don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the term "denialist", I prefer skeptic. Then again, warmists say they are skeptics of ad hoc fossil fuel use. Warmists is my term for alarmists.

 

I guess you could say warmists believe that man made [ce]CO2[/ce] causes global warming, that's the theory and I'm a skeptic, they are believers. It's not up to me to show how [ce]CO2[/ce] doesn't causes catastrophic climate change, it's up to them to prove it does. You can't prove a negative, if they think fossil fuel use is harmful to the climate, it's on them to prove it. I have no argument that some fossil fuel, poorly burnt, creates harmful byproducts, but [ce]CO2[/ce] isn't one of them. [ce]CO2[/ce] is a vital part of our environment, I like [ce]CO2[/ce]. Beer wouldn't be so good, if it didn't have carbon dioxide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just ad hominem attack, not argument. Note the terms, denialists, and the attack on motives. It seems warmists can't believe we are interested in providing a world for our children free of groundless superstitions and fears. They don't believe we have a vital interest in producing and using energy, that our love of personally owned vehicles is a freedom worth defending. I have no doubt they sincerely want a better environment, but they attribute the most base motives to those of us with contrary views.

Just breath-taking....

===

 

What "groundless superstitions and fears" are you talking about, and what does that have to do with the environment?

 

What "vital interest" do "we" have in producing and using energy?

 

Do you have any other definition for freedom; other than "our love of personally owned vehicles?"

===

 

How would you define "base motives" ...selfishness?

 

I think I might describe the motives as both base and blind, because the motives not only seems self-centered, but they seem very short-sighted also.

===

 

Wait, wait! I know, we should ramp up our economy to make enough money (and new knowledge/inventions) so that we can finally solve any problems that develop by the time we have generated enough money (and knowledge/inventions) needed to solve those problems.

 

Carter knew the direction we should take, but Reagan went with the above strategy of fixing the problems only after we are rich enough to do so -without compromising our "freedom" to ...(how did you put it?) "...love personally owned vehicles."

===

 

It matters to long-term civilization if global warming is a fraud or real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We developed domestic energy to grow our economy, just as China is doing so well now. Africa must follow, and the rest of the third world. Every country must try to become energy self sufficient, if they want a secure future.

 

It's up to warmists to show fossil fuel [ce]CO2[/ce] causes global warming, that it's worse than the effects of disrupting economic development and that stopping fossil fuel use will reduce global warming enough to be worth the costs. I'm a skeptic, I've got nothing to prove, only questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We developed domestic energy to grow our economy, just as China is doing so well now. Africa must follow, and the rest of the third world. Every country must try to become energy self sufficient, if they want a secure future.

 

What!!?? When did we develop "domestic energy to grow our economy?"

 

I thought it was our dependence on foreign oil... yada yada yada.

===

 

But okay, let's grow our economy (bigger than now?) ...somehow, and get China (& India) and Africa, "and the rest of the third world" to do so also. When that is finished, then can we start worrying about the future?

By then, I think we'll be too busy worrying about how to get those extra 4-5 planet's worth of resources to fuel these growing economies, but I hope we can try doing both at the same time.

 

~ :coffee_n_pc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it does matter if global warming is fake.

 

There are genuine environmental problems facing the world today - our water is all polluted, the world's tropical forests are disappearing, and we are pumping soot and other crap into our air. However, the attention span and patience of "normal" people is pretty short. People who believe in AGW are pissing away the support and will of the world's people. Once global warming is shown to be a non-issue, the average Joe will feel so betrayed that it will be generations before we can get support to fix real problems. How many rivers will be lost, how many millions of acres of forest will be destroyed when we have an environmentally-apathetic world population for 20 or 30 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lately there has been a lot of controversy about the so called global warming scandal. Go and take a look at some of those other posts that have been around.

Such as:

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/21544-gw-denialists-winning.html

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/7463-global-warming-fake.html

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21505-climategate.html

 

Everybody is so upset. But really, if global warming was a fake, would you stop recycling? Would you start drinking bottled water instead of using a water filter and water bottle? Would you leave your heat and electrical devices on 24/7? If so, you really need to re-examine your commitment and thought process. We already have developed so much to aid in helping the environment. But it doesn't just help the environment. Take Energy Star for example. Under the VOLUNTARY Energy Star label companies have created energy efficient products that don't just help the environment, but they also keep our electrical bills down.

Everything is becoming better for the environments and better for ourselves, and even our wallets.

If global warming isn't real or not as extensive, who cares? It has led to better practices all around and the only people complaining are the types who toss trash out the windows and refuse to turn off the lights because its INCONVENIENT.

What do you think?

 

"It matters to long-term civilization if global warming is a fraud or real."

...to our children's grandchildren.

===

 

Oh yes, and it matters in the short term also, for a proper valuation of Climate Debt.

see: Nigerian Environmentalist Nnimmo Bassey: The Global North Owes a Climate Debt to Africa

 

...which brings up other short-term considerations such as insurance actuaries ...and the decisions of policy makers.

===

 

Sure it matters.

Are we doing enough in the way of "better practices" or not?

The answer to that depends on how extensively climate changes

...in speed, magnitude, direction, and mode.

 

~:naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it does matter if global warming is fake.

 

There are genuine environmental problems facing the world today - our water is all polluted, the world's tropical forests are disappearing, and we are pumping soot and other crap into our air. However, the attention span and patience of "normal" people is pretty short. People who believe in AGW are pissing away the support and will of the world's people. Once global warming is shown to be a non-issue, the average Joe will feel so betrayed that it will be generations before we can get support to fix real problems. How many rivers will be lost, how many millions of acres of forest will be destroyed when we have an environmentally-apathetic world population for 20 or 30 years?

 

Well this explains a lot.

 

All the things you list about cleaning up polluted waters, saving forests, cutting soot and other crap, are the very things we need to fix in order to moderate the climate.

 

You act as if these are two competing agendas; one to save the biosphere, and the other to stop global warming.

 

Do you see it that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this explains a lot.

 

All the things you list about cleaning up polluted waters, saving forests, cutting soot and other crap, are the very things we need to fix in order to moderate the climate.

 

You act as if these are two competing agendas; one to save the biosphere, and the other to stop global warming.

 

Do you see it that way?

 

Well, I think the entire issue of CO2 is nonsense. And CO2 is what the current "climate change" activists focus on. There is a good possibility we will have some forms of carbon tax and such - when, in time, if CO2 is shown to be irrelevant to global climate, how will normal people feel about being legislated and taxed upon for a non-existent issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think the entire issue of CO2 is nonsense.

 

It's good to have thought, but it's best to have a reason for that thought. Why do you think that "the entire issue of CO2" is nonsense?

 

And CO2 is what the current "climate change" activists focus on. There is a good possibility we will have some forms of carbon tax and such

 

Thems the breaks.

 

It's *long* past due that we give some form of valuation to Nature, you know, the world around us. Bureaucracy and red tape will not facilitate.

 

I recommend the book, "Natural Capitalism" for an insight into valuation of the natural world, apart from commodities.

 

when, in time, if CO2 is shown to be irrelevant to global climate, how will normal people feel about being legislated and taxed upon for a non-existent issue?

 

Perhaps they would feel the same as someone working in a British factory during the 1870's. :naughty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...