Global warming is rubbish, heres the facts watch

That is rubbish. Plants need a lot more than just CO2 to survive and grow, and the impacts of climate change on plant growth could outweigh any benefit of a bit extra CO2. e.g. Think about the impacts of drought which could become more of a problem due to climate change.

Humans need water to survive, but we can still drown in the stuff.

I see a few of those website push climate change denial myths as well. One of them says the earth is cooling instead of warming (which is not true), another appears to support the discredited Oregon petition. I'd question the reliability of all of those websites.

It's a hell of a lot more complex than that. Yes, CO2 increases the levels of photosynthesis in some plants, but as mentioned, drought/flooding, a rapidly changing predation situation and changes in UV levels all have an effect. It's virtually impossible to predict how nature is going to react to climate change, given the extensive number of factors involved.

(Original post by Dumachi)
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default...MenuItemID=103

http://www.co2isgreen.org/

Also higher temperatures with higher Co2 increases plant growth even more.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/...temp+co2ag.php

Lowering co2 and temperature could actually cause famine worldwide

So how does any of this disprove global warming?

Those who believe that we can avert global warming if it happens are severely overestimating the ability of humanity to effect our environment around us and the eco-systems which are many times older than the industrial revolution.

The answer for them is also almost always the same, i.e. socialism or state control.

(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Those who believe that we can avert global warming if it happens are severely overestimating the ability of humanity to effect our environment around us and the eco-systems which are many times older than the industrial revolution.

The answer for them is also almost always the same, i.e. socialism or state control.

How would common/public ownership over the means of production stop global warming?

(Original post by SHallowvale)
How would common/public ownership over the means of production stop global warming?

It isn't, but it is pushed as the answer because state power requires crises to seize power. Without a struggle, depression, war, major crisis, the state's power over its citizens is diminished. Just consider events such as September 11th and how they triggered a sense of paranoia and hyped security in the US for over ten years. The NSA were given masses more power and the ability to spy on every citizen (in the world, actually).

And yet, after seizing all that power, they still couldn't prevent the Boston Bombing from happening, so they aren't defending their own citizens with that intelligence. Simply, they are seeing how far they can push the American psyche in surrendering their freedom. It seems like they have grown complacent.

Global warming is the next phase after continual warring in the Middle East. What's worse, the global warming hoax is a wealth transfer from the plebs to the rich. I don't hate wealthy people, so this isn't an anti-wealth sentiment, but a false economy and we're all getting screwed for its existence.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Global warming is the next phase after continual warring in the Middle East. What's worse, the global warming hoax is a wealth transfer from the plebs to the rich. I don't hate wealthy people, so this isn't an anti-wealth sentiment, but a false economy and we're all getting screwed for its existence.

I read this and just couldn't leave it unchallenged.

The claim that global warming is somehow a "hoax" is nothing but a totally retarded conspiracy theory. Global warming is supported by many lines of evidence involving thousands of scientists from many different research institutions in many different countries. For all that to be a hoax is simply impossible. It would be impossible to organise it even within just one country, let alone the whole world.

It's one thing to say you are skeptical of climate change. But saying it is a "hoax" crosses a line from genuine scientific skepticism well into the territory of deluded conspiracy theorists.

If you're going to claim that global warming is a hoax for wealth transfer, you're going to have to provide some evidence because so far you've provided nothing.

(Original post by RFowler)

It's one thing to say you are skeptical of climate change. But saying it is a "hoax" crosses a line from genuine scientific skepticism well into the territory of deluded conspiracy theorists.

If you're going to claim that global warming is a hoax for wealth transfer, you're going to have to provide some evidence because so far you've provided nothing.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just happening. You are going to have to stop looking at things in terms of handshakes in a shady room= conspiracy. Look at what benefits governments, giving them more power; look at who funds environmental quangos and environmental scientists. Follow the money. Follow the power.

Now, the "hoax" part is well proven by now, that the oceans are NOT acidifying, the globe has NOT been warming as much as the IPCC or Al Gore's documentary claimed. Climategate showed the top climate scientists informing the IPCC were colluding and pulling data tricks, mixing two forms of temperature gauging for a historical timeline of temp. increase. Then you've got this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...s-much-bigger/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Here's the problem. If we can finally agree that the climate naturally changes over time and there is no natural balanced state for it to be in, we have to concede that this moral crusade of "over-warming" is stupid and a power-grab by governments and certain individuals involved in the green industry. The other problem with this is that we were lied to.

It's very difficult to suggest that "the science is settled" and "all scientists agree", because this is not the case. http://www.petitionproject.org/

(Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
Those who believe that we can avert global warming if it happens are severely overestimating the ability of humanity to effect our environment around us and the eco-systems which are many times older than the industrial revolution.

The answer for them is also almost always the same, i.e. socialism or state control.

You don't seem to be attacking the same issue. We don't have concerns over natural climate change as it happens at a slow rate and is usually naturally cyclical due to outside influences (distance from the sun for example) or feedbacks.

We're concerned about anthropogenic climate change, or change that is caused by humans. For example, we know from the Mauna Loa CO2 record that CO2 ppm in the atmosphere has increased rapidly in the past 50 years, indeed it is now the highest it has been in last few million years.

As a result, air, and the oft ignored sea, temperatures are increasing.

In short, we're not trying to affect 'natural' climate changes, but rather reverse the affects we are having on the the climate.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
It's very difficult to suggest that "the science is settled" and "all scientists agree", because this is not the case. http://www.petitionproject.org/

I'll attack this point first because it really is the low hanging fruit. I was going to go through some of the credentials myself, but it's already been done here. It's a bit of a joke really, what's the relevance of asking what a bunch of (predominately) engineers think about climate change? Why not ask the people who are, I don't know, climate scientists?

(Original post by HigherMinion)
It's not a conspiracy, it's just happening. You are going to have to stop looking at things in terms of handshakes in a shady room= conspiracy. Look at what benefits governments, giving them more power; look at who funds environmental quangos and environmental scientists. Follow the money. Follow the power.

This is a bit, read very, one sided. Who profits from maintaining the status quo carbon economy? Fossil fuel companies. How many of the people on your list are bank rolled by them? Probably quite a few. How many of the rich have shares in BP, Exxon, etc?

As a separate point, renewable energy generation in the UK could increase energy security twofold. Not only would it reduce the reliance on fuel from Russia and the continent, but it would also insure us against running out, and inevitable price increases.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Now, the "hoax" part is well proven by now, that the oceans are NOT acidifying, the globe has NOT been warming as much as the IPCC or Al Gore's documentary claimed. Climategate showed the top climate scientists informing the IPCC were colluding and pulling data tricks, mixing two forms of temperature gauging for a historical timeline of temp. increase.

The "hoax" part is well proven among people who don't understand climate science. Academic source of no ocean acidification please? Eg., this and this disagree. Gore was broadly correct, see.

"Climategate" is another example of low hanging fruit that can be easily dismissed. Mike's nature trick involved using recorded values to to augment a proxy data model. See here.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Then you've got this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...s-much-bigger/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

If we're just posting links I can again, very easily, rebut that with: https://theconversation.com/why-scie...-can-too-36825

(Original post by HigherMinion)

Here's the problem. If we can finally agree that the climate naturally changes over time and there is no natural balanced state for it to be in, we have to concede that this moral crusade of "over-warming" is stupid and a power-grab by governments and certain individuals involved in the green industry. The other problem with this is that we were lied to.

If you're proposing such a conclusion, without much in the way of academic support aside from petitions and blogs, can I ask your credentials related to science and preferably climate science?

I've spent a fair bit of time going through this, if you could offer a rebuttal I'd be happy to receive it.

Attached Images

 

(Original post by HigherMinion)
It's not a conspiracy, it's just happening. You are going to have to stop looking at things in terms of handshakes in a shady room= conspiracy. Look at what benefits governments, giving them more power; look at who funds environmental quangos and environmental scientists. Follow the money. Follow the power.

Now, the "hoax" part is well proven by now, that the oceans are NOT acidifying, the globe has NOT been warming as much as the IPCC or Al Gore's documentary claimed. Climategate showed the top climate scientists informing the IPCC were colluding and pulling data tricks, mixing two forms of temperature gauging for a historical timeline of temp. increase. Then you've got this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...s-much-bigger/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Here's the problem. If we can finally agree that the climate naturally changes over time and there is no natural balanced state for it to be in, we have to concede that this moral crusade of "over-warming" is stupid and a power-grab by governments and certain individuals involved in the green industry. The other problem with this is that we were lied to.

It's very difficult to suggest that "the science is settled" and "all scientists agree", because this is not the case. http://www.petitionproject.org/

The "hoax" part is not proven at all.

The Telegraph article does not prove anything. Temperature data has not been messed with in any serious way, it gets adjusted all the time if, for example, weather stations have to be moved.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ile-rome-burns

Breitbart is not a reliable source for information on climate change (or anything, really). They're the Daily Mail on steroids for factual inaccuracy and sensationalism.

Climategate was a complete non-scandal. All the scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by several investigations. All that happened was a bunch of climate deniers hacked the emails and then selectively quoted bits of them to make it look like there was a scandal when there wasn't. The actions of the climate change deniers was the real scandal there.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...he-decline.htm

There is no evidence to support the theory that climate change is in any way a "hoax", and it remains a baseless conspiracy theory. What you wrongly accuse climate change proponents of has been well documented on the denier side, where fossil fuel interests provide large sums of money to lobby organisations to manufacture dissent on the science.

(Original post by pjm600)
I'll attack this point first because it really is the low hanging fruit. I was going to go through some of the credentials myself, but it's already been done here. It's a bit of a joke really, what's the relevance of asking what a bunch of (predominately) engineers think about climate change? Why not ask the people who are, I don't know, climate scientists?





This is a bit, read very, one sided. Who profits from maintaining the status quo carbon economy? Fossil fuel companies. How many of the people on your list are bank rolled by them? Probably quite a few. How many of the rich have shares in BP, Exxon, etc?

As a separate point, renewable energy generation in the UK could increase energy security twofold. Not only would it reduce the reliance on fuel from Russia and the continent, but it would also insure us against running out, and inevitable price increases.



The "hoax" part is well proven among people who don't understand climate science. Academic source of no ocean acidification please? Eg., this and this disagree. Gore was broadly correct, see.

"Climategate" is another example of low hanging fruit that can be easily dismissed. Mike's nature trick involved using recorded values to to augment a proxy data model. See here.



If we're just posting links I can again, very easily, rebut that with: https://theconversation.com/why-scie...-can-too-36825



If you're proposing such a conclusion, without much in the way of academic support aside from petitions and blogs, can I ask your credentials related to science and preferably climate science?

I've spent a fair bit of time going through this, if you could offer a rebuttal I'd be happy to receive it.

(Original post by RFowler)
The "hoax" part is not proven at all.

The Telegraph article does not prove anything. Temperature data has not been messed with in any serious way, it gets adjusted all the time if, for example, weather stations have to be moved.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ile-rome-burns

Breitbart is not a reliable source for information on climate change (or anything, really). They're the Daily Mail on steroids for factual inaccuracy and sensationalism.

Climategate was a complete non-scandal. All the scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by several investigations. All that happened was a bunch of climate deniers hacked the emails and then selectively quoted bits of them to make it look like there was a scandal when there wasn't. The actions of the climate change deniers was the real scandal there.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...he-decline.htm

There is no evidence to support the theory that climate change is in any way a "hoax", and it remains a baseless conspiracy theory. What you wrongly accuse climate change proponents of has been well documented on the denier side, where fossil fuel interests provide large sums of money to lobby organisations to manufacture dissent on the science.

Hilarious. You put all the power in the hands of the Climate Scientists and anyone else is either misinformed or not informed enough to pass judgement because they are not priests themselves. I mean Climate Scientists, sorry! Slip of the tongue. They are the only ones who can properly interpret the texts. The data, I mean. This is most certainly not a cult.

You're right, Fowler; Breitbart is right wing and clearly evil. They sensationalise every little blip, don't they? Who cares if there was collusion and data smudging in the environmentalist movement? The science and the policies have been settled. We should just accept that this is true and let the government take our liberties, seize our property and tax us to death.

Look, the oil companies are already wealthy; the emerging green economies are the people with investment and skin in the game. It's a false economy because the current green technology isn't returning an investment for the buyers, but the government are happy to send off tax payer dosh to private firms that are not benefiting us at all.

http://www.unep.org/newscentre/defau...rticleID=34875

Why you're not mad about this is beside me. The cognitive dissonance is real, I guess. While I agree we should be finding renewable sources of energy, we should do it cost-effectively for the CUSTOMER, not the planet. Using environmental health as an excuse to raise taxes is bizarre.

Even if you were right, they would just introduce an ad hoc hypothesis that explains it away and lets them continue the dogma.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Hilarious. You put all the power in the hands of the Climate Scientists and anyone else is either misinformed or not informed enough to pass judgement because they are not priests themselves. I mean Climate Scientists, sorry! Slip of the tongue. They are the only ones who can properly interpret the texts. The data, I mean. This is most certainly not a cult.

You're right, Fowler; Breitbart is right wing and clearly evil. They sensationalise every little blip, don't they? Who cares if there was collusion and data smudging in the environmentalist movement? The science and the policies have been settled. We should just accept that this is true and let the government take our liberties, seize our property and tax us to death.

Look, the oil companies are already wealthy; the emerging green economies are the people with investment and skin in the game. It's a false economy because the current green technology isn't returning an investment for the buyers, but the government are happy to send off tax payer dosh to private firms that are not benefiting us at all.

http://www.unep.org/newscentre/defau...rticleID=34875

Why you're not mad about this is beside me. The cognitive dissonance is real, I guess. While I agree we should be finding renewable sources of energy, we should do it cost-effectively for the CUSTOMER, not the planet. Using environmental health as an excuse to raise taxes is bizarre.

Breitbart is unreliable because they exaggerate, misrepresent and sensationalise lots of things. I do not consider them a reliable source for the same reasons I don't trust the Daily Mail on any scientific issues. And their accusations of "data smudging" are usually complete rubbish for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. There is far more of that on their side than on the side of climate science.

How in god's name does accepting the man made climate change theory and then tackling it mean "taking our liberties, seize our property"? Your tin foil hat is showing yet again.

I trust climate scientists far more than I do conspiracy theorists.
And if you're seriously suggesting climate change is a religion, you're fundamentally misunderstanding at least one of those things.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Hilarious. You put all the power in the hands of the Climate Scientists and anyone else is either misinformed or not informed enough to pass judgement because they are not priests themselves. I mean Climate Scientists, sorry! Slip of the tongue. They are the only ones who can properly interpret the texts. The data, I mean. This is most certainly not a cult.

Say you've got a tumor on you lung, would you trust a aerospace engineer's diagnosis as malign or would you trust a doctor's diagnosis of it being cancerous?

(Original post by HigherMinion)
You're right, Fowler; Breitbart is right wing and clearly evil. They sensationalise every little blip, don't they? Who cares if there was collusion and data smudging in the environmentalist movement? The science and the policies have been settled. We should just accept that this is true and let the government take our liberties, seize our property and tax us to death.

You don't really engage with my points at all. You said the oceans have not acidified, I presented two papers that showed an increase in acidification. You say data smudging, but have you read the explanation of the use of the word "trick"? Do you understand what they did to the data?

Do you understand why the raw data recorded by those stations were adjusted?

(Original post by HigherMinion)
Look, the oil companies are already wealthy; the emerging green economies are the people with investment and skin in the game. It's a false economy because the current green technology isn't returning an investment for the buyers, but the government are happy to send off tax payer dosh to private firms that are not benefiting us at all.

Well yes, they are already wealthy, but isn't it obvious that they'd want to keep their wealth rather by suppressing science?

(Original post by HigherMinion)
http://www.unep.org/newscentre/defau...rticleID=34875

Why you're not mad about this is beside me. The cognitive dissonance is real, I guess. While I agree we should be finding renewable sources of energy, we should do it cost-effectively for the CUSTOMER, not the planet. Using environmental health as an excuse to raise taxes is bizarre.

Why should it be cost effective for the consumer? Long term (eg. next 100 years) is more important than modest rises in energy bills

I don't mean to be rude, but can I again ask if you have any background in climate studies, or have researched beyond blogs (eg academic papers).

(Original post by RFowler)
How in god's name does accepting the man made climate change theory and then tackling it mean "taking our liberties, seize our property"? Your tin foil hat is showing yet again.

How is it a conspiracy theory to say that supporters of the idea of man-made climate change want higher taxes, subsidies and more government intervention? It's just patently true expect perhaps of a tiny, tiny section.

(Original post by pjm600)
Say you've got a tumor on you lung, would you trust a aerospace engineer's diagnosis as malign or would you trust a doctor's diagnosis of it being cancerous?

Doesn't mean they are wrong though, especially if the doctor profits from telling you the wrong information...

(Original post by jakeel1)
Doesn't mean they are wrong though, especially if the doctor profits from telling you the wrong information...

That's true, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but anyone who would take an engineer's opinion over a doctor with such grave potential consequences would have to be an idiot of the finest quality.