Topic: Is global warming a scam? - page 6. (Read 13396 times)
Tell that to people who live in Florida. This would probably be the first place to go underwater because of a global warming.
I also believe in global warming, and I think this is a real threat! We have to start taking care of nature before it’s too late.
Environmental pollution leads to erratic climate change. Earth is heating up day by day, right now if we are unaware of environmental protection, in the future the earth will die.
I think global warming is a real problem. We should not live in fear, we should solve this problem. It is necessary to take care of the ecology, not to pollute the nature.
The answer comes in two slices. If the question is “does more CO2 in the atmosphere cause a rise in global temperature?” It is not a hoax. It is sober reality.
If the question is “is the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere harmful to Man or to Nature?” It is a hoax. Indeed it is far worse. It is a malign fraud on a huge scale never before seen in the history of the World.
The first slice. In 1905 the brilliant Swedish scientist and Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius published a paper showing that CO2 in the atmosphere allowed incoming, short wave solar radiation to pass freely but trapped outgoing (relatively) long wave, infra-red radiation. To maintain its energy balance the earth had to heat up to push more energy outwards so as to equal that incoming.
He developed his famous equation for the warming effect thus:
ΔF = α Ln(C/Co)
This is as valid today as it was then. It is a logarithmic relationship which means that successive doublings of the CO2 concentration produce the same incremental rises in temperature. That is to say an increase in CO2 from .01% to .02% produces the same temperature rise as, say, from .03% to .06%. Arrhenius anticipated a doubling of CO2 from the then figure of .03% to .06% and calculated the resultant temperature rise as 1.6 Celsius.
He noted that without the seemingly trivial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the World would be a very cold place indeed and would scarcely support life. Arrhenius also recognised that many factors affect global temperature and therefore the actual temperature rise over a period of years might be more, less or even the reverse of theory.
Arrhenius believed that the temperature rise would be significantly beneficial to the World as a whole. He knew that we are an inter-glacial period and saw the modest warming as providing useful ‘insurance’ against a potential temperature fall. It is cold, not warmth that harms Man and Nature. He also noted that more CO2 plus warmth would raise plant growth and thus food production.
Arrhenius work was well-known in scientific circles and for 70 years there was an easy-going consensus that he was right. That position and that consensus I accept entirely. That is the first slice.
In 1975 the original consensus was turned on its head and it became mandatory in scientific discourse to aver that more CO2 spelled the doom of mankind. Economists, politicians, public servants, lawyers and even hedge fund managers sensing rich pickings, jumped on board. The public money that has gone and continues to go into “Climate Change” dwarfs the budgets of many countries. It is massive and massively seductive. It has zero merit. It is a hoax and far worse.
Why is it a hoax and a fraud? Because everyday observation shows it to be so. CO2 has increased by 35% since 1900 and the concurrent events speak for themselves. They cry out that the ‘CO2 is bad’ mantra of the climate zealots is the exact opposite of the truth. In that same period population has risen from 1.6 billion to 7 billion and World average age expectancy at birth from 31 years to 67 years. There has been sufficient food to feed all those extra people sufficiently well to more than double their life expectancy.
So what’s not to like about more CO2? It has been integral to every facet of those advances every step of the way. Without the additional CO2 there is not the slightest chance that they would have come to pass. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to demonstrate how else they could have happened. It can’t be done!
Just imagine, for example, trying to build the vital sewers, treatment plants and clean drinking water supplies using wind or solar power and without diesel! That vital infrastructure has played at least as big a part in the huge health improvements since 1900 as the sum total of all antibiotics.
It takes about 1.3 tons of atmospheric CO2 to grow 1 ton of grain, e.g. wheat, corn or rice. That is for the grain alone ignoring the straw which is required to support the grain and to enable the photosynthesis of CO2. World grain production is about 2,400,000,000 tons this year so that needs a vast amount of CO2. Far more is needed to grow grasslands and forests, to feed marine plants and to support Nature generally.
For example, 600 litres of diesel fuel will power a light truck for about 10,000 km. The resultant CO2 will grow about 1 (metric) ton of wheat. Lots of useful work done and a food dividend at the end of it!
So why do so many ‘scientists’ support the ‘CO2 is pollution’ hoax? For very shameful reasons; pay, position, publicity and prospects of preferment. Around the World the amount of taxpayers’ money which has gone to supporting the ‘CO2 is pollution’ hoax is staggering. Any of the innumerable outfits with ‘Climate Change’ in its name needs to maintain the myth of ‘carbon pollution’ and to foster public alarm thus securing continued funding on the scale to which they have become so pleasurably accustomed.
To compound this offence they denigrate those who think like me with the highly offensive ‘denialist’ label with its Holocaust implications. They aver they we are funded by the ‘Koch brothers’ – whoever they may be. Raj, please be assured that I and all my friends who think like me find whatever funds we need from our own modest pockets. Truth does not need money. Lies need lucre.
Climate zealots have had a windfall with the rise of computers. Computers have bought marvellous advances to us all. But they are subject to misuse and climate zealots are surely the worst offenders. The alarm and despondency they strive to spread are not based on real events or actual evidence. They are computer generated forecasts and subject to the well-known ‘garbage in – garbage out’ principle. No one is more adroit with garbage than a climate zealot!
I’m very old and can hardly hope to collect on a bet going beyond the year 2020. My eleven grandchildren could do so well into the latter half of this century.
I am willing to bet anyone that, compared to the year 2014, the following will happen on a World scale by the year 2020:
Atmospheric CO2 will rise to 0.042% by volume
Population will exceed 7.6 billion
Grain production will exceed 2,700,000,000 metric tons
Plants will continue to encroach upon the edges of deserts
Average life expectancy at birth will exceed 68 years
Whale population will rise by 30%
The total area of land above mean sea level will increase slightly
500,000,000 people will rise out of poverty
Climate zealots will continue to predict disaster
If the question is “is the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere harmful to Man or to Nature?” It is a hoax. Indeed it is far worse. It is a malign fraud on a huge scale never before seen in the history of the World.
The first slice. In 1905 the brilliant Swedish scientist and Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius published a paper showing that CO2 in the atmosphere allowed incoming, short wave solar radiation to pass freely but trapped outgoing (relatively) long wave, infra-red radiation. To maintain its energy balance the earth had to heat up to push more energy outwards so as to equal that incoming.
He developed his famous equation for the warming effect thus:
ΔF = α Ln(C/Co)
This is as valid today as it was then. It is a logarithmic relationship which means that successive doublings of the CO2 concentration produce the same incremental rises in temperature. That is to say an increase in CO2 from .01% to .02% produces the same temperature rise as, say, from .03% to .06%. Arrhenius anticipated a doubling of CO2 from the then figure of .03% to .06% and calculated the resultant temperature rise as 1.6 Celsius.
He noted that without the seemingly trivial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the World would be a very cold place indeed and would scarcely support life. Arrhenius also recognised that many factors affect global temperature and therefore the actual temperature rise over a period of years might be more, less or even the reverse of theory.
Arrhenius believed that the temperature rise would be significantly beneficial to the World as a whole. He knew that we are an inter-glacial period and saw the modest warming as providing useful ‘insurance’ against a potential temperature fall. It is cold, not warmth that harms Man and Nature. He also noted that more CO2 plus warmth would raise plant growth and thus food production.
Arrhenius work was well-known in scientific circles and for 70 years there was an easy-going consensus that he was right. That position and that consensus I accept entirely. That is the first slice.
In 1975 the original consensus was turned on its head and it became mandatory in scientific discourse to aver that more CO2 spelled the doom of mankind. Economists, politicians, public servants, lawyers and even hedge fund managers sensing rich pickings, jumped on board. The public money that has gone and continues to go into “Climate Change” dwarfs the budgets of many countries. It is massive and massively seductive. It has zero merit. It is a hoax and far worse.
Why is it a hoax and a fraud? Because everyday observation shows it to be so. CO2 has increased by 35% since 1900 and the concurrent events speak for themselves. They cry out that the ‘CO2 is bad’ mantra of the climate zealots is the exact opposite of the truth. In that same period population has risen from 1.6 billion to 7 billion and World average age expectancy at birth from 31 years to 67 years. There has been sufficient food to feed all those extra people sufficiently well to more than double their life expectancy.
So what’s not to like about more CO2? It has been integral to every facet of those advances every step of the way. Without the additional CO2 there is not the slightest chance that they would have come to pass. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to demonstrate how else they could have happened. It can’t be done!
Just imagine, for example, trying to build the vital sewers, treatment plants and clean drinking water supplies using wind or solar power and without diesel! That vital infrastructure has played at least as big a part in the huge health improvements since 1900 as the sum total of all antibiotics.
It takes about 1.3 tons of atmospheric CO2 to grow 1 ton of grain, e.g. wheat, corn or rice. That is for the grain alone ignoring the straw which is required to support the grain and to enable the photosynthesis of CO2. World grain production is about 2,400,000,000 tons this year so that needs a vast amount of CO2. Far more is needed to grow grasslands and forests, to feed marine plants and to support Nature generally.
For example, 600 litres of diesel fuel will power a light truck for about 10,000 km. The resultant CO2 will grow about 1 (metric) ton of wheat. Lots of useful work done and a food dividend at the end of it!
So why do so many ‘scientists’ support the ‘CO2 is pollution’ hoax? For very shameful reasons; pay, position, publicity and prospects of preferment. Around the World the amount of taxpayers’ money which has gone to supporting the ‘CO2 is pollution’ hoax is staggering. Any of the innumerable outfits with ‘Climate Change’ in its name needs to maintain the myth of ‘carbon pollution’ and to foster public alarm thus securing continued funding on the scale to which they have become so pleasurably accustomed.
To compound this offence they denigrate those who think like me with the highly offensive ‘denialist’ label with its Holocaust implications. They aver they we are funded by the ‘Koch brothers’ – whoever they may be. Raj, please be assured that I and all my friends who think like me find whatever funds we need from our own modest pockets. Truth does not need money. Lies need lucre.
Climate zealots have had a windfall with the rise of computers. Computers have bought marvellous advances to us all. But they are subject to misuse and climate zealots are surely the worst offenders. The alarm and despondency they strive to spread are not based on real events or actual evidence. They are computer generated forecasts and subject to the well-known ‘garbage in – garbage out’ principle. No one is more adroit with garbage than a climate zealot!
I’m very old and can hardly hope to collect on a bet going beyond the year 2020. My eleven grandchildren could do so well into the latter half of this century.
I am willing to bet anyone that, compared to the year 2014, the following will happen on a World scale by the year 2020:
Atmospheric CO2 will rise to 0.042% by volume
Population will exceed 7.6 billion
Grain production will exceed 2,700,000,000 metric tons
Plants will continue to encroach upon the edges of deserts
Average life expectancy at birth will exceed 68 years
Whale population will rise by 30%
The total area of land above mean sea level will increase slightly
500,000,000 people will rise out of poverty
Climate zealots will continue to predict disaster
The more fear the general public has, the more control the world's elite has over them.
Do you think that the global warming/climate change controversy is one of these instances?
I think it is arrogant to think we can affect climate change. The earth goes through various cycles which alter conditions. We do have some affect on what happens, but I the extent of our contribution is likely very limited.
I'm not saying something it's something that we shouldn't worry about. We have to come up with alternate living solutions to minimize deaths and other catastrophes, but I don't think it's all our fault.
Thoughts?
Do you think that the global warming/climate change controversy is one of these instances?
I think it is arrogant to think we can affect climate change. The earth goes through various cycles which alter conditions. We do have some affect on what happens, but I the extent of our contribution is likely very limited.
I'm not saying something it's something that we shouldn't worry about. We have to come up with alternate living solutions to minimize deaths and other catastrophes, but I don't think it's all our fault.
Thoughts?
On the contrary, I don't think enough people fear global warming. Sure there are some questions and discussions about the changes that is happening in our environment right now, but save for the few environmental groups, there's not enough people who are concerned about it, or are inclined to do something about it.
Global warming is definitely happening and it is not a scam. If you go and read up about global warming, it is indeed happening now and it will become more serious as time goes by. In years to come, there most likely will not have North and South Pole anymore.
Yes, you are right, actually. We might not see the consequence of mass industrialization, but poles have had drastic loss of mass of ice in a recent decade. It's googled very easily.
Global warming is definitely happening and it is not a scam. If you go and read up about global warming, it is indeed happening now and it will become more serious as time goes by. In years to come, there most likely will not have North and South Pole anymore.
The more fear the general public has, the more control the world's elite has over them.
Do you think that the global warming/climate change controversy is one of these instances?
I think it is arrogant to think we can affect climate change. The earth goes through various cycles which alter conditions. We do have some affect on what happens, but I the extent of our contribution is likely very limited.
I'm not saying something it's something that we shouldn't worry about. We have to come up with alternate living solutions to minimize deaths and other catastrophes, but I don't think it's all our fault.
Thoughts?
Do you think that the global warming/climate change controversy is one of these instances?
I think it is arrogant to think we can affect climate change. The earth goes through various cycles which alter conditions. We do have some affect on what happens, but I the extent of our contribution is likely very limited.
I'm not saying something it's something that we shouldn't worry about. We have to come up with alternate living solutions to minimize deaths and other catastrophes, but I don't think it's all our fault.
Thoughts?
The thing is, that so-called elites wouldn't benefit much from fear of global warming. It would make society react quite negatively on carbon-releasing businesses.
How come it would be a scam? This is real.Global warning is happening and people in this world must be aware of it and do what's necessary to save what's been left for the next generation.
Local area warming exists in some places. But the earth on a whole has been cooling down since the beginning of this century.
Gloabl warming is very serious, if you live near beach, because after let say 50 years, your real estate near beach will be under water. Plus nearby cities can be also affected. 
Global warming is a result of human activity, it's not "just another cycle", we are definitely making it worse, not catastrophically fast (at least for our generation), but the threat is absolutely real
And it happens not just because of cars and oil burned, all the waste from the factories, all the buildings happening, everything we burn, everything we dig into the earth to get rid of and have our comfort untouched makes it worse, a tiny bit worse, but there's 7 billion of us and the number grows
I won't ramble about rainforest and desert expansion, all you need to see to feel the impact - pacific garbage patch
And it happens not just because of cars and oil burned, all the waste from the factories, all the buildings happening, everything we burn, everything we dig into the earth to get rid of and have our comfort untouched makes it worse, a tiny bit worse, but there's 7 billion of us and the number grows
I won't ramble about rainforest and desert expansion, all you need to see to feel the impact - pacific garbage patch
Its just the cycle of the planet,but we mjight speed it up abit,and thats it.
The global warming hypothesis is a scientific theory, Like all scientific theories, it should be subject to continued scrutiny and testing. There also seems to be overwhelming evidence to support that the hypothesis is indeed correct. Regardless, I think that it is good policy to come up with cleaner and more efficient ways to produce energy, as well as other goods and services. In the short term, it may cause production costs to go up. However, in the long term, these costs will go down and everyone will benefit, even if the global warming hypothesis is incorrect.
Regardless of whether or not global warming is correct, I agree that it is definitely a good policy to come up with cleaner energy and more efficient means of life in general to intelligently solve the scarcity problem and knock two birds out with one stone, if only for human health. Millions prematurely die because of pollution. I think a good strategy that we can do right now is to render as many aspects of life as possible digital/virtual-work, certain forms of entertainment, education.
I don't see why you would even associate the word "scam" with global warming. There is nothing to be gained from denying it unless you work for an oil company or something that similar that benefits from a company that is directly contributing to pollution. It's real. It's obviously happening.
I'm not saying something it's something that we shouldn't worry about. We have to come up with alternate living solutions to minimize deaths and other catastrophes, but I don't think it's all our fault.
Of course it's our fault. We're inhabiting the planet, we're the once using up all of the Earth's resources. Whatever is happening with the climate change, we are partly to blame for it. To believe otherwise that global warming isn't real is false. Global warming is not a scam. It's real and it's only gonna get worse as time goes by.
Global warming is real. If you are a person who carefully experiences life, you will find that the weather in the city where you live is changing! Colder or hotter
I believe global warming is real. The ocean is super filthy with trash that people don't care about recycling and keeping trash away from the streets. Which is how we get dirty water.
Global warming is real and it was caused by people who took advantage of nature.
Jump to: