Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[wyly]

The thing with wyly is that he is very hypocritical. He tells us that humans are causing climate change, yet he spends hours on the computer debriefing us on his vacation that nobody really cares about.

I like how he uses the word "denier" to try to put down those who don't believe in this AGW garbage. Thousands of scientists who once believed humans were causing global warming have reversed their positions. Wyly preaches science, yet scientists who disagree with him are now "deniers", or loony uneducated scientists.

It is a fact that governments have given BILLIONS of dollars to scientists to say humans are causing climate change. As a scientist, you either find what the government wants you to find, or you get your funding cut. It's an evil business.

I challenge everyone to research how Maurice Strong has pushed hard for AGW. Realize why he wants us to believe humans are causing climate change.

Thank goodness we have scientists (deniers I guess) who aren't controlled by the mighty dollar who are able to poke holes in AL the inaccuracies that Dave Suzuki and Al Gore want us to blindly follow.

And finally, wyly, I asked you this earlier but you didn't answer. On a personal level, what are you doing to combat the climate change that you so strongly believe is caused by humans? Hopping on a jet for Europe can't be one of them. I'll give you a chance to read today's Toronto Star so that you will be equipped to give an answer.

you've haven't demonstrated any scientific knowledge my 10 yr old doesn't have...your entire argument is nothing more than personal attacks, trolling, and cross posting(see forum rules)...

when you can answer the basic chemistry questions which are relevant to the debate I'll reply to you otherwise you're a waste of time...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

if you can't answer, bugger off...

[wyly]

Insults are not necessary.

are you reading impaired? where was the insult...and I'm not speaking of retaliation here, if someone insults me I have no problem hitting back...

[Oleg Bach]

There is no left or right wing regarding the issue of global warming (generated by waste product that both rich and poor are resonsible for).....

The whole mess is greed generated - the thing about greedy people is that they like to make lots and lots of money that they really do not need - AND they are driven eventually to become control freaks who harness and harrass the average person through finacial coersion.

The thing about those that become super rich - IS that there is always waste product..that comes from this inefficiant endevour...and THAT waste product is simply not cleaned up..In plain language - greedy people are like huge dogs that eat and eat and eat ...and they SHIT AND SHIT AND SHIT ..but never pick up after themselves - hence global warming...and if you ever had to pick up after your dog in the park...the feeling and the warming of the hand as it scoops up the crap with the very thin doggy desposal bag is VERY unpleasant- It is like sticking your hand up the dogs ass - but someone has to do it...or you track the stuff home on your shoes.

IF you want to be rich - then you had better learn that no man or woman is to great to pick up shit.

[samcin]

the point being he said CO2 is not a poison when in fact it is, everything is when it's not in it's correct proportions, he's using incorrect information to make a point...it's always about PPM, even when we think of what we traditionally consider poisons it comes down to PPM, arsenic will not kill you until it reaches a critical level of PPM...probably less than 2 minutes of CO2 will cause you to blackout and die, once your lungs fill up with CO2 asphyxiation begins...and surprisingly to most people even pure oxygen is fatal...and CO2 is part of sick building syndrome which causes illness at low levels which makes it a toxin...

I am not using incorrect information to make a point. CO2, in the quantities that it is found in nature, even if we double the quantities, will not kill anything. Those pushing the global warming agenda, through the mainstream media, are leading us to believe that we created CO2 which is toxic to the planet.

You are exaggerating to make a point. No creature on this planet is in a situation where they are forced to breathe just CO2. Water will cause your brain to swell and kill you if you drink too much of it. Is water toxic?

CO2 is not a toxin in the pure sense of the term; increasing CO2 in a closed environment dilutes the oxygen level and that is what causes the syndrome; lack of oxygen. If you breathe just CO2 you will die because you are depriving yourself of oxygen. Breathe any other gas without oxygen and it will kill you. We all take in CO2 with every breath we take.

[samcin]

where was the insult?..asking you when you completed high school?...if that was it, it's a relevant question because your reasoning indicates to me "old school" education...your argument consists of factual errors, myths and conspiracies, if your older then your point of view is understandable as a product of past education, if you're young person than you're inexcusably stupid...

When or whether I finished school is not relevant in a debate. Do people stop learning and researching when they finish school? Not in my case. You don't have to be a scientist to have a political opinion. You just have to do the research available through science and come up with your own conclusions. I thought this was a political forum and not a scientific one. If you want to know the truth about "CLIMATE CHANGE" follow the money.

[Michael Hardner]

When or whether I finished school is not relevant in a debate. Do people stop learning and researching when they finish school? Not in my case. You don't have to be a scientist to have a political opinion. You just have to do the research available through science and come up with your own conclusions. I thought this was a political forum and not a scientific one. If you want to know the truth about "CLIMATE CHANGE" follow the money.

You're more likely to understand the flaws, and benefits of amateur science with more education.

[wyly]

I am not using incorrect information to make a point. CO2, in the quantities that it is found in nature, even if we double the quantities, will not kill anything. Those pushing the global warming agenda, through the mainstream media, are leading us to believe that we created CO2 which is toxic to the planet.

You are exaggerating to make a point. No creature on this planet is in a situation where they are forced to breathe just CO2. Water will cause your brain to swell and kill you if you drink too much of it. Is water toxic?

CO2 is not a toxin in the pure sense of the term; increasing CO2 in a closed environment dilutes the oxygen level and that is what causes the syndrome; lack of oxygen. If you breathe just CO2 you will die because you are depriving yourself of oxygen. Breathe any other gas without oxygen and it will kill you. We all take in CO2 with every breath we take.

my nephew the HVAC engineer who works for the US government on SBS would disagree, even with adequate oxygen raise the PPM of CO2 and you will suffer...change the ratio of a gas and you change it's properties, ask any commercial diver how critical proper air mixture is to life and death...

[wyly]

When or whether I finished school is not relevant in a debate. Do people stop learning and researching when they finish school? Not in my case. You don't have to be a scientist to have a political opinion. You just have to do the research available through science and come up with your own conclusions. I thought this was a political forum and not a scientific one. If you want to know the truth about "CLIMATE CHANGE" follow the money.

it is relevant...your posts indicate a weak knowledge of the science involved and the issue being discussed is not purely political it has a strong science component...I don't doubt you're still learning but your far off the mark on this topic...Saipan is much worse...

[lukin]

you've haven't demonstrated any scientific knowledge my 10 yr old doesn't have...your entire argument is nothing more than personal attacks, trolling, and cross posting(see forum rules)...

when you can answer the basic chemistry questions which are relevant to the debate I'll reply to you otherwise you're a waste of time...

- a mixture of gases has it's own unique properties according to the percentage of each gas in the makeup of the mixture??? true or false

-if you change the ratio of the gases in the mixture you change it's properties???true or false

if you can't answer, bugger off...

I asked you a simple question. What are you doing on a personal level to combat global warming? It's simple. Do you practice what you preach?

What percentage of the dry atmosphere consists of GHGs. Of that percentage, what percentage is caused by humans? Ask your nephew, the engineer, for an answer and get back to me.

[RNG]

my nephew the HVAC engineer who works for the US government on SBS would disagree, even with adequate oxygen raise the PPM of CO2 and you will suffer...change the ratio of a gas and you change it's properties, ask any commercial diver how critical proper air mixture is to life and death...

From Wiki:

Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location[52].

* 1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[8]

* At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[51]

* At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory center, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[51]. Panic attacks may also occur at this concentration.[53][54]

* At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[51]

So what does it going from 0.028% to 0.036% matter?

[wyly]

From Wiki:

Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location[52].

* 1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[8]

* At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[51]

* At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory center, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[51]. Panic attacks may also occur at this concentration.[53][54]

* At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[51]

So what does it going from 0.028% to 0.036% matter?

the original point made was CO2 is not toxic so not an issue...but it is, as you have demonstrated...

it matters in the atmosphere not as a toxin but for it's warming properties which are cumulative...

[samcin]

it is relevant...your posts indicate a weak knowledge of the science involved and the issue being discussed is not purely political it has a strong science component...I don't doubt you're still learning but your far off the mark on this topic...Saipan is much worse...

You cannot assume I have a weak knowledge of science from my posts. Just because I don't agree with your exaggerated examples does not make me weak scientifically. The scientific method is based on disagreements and proving your theory is the right.

The so called scientists with the strong science component were caught red handed lying to the entire world population about global warming. This is why they now call it climate change. Doesn't say much for the scientific component when it’s based on lies.

According to your expertise, by what percentage has man increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

[lukin]

my nephew the HVAC engineer who works for the US government on SBS would disagree, even with adequate oxygen raise the PPM of CO2 and you will suffer...change the ratio of a gas and you change it's properties, ask any commercial diver how critical proper air mixture is to life and death...

This supposed nephew of your works for the US gov't is relevant how? I guess we should be impressed that this nephew of yours works for the US gov't, right?

I asked you simple question. What are you personally doing to combat global climate change? How are you doing your part to save the planet. Does you 10 year old need to answer this simple question for you? Please tell me what you are doing.

Edited October 1, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

You cannot assume I have a weak knowledge of science from my posts. Just because I don't agree with your exaggerated examples does not make me weak scientifically. The scientific method is based on disagreements and proving your theory is the right.

The so called scientists with the strong science component were caught red handed lying to the entire world population about global warming. This is why they now call it climate change. Doesn't say much for the scientific component when it’s based on lies.

According to your expertise, by what percentage has man increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Good luck getting a straight answer. It's a waste of time arguing with a militant-feminist like wyly. Anyone with any common sense knows the global warming scare is politically motivated. All that is excpet for Al Gore's diciples.

[Saipan]

it is relevant...your posts indicate a weak knowledge of the science involved and the issue being discussed is not purely political it has a strong science component...I don't doubt you're still learning but your far off the mark on this topic...Saipan is much worse...

You're free to prove asking WHERE is the global warm up is "much worse".

You mean inconvenient?

[samcin]

the original point made was CO2 is not toxic so not an issue...but it is, as you have demonstrated...

it matters in the atmosphere not as a toxin but for it's warming properties which are cumulative...

What exactly do you mean by "its warming properties which are cumulative". Do excess amounts of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere or are the warming effects you claim cumulative?

Let’s assume the earth is warming due to increased CO2 levels caused by man. How does paying a carbon tax through Al Gore's brokerage firm help decrease the carbon levels?

[samcin]

You're more likely to understand the flaws, and benefits of amateur science with more education.

Why the assumption that others on this forum are not highly educated? Besides there is such a thing as street smarts and education is not required to know when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes or blowing smoke up your you know what.

[jbg]

The number of papers on climate change today is entirely a result of governments who made it clear that they wished to fund that kind of research. A choice that was made because there were political agendas that would benefit from a belief that climate change was happening and it was caused by man. Nobody figured they could benefit politically from the cooling theory so there was no incentive to fund the research hence fewer papers.

I agree about the incentive to fund papers on global warming. As far as cooling goes I don't think there was a lack of incentive. I think that back in the 1970's the environmental movement actually had some constructive work to do, i.e. work against real air and water pollution. Now, the movement needs a reason to exist so voila, global warming is the issue.

[gutb]

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the climate change circus -- a spectacle of one side denying the science with all their might, and the other side calling them stupid without a real clue in their heads as to what it is they supposedly believe in. Since I don't deny the science AND understand the actual scientific analysis of the data I can't deny, I can only come to the conclusion that climate change is largely irrelevant to me, and entirely outside of my control.

If you're conservative, you're efforts are much better directed towards working on ways to destroy the pig trough government structure, because that is the only way you will get to take back your wealth, freedoms and opportunities -- denying science will get you none of the things that matter. Making the science be wrong as some kind of test of conservatism is silly. Once we are all in control of our own wealth, we can review the climate change issue with detached, clinical care and decide as tax-payers what kind of actions, if any at all, we will take. If the tax-payers don't want to spend on climate change, then the other side can work on convincing them otherwise, and "you're stupid" will not be a very convincing argument. Right now, no matter how hard you scream in defiance of it, the government empire will simply continue to take, right or wrong, glaciers or no glaciers.

[lukin]

I agree about the incentive to fund papers on global warming. As far as cooling goes I don't think there was a lack of incentive. I think that back in the 1970's the environmental movement actually had some constructive work to do, i.e. work against real air and water pollution. Now, the movement needs a reason to exist so voila, global warming is the issue.

Exactly!! Great post. Those with common sense can easily see through the BS being spewed by Gore, Suzuki, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Rainforest Action Network.

Those who don't understand the true agenda of the human caused climate change propaganda brigade need to wake up.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree about the incentive to fund papers on global warming. As far as cooling goes I don't think there was a lack of incentive. I think that back in the 1970's the environmental movement actually had some constructive work to do, i.e. work against real air and water pollution. Now, the movement needs a reason to exist so voila, global warming is the issue.

The incentive is being right or wrong. If anybody can explain why there's a huge incentive to ruin your career by publishing incorrect data, then let's hear about that.

Or, alternately, if all these theories are incorrect then somebody could make a name for themselves by simply publishing the correct information.

Unless, of course, there's a world wide conspiracy.

[TimG]

The incentive is being right or wrong. If anybody can explain why there's a huge incentive to ruin your career by publishing incorrect data, then let's hear about that.

The hockey stick sage proves that publishing junk science actually enhances your career if the junk science supports the current political objectives.

Unless, of course, there's a world wide conspiracy.

Of course you love to use that phrase to imply implausibile central coordination when it is really nothing more that a collection of individuals responding to the incentives available. When the incentives are skewed one way the result science will be skewed accordingly.

[Michael Hardner]

The hockey stick sage proves that publishing junk science actually enhances your career if the junk science supports the current political objectives.

Only until you're found out.

Of course you love to use that phrase to imply implausibile central coordination when it is really nothing more that a collection of individuals responding to the incentives available. When the incentives are skewed one way the result science will be skewed accordingly.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's an open system, so if there were a loophole, we would find out about it quickly. A single paper could blow the whistle on this.

Or, it could be that hundreds, thousands of scientists world wide have been conspiring to openly lie, although the truth can be figured out by anybody who is equally qualified as them. And this has been going on for twenty years.

In other words, it's not plausible. Possible, but not plausible.

[TimG]

Only until you're found out.

Mann has been producing junk science for years. Every hi profile paper that he has produced is filled with statistical dirty tricks designed to produce the result that he wants. He has been called on this over and over again but no one cares because he supports the "cause".

Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. It's an open system, so if there were a loophole, we would find out about it quickly. A single paper could blow the whistle on this.

McIntyre has been evicerating dendro papers for years but nobody in the science establishment cares.

Or, it could be that hundreds, thousands of scientists world wide have been conspiring to openly lie, although the truth can be figured out by anybody who is equally qualified as them. And this has been going on for twenty years.

Your problem is you think there is an absolute truth to be discovered. There is not. Almost all of it is opinion dressed up as statistics. This allows people to fool themselves into believing things which are not necessarily true. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

Yes, why always pointing to places no one lives?

I take that as an attempt to make unverifiable points. I have serious doubts that there is serious Arctic warming, aside from inhabited areas were ice fog reduces radiational cooling.