Evidence Against Climate Change!
- Thread starter on
- Start date
Actually, climate change is very real. It's just that it has been occurring constantly since the beginning of time, and there is no indication that it is caused by humans. The climate of Earth is far too complex for us to understand completely, but the actual evidence of past history shows that Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, and we are currently (and have been for a hew thousand years) experiencing a natural, slow heating period. The problems with the environmentalists and their agenda arose when researchers began feeding limited data into poorly designed computer generated climate models and returned all sorts of results, none of which could be taken seriously from a scientific standpoint as they are all based on assumptions and incomplete data. But, the "findings" of these models were released anyhow, and the hysteria of Global Warming caught on like wildfire.
So yes, climate change = real. Humans causing it and destroying Earth = FAIL.
So yes, climate change = real. Humans causing it and destroying Earth = FAIL.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
The leftists are taking this opportunity to create panic and unify the whole planet under one government led by the World Bank and the U.N. in an effort to tax every human activity, practice eugenics and to effectively enslave the human race. This is just the beginning.
on
Closed Account
What is causing global warming?
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Al Gore? Agreed.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Here's a question...
Does the climate really change or does it just shift slighty as time goes by?
Does the climate really change or does it just shift slighty as time goes by?
That's just it; we don't know. Science has not progressed to a point where it can fully explain climate and probably never will. It's simply too complex and on such a vast scale, that it cannot be wholly explained. It isn't even a whole, for that matter, but a system of micro-climates functioning simultaneously with each other and at odds with each other, or, affecting each other and acting independently of each other. So understanding what is currently happening with global climate, let alone what is going to happen, is simply out of our league at this time.
Look at it this way. Try to imagine the entire surface of the Earth; every rock, every pebble, every wave and stream, every speck of dirt and grain of sand: everything. Difficult, right? Well, that's just the surface. The climate of Earth takes place in the atmosphere, from the surface to about 100 miles up. It was nearly impossible just to contemplate the surface, how much harder is it to multiply that thin layer of surface to a system that goes up to 100 miles, with infinite variations all the way up, and constantly changing at every moment. How can we even begin to understand that, let alone predict it?
All we can do is go by evidence gathered from ice cores and the fossil record, and use it to infer what historically happened, and assemble a running historical record with which to make an assumption of, "Well, if the evidence shows that Earth heats for 1000 years, then cools for 1000 years, and has been doing so for millions of years, and the last cooling ended 500 years ago, then we are in the middle of a heating period. Maybe." That's as specific as we can get.
Unfortunately, society works in sound bytes and taglines, and so the general public is disinclined to give climate change serious, reasoned thought, and instead simply buys whatever nonsense is sold to them by tools like Gore and such. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax is one of the greatest, and most terrible, scams in all of human history because of this.
That's an excellent way to view it.
on
Closed Account
Why do scientists attribute this change or shift in climate to CO2 emissions?
And do you know any good articles that disprove the theory?
Just a quiz, whether you're a tree hugger or a tree burner (like I'm considered to be by tree huggers, mesquite gives a nice taste to your BBQ) but interesting anyway
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533633426036464.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Just some news and opinions that I don't expect to see written in the New York Times or discussed in any ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC newscast (surprised I haven't see it in Fox News, may need to watch more TV)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingeditorial.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533633426036464.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Just some news and opinions that I don't expect to see written in the New York Times or discussed in any ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC newscast (surprised I haven't see it in Fox News, may need to watch more TV)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingeditorial.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html
To put it most simply, CO2 has the ability to store more heat than, say, oxygen. In increase in atmospheric CO2 could theoretically cause a rise in temperature. However, I stress theoretically, as CO2 is merely one small component of the atmosphere, and could very well have its heat trapping capability canceled out by other elements, or simply isn't strong enough to do the job of causing a rise, etc, etc. Bottom line, the entire argument that rising CO2 levels are heating up the planets is entirely based on an assumption and not proven, scientifically, in any way. I could just as well go out and hypothesize that the Earth is warming up because of the rising number of women getting bigger boobs, and using the tactic of the eco-morons, say that you have to prove me wrong. And, if you can't, claim victory, which is what Gore and his ilk have done. Global Warming does not need to be proven wrong. In the realm of science, theories must be proven correct to be accepted, and Global Warming, CO2 causing it, and so on, never have been.
As for articles, I recommend you start with wiki, then read the sources there, then do some Googling. I could provide a bunch of links, but I did my own research whilst writing a term paper for a college course a while back, and don't care to go digging around again. It's all out there, though, for you to find.
on
Closed Account
Firstly thanks for the links above and also for all other responses. I fully agree that theories have to be proven. I don't really know what Al Gore does, or has done, or what he's got to do with climate change really, I know that he lost an election to George Bush, then he did some program that I've not yet seen. I go on what I've read over time in the media really. I'm not a scientist, and I've never researched global warming. I'm fully aware that the media portrays climate change and not only CO2 levels, but all green-house gasses to be inextricably linked. I'm happy to entertain that this is all a load of bullshit too, why wouldn't I?
To be honest, having read a few threads with people expressing their views regarding the copenhagen summit, I just don't understand the premise that global warming is a rouse to enable governments to raise tax, or some other conspiracy. That's why I posted this thread, as all I've read about so far in others is some slating Al gore, chat about lefties, even mentioning fascists. Whilst I enjoy reading these posts, it just boils down to name calling. Obviously I shouldn't expect scientists to be discussing their disproving theories here, but I haven't yet heard anyone undermine what is claimed to be true by the scientists that have managed to convince governments. And any links posted, have been predominantly to do with this email controvercy (disregarding this thread).
I can't produce any data to prove a link, neither can I produce data to disprove it. What I just can't understand, is what benefit would governments get by adopting the views of scientists that say global warming is linked to green house gasses. How would it benefit any economy? How would a government implementing a strategy to lower greenhouse gases be doing itself a favour? I would be really greateful for someone to suggest something that would benefit a government. I know there will be some itchy fingers about to type the words, tax and petrol/gas prices. That is a direct cost to the public, granted, but what else will this pack of lies bring, that will be so detremental to society?
Finally, I do actually think there is one very plausable reason why governments might want to cap CO2 emissions, but it's not been mentioned here at all, so I'll wait to see if it comes up.
Also, thanks for the advice about google, but as for Wiki, it's not exactly famous for its watertight information.
whoremaker is right all the way, i agree with you
on
Closed Account
I need to clarify that I meant people that don't think climate change is caused by Emissions, CO2 or otherwise. My apologies, the opening line was an error!
Are you being facetious, or just a tool?
That's why I recommended reading the sources posted on the wiki. Wiki itself has become just another message board, but by skipping down to the sources cited section and then reading those, you can usually get some good info.
As to the whole government benefit thing, there is none, and that is all just conspiracy theory stuff. The Global Warming scare is just that: a scare. And like most scares, it has pushed people into action without thought, and that includes government officials. They're not using Global Warming to further their agenda, they're simply letting their agendas become affected by Global Warming, if that makes sense. Anyhow, I encourage you to look deeper, and don't accept things like the oft espoused "The scientists say it's real!" battle cry. Just because Newsweek (or another media outlet) says that "scientists" say it's real does not mean that it is. Ask the questions: who are these scientists? What is their data? What have they researched? What are the raw findings? And so on. Empty statements like "the scientists agree" are thrown around quite often, but be vigilant and remain a critical thinker.
on
Closed Account
To be honest, I will probably have a better look sometime, but it's annoying when looking for things to disprove it, often you come across some hole picking campain or contrary theories about, the sun causing it for example! I mean yeah it's a valid theory, but if it comes down to quantitable data, I trust the stuff that's measured on earth. I'm not an all out sceptic, neither am I a fool, but I find it hard to believe that governments can be convinced by faulty and innacurate data. Although it's not long ago that the United Kingdom allowed itself to get involved in a war based on inacurate data, to put it mildly!. However, best not get on that now! In all honesty, I don't understand why scientists would want to convince governments of something made up? And yes another argument used by sceptics that I came across, that all this global warming has been jumped on by scientists just wanting funding. This is why I find it hard to research the opposing side! Scientists are usually motivated by their work, not money, yes some may need funding for their area or research, and if they think their initial findings are worth investigating they will seek further funding, they wouldn't do so purely on the basis of getting funding, fixing results to keep the money rolling in? That's bullshit created by people who like to sell and buy cheap oil/gas/petrol, whatever. I personally think that global warming has a greater chance of being caused by the increase of emissions than anything else. I do also agree that it's not all man made, cows fart like there's no tomorrow, punn fully intended, and farming is done on a bigger scale than ever. It is complex, like you previously said, volcanos contribute all sorts of toxic shit, meanwhile trees, the things that absorb CO2 are falling like dominos. I agree that the climate has a very complex balance, relying on things we probably haven't even considered yet. Even reducing emissions is going to cause problems, for instance reducing air-travel. It's an unknown. I don't know if you know about 'Global Dimming'? I imagine you have if you've extensively researched global warming. Now that could bring a real fucked up situation. Anyway, bottom line for me is that I can only choose who I listen to, whatever my opinion, I can't effect anything. For me, the people that I listen to, in my judgement have nothing to gain by making this up. That idea makes no sense to me, while I personally think that there's more in it for those in government protesting against a cap on emissions!. I'll happily reconsider and abandon my opinion if and when I find information that I believe underminds it all.
Similar threads
- Locked
