Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is Global Warming a Myth?
GuyC
Veteran
Hi All,
I just finished watching a very thought provoking video on YouTube about global warming. The video is over 2 hours, but it is definitely worth watching all of it.
Could it be that the theory of man-made global warming is nothing but a hoax perpetrated for political purposes? Is Carbon Tax based on a lie?
I'd be interested to hear what others here think about this video.
Metta,
Guy
I just finished watching a very thought provoking video on YouTube about global warming. The video is over 2 hours, but it is definitely worth watching all of it.
Could it be that the theory of man-made global warming is nothing but a hoax perpetrated for political purposes? Is Carbon Tax based on a lie?
I'd be interested to hear what others here think about this video.
Metta,
Guy
0
Comments
The difference is human activity is accelerating this process, moreover, we have the technology or at least the capability to develop the technology to actually stop this process and even reverse it.
here is a good overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3]"
Its clear that the large majority of scientist believe man has contributed to global warming and indeed accelerated it, the only ones who do not I would hazard a guess are connected somehow to companies which have a vested interest in convincing people that man has not contributed to global warming (i.e oil companies etc etc).
So the only people trying to con or hoax the people of this world are the oil companies in my opinion.
DOES THE WORLD RUN ON OIL ONLY BECAUSE OIL COMPANIES RUN THE WORLD?
not the question of "is man made global warming a hoax for governments to make more revenue in tax"
I think you will find the answer to my question a lot closer to the truth than the answer to your question.
Yes, the idea that "man-made global warming is nothing but a hoax", is indeed a hoax perpetrated for political purposes.
Metta,
Guy
I believe my question is just as worthy of investigation as yours is.
Metta,
Guy
Let's go out and buy the biggest SUV, we can find.
Let's dig for oil in the national parks.
Let's use plastic since its so cheap.
It's all a myth...
Do I believe there is some degree of global warming? Yes. But do I believe that very man of the people who like to argue about it have any real knowledge themselves? No. They just parrot what others are saying.
At this stage I am still open to the possibility that man-made global warming is a myth. Is anyone else on this forum open to this possibility? If not, why not? What evidence or data have people seen which makes them dismiss even the possibility that man-made global warming is a hoax?
Metta,
Guy
But, if we found out conclusively tomorrow that global warming is not occurring, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Science is not always neat and conclusive. Sometimes it's wrong.
I've been in the Canadian Rockies and seen how the alpine glaciers there are drastically retreating since I was there in the 1960s and again in the 1980s. No doubt about it. But is that conclusive? And how do we explain that there are some glaciers in some areas that are advancing?
I appreciate all of the comments so far. It is getting late, but I do intend to respond to the comments in more depth tomorrow.
Before anyone else posts on this thread, I would like to kindly ask that people please watch the video before posting your comments.
Ideally, what I would like to hear are refutations of the data and arguments presented in the video.
Thanks + Metta,
Guy
As there is substantial scientific evidence to support that global warming is accelerated by man. Therefore, it cannot be a myth. Of course, there is always a possibility that theories on global warming may be disproved but this seems unlikely.
It is also important to note that Lord Monckton, who is prominent in the video, has a classics degree and he's not a scientist. I'd be interested to see how meta-analysis was taught on his degree course! He also appears to receive income from the World's largest oil company.
Just for the record, I am a scientist and a member of the UK Green Party
On aids --> "he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult"). Monckton's article concluded, however, that current Western sensibilities would not allow this standard protocol for containing a new, fatal and incurable infection to be applied: therefore, he said, many would needlessly die."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change
I know I would'nt :thumbdown:
I will not watch the video. If you just research a little bit you will find out sangstar is all about Ancient Aliens theory, Reptillian shape-shifters, The Illuminati and New World Order. He even has videos of Richard Hoagland who claims that there are tons of alien artifacts on the moon.
Based solely on all that mumbo-jumbo I will not spend two hours of my life watching it. Any "documentary" can be seen as holding THE TRUTH. Because of all the 2 hours you are watching it they are just showing you stuff that supports their view and many times even using incorrect and dubious facts.
So if I want a serious debate on Climate Change I will look at serious scholarly work. Not some dude on youtube.
Anyone who has seen Zeitgeist should read the below article to see how inaccurate the information is, the whole series is a bigger fantasy than lord of the rings.
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
Asking others to watch a 2hr YouTube video is unreasonable.
Perhaps if you summarise the key points, preferably annotated with sources of evidence for any contentious points raised, then others could respond.
Namaste
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
Will you watch it now?
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
I listen to everyone who shows me respect.
Metta,
Guy
The first half of the video is a public debate, the second half of the video takes a look at the data and evidence which goes against the mainstream views of climate change.
Metta,
Guy
Metta,
Guy
You missed my point.
Why dont you tell us what was the ONE main point or factor that really discredits the mainstream view.
Look, I'm a middle of the road Democrat. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. But that doesn't mean I don't selectively listen to some conservative commentators...for example, George Will, and others. I may be retired now, but I don't have time to listen to every conservative or every liberal commentator. I select those on each side of the aisle whom I feel are responsible.
Metta,
Guy
There does appear to be a correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and average temperatures, but correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Furthermore, it appears that it is the CO2 which follows the temperature increases (with a lag of about 8 months), not the other way around!
One theory is that as the planet heats up, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere from the ocean.
Metta,
Guy
It seems like this movie is Scientist free.
Ok, can you link to the scientific study that you get "Furthermore, it appears that it is the CO2 which follows the temperature increases (with a lag of about 8 months), not the other way around!"
Im willing to do the research...
Metta,
Guy
My mistake...it is not 8 months, it is 800 years (which is even more significant!)...I knew it was 8-some-measure-of-time...I should have checked my facts first! However, despite my blunder, the principle remains the same.
Thank you for keeping me honest.
Metta,
Guy
Regardless of what you might think of Alex Jones, perhaps you view some of the following people as more credible:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson
Here is one of the conspirators admitting his guilt:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- John D Rockefeller
How is this "pure paranoid speculation"?
Metta,
Guy
If, like me, you are not actually a climate scientist, then you have a choice.
You can believe the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, who have looked at all the evidence and facts, and are saying that current climate change is almost certainly a man-made phenomenon caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. That's what I've chosen to do.
Or, you can go with the inevitable group of people who disagree. If you decide to take this path, good luck to you.
I have seen a number of televised debates on the issue, and in all cases, the climate scientists were far more convincing than the sceptics.
Namaste
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_trees_give_off_Carbon_Dioxide
http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/the-purifying-effect-of-love-the-lake-biwa-intention-experiment-part-2.htm
“Ananda, fire, which has no nature of its own, depends upon various causes and conditions for its existence. Consider a family in the city that has not yet eaten. When they wish to prepare food, they hold up a speculum to the sun, seeking fire. “Ananda, let us look into your suggestion that the fire comes forth from mixing and uniting. By way of example, you and I and the twelve hundred and fifty bhikshus unite together to form a community. However, a careful analysis of the community reveals that every member composing it has his own body, birthplace, clan, and name. For instance, Shariputra is a Brahman, Uruvilva is of the Kashyapa clan, and you,
Ananda, come from the Gautama family. “Ananda, suppose fire existed because of mixing and uniting. When the hand holds up the speculum to the sun to seek fire, does the fire come out of the speculum? Does it come out of the moxa tinder? Or does it come from the sun? “Suppose, Ananda, that it came from the sun. Not only would it burn the moxa tinder in your hand, but as it came across the groves of trees, it should burn them up as well.
“Suppose that it came from the speculum. Since it came out from within the speculum to ignite the moxa tinder, why doesn’t the speculum melt? Yet your hand that holds it feels no heat; how, then, could the speculum melt? “Suppose that the fire came from the moxa tinder. Then why is fire generated only when the bright mirror comes into contact with the dazzling light? “Furthermore, on closer examination you will find the speculum held in hands, the sun high up in the sky, and moxa grown from the ground. Where does the fire come from? How can it travel some distance to reach here? “The sun and the speculum cannot mix and unite, since they are far apart from each other. Nor can it be that the fire exists spontaneously, without an origin. “You simply do not know that in the Treasury of the Thus Come One the nature of fire is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true fire. Pure at its origin, it pervades the Dharma Realm. It accords with living beings’ minds, in response to their capacity to know. “Ananda, you should know that fire is generated in the place where a speculum is held up to the sunlight, and fire will be generated everywhere if specula are held up to the sunlight throughout the Dharma Realm. Since fire can come forth throughout the whole world, can there be any fixed place to which it is confined?
You ought to reform the cluster structure of the water molecules for cool well beings.
http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/the-purifying-effect-of-love-the-lake-biwa-intention-experiment-part-2.htm
“Ananda, fire, which has no nature of its own, depends upon various causes and conditions for its existence. Consider a family in the city that has not yet eaten. When they wish to prepare food, they hold up a speculum to the sun, seeking fire. “Ananda, let us look into your suggestion that the fire comes forth from mixing and uniting. By way of example, you and I and the twelve hundred and fifty bhikshus unite together to form a community. However, a careful analysis of the community reveals that every member composing it has his own body, birthplace, clan, and name. For instance, Shariputra is a Brahman, Uruvilva is of the Kashyapa clan, and you,
Ananda, come from the Gautama family. “Ananda, suppose fire existed because of mixing and uniting. When the hand holds up the speculum to the sun to seek fire, does the fire come out of the speculum? Does it come out of the moxa tinder? Or does it come from the sun? “Suppose, Ananda, that it came from the sun. Not only would it burn the moxa tinder in your hand, but as it came across the groves of trees, it should burn them up as well.
“Suppose that it came from the speculum. Since it came out from within the speculum to ignite the moxa tinder, why doesn’t the speculum melt? Yet your hand that holds it feels no heat; how, then, could the speculum melt? “Suppose that the fire came from the moxa tinder. Then why is fire generated only when the bright mirror comes into contact with the dazzling light? “Furthermore, on closer examination you will find the speculum held in hands, the sun high up in the sky, and moxa grown from the ground. Where does the fire come from? How can it travel some distance to reach here? “The sun and the speculum cannot mix and unite, since they are far apart from each other. Nor can it be that the fire exists spontaneously, without an origin. “You simply do not know that in the Treasury of the Thus Come One the nature of fire is true emptiness, and the nature of emptiness is true fire. Pure at its origin, it pervades the Dharma Realm. It accords with living beings’ minds, in response to their capacity to know. “Ananda, you should know that fire is generated in the place where a speculum is held up to the sunlight, and fire will be generated everywhere if specula are held up to the sunlight throughout the Dharma Realm. Since fire can come forth throughout the whole world, can there be any fixed place to which it is confined?