The Global Warming Swindle

[War Machine]

I wrote an essay last semester for English 115 about global warming not being caused by humans and presented it to the whole class. I faired my position very well, but I didn't change anyone's mind, that's for sure. Anyway, these guys did a much better job than me in this video (length is 1 hr 13 min 32 sec):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ndle&hl=en

[MrFelony]

That's actually a really interesting video and really well put together I thought. a lil long but still worth watching imo :p

[raoh]

I faired my position very well, but I didn't change anyone's mind, that's for sure

i can imagine what it was like. i dont get why people assume the earth is some living organism in a balance with everything in alignment until mankind started to light fires.

[Albator]

Even when scientific data show that fire actually produce some smoke?

[raoh]

Even when scientific data show that fire actually produce some smoke?

i dont get how that would suggest things were/werent in alignment beforehand

[psi29a]

I faired my position very well, but I didn't change anyone's mind, that's for sure

i can imagine what it was like. i dont get why people assume the earth is some living organism in a balance with everything in alignment until mankind started to light fires.

1) The climate is changing
2) Climate changes are common considering the vast body of evidence
3) Humans do impact climate change, but do not cause climate change

It really is that simple. Factories, Farms, Cars are human made, meaning that they have thus far never existed in our planet's history till humans built them.

You can make the argument that humans are natural and by extension cars are also natural, so this will naturally sort itself out.

If you go along with that line of argument, you are correct. The world does seek equilibrium which is not philosophy, but scientific fact thanks to entropy and our laws of thermodynamics.

So the big fuss isn't that climate change isn't real, or is a myth, or a left-wing conspiracy. The big fuss for rational debaters is how much of an effect/impact do we have on a naturally occurring process and what should we do as a species to make we survive and have stability in our lives.

[Albator]

Even when scientific data show that fire actually produce some smoke?

i dont get how that would suggest things were/werent in alignment beforehand

What?

[raoh]

1) The climate is changing
2) Climate changes are common considering the vast body of evidence
3) Humans do impact climate change, but do not cause climate change

It really is that simple. Factories, Farms, Cars are human made, meaning that they have thus far never existed in our planet's history till humans built them.

You can make the argument that humans are natural and by extension cars are also natural, so this will naturally sort itself out.

If you go along with that line of argument, you are correct. The world does seek equilibrium which is not philosophy, but scientific fact thanks to entropy and our laws of thermodynamics.

So the big fuss isn't that climate change isn't real, or is a myth, or a left-wing conspiracy. The big fuss for rational debaters is how much of an effect/impact do we have on a naturally occurring process and what should we do as a species to make we survive and have stability in our lives.

the universe is too hostile to say that the world has an equilibrium or that theres a natural state that we could be ruining. theres been loads of mass extinctions over the ages caused by supervolcanoes and natural mass greenhouse gas releases. earth's CO2 part per million has spiked a lot over hundreds of millions of years and is currently at a low, so i think making the assumption that we are the cause for the current rise will only hurt.

obviously, the crap we are pumping out isnt going to make things better (although you cant say for sure), but it is definatley nothing compared to what the earth itself can do "naturally", and neither is the current rise. so, like i said before, we cant assume its us responsible for it.

Even when scientific data show that fire actually produce some smoke?

i dont get how that would suggest things were/werent in alignment beforehand

What?

be a bit more specific, i assumed you were replying to "i dont get why people assume the earth is some living organism in a balance with everything in alignment until mankind started to light fires." with "fires make smoke" which would suggest that a fire making smoke would somehow make my point of the earth not being in a balance wrong, or that you misunderstood and thought that i was saying fires had no effect on the atmosphere

[ZoddsNo1Fan]

Yes, pollution, gas emmitions, toxic wastes are all harmful and they should all be handled accordingly to protect the environment. However, as to how green house gases play a part in our atmosphere is another thing. The atmosphere is gigantic! It extends up to 380 miles!

To better understand how green house gases(C02/carbon monoxide/trace elements) and global warming work we need to know more about how it reflects the Suns radiation:

So the "green house gases" rise 380 miles to the top of the thermosphere(which is about 1,700F by there way)and coat the entire atmosphere to cause this? Now that i see this it does seem a little far fetched. Why wouldnt it stop somewhere in between or at the stratosphere or just mingle around? Is this even proven? Why would the heat fall back down to the earth instead of finding a nearby patch of atmosphere where there is no GHG? Does heat even leave our planet? Does heat even leave the stratosphere? How do we not know that the gases are burned up in the thermosphere or fall to the earth as acid rain?

Dont get me wrong, car emmisions alone(cities/smog) are huge factors in causing diseases such as atshma and the like, but the green house gases theory does seem a bit off.

Im not saying that pollution is ok(its not) but the sheer volume of the earths atmosphere is staggering. It would seem like we would need an exponential amount of emmisions before we would start to see this actually coming into play(if it even would).

[psi29a]

both of you are missing the point.

Climate change does happen.

Now, the process by which it happens is still being studied.

(sounds similar doesn't it Zodd)

Humans are not the cause, but we certainly do contribute.

Now, our climate is like a giant pendulum, swinging back and forth across a median. I'm not making this stuff up, I just don't happen to have access to cite-able research at this point.

I will be the first to agree that 'balance' or 'equilibrium' don't really mean much and are inappropriate words. However, our climate does swing across a median.

[arke]

Yes, pollution, gas emmitions, toxic wastes are all harmful and they should all be handled accordingly to protect the environment. However, as to how green house gases play a part in our atmosphere is another thing. The atmosphere is gigantic! It extends up to 380 miles!

You must hate facts or something. The atmosphere is considered to end at 100 km. But, 99% of the atmosphere is under 31 km above the surface.

So the "green house gases" rise 380 miles to the top of the thermosphere(which is about 1,700F by there way)and coat the entire atmosphere to cause this? Now that i see this it does seem a little far fetched. Why wouldnt it stop somewhere in between or at the stratosphere or just mingle around? Is this even proven?

It does mingle. Illustrations often depict it as a sort of barrier, but it isn't. Thinking of it as a sharply defined area just makes the overall math easier, plus easier to draw. However, most of the gases are close to sea level.

Why would the heat fall back down to the earth instead of finding a nearby patch of atmosphere where there is no GHG? Does heat even leave our planet? Does heat even leave the stratosphere? How do we not know that the gases are burned up in the thermosphere or fall to the earth as acid rain?

...Oh boy. Heat is, quite simply, energy. Mostly useless in fact. The heat doesn't "fall back down to Earth", it's absorbed into the atmosphere and affects the weather (amongst other things). Acid rain has little to do with green house gases and more to do with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Im not saying that pollution is ok(its not) but the sheer volume of the earths atmosphere is staggering. It would seem like we would need an exponential amount of emmisions before we would start to see this actually coming into play(if it even would).

Do you even know what exponential means? Okay, stupid question considering you're using it incorrectly.

Really, anyone here skeptical of global warming should read the Wikipedia article. It even has featured article status (at least recently).

[MrFelony]

its 380 miles if you include heaven . the thing i thought that was most interesting from the video was the argument that co2 doesnt precede rises in temp, but actually follows it by (i think) a 100-200 years and that the rise in temperature is caused by the sun, not rises in co2. to me the whole movie makes sense, though there were some parts there I felt that it more analysis or other arguments could have been made against it. the argument of the movie is not that global warming isn't happening, but that people are not the cause of it, and that global warming isnt a bad thing. It goes on to discuss how the periods of global warming that the earth has seen have been the most profitable for people on average. just watch the video, it's very interesting and explains better than I.

[Albator]

i dont get how that would suggest things were/werent in alignment beforehand

What?

be a bit more specific, i assumed you were replying to "i dont get why people assume the earth is some living organism in a balance with everything in alignment until mankind started to light fires." with "fires make smoke" which would suggest that a fire making smoke would somehow make my point of the earth not being in a balance wrong, or that you misunderstood and thought that i was saying fires had no effect on the atmosphere

Your sentence (past, present, and hopefully not future) just doesn't make sense to me. Because remember:

be a bit more specific

[raoh]

both of you are missing the point.

Climate change does happen.

i know full well the climate changes without any human interference, all ive said is that CO2 ppm is currently way way lower than it has been. if you want proof of the climate not being a pendulum, look at venus where a runaway greenhouse effect pretty much boiled the oceans dry - although i admit this is an extreme case and it being closer to the sun probably was a major factor in this, but it proves my point

[Gaiseric]

...but it proves my point

Nope, it doesn't. Venus is completely different.

[raoh]

i mean in the sense that they are both rocks swirling round a big ball of firey reactions and in the circumstellar habitable zone. my point was that things will not always work itself out to be ok forever no matter what

[psi29a]

my point was that things will not always work itself out to be ok forever no matter what

yikes, I don't mean to be disrespectful towards you but that statement is haltingly awkward unless you can explain what 'work itself out' actually means and 'forever no matter what' is how you test it.

However, I wouldn't even use the quoted sentence above as it is bereft of an understanding of entropy.

The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

So, eventually it will 'work itself out'. Even then, I won't append 'forever no matter what' for I can't even qualify that as there is so much we have yet to learn.

Still, that statement 'to be ok' is highly subjective on its own. What is 'ok' and what 'isn't ok'? It actually is irrelevant.

[Libaax]

Who cares anyway its not our generation that will have deal with it when it gets serious



Even if its not as bad as some people say, it should be something to be careful about.



To say what humans are doing with their pollution and all is natural is naive beyond words.

[MrFelony]

I wouldn't say it's naive libaax. To ignore the effect that humans are having on the environment would be. While i would agree with the video that people are not the cause of global warming, there are many other factors that humans have on the planet, like in china how they're pretty much drying up the country, or the effects of pollutants from farm animals or factories on the surrounding environment

[War Machine]

That was one of my ending statements when I was presenting. While we aren't causing climate change, we are causing some environmental problems on a smaller scale so we shouldn't stop looking for ways to lessen our impact on the environment.

[raoh]

yikes, I don't mean to be disrespectful towards you but that statement is haltingly awkward unless you can explain what 'work itself out' actually means and 'forever no matter what' is how you test it.

the way you said the climate is swinging like a pendulum gives the sense that its in control.

i understand what you mean about me being subjective. when i say "ok" and "work itself out" i mean "wont kill off most of life as we know it", the earth being a big dead rock thats just floating there inert would not be "ok"

That was one of my ending statements when I was presenting. While we aren't causing climate change, we are causing some environmental problems on a smaller scale so we shouldn't stop looking for ways to lessen our impact on the environment.

a good analogy for this would be to say to someone "you should stop smoking because you're causing global warming"

[rubicon]

Damn. For years I've been indoctrinated by the "fact" that humans are heating up the earth. They've shown me fancy documentaries with lots of scientists, nice animations and funny narrators. And now they say that it's all bogus - and they again show me fancy documentaries. With lots of scientists, nice animations and funny narrators.

The stuff said in that movie sounds credible and one can easily imagine that it is just as they say it is. Just as the opposing documentaries are: they "sound" true. Imagine they start massively spreading the rumor that polluting water will lead to a new ice-age in less than 50 years, with the same effort they are using to promote the idea of climatic change. Anyone would believe it, no matter if it's true or not.

I really hate it. What should we believe in? Isn't science there to seek for provable truth? Other than religion, where some high-above people tell you what to believe in?

But in the end it seems to turn out to be all the same. Even though we have a scientific education, even though we use reason to explain the world, most of us are not in a position where we can prove even the most basic assumptions for ourselves. Or has anyone here ever checked whether the earth is really a sphere, and whether it is really rotating around the sun or not? In the end we're still believing blindly in things that some high-above people tell us - just that they wear different clothes.

Now that I've seen that I prefer not to care about climatic change anymore. It's just too vague and undecided for my taste.

[arke]

Or has anyone here ever checked whether the earth is really a sphere, ...

Daily. Easiest to see when surrounded by water, or on a mountain.

...and whether it is really rotating around the sun or not?

Seasonally. Unless you're an astronomer (or astrologer, &c), in which case nightly.

[rubicon]

Got me! I should've used more sophisticated examples >D

[Brainpiercing]

Science with an agenda can be every bit as unreliable as the sunday tabloid.

A lot of the things stated in the video are definitely true: It IS possible to create a mediascape which hypes a certain subject, it is possible to put billions into a certain science sector in order to create a scare.

And of course, there are also the scavengers, who will abuse the scare for their gain (in this case with hopes of suppressing the third world.)

But even with the scare, does that mean that whatever caused it is false? Usually not entirely, but just how much overblown is it? What I see is this: Chances are with the measures taken now to prevent a possibly unpreventable climate change, some environmental protection will take place. And as I see it that's not really a bad thing, as long as it doesn't just cost those that can't really afford it.

I'll say another thing, though: In the documentary, there was an African guy quoted that it's the African dream to develop. And I call bullshit on that. There were millions pumped into Africa which immediately landed in the hands of some petty dictator or warlord, and each time one of those was displaced, a new one took his place. For the past 20-40 years at least, possibly longer, Africans have been causing the African demise. The colonization laid the foundations for that, which is why I say the western industrial countries still bear a partial responsibility for what happens. And for some reason the western democracies were never strong enough NOT to give money to dictators - perhaps one further error of the cold war which was never corrected even after it had ended. But I don't buy it that all of Africa strives for development. Africans seem to strive for development of perhaps themselves, their next of kin and maybe their tribe, but that's as far as it goes. If there is any altruism there I don't see it. I don't even see "Africa" at all, as a whole. I see lots of people with nothing better to do than kill each other, and a few who hopelessly fight against the trend.
Maybe South Africa can take a leading role at some point. I seriously hope for a betterment, but how?