|
| Thread: I gave up on believing in Climate Change. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted August 18, 2009 12:33 PM |
|
|
I gave up on believing in Climate Change.
In an ironic turn of events I no longer care about religion that much. Aside from the odd nutter at university they don't really impact my life very much as it is and so I'm a bit whatever.
However, by religion there I mean Christianity et al.
There is a new religion, like the rest: founded not on science but on belief and fear, that has a much larger impact on Western civilization in modern times.
That is the religion of Global Warming/Climate Change.
I'm currently taking a Climate Change subject at university and to me it seems exactly like a Religious Education subject. "I don't care about Climate Change Sceptics," the lecturer said, "because there are some people who still believe the world is flat!"
It seems there is no place for argument or even discussion, just submission.
IMPORTANT: this is specifically to do with the belief that human emissions are currently warming the climate, NOT that climate changes in general or the existence of the natural greenhouse effect or that CO2 is increasing etc.
As with the other thread, I was a believer. If someone had told me 2 months ago that they were a climate change sceptic, I would have thought that they were foolish and got all angry about destroying the planet or something. That is because it has become fashionable, this whole motion, and to question it nowadays is almost heresy. This alarmist nature is unhealthy: scepticism is the basis of science, and when the "science" has such a great influence on policies and society, it is important to get it right.
Not long ago Al Gore had a meeting about Climate Change and sceptics were out the front protesting about the false science and lack of evidence. Haven't times changed: go back a few decades and you had a meeting full of oil CEOs and greenies protesting out the front 
Believers in anthropogenic climate change have tenets, just like any religion.
They are:
- the world is warming
- this is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide
- increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect which will dangerously warm up planet earth
And all the doomsday prophecies that come with it: melting of all ice, sea level rise, extinction, deadly storms and weather etc.
Now I'm not 100% sure on this either way, and am open to new ideas and facts. It's annoying because you have one expert telling you this and then another expert tells you he's a crackpot. But here's what I have gathered from some reading:
-the earth has been warming, which has coincided with increased CO2 emissions, however this warming was confined to the late 20th century and we have been cooling since 1998, despite accelerating CO2 emissions
-the late 20th century warming is not unprecedented, it has been much warmer and much colder than it is now many times throughout many cycles throughout geological time, including in the 1500s when we had the Medieval Warming, which was much greater than the Late 20th Century warming despite no human CO2 emissions from industry etc.
-CO2 concentrations follow temperature change, not the other way around, due to the carbon cycle. There has also been times when CO2 was much higher than it is now, despite no industry; there has been a constant drawdown of CO2 since the beginning of the earth resulting in very low CO2 conc in modern times. Temp cooled between 1940 and 1975, despite great increases in emissions due to the Post War Economic Boom: low temp, high CO2. In the Ordovician-Silurian era, the CO2 conc was approx 4000 ppmv (parts per million volume, compared to todays approx 390 ppmv), yet at that time there was glaciation, not warming: high CO2, low temp. Similarly, in the Carboniferous-Permian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous glaciation periods, the CO2 conc was higher than it is now. (source: GEOCARBIII) There was no runaway greenhouse effect.
data behind graph
-while the greenhouse effect does exist, CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere, and anthropogenic CO2 is even less; most of the greenhouse effect is control by water vapour
-the greenhouse effect is vastly overstated in climate models because there are so many variables, both known and unknown, in the extremely complex climate of the earth that without all of them increasing one variable (CO2) demonstrates a much larger temperature change.
-most of the greenhouse effect of CO2 comes from the first 20ppmv. After that, each 20ppmv has a decreasing effect. Once the concentrations get past a few hundred ppmv, the effect of doubling the CO2 levels is minimal.
sidenote:
I went to go see Arj Barker (comedian) not long ago and he has this joke where he says
"Everyone is talking about Global Warming, saying 'theres something wrong with the Earth'.
I think maybe, just maybe, there's something wrong with the SUN.
All I'm sayin is, when I burn my toast, I don't blame the bread."
I laughed at the time but looking back this is actually an important point: solar activity is a vastly understated variable.
/sidenote
-Solar activity varies. The solar constant is not constant. The period of global warming that we have experienced on our planet over the last century, which has seen a rise in temperature of some 0,6 oC, does not correlate at all with a rise in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but it does correlate with solar activity.
-Earlier warmings in human history (all coinciding with solar activity) has all caused civilization to flourish. Europe prospered: Vikings, Norway, China, Aztecs etc. Global cooling resulted in famine, all the major plagues, and the collapse of civilizations such as the Mayans. Vast numbers of Europeans starved during the Little Ice Age, a time of cooling after the Medieval Warm Period.
-Other important variables are ignored or understated, such as cosmic ray flux. This varies as the solar system travels through the atmosphere, but also with solar activity as high solar activity blasts away cosmic rays. These rays are very important in climate because they have a strong impact on creating clouds, which can reflect up to 60% of solar energy. Others include the wobbles of the Earths orbit, volcanoes and cloud cover.
This green revolution crusade on a trace gas carbon dioxide has ignored many crucial facts. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) used the "hockey stick diagram; the foundation for climate hysteria. This was also used by Al Gore in his presentations, and it showed current temperatures as being the highest, leading to claims of CO2 forcing.
This was proven to be a fraud, as it ignored both the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age.
Four computer predictions used by the IPCC for the effects of global warming by doubling atmospheric CO2 show increased warming in equatorial regions. This has not been validated by actual measurements, which show no warming in equatorial regions.
The IPCC, which has been awared the Nobel Peace Prize, authors the "Summary for policy makers" which is a summarized version of their report, which is unscientific and influences the decisions of governments. The IPCC continues to use the unvalidated models and predictions.
This is not to say that we are not polluting the Earth. We are.
We should definitely do something about it. But CO2 has been labeled as this evil pollutant, outweighing smog and many other real pollutants.
We do need cleaner energy and society. To do this we need innovation. If history shows us anything it's that governments are very bad at investing in such innovation, and while people aren't much better, the scale at which the general public can invest means that despite many misses there are bound to be some hits.
To sponsor this, taking capitol out of the market with CO2 schemes and cutting production etc is very inefficient.
We need to act logically, not in an alarmist fashion.
What are your thoughts? Do we humans have the power to change the climate of the earth?
What should we be doing?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted August 18, 2009 01:19 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 15:35, 18 Aug 2009.
|
I'm really open to new ideas.
All I remember is that winters are not as brutal as they were when I was a kid.
I don't exactly believe in climate change, but I do believe we can poison the environment as we are doing with large swaths of land and ocean. There is evidence of that.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
kesnar
Famous Hero
from Kesnaria
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 02:02 PM |
|
|
Wel, First of all, I don't believe in Greenhouse effect too...After seeing a documentary and after some research, there are no evidence to connect CO2 with climatic change...however there are evidence that show that some "stains"-"holes" in the sun and their size do connect with the climatic change...BUT, this does not mean that we shall stop be enviromentalists...
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 02:33 PM |
|
|
Of course not.
That is what I wrote at the end of my post but it would be a miracle if anyone actually gets that far, so I will restate it.
I am 100% for a cleaner, greener future. I think it is imperative that we cut pollution and focus on green energy and recycling as a key role in our society. This is the problem with discussing climate change; it is seen that if you do not agree 100% with the alarmists, you might as well be shooting pandas in the face with a nuclear bomb.
My opinions on what "green" and "pollution" have simply changed to stop worrying about CO2 in preference to other more pressing environmental concerns.
(actually, I believe that fundamentally our environmental issues boil down to overpopulation (by a couple billion or so) but that's for another thread )
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 02:48 PM |
|
|
You have my 100% support, TA 
I also don't believe at all in this "religion".
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 03:24 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:25, 18 Aug 2009.
|
It is nice to see more people waking up to the scam that has been going on. Global temperature cycles follow the sunspots. The sunspot activity has been virtually non-existent for a decade which is why the global temperature has been dropping.
The global warming scam is being used to bilk taxpayers of more money.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
That's only half true. The current state of things is that while the sun activity has an influence on clima and the period of low sunspot activity in the 17. century may indeed be the cause of the "small ice age" then, the activities in the last 20 years are not enough to explain the changes in temperature within the last 20 years.
One indicator that greenhouse gasses are the prime factor here is the fact that the changes in average temperature is a consequence of warmer nights and winters mainly, which is in line with an effect based on greenhouse gasses and not on sun activity.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
A while back then it was thought to proposterous that puny humans could destroy something global like the ozone layer. The idea was laughed at. It turned out that it was humans, after all, and after we acted on it we stopped the destruction of ozone layer by banning CFC:s and aerosols that were the cause of the destruction.
Now. There is a consensus among scientists that humans are increasing the effect of global warming. I am no scientist, so I either believe them or I believe that there is a global conspiracy of scientists. I gladly choose the first one, as I am not a fan of conspiracies.
The fact about water vapor is old news. It IS the most abundant greenhouse gas. We are not adding water vapor to the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide. The warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Which makes even small (small compared to water vapor) increase in carbon dioxide have a large impact on the warming.
So what is left, is the argument that humans do not emit carbon dioxide to make an effect. Which is a false claim. All kinds of rumors are there that a single volcano emits more carbon dioxide that humans, which are simply fairytales that have gotten wings. Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply. There is, once again, a consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of this rise.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 07:07 PM |
|
|
So let me get this straight: you dismiss the global warming as a false belief, and all data/statistics that shows it's true must be fake, yet you post your statistics afterwards?
Speaking of religion, isn't that like saying Christianity is false but Islam is true?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 07:44 PM |
|
|
Uhm. Yes, I think we are VERY guilty.
I have noticed the climate change. It's getting hotter here each summer and the winter becomes shorter and shorter. The real snow in Sweden only lasts a few weeks and then it's just slush.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Uhm. Yes, I think we are VERY guilty.
I have noticed the climate change. It's getting hotter here each summer and the winter becomes shorter and shorter. The real snow in Sweden only lasts a few weeks and then it's just slush.
We didn't have ANY snow for SEVERAL years. And temperature went up to 60 degrees (Celsius that is) this summer in the open sun, or at least that's what the meteorology guys said.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:25 PM |
|
|
I hate how global warming and stuff is considered "cool" in education right now, I can't open a book without finding at least 4 different "save the enviroment" problems.
I know they're trying to set a good example, but to me it feels more like brainwashing, it seems like we're not even supposed to question it.
Xerox is a good example here, many times he has used the argument "but it said so in the book" or "but my teacher said so".
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I hate how global warming and stuff is considered "cool" in education right now, I can't open a book without finding at least 4 different "save the enviroment" problems.
Alright, I assign you with the job of informing people about serious stuff (at least that's what they think) WITHOUT writing it, because you know they'll consider it you're doing it for being "cool" and impressing your girlfriend right?
Quote:
I know they're trying to set a good example, but to me it feels more like brainwashing, it seems like we're not even supposed to question it.
Isn't that true for most science nowadays? When was the last time you questioned your computer for giving you a wrong result?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:35 PM |
|
|
You win Death, too complicated. I just don't understand.
Pardon my ignorance.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:41 PM |
|
|
What's too complicated? My post, or the global warming thing? (I never said that it's complicated or anything -- it may be, but I never said it)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 21:52, 18 Aug 2009.
|
I do understand the questions, it's just that my brain gets stuck when trying to think of an answer
If I can't come up with a decent answer I rather keep quiet, or in this case, excuse myself.
I should've entered the OSM more prepared.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 18, 2009 10:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I hate how global warming and stuff is considered "cool" in education right now, I can't open a book without finding at least 4 different "save the enviroment" problems.
I both praise and want to murder whoever is in charge of the books for the school for haveing such outdated books we have.
In the one we have, "save the world" hysteria is not covered at all. Nor CO2 for that matter. General pollution and resource wasting was however covered, which made sense. A crashed oil tankers kills birds and fish alike with the oil it spills, it kills of plant life if it hits the correct places and drifts into the coast.
A overburning that causes enough CO2 will have a few short term consequenses. Do not forget that we can kill ourself with the poison we spill out also.
But the enviroment hysteria today? It needs to die, badly.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 12:13 AM |
|
|
Fact: humans pollute the earth.
Fact: whether or not humans contribute to global warming is unclear.
Fact: regardless, pollution is bad.
Result: the question of whether anthropogenic global warmng exists or not should be one of academic interest, and the way humans treat the planet shouldn't hinge on that question's ultimate answer.
In other words, if human generated CO2 DOES contribute to global warming, and we do nothing to limit CO2 production, we're screwed. If human generated CO2 does NOT contribute to global warming, and we do something about it anyway, then no harm done. From a policy standpoint, the answer seems pretty clear.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 01:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Alright, I assign you with the job of informing people about serious stuff (at least that's what they think) WITHOUT writing it, because you know they'll consider it you're doing it for being "cool" and impressing your girlfriend right?
Death, you missed the point, I think. I think adrius meant to say that in school books (remember he's in secundary school, so he attends classes and I've never heard of global warming classes myself) there's too much of it. For instance, with all the popularity of it, you would maybe find it in all science classes (math and geography are sciences as well) and all language classes and then my question is: isn't that going too far? yeah, sure awareness is okay, but why is it important that I learn about too many carbon levels in first grade chemistry where I barely know about oxidation levels? There is a point where it loses relevance and I'm pretty sure most school books have missed just that.
And since selling school books is such a mob industry, of course they're all including it becaus eit's new, fresh, popular, whatever. Think about it, those school books need to be sold, so they hype up on every little thing that may seem valuable to learn the young kids, like global warming, but the relevance of the matter to school will partly be forgotten and the lessons will be so brief they would only be able to give a quick summary or some jack's opinion, so it would be like brainwashing because the inherent, expanded reasoning would be forgotten.
At least, I think adrius was saying that, just with lesser words...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted August 19, 2009 01:45 AM |
|
Edited by Adrius at 01:47, 19 Aug 2009.
|
Yes, correct.
In math there were problems like, how much the temperature has increased over the years. In language classes it's an extremly common subject in oral exercises... I don't have science classes but I bet they're as common there. It's just too much.
Oh wait... I'm starting science class this year, or at least some degenerated form of science... great. Most crappy teacher ever, well at least she's gullible...
____________
|
| |
|
|
