As I've been saying all along: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'

[Raineyrocks]

From The Times
November 12, 2007
Polar bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke?
James Delingpole: Thunderer

Why don't polar bears eat penguins? Because their paws are too big to get the wrappers off, obviously. It's not a joke you hear so often these days, though, because polar bears are now a serious business. They're the standard-bearers of a tear-jerking propaganda campaign to persuade us all that, if we don't act soon on climate change, the only thing that will remain of our snowy-furred ursine chums will be the picture on a pack of Fox's glacier mints.

First there came the computer-generated polar bear in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth; then that heartrending photo, syndicated everywhere, of the bears apparently stranded on a melting ice floe; then the story of those four polar bears drowned by global warming (actually, they'd perished in a storm).

Now, in a new cinema release called Earth – a magnificent, feature-length nature documentary from the makers of the BBC's Planet Earth series – comes the most sob-inducing "evidence" of all: a poor male polar bear filmed starving to death as a result, the quaveringly emotional Patrick Stewart voiceover suggests, of global warming.

Never mind that what actually happens is that the bear stupidly has a go at a colony of walruses and ends up being gored to death.

The bear wouldn't have done it, the film argues, if he hadn't been so hungry and exhausted. And why was he hungry and exhausted? Because the polar ice caps are melting, thus shortening the polar bears' seal-hunting season.

Having been up to the bears' habitat in Svalbard, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with these concerns. To claim, however, that they are facing imminent doom is stretching the truth. In 1950, let us not forget, there were about 5,000 polar bears. Now there are 25,000.

No wonder Greenpeace had trouble getting polar bears placed on the endangered species list. A fivefold population increase isn't exactly a catastrophic decline.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The doom-mongers certainly won't. Despite evidence from organisations such as the US National Biological Service that in most places polar bear populations are either stable or increasing, Ursus maritimus will continue to top the eco-hysterics' list of animals in danger because it's so fluffy and white and photogenic.

If you're really that worried about their demise, I'd book yourself a ticket to Churchill, Manitoba, where the evil buggers (about the only creature, incidentally, that actively preys on humans) are so rife they're almost vermin.

And if things get really bad, we can always ship the survivors off to Antarctica where, unlike the North Pole, the ice shelf appears to be growing. Then the joke would be even less comprehensible. Why don't polar bears eat penguins? But they do, actually!

[KBCraig]

I watched an utterly disgusting piece on History Channel last night about climate change. The actual scientists they interviewed, and the science they illustrated, were all okay (except for a few IPCC hacks). It presented a good overview of the history of climate change, and how it has often changed suddenly and dramatically -- sometimes with no apparent reason. This has happened for millions of years, and frequently killed off the majority of species.

One of the last sudden dramatic changes happened about 12,000 years ago, and killed off the megamammals (cave bears, saber-toothed cats, woolly mammoths, etc.) A relatively minor species at the time was able to adapt to the sudden warming, and has flourished since then: homo sapiens.

They did a good job of showing the temperature timeline in recent history, including the Little Ice Age. From the raw content of the show, it was apparent that climate change was far more dramatic throughout pre-history than it has been in human history, let alone recorded history. And forget any significant change since humans started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

But then... the narrator. 

All the narration, all the commentary, overtly blamed the current temperature change on people. The narrator predicted major coastal flooding within one generation, all major coastal cities abandoned due to flooding, because seas are going to rise 3-4 feet before the end of the century.

It was disgusting. 

[Raineyrocks]

I watched an utterly disgusting piece on History Channel last night about climate change. The actual scientists they interviewed, and the science they illustrated, were all okay (except for a few IPCC hacks). It presented a good overview of the history of climate change, and how it has often changed suddenly and dramatically -- sometimes with no apparent reason. This has happened for millions of years, and frequently killed off the majority of species.

One of the last sudden dramatic changes happened about 12,000 years ago, and killed off the megamammals (cave bears, saber-toothed cats, woolly mammoths, etc.) A relatively minor species at the time was able to adapt to the sudden warming, and has flourished since then: homo sapiens.

They did a good job of showing the temperature timeline in recent history, including the Little Ice Age. From the raw content of the show, it was apparent that climate change was far more dramatic throughout pre-history than it has been in human history, let alone recorded history. And forget any significant change since humans started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

But then... the narrator. 

All the narration, all the commentary, overtly blamed the current temperature change on people. The narrator predicted major coastal flooding within one generation, all major coastal cities abandoned due to flooding, because seas are going to rise 3-4 feet before the end of the century.

It was disgusting. 

I know things are really getting pushed hard and heavy right now and I think it's because so many people are waking up and so now they want to pit "us" against the sheeple.

Did you see the link I have about the 800 families, (don't know what state), are being taken to court for not vaccinating their children?  I know this isn't about global warming but it is about this how they are lying and pushing their sneaky agendas on the public.
I heard somebody say, those kids should be vaccinated, I don't want my kids catching anything from them on the vaccine link I posted.

[KBCraig]

Did you see the link I have about the 800 families, (don't know what state), are being taken to court for not vaccinating their children?

I saw the subject line but didn't read it. I looked for it, but couldn't find it before I posted this:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12031

If it's the same story, feel free to link from yours to mine, or we'll see if someone can merge them.

[erisian]

If you think that human-caused global warming is a "scam",
then which of the following ridiculous theories do you believe?

• Burning fossil fuels doesn't create any CO₂.
• CO₂ isn't a greenhouse gas.
• Dumping 200,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere has no effect on anything.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely vast.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely resilient.
• Earth is the center of the universe.
• The world is flat.
• George Bush blew up the World Trade Center with a Fruit Loops & bat shit bomb.

[Raineyrocks]

If you think that human-caused global warming is a "scam",
then which of the following ridiculous theories do you believe?

• Burning fossil fuels doesn't create any CO₂.
• CO₂ isn't a greenhouse gas.
• Dumping 200,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere has no effect on anything.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely vast.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely resilient.
• Earth is the center of the universe.
• The world is flat.
• George Bush blew up the World Trade Center with a Fruit Loops & bat shit bomb.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your post.  Are you saying that global warning is factual because of humans? 

[Raineyrocks]

Did you see the link I have about the 800 families, (don't know what state), are being taken to court for not vaccinating their children?

I saw the subject line but didn't read it. I looked for it, but couldn't find it before I posted this:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12031

If it's the same story, feel free to link from yours to mine, or we'll see if someone can merge them.

I'm sorry KB I didn't know that you posted it before.  I don't know how to link stuff so maybe they can be merged.

[J’raxis 270145]

If you think that human-caused global warming is a "scam",
then which of the following ridiculous theories do you believe?

• Burning fossil fuels doesn't create any CO₂.
• CO₂ isn't a greenhouse gas.
• Dumping 200,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO₂ per year into the atmosphere has no effect on anything.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely vast.
• The Earth's ecosystem is infinitely resilient.
• Earth is the center of the universe.
• The world is flat.
• George Bush blew up the World Trade Center with a Fruit Loops & bat shit bomb.

I think that GW is real, and most likely anthropogenic, although there is quite a bit of legitimate debate about that second part. The scam is the way it's being used by various political groups to achieve power.

[erisian]

"To each, his own."; said the little boy as he peed in the stream.

Are you saying that global warning is factual because of humans?

The global warming deniers seem to disbelieve that the Earth is finite, and that everything we do has an effect on the system. Whether or not there is some natural change happening, what Man is doing certainly has an effect. There is only one atmosphere, and only one Earth. There isn't a spare one we can use for climate experiments. We breath the same air as the Chinese and everyone else. If there's a problem with the atmosphere, it's everyone's problem. Mercury from Chinese coal-fired powerplants ends up in the trout in northern Maine, and mercury from US coal-fired powerplants ends up in the trout in Norway. The atmosphere is a commons, and it should be treated and governed as such.

But anyone who says they know exactly what will happen as a result of changes in the atmosphere is either a liar or a prophet. The system is just too complex and interconnected to model realistically. One of my favorites is that global warming could trigger the next ice age. Really. If the salinity of the surface water in the North Atlantic drops below some critical level as a result of melting ice in Greenland, the Gulf Stream will shut down. The Scots & Brits will freeze first, but NH will probably be like Labrador is now. The thing is, nobody knows what the critical salinity level is, only that there is one, and the overall woldwide effects are anyone's guess. The change in the Gulf Stream is not proportional to the salinity level. It's more like an On-Off switch. It happens fast, and once it's off, it won't come back on for 50-500 years. Another thing that nobody knows is how many of these trigger-point type events are possible or what they might be, but one thing is for sure: We don't want to find out through experience. We're shitting where we eat, and it's going to bite us back hard if we keep it up.

[KBCraig]

"To each, his own."; said the little boy as he peed in the stream.

Are you saying that global warning is factual because of humans?

The global warming deniers seem to disbelieve that the Earth is finite, and that everything we do has an effect on the system.

Part of the problem is terminology, especially when so many people are arguing for political reasons and using whatever data (or anecdotes) fit their arguments.

It's like a Protestant and a Jehovah's Witness debating the Bible: they have different bibles, and assign significantly different meanings to terms that sound the same to a casual listener.

Here's how it often goes: a significant majority of scientists believe we're going through a period of climate change. One side takes that point and says, "Scientists agree that global warming is a fact." The trouble is that when they say "global warming", they meaning "anthropogenic global warming that is all our fault, and we can stop it if only we take the right steps". And there is not broad scientific support for that definition of "climate change".

And then labeling and name-calling ensues. Does that make me a "global warming denier"?

Funny, because I agree with much of what you say here:

But anyone who says they know exactly what will happen as a result of changes in the atmosphere is either a liar or a prophet. The system is just too complex and interconnected to model realistically. One of my favorites is that global warming could trigger the next ice age. Really. If the salinity of the surface water in the North Atlantic drops below some critical level as a result of melting ice in Greenland, the Gulf Stream will shut down. The Scots & Brits will freeze first, but NH will probably be like Labrador is now. The thing is, nobody knows what the critical salinity level is, only that there is one, and the overall woldwide effects are anyone's guess. The change in the Gulf Stream is not proportional to the salinity level. It's more like an On-Off switch. It happens fast, and once it's off, it won't come back on for 50-500 years. Another thing that nobody knows is how many of these trigger-point type events are possible or what they might be, but one thing is for sure: We don't want to find out through experience. We're shitting where we eat, and it's going to bite us back hard if we keep it up.

I disagree that we're causing anything more than a statistical blip in the rate of change. History shows that massive changes are sudden and unpredictable, as you note; we could be the straw that broke the camel's back, but there will never be any way of knowing that. And if dramatic change doesn't happen, there's no way of knowing that we stopped it by changing human behavior. It's preposterous to think we could stop natural causations.

Those natural causations are hugely greater than anything we're doing, and are completely beyond our control. If someone comes with a way to turn down the sun spots, I'm all ears.

As we were coming out of the Little Ice Age, Mount Tambora erupted in 1815, creating the "year without a summer" in 1816. It was as sudden as any climate change has ever been and caused massive devastation, starvation, economic loss, and social upheaval. The immediate effects were over in a year or two; the societal effects lasted decades. Even that massive natural anomaly didn't stop the overall trend out of the LIA towards a more average temperature range (which is about where we're sitting right now).

My point is, don't make it a religious argument. Stick to facts, not IPCC government "solutions".

[CNHT]

I'm saying that a 1 degree increase in 200 years is NOT unnatural or catastrophic and the globe has undergone much  more serious natural changes in the past before humans had any power to affect it.

[Fragilityh14]

Pat Buchanan was talking about this when asked about global warming on MSNBC a while ago.

"there are record numbers of polar bears, the Inuits are talking about how they're a menace because they're predatory" amongst other things he said about global warming, and the host said

"I didn't know you were an expert on polar bears" or something like that.


Most coastal cities were built during the little ice age, a period of abnormally high glaciation, and abnormally low ocean levels.

Also, if ice expands and is bigger than water, and only 10 percent of icebergs are above the water, how much water can an iceberg melting really displace?


obviously the government should stop protecting polluters, but global warming is a scam and not even a particularly clever one.


oh, and PLANTS BREATHE CO2...people seem to miss this point, in a greenhouse you actually can use a CO2 generator (which essentially burns fuels consistently) to raise the CO2 levels thus significantly increasing the rate of growth. It sounds like an increase in CO2 will really destroy the environment.

[J’raxis 270145]

Also, if ice expands and is bigger than water, and only 10 percent of icebergs are above the water, how much water can an iceberg melting really displace?

None.

It's the ice shelfs sitting on land, sliding into the oceans as they melt, that are what people are worried about. Water also expands when it's heated, which means that the oceans are increasing in volume as the temperature rises.

oh, and PLANTS BREATHE CO2...people seem to miss this point, in a greenhouse you actually can use a CO2 generator (which essentially burns fuels consistently) to raise the CO2 levels thus significantly increasing the rate of growth. It sounds like an increase in CO2 will really destroy the environment.

If CO₂ is increasing, though, you need more and more plant life to breathe it all in, otherwise you end up with surplus CO₂ in the atmosphere. Is new vegetation developing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the CO₂?

Another major problem is that CO₂ also dissolves in water, which turns the water slightly acidic. This is apparently happening on a large scale in the oceans—which is killing off the plant life faster than it could ever breathe the CO₂ out of the air.

[Fragilityh14]

if you ever read a book about growing marijuana or other forms of indoor gardening, you will find the maximum saturation of CO2 before plants stop benefitting from it is pretty far above the general levels in the environment, and plants then grow faster and thus take in more CO2


also, on that subject, I really do think that a lot of the things trees are used for excessively are absurd, given how amazing hemp is and how easily and quickly it produces so much biomass while replenishing soil, really a sustainability wonder...wood really should only be being used for high quality furniter, 2x4s etc....honestly making paper out of wood pulp is completely absurd when one realizes the statistics comparing hemp to wood...I wish I could remember the statistic...but in some climates hemp can grow 16 feet tall in 110 days and is 75% cellulose on the inside, and naturally shades out weeds and breaks up/replenishes soil...i.e. is the most amazing rotation crop imaginable, and produces a useful byproduct....FOOD!


hemp = free market solution to helping the environment.

[CNHT]

If CO₂ is increasing, though, you need more and more plant life to breathe it all in, otherwise you end up with surplus CO₂ in the atmosphere. Is new vegetation developing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the CO₂?

NH has twice the forestation it did in 1860.

In the 70s it was that we would 'freeze in the dark' with the 'new ice age' we were supposed to have.

That's when we had 5,000 polar bears...now we have 20,000 so I think they're doing quite well.