Topic: Is global warming a scam? - page 5. (Read 13415 times)
No is not a scam
I do not think that global warming it's a scam it is very real, all the corals of the world are dying slowly and the climate change it is undeniable, but the corporations who are causing global warming prefer to control all the information and social media instead of spending billions in ways of making green production systems
I wish it was 
I think so many wonderful thigs are in danger because of global warming.
I think so many wonderful thigs are in danger because of global warming.
No, I don't think so. Too many scientists believe that it is real.
Good article on the topic - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
Good article on the topic - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
Looking at the facts it cannot be a scam. However, I'ms ure that some companies and people will take advantage of the issue to benefit themselves...
We can see nowadays a lot of press releases and articles about global warming, and it's a hot topic, however in some circumstances is true about climate changes etc. But, the best option is to verify this news for yourself and read more about this issue, not only from popular websites.
Hm, I think global warming is true.
I think it's 50/50. From the one side, it's ecological lobby (renewable energy producers etc.) and it's a good question to control the audience. From the other, we really see the global climate changing with abnormal temperatures.
Benefits of global warming:
1. More CO2 for more abundant plant growth - food for the world.
2. More humidity in the atmosphere, watering the deserts, and protecting life from solar radiation if the ozone layer fails.
3. Opening up of cold lands for habitation.
4. Shrinking of the ocean levels because of more evaporation from the heat, so that we can reclaim ancien, underwater cities near the continents.
5. Melted polar ice would be used for drinking water.
6. Opening up of Antarctica to habitation, and to investigate its mysteries.
Mini ice age is one of the worst things that can happen to us. We should actually help usher in more global warming, the rate of which has been slowing down since around the year 2000.
1. More CO2 for more abundant plant growth - food for the world.
2. More humidity in the atmosphere, watering the deserts, and protecting life from solar radiation if the ozone layer fails.
3. Opening up of cold lands for habitation.
4. Shrinking of the ocean levels because of more evaporation from the heat, so that we can reclaim ancien, underwater cities near the continents.
5. Melted polar ice would be used for drinking water.
6. Opening up of Antarctica to habitation, and to investigate its mysteries.
Mini ice age is one of the worst things that can happen to us. We should actually help usher in more global warming, the rate of which has been slowing down since around the year 2000.
I've personally heard the opinion on the matter by respected professors and researchers in related fields. I did not hear from a single one of them, a definitive, no, global warming isn't real. But I realized one of the problems is the general public's misunderstanding of the moral codes that go along with being a researcher.
If a comprehensive study is done, and strong correlation is found, a researcher will not say, "We have found that global warming is caused by X". Its the opposite, even if a very strong correlation is found, it is their duty to make it strikingly obvious that the study cannot be interpreted as fact, even if there was 95% certainty. I have never heard from a reputable source that global warming is not a real thing. I have however heard from many reputable sources that based on the evidence, they believe global warming is real. However because science doesn't accept 95% or even 99% as certain fact, they make it clear that they aren't certain. People who are against the concept of global warming go running with that 1% uncertainty as conclusive proof that it isn't real. And thats where the debate begins. One of the hard parts to overcome, is that we do not have enough data. If you are claiming to know for certain based on a few hundred data points, out of a potential sample of millions that need to be collected, there is enough error just from that, that its hard to come to conclusions.
Obviously the problem with that, is if global warming is as we expect it to be, we can't wait around for a thousand years for enough data to be able to say, Ok Global Warming is confirmed. We either agree that the evidence is strong enough to take action in the case that we are right, deal with the consequences of not taking action if we were right, or nothing happens if we were wrong.
I'm personally on the side of rather be safe than sorry. There are enough benefits that go along with prevention of global warming that I feel its worth undertaking preventative measures. The overall negatives of assuming that global warming are relatively few compared to assuming that there isn't.
Maybe if real scientists were more like the research groups you hear about on the morning news that confirmed that coffee causes instant death, from a sample of 10 people that just so happened to be working in a poison factory. We would have less resistance to getting things done.
If a comprehensive study is done, and strong correlation is found, a researcher will not say, "We have found that global warming is caused by X". Its the opposite, even if a very strong correlation is found, it is their duty to make it strikingly obvious that the study cannot be interpreted as fact, even if there was 95% certainty. I have never heard from a reputable source that global warming is not a real thing. I have however heard from many reputable sources that based on the evidence, they believe global warming is real. However because science doesn't accept 95% or even 99% as certain fact, they make it clear that they aren't certain. People who are against the concept of global warming go running with that 1% uncertainty as conclusive proof that it isn't real. And thats where the debate begins. One of the hard parts to overcome, is that we do not have enough data. If you are claiming to know for certain based on a few hundred data points, out of a potential sample of millions that need to be collected, there is enough error just from that, that its hard to come to conclusions.
Obviously the problem with that, is if global warming is as we expect it to be, we can't wait around for a thousand years for enough data to be able to say, Ok Global Warming is confirmed. We either agree that the evidence is strong enough to take action in the case that we are right, deal with the consequences of not taking action if we were right, or nothing happens if we were wrong.
I'm personally on the side of rather be safe than sorry. There are enough benefits that go along with prevention of global warming that I feel its worth undertaking preventative measures. The overall negatives of assuming that global warming are relatively few compared to assuming that there isn't.
Maybe if real scientists were more like the research groups you hear about on the morning news that confirmed that coffee causes instant death, from a sample of 10 people that just so happened to be working in a poison factory. We would have less resistance to getting things done.
If we start to try to fix global warming, we will be adding to the mini ice age that is coming. Move to the equator, or buy a parka.
Bundle Up: Scientists Predict 'Mini Ice Age' Will Hit Earth in Five Years
Take a look at the links in the article.
Bundle Up: Scientists Predict 'Mini Ice Age' Will Hit Earth in Five Years
Quote from: https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17410-mini-ice-age-will-hit-the-earth-in-five-years
In the modern world, most people are very used to hearing scientists prophesying of the dangers of man-made climate change, often referred to as global warming, as trapped carbon dioxide in our atmosphere causes the planet's temperature to rise, and the polar ice to melt at an alarming rate.
Now, though, scientists led by Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University are arguing that we might be about to see the reverse occurring - instead of heating up, starting in 2021, the world is going to enter a period of cooling that's being described as a "mini ice age".
The issue has to do with the sun's decade-long solar cycle. Every ten to twelve years, our sun goes through a fairly predictable pattern of behavior, venting solar radiation, and rising or falling in temperature.
Every cycle is different, and it's not possible to entirely predict what's coming, but by looking at certain signs in the sun's solar activity, Zharkova has made some educated guesses about the upcoming cycle.
...
Miniature ice ages (known scientifically as "Maunder minimum" periods) have come many times in the past - a similar one, for example, was responsible for low temperatures that froze the River Thames in London back in the seventeenth century.
Now, though, scientists led by Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University are arguing that we might be about to see the reverse occurring - instead of heating up, starting in 2021, the world is going to enter a period of cooling that's being described as a "mini ice age".
The issue has to do with the sun's decade-long solar cycle. Every ten to twelve years, our sun goes through a fairly predictable pattern of behavior, venting solar radiation, and rising or falling in temperature.
Every cycle is different, and it's not possible to entirely predict what's coming, but by looking at certain signs in the sun's solar activity, Zharkova has made some educated guesses about the upcoming cycle.
...
Miniature ice ages (known scientifically as "Maunder minimum" periods) have come many times in the past - a similar one, for example, was responsible for low temperatures that froze the River Thames in London back in the seventeenth century.
Take a look at the links in the article.
The well known "shadow gov" as incame across by its name "bilderberg" may have some answers everyone is looking for. In fact from there you will realise a mention of an optimum world population at 500 million. Well... we are more than 10x over-subscribed in terms of population...
No its not. Because of people like you others have to deal with the consequences.
Is this question a scam? 
I can't believe people actually cannot see the things that are happening around them and draw conclusions from there.
I can't believe people actually cannot see the things that are happening around them and draw conclusions from there. 
I read that article, and its scientific reference is completely taken out of context. The quoted article states that the scientific article "published a model projecting a cooling period “in 50 to 100 years’ time.”". This is true, but the cooling period is of the sun, not of earth. The scientific study goes on to say they expect this cooling period to cause a decrease of Earth's temperatures of half a degree at its minimum. Which is good news.
Too bad climate experts expect that temperatures will rise by around 4 degrees.
dont think it is a scam, too many strange condition has appeared..
Well, I don't think it's scam! Not all of us can influence on this situation generally! We need to be more invironmentally friendly absolutely, but we don't need to feel ashamed of it! We shouldn't regret about things happened in the past, we have to do smth now! 
Growing Number of Climate Scientists Say That Warming Is Out And Cooling Is In
Read more at https://www.technocracy.news/growing-number-of-climate-scientists-say-that-warming-is-out-and-cooling-is-in/.
Quote from: https://www.technocracy.news/growing-number-of-climate-scientists-say-that-warming-is-out-and-cooling-is-in/
In a world riddled with climate-change doomsday predictions, a small but growing number of scientists are saying the highly touted climate models predicting steadily increasing global temperature due to humans' carbon-dioxide emissions are wrong and that Earth could soon face something even more dire: global cooling.
One such climate scientist is Valentina Zharkova, an astrophysicist at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. Zharkova and her team of researchers say that based on mathematical models of the Sun's magnetic activity, it's likely Earth will experience decreasing magnetic waves over a 33-year period beginning in 2021.
Zharkova is not alone. In 2017, researchers at the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern published a model projecting a cooling period "in 50 to 100 years' time."
One such climate scientist is Valentina Zharkova, an astrophysicist at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. Zharkova and her team of researchers say that based on mathematical models of the Sun's magnetic activity, it's likely Earth will experience decreasing magnetic waves over a 33-year period beginning in 2021.
Zharkova is not alone. In 2017, researchers at the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, and the University of Bern published a model projecting a cooling period "in 50 to 100 years' time."
Read more at https://www.technocracy.news/growing-number-of-climate-scientists-say-that-warming-is-out-and-cooling-is-in/.
Tell that to people who live in Florida. This would probably be the first place to go underwater because of a global warming.
Yes, but. Think of all the land in Siberia and Canada that would be opened up for habitation because of the warmer weather. And the warmer weather would allow for more evaporation of water from the oceans, so that there wouldn't be as mush coastal loss of land as one might think. And the humid air would deposit much of its moisture on the Sahara and other Deserts, turning them into lush gardens, opening them up for habitation, as well.
We need global warming, just to give us more land for cultivation to support our growing populations.
Never would've thought of it this way. What about digital land?
https://decentraland.org/
Decentralized virtual worlds could be one option to support growing populations..
Tell that to people who live in Florida. This would probably be the first place to go underwater because of a global warming.
Yes, but. Think of all the land in Siberia and Canada that would be opened up for habitation because of the warmer weather. And the warmer weather would allow for more evaporation of water from the oceans, so that there wouldn't be as mush coastal loss of land as one might think. And the humid air would deposit much of its moisture on the Sahara and other Deserts, turning them into lush gardens, opening them up for habitation, as well.
We need global warming, just to give us more land for cultivation to support our growing populations.
Jump to: