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

[cathleeninnh]

As I understand it, and someone here may have a source, all that manmade CO2 represents a fraction of one percent of all the CO2. If all you can affect is a drop in the bucket, it doesn't make much sense to go to great expense and hamper progress.

Cathleen

[Lloyd Danforth]

The 'Global Warming caused by man' crap is just an extension of the Lefts consistent,  anti-industrial position.  Read Ayn Rand's:  The New Left, The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

[erisian]

The 'Global Warming caused by man' crap is just an extension of the Lefts consistent,  anti-industrial position.

So you're going with the "no effect" theory then?

• Deforesting half the Amazon basin, and burning most of that- No Effect
• Adding a 4 inch thick layer of CO₂ to the atmosphere every year for a century- No Effect

Heard of "Global Dimming"? This is an effect on the entire atmosphere that is definitely caused by human activity.

I agree that if we actually cause the system to go past a trigger point, we won't be able to prove it one way or the other. But we don't even know where the trigger points are, what they are, or how many triggers we have already pulled. The consequence of pulling the wrong one is another mass extinction, probably including us.

The 'Global Warming is not caused by man' crap is just an extension of Exxon-Mobil's consistent, insatiable drive for more profits.

[toowm]

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 don't believe any of those. Which of the following ridiculous theories do you believe?

• CO₂ is the cause of historical warming, and not the result of it.
• The graph of global temperature has a "hockey stick" -- flat line and then a huge increase after industrialization.
• Humans have more influence on global temperatures than the sun.
• Industrialization leads to wasted resources and environmental degradation.
• Climate models accurately predict future events.
• Coastal areas will flood in the next 100 years.
• Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
• Science is based on consensus.
• The Kyoto treaty would make a material impact in CO₂ emissions.
• The best way to improve the future environment is through heavy taxation and regulation.
• Politicians that support global warming are trying to improve our children's lives and not expand their own power.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Politicians that support global warming are trying to improve our children's lives and not expand their own power.     

This is an especially deadly and widely accepted myth.

[erisian]

• CO2 is the cause of historical warming, and not the result of it.
      It is both. This makes it even worse because of a positive feedback effect.
• The graph of global temperature has a "hockey stick" -- flat line and then a huge increase after industrialization.
      Cherry pick a time frame, and yes, there it is. Over the long term, BS.
• Humans have more influence on global temperatures than the sun.
      See Global Dimming, it can happen.
• Industrialization leads to wasted resources and environmental degradation.
      Naw, industries never pollute. Get a clue.
• Climate models accurately predict future events.
      They may not be accurate, but they're the best we've got. You prefer ignorance?
• Coastal areas will flood in the next 100 years.
      If the apparent current rate of temperature increase continues.
• Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
      As above
• Science is based on consensus.
      Science is based on facts, not Exxon's PR or Bush's redacted and edited "scientific" reports.
• The Kyoto treaty would make a material impact in CO2 emissions.
      Not if China and the US refuse to agree to it.
• The best way to improve the future environment is through heavy taxation and regulation.
      The best way to improve the future environment is by respecting it, not destroying it.
• Politicians that support global warming are trying to improve our children's lives and not expand their own power.
      Politicians are always trying to expand their own power.

[toowm]

Thank you for your response. I respect your respect for the environment. I just never believe that a government solution ever meets it goals, and the whole global warming movement, if successful, will result in bigger government, more harm to the environment and more poverty, i.e. for the last two, the opposite of the original intent. The weakest link in the whole movement is a complete lack of understanding of economics. May I suggest some readings:

Chapter 8 from Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart:
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap8.html

Austrian economics views on the environment:
http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=subject&Id=134

[CNHT]

The 'Global Warming is not caused by man' crap is just an extension of Exxon-Mobil's consistent, insatiable drive for more profits.

Oh really? Then what should we do; pay a new tax to the UN? That's sure to help — give them more control over us. Whose pockets do you think that will come from. Surely not the profits of the oil companies.

The global warming scam is more of a political power play than anything else. It's the religion of government or GAIA worship. The UN figures if they can unite people in a single 'cause' then they can get control over them.

[CNHT]

Politicians that support global warming are trying to improve our children's lives and not expand their own power.     

This is an especially deadly and widely accepted myth.

Exactly. They are scaring our children into believing only gov't can save them, at an early age, by appealing to them with the animals. What little kid won't respond emotionally to animals being hurt or killed? It's despicable I tell you.

[J’raxis 270145]

I love binary logic.

That Exxon-Mobil supports the "Global Warming is not caused by man" theory does not automatically invalidate the theory. And, one can support this theory without automatically being an oil company shill.

That the UN supports the "Global Warming is caused by man" theory does not automatically invalidate the theory. And, one can support this theory without automatically being a UN shill.

In both cases, you have entities with interests simply taking the side that most benefits them. The science is either true or false entirely independent of the various factions supporting or denying it.

[Pat K]

"# Humans have more influence on global temperatures than the sun."


O-K I hereby  nominate this a the most ridiculous thing
typed into the forum this year!

[CNHT]

"# Humans have more influence on global temperatures than the sun."


O-K I hereby  nominate this a the most ridiculous thing
typed into the forum this year!

  I'm with you Pat! If so, I nominate you as the sun. 

[erisian]

O-K I hereby  nominate this a the most ridiculous thing
typed into the forum this year!

Ever heard of nuclear winter???

[penguins4me]

Ever heard of nuclear winter???

In that case, I'd imagine we'd need all the CO2 in the atmosphere that we could get!

[erisian]

The science is either true or false entirely independent of the various factions supporting or denying it.

Quite so. But getting caught disseminating lies to support ones position is a clear indication of a blatant disregard for the truth. The use of lies to make an argument is frequently indicative of an invalid argument, unsupported by facts. So when this tactic is used, it is reasonable to assume that it is being done for that reason.

BTW, I did not say that if you don't believe in manmade global warming that you are an oil company shill, or that Exxon's support of the theory invalidates it. What I implied was that their PR has no relation to the facts.