The Great Global Warming Scam

[huggles]

1) On your first point, I am afraid I believe the peer reviewed scientific body of evidence, not you. Call me crazy if you like. Again, your argument is spurious.

 

2) Please name these prominent scientists.

 

3) Kyoto is a political agreement not a scientific theory, what precisely are they questioning? Who?

 

4) That article you have linked was written in 1997, you should try keeping more up to date with the science, many of the issues in that article have moved on significantly as more resource and interest has been paid to this issue.

 

Here's a final thought for you: you will never agree with me and the scientific community because you can't be bothered to change your lifestyle and don't want to hear about anything, no matter how catastrophic that might invoved you needing to make efforts to do so - don't look it will go away etc. I have seen it all before (and even earlier in this thread!).

See the concluding paragraph of the article you claim refutes my point of view

 

"There is a natural inclination to wait and see until we know what we shall have to face. By then it may be too late"

 

Ever considered taking your own advice?

[Kinc]

Man made pollution does upset the planet...yes

 

Man made bullshat upsets the planet also......yes

 

Oil is a very powerful substance, and it has been cheap for many years. We have grown our economies on the pretext it will last for ever, our economists think it will (due to money creation) bring in a new dawn of other fuels or devices that will take over from it (oil). Nothing has managed to replace oil as an alternative (subsidy's don't last for ever).

 

It is running low, but the world economy wants to grow!

 

The goverments are sensible to encourage green living, but they aren't doing it for green living sake, they are doing it because we need to be slowly conditioned into a world where you can't waste energy.

 

 

I agree with this thread, and that the damage if there is damage has already been done, further more China has only just started doing it's damage, and that is because we all like cheap goods, really we have just moved the factory from Burnley to China, without pollution safeguards.

 

Capitalism was built on black gold, the next century will not be good

[magix]

Will these do?

 

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

[huggles]

Man made pollution does upset the planet...yes

 

Man made bullshat upsets the planet also......yes

 

Oil is a very powerful substance, and it has been cheap for many years. We have grown our economies on the pretext it will last for ever, our economists think it will (due to money creation) bring in a new dawn of other fuels or devices that will take over from it (oil). Nothing has managed to replace oil as an alternative (subsidy's don't last for ever).

 

It is running low, but the world economy wants to grow!

 

The goverments are sensible to encourage green living, but they aren't doing it for green living sake, they are doing it because we need to be slowly conditioned into a world where you can't waste energy.

 

 

I agree with this thread, and that the damage if there is damage has already been done, further more China has only just started doing it's damage, and that is because we all like cheap goods, really we have just moved the factory from Burnley to China, without pollution safeguards.

 

Capitalism was built on black gold, the next century will not be good

 

 

Indeed, difficult and interesting times. On the one side the hysterical green lobby saying we mustn't have nuclear, coal, or gas power stations. On the other, climate sceptics who refuse to believe anything is going on despite all the evidence.

[huggles]

Will these do?

 

Home - Global Warming Petition Project

 

The Oregon petition is a smokescreen. Desperate measures by a lobby group that hasn't got any real evidence to back it up:

Statement of the Council of the NAS Regarding Global Change Petition

 

Apparently all the names are verified. Hmm, but Geri Halliwell signed it? Phew! I was holding my breath waiting for her opinion!

Business | Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

See also here - Robinson is hardly qualified on climate issues himself.

Hawaii Reporter: Hawaii Reporter

 

"The infamous Oregon petition hardly merits mention. The senior author of the paper accompanying the petition was Dr. Arthur Robinson, a biochemist, not a climate scientist. The second and third authors were Drs. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. According to Hayashi, Baliunas and Soon are "legitimate scientists." What Hayashi fails to mention is that both of these individuals have been "senior scientists" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing think tank, and have been affiliated with other advocacy groups (e.g., Heritage Foundation, Fraser Institute) funded, in part, by the oil industry (particularly ExxonMobil). So, Baliunas and Moon may have science training and may be affiliated with an academic institution, but to the extent that politics and money influence their interpretation of climate data, they are not objective in their interpretations (Hayashi refers to them as "upstanding professionals") but are mouthpieces for the oil companies."

 

Here's a hint for you. If you want a better list of real scientists, wikipedia is a good place to start. Check their backgrounds before you start blindly believeing them though (unless, you know, it suits you to blindly believe).

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[magix]

Thanks for the list. As much as I would like to use these names as evidence, the very fact that Wikepedia has been universally discredited as a source of reliable information, leads me to produce a list of names elsewhere. I will get back to you, when I have the time.

[magix]

Oh and bye the way, I am engineer of 43 years experience. I do not fix my marine engines by consensus. I deal in facts not some new age witchcraft. believe it or not, I have to have a thorough knowledge of thermodynamics and chemistry to be able to do my job. The content of carbon, sulphur, and water vapour in relation to my job are reasonably important.

[MilkTrayMan]

...I have to have a thorough knowledge of thermodynamics...

It's been absolutely aaaaaages since I've been able to have a 'super-heated' (...excuse the pun) debate with someone who understands fluids + their specific heat capacities etc etc...:o

Fire away then...

(...Am a tad rusty btw , so go easy on me pleeeease?)

[Kinc]

The only evidence I see is that, western economies who don't have their own oil supplies are tightening the taps on consumption.

 

Nuclear power costs alot of money, as the building and decomitioning is very costly in ratio to power generated.

 

The same applies across the board, when you factor in costs, oil stands above the rest as the best cost ratio for getting it and energy it creates, once it's gone you will not find anything that can do what it does.

 

You dig a hole....and it keeps coming out, mostly on it's own accord.

 

I don't discount global warming, but it's come (warming fever) at just about the same time we are talking about oil not being around for ever, ehhh!! spooky!!

[magix]

Call it propaganda, not science

The IPCC is controlled by political hacks who override the scientists with a predetermined agenda. Calling it science is a fraud upon the public.

 

Tom V. Segalstad: Oceans Regulate CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. See Global Dynamic page.

This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements...

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims. Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous. "They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Original Source of Segalstad's Criticisms

 

 

 

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, calls for abolishing the IPCC.

Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

Original Article by Gray

 

Have you ever seen anyone quote the IPCC—the official source—the first, last and only word on the subject allowed by propagandists? It never happens, because the IPCC reports were written as muddled, irrelevant, superficial, opinionated blather with no mention of specifics or relevant evidence, so everything must be based on black-box computer models, which other scientists are not allowed to evaluate.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposedly the last word on global warming. Those who promote global warming hype declare IPCC reports to be peer reviewed science, and peer reviewed science to be infallible. On that basis, critics are attacked for putting themselves above the unquestionable word of science.

But the IPCC is controlled by political hacks who reshape the science for their agenda. There is no place in science for arbitrary authority—least of all a subject as complex as climate change.

Alexander Cockburn, editor of Counterpunch, is a journalist who describes the position of the critics fairly well. He says, "To identify either the government-funded climate modelers or their political shock troops, the IPCC's panelists, with scientific rigor and objectivity is as unrealistic as detecting the same attributes in a craniologist financed by Lombroso studying a murderer's head in a nineteenth-century prison for the criminally insane."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html

On another page, he adds, "Professor Fredrik Seitz, former chairman of the American Science Academy, wrote in the Wall Street Journal already the 12th of June 1996 about a major deception on global warming: "I have never before witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

But the problem isn't just the IPCC. The bureaucrats only paid for research which promoted their view of humans causing global warming. This bias is demonstrated by a survey by Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of science articles on global warming and found that 75% indicated humans are the cause, while 25% gave no indication, and none said humans are not the cause. It shows that grants were not issued to scientists who disagreed with the bureaucrats. Propagandists claim it shows all scientists agree with the official hype; but many other surveys show scientists do not all agree.

Example of Selective Grants

To promote a carbon dioxide agenda propagandists start at the end point of the science—drawing conclusions and picking numbers—and then work backwards to justify the results. They decided that there would be 0.6°C global warming at this time, even though satellite measurements show slight cooling due to increased precipitation and clouds, which reflect away solar energy.

There is no way to trace down the logic of the hype, because there is none. Computer models are used, and they have no relation to objective reality. The closest thing to a logic is a scheme called an energy budget. If you search this subject on the internet, you will find as many schemes as promoters of the hype. The budget schemes are nothing but a stab in the dark. They show arrows pointing into the sky, and back to the ground, tracing a supposed flow of energy of myriads of origins.

Basically, the energy budget schemes try to show how there can be a significant amount of energy stemming from human activity, when in reality the quantity is too miniscule to show up in the numbers. A common theme is to show as much or more energy flowing from the surface of the earth as striking the earth from the sun, and then coming back down from the atmosphere in approximately the same quantity. This number must be ballooned into a large size, because it is the only thing humans can influence.

If there really were that much energy flowing from the earth and atmosphere, your skin would be fried just lying in bed. The amount of radiation given off from matter is strictly determined by its temperature. If for example, the earth and atmosphere were liberating as much or more energy at 80°F as the sun adds, so would every object in a dark room, including a chair or a bed. Sitting or sleeping raises the surrounding temperature to about 98°F. Matter at this temperature producing more energy than the sun adds to the earth's surface would fry a person's skin. In other words, sleeping in bed would be as hot as sleeping on black asphalt on a 98°F day. You would get "sunburned" walking around in a dark room. (The infrared radiation emitted by matter, and picked up by carbon dioxide, is invisible to humans.)

Night vision equipment shows how much energy matter gives off at normal temperatures, because the purpose of night vision is to pick up that energy. A flashlight swamps night vision. Moonlight produces more energy than dark objects. How much energy is there in moonlight? Next to none. Normal-temperature matter does not give off significant radiation.

So where do those energy budget schemes come from? They are nothing but contrivances in conflict with obvious science. Frauds get by with it, because they have the government grant providers enforcing the scheme; and on this issue, a large group of agitators forces the fraud down everyone's throats.

Even if there were such massive amounts of radiation being emitted by normal temperature matter, it would not salvage the propaganda, because there are many additional falsehoods in the rationale. Every point is twisted and stretched for the purpose. And then when using the absurd quantities, they do not add up to a significant effect being produced by humans. Everything about the numbers is contrived including the end result.

These estimates show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. I explain how the numbers are derived on the web page called Crunching the Numbers.

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C

95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C

1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C

8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C

3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C

5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C

Authority over reality is never used for any other purpose than fraud, because it replaces evidence. Honest persons use evidence instead of authority.

Secret Knowledge

Frauds always base their position on something which they claim to know but can't describe. You are supposed to trust them.

Constructive persons always describe the evidence, or they don't say it. They expect each person to do his own evaluating.

Why should a bunch of idiots who have never taken a science course in their lives tell people what to think about global warming? Do they know something others don't know?

Hundreds of years ago, when there was a theocracy, and social structures were frivolous, a religious group tried to institutionalize the standard of secret knowledge and called it gnosticism. The use of secret knowledge didn't begin or end with them; it is the only way corrupt persons present a subject. They will not describe the specifics of evidence and logic, because the evidence and logic contradict their frauds.

There is a constructive way to communicate and a destructive way to communicate. Constructive persons always explain. Destructive persons never do. The difference is in personal moral standards.

You need to recognize the difference and demand explanations instead of trusting frauds. Has anyone ever explained a single point of the carbon dioxide fraud? They never do. Supposedly the IPCC has it figured out, and all you have to do is go along with their conclusions.

If it can't be explained, it is a fraud.

External Links:

More of Cockburn on Global Warming

Dissidents Against Dogma

Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded

Modeling is Useless for Predicting — Pielke

Note: One of Pielke's critics who models says short term errors (as in the recent cool-down) can be expected in modeling, but the long term prediction of global warming is unquestionable. Previously, modelers were saying the opposite—that the short term predictions are the most reliable, while long term predictions are impossible. In other words, rationalizers will rationalize anything, and there is no such thing as proving anything to them regardless of how stark the facts.

[magix]

PEER REVIEW

 

Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation

 

 

 

Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts.

Peer review is often assumed to be a purification process. There is no such thing as purifying science. Scientific knowledge must continually evolve. Like all truth, no one can arbitrate it; it must speak for itself through the evidence. There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.

Prior criticism is always of value. But the author has to decide what to do with it. Imposing thought onto someone is a guaranteed corruption.

The purpose of review should not be to determine fact. Three scientists cannot determine fact for two million others.

What should replace peer review is letting editors decide what to publish based on guidelines which are openly and accountably created. Editors don't need to look at technical details. Let all of the scientists evaluate the technicalities instead of three.

 

 

There is a natural inclination to review and criticize any document before it is published. Everything from fiction to news is handled that way. And it is censorship which restricts all forms of publishing to fit in some type of box. In industry, the owner has a right to do that. But there is no owner for science. Its product is supposed to be an evolving truth which does not fit into a subjective box. Therefore, the reviewing should be limited to suggestions, not a shaping and controlling process. After the suggestions, let scientists include their errors with their worth, particularly since there is seldom agreement as to what is error and what is worth in science.

Scientists are so intimidated that they cannot oppose official corruptions in science. One of the main causes is peer review.

 

If peer review were open and accountable, there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity.

 

There is no place for secrecy in science after the research is done. A laboratory needs some protection from interference while it is working through the challenges, but the evaluation process cannot produce truth through secrecy and unaccountability.

 

You might assume that there are no official errors in science. Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it. There is nothing in science entirely free from errors, while a culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed.

 

Relativity was the most obvious and extreme example. It was imposed upon physicists, and none were allowed to dissent, as explained on other pages.

 

A recent parallel in biology is prion proteins as the supposed cause of Scrapies-like diseases. But unlike physics, the evidence in biology is far more available and less abstract. So prions are a much more open defiance of principles and standards. Prion promoters say or imply that the laws of natural selection can be contradicted on the basis of their junk science research.

 

Debunkers of corruption say no one conspires such things. So an explanation of how it works is necessary.

 

The first fact involved is that science research is extremely demanding, because the unknown does not easily yield information to technological gimmickry. The second most significant fact is that there is an extreme deficiency of abstract understanding among the world's elites including scientists. They do stupid things and make stupid statements which conflict with everything they are suppose to know on the subject.

 

They react by demanding that no one question their errors. That demand becomes a rule for power elites in all areas. Scratch each others backs and never oppose the group, or the result is to get shoved out.

 

In science the result is that errors keep getting compounded, while a pretense of normalcy is maintained. Scientists talk around obvious corruptions, as if they could not see an elephant in a bathtub.

 

Ultimately, there has to be external accountability for corruptions. In science, the public needs to be creating accountability through criticism.

 

There is a general assumption that peer review improves publications. Supposedly, deficiencies are corrected, and wording is clarified. It's a pipe dream. Purifying is how complex results are destroyed. It's like redesigning an elm tree or improving the Edsil. It isn't an elm tree or Edsil afterwards.

 

The mentality seems to be developed when students are writing term papers. They quote publications as being fact. So science publications are supposedly quotable fact. They never are. The pretense of fact destroys the process of evolving knowledge.

 

Having two or three experts modify someone else's work assumes that research should be perfected before being presented to everyone else. So the rest of the scientists have two or three persons doing their evaluating for them. Scientists are all supposed to be capable of doing their own evaluating. Scientists need to see the deficiencies as well as the value in research.

 

Because of these forces, there has been a devolution of science publications from a complete description with specifics to something resembling a news article or propaganda sheet. The specifics and details are gone, and all one sees is rehashed opinions.

 

There is no constructive form that peer review could take. Science publications should use their professional staff, which they already have, to evaluate basic standards only. All of the rest of the limitations need to be visible to everyone.

 

Addendum

In the arguments over global warming, some persons, such as Monbiot, take the position that if it is not peer reviewed science, it is not relevant to the subject. Since the IPCC represents the peer reviewed science, no one can question the IPCC conclusion that humans are causing global warming.

Monbiot's claim that if it is not peer reviewed, it is not science, is an arbitrary and useless way to define science, because science hasn't address many of the questions that people need to address in life. Science cannot prove that water is wet (or anything else), yet people need to know that it is. And science has become at least as corrupt as any power structure in society, which means everything about it needs to be criticized.

To eliminate external criticism of science by pretending that peer review purifies science is about the functional equivalent of preventing anyone from questioning Hitler's power. Nothing is supposed to be above external criticism; and the tendency of the public to not criticize science is one of the main reasons why it has become so corrupt.

Then, no one with half a brain would define science in terms of peer review. Science is a method of proceeding and a standard which shows evidence for basic questions. Peer review is nothing but an extremely questionable method of publishing. Science needs to be criticized through rationality based on objective reality by nonscientists as well as scientists. To replace rationality with peer review is an extremely debased method of railroading fraud onto society.

Perhaps the ultimate, most basic, reason why the claim of peer review is a fraud is because no one can completely represent someone else's reality, and certainly not ill informed persons. It's like the pope determining morality for everyone else. How do you ask the pope if it is moral to cut trees for an oil well, or anything else in question? The persons who shout peer review can't spell the word science, and yet they speak for peer reviewed scientists.

[magix]

Just a couple of arguements to throw into the melting pot.

[StormWarrior]

Here's an idea !!

Cannabis plants, high grade skunk in particular, grows fastest and strongest in a CO2 enriched atmosphere, around 3 times as much CO2 as normal air. (1400 ppm or 0.14% as opposed to 350 - 450 ppm )

Leaving aside the arguments for evolution to match environment, which would suggest cannabis evolved in MUCH higher concentrations of CO2. (This applies to most plants, More CO2 to the leaves, and O2 to the roots.)

So, to combat CO2 emissions, all we need to do, is plant huge amounts of SuperSkunk !!

Easy Peasy.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Here's an idea !!

Cannabis plants, high grade skunk in particular, grows fastest and strongest in a CO2 enriched atmosphere, around 3 times as much CO2 as normal air. (1400 ppm or 0.14% as opposed to 350 - 450 ppm )

Leaving aside the arguments for evolution to match environment, which would suggest cannabis evolved in MUCH higher concentrations of CO2. (This applies to most plants, More CO2 to the leaves, and O2 to the roots.)

So, to combat CO2 emissions, all we need to do, is plant huge amounts of SuperSkunk !!

Easy Peasy.

 

Far out man...

[huggles]

PEER REVIEW

 

Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation

 

 

 

Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts. ....

 

[snip]

 

Perhaps the ultimate, most basic, reason why the claim of peer review is a fraud is because no one can completely represent someone else's reality, and certainly not ill informed persons. It's like the pope determining morality for everyone else. How do you ask the pope if it is moral to cut trees for an oil well, or anything else in question? The persons who shout peer review can't spell the word science, and yet they speak for peer reviewed scientists.

 

You agree with this man whose article you have copied and pasted? Peer Review is Censorship and Intimidation.

Hmm, reliable source you have there, the scientific community must be quaking in their boots - he has a web page and everything, instead of their flimsy peer reviewed research! Oh no he's debunked relativity too: The Truth about Relativity. It contradicts basic logic and uses corruptible minutia for supposed proof. - do you agree with this expert analysis?

 

oh really.

[huggles]

Far out man...

 

heh, I believe the dutch are working on something similar around the port of rotterdam... except the co2 is used for tomatos and tulips and boring stuff rather than cannabis.....! surely cannabis is a higher value crop though - maybe it will catch on!

[huggles]

Just a couple of arguements to throw into the melting pot.

 

you know, if you need to try to debunk the whole scientific system history and community to win your argument now you've run through the usual old stories it might be time to think about why you're going to such lengths!

[Beserker]

The arguments against Global Warming are as fallacious and meritless as those raised by Creationists against Evolution.

 

As for the "eminent" scientists who deny the significance of the internal combustion engine for Global Warming - I think you have to start digging the dirt on the source of their funding and the bodies they represent (it would'nt suprise me to find out a lot of them are Creationists as well). I am convinced that they will be denying Global Warming when the Mississippi flood plain (and it is huge) is under 30 foot of sea water.

 

Sadly, I feel that if we are serious about reducing Greenhouse gasses we will have to go nuclear, alternative energy sources are not going to come up with the goods.

 

I will leave you with a thought, Margaret Thatcher, a chemist and hardly the Green lobby's best friend, understood the dangers of Global Warming.

[Beserker]

As for dissolved oceanic carbon, just a quick Google will yield results that relate to sudden changes in the ammount of oceanic CO2 and how these can change in relation to atmospheric conitions. Water vapour? As the earth's temperature increases so does the ammount of cloud and we end up with, a greenhouse cycle and one that is hard to stop. It has already happened to one planet in our solar system (Venus).

[Enron]

Heard two years ago that environmentalism was going to be used to put in a whole new raft of taxes (report eminating from Bilderberg).... not to combat any ill effect to the world but to seperate people from their money.

 

I thought at the time that people would never swallow that pill and would protest against any environment tax, but not so. Swayed by the wall to wall coverage of global warming on government and corporate controlled media and believing reports issued by the UN the masses have been relatively silent.

 

One such tax is here, Carbon trading where companies buy credits to pollute more if they have reached their limit, or can sell their credits if they do not pollute.

 

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The World Bank and governments are invovled in administerring the scheme which points a fingers towards taxation. With the end user normally the consumer footing the bill.

 

George Carlin sums it up nicely (apologies for the occasional swearing):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&hl

[Esio Trot]

As for dissolved oceanic carbon, just a quick Google will yield results that relate to sudden changes in the ammount of oceanic CO2 and how these can change in relation to atmospheric conitions. Water vapour? As the earth's temperature increases so does the ammount of cloud and we end up with, a greenhouse cycle and one that is hard to stop. It has already happened to one planet in our solar system (Venus).

 

Speaking of oceans, I can't see why, when all this oil is being extracted from off-shore sites, they can't/don't pump in sea water to replace the oil. It would help stop the sea level rising, surely.

 

But then, when you look at a globe of the Pacific Ocean, it covers almost all of the half you look at. I wonder if any one has worked out how may billions of gallons this ocean would need to raise it by a foot or so.

[skbuncks]

Speaking of oceans, I can't see why, when all this oil is being extracted from off-shore sites, they can't/don't pump in sea water to replace the oil. It would help stop the sea level rising, surely.

They do, this is how oil is extracted: sea water is pumped in to displace the oil and maintain reservior pressure. Additionally burining oil based products produces water sd well as CO2.

 

But then, when you look at a globe of the Pacific Ocean, it covers almost all of the half you look at. I wonder if any one has worked out how may billions of gallons this ocean would need to raise it by a foot or so.

They have and its a lot. However as (and if) the earth gets warmer there is also thermal expansion of the oceans to consider.

 

For an interesting, is somewhat biased, read on Global Sea Levels and predicted risings see here

 

 

 

skb

Edited June 30, 2008 by skbuncks