Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally Posted by Beacon

I use them to recharge batteries. On another note I am going to critique myself here. The problem with the "global warming is a conspiracy" element is that they are fairly much linked to the neoconservative or libertarian elements in the US and as such linked to specific political and economic and in some cases moral theories. But there is a valid case to critique climate modelling as it is based on just that "models" . Yes as I have pointed out one can use indirect methods to estimate temperatures centuries ago but that isnt a direct measurement.
Even using direct measurement there is a difficulty in standardisation and management on an international basis but I would think there is a strong argument that the readings made are both valid and reliable. But they in turn are inputted into models. and human beings put values on what is considered "standard"

For example when that famous volcano in Iceland blew ( not caused by gobal warming AFAIK) ALL air craft ere grounded. So ther was no direct measurement of the dust from the couds just models of it. When I say no measurement I mean taken daily at several altitudes etc. This might have been done by baloon but im not aware it was . Most probably this was because such projects require budgets and preparation neither of which was available or given any priority.
Im not saying no dust was there nor am I saying no heating up exists. IIR four Swedish military SaaB jets did fly from Iceland through the dust cloud and two were badly damaged and nearly crashed due to dust in the engines.
Anyway after a week or so the estimates of parts per million was still too high for aviation so the "authorities" increased the "standard" by a factor of a THOUSAND e.g. it want from say 7 parts per million to 7,000 parts being the minimum!
All this goes to show that science doesnt really know wher the "tipping point" is.
I ll also say there is a strong correlation between production of human made CO2 and warming but correlations isnt causality.

I recently read Superfreakonomics and I recall some other good critique ther . Illget back on that.

Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.

As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.

Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.


The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.

Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.

The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.


So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.


I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.

Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.

Originally Posted by Spector567

Beacon you know the reasoning is more robust than that. =)

The atmospheric elevation heat pattern as well as the hot nights show that the cause is atmospheric green house gas vs any external factor.

Dont think i argued that it wasnt. I just pointed out that the actual levels do require more measurement and exactly wher the tippping point is nobody knows. thst isnt to say we arent approaching a tipping point or should not reduce our human caused output.
But Ill draw a parallel. Tonight I say a TV show about surrogate mothers. In India woman are paid $5000 (about ten years wages) to have babies. this is about 20% of what the "parents" pay ( $25,000). the point made was about this being an exploitation of women. But another way of looking at it is you are giving the ten years wages. If you really want to stop exploiting Indian young women than why dont you invest in theor country and pay them better? Similar arguments can be made about prostution. In fact the Freakonomics guy shows how feminism and womens rights directly caused the lowering of standards in education by lowering the standards of primary teaching because the teachers - almost all womes- went on to better jobs.

As well the atmospheric isotopes in Co2 show that the vast majority of new Co2 in the atmosphere is the result of combustion as opposed to of gassing or volcanic sources.

?
Okay how much of this is power plants how much cars and how much forest fires?

Correlation isn't causation but this isn't merely correlation the conclusions are based on much much more than that.

Ill accept gasses are of huam origin but how much and what percentage and at what level will irreversable warming occur?

The models merely predict the level and rate of effect. While this is an important thing to know when considering risk factors it doesn't change the fact that the recent global temperature increase is man made green house gas.

Yes - see mu last comment. Is ther an acceptable level of road traffic deaths if not we should ban all motor cars.
Givren you wont ban all fossil fuels what do you think is acceptable?

Just like it doesn't matter if Volcanic ash creates dangerous conditions at 7ppm or 7,000ppm. The reality is that volcanic ash does do damage to planes.

Yes but you ban all flights and have no damage at all. similarly you can ban cigarettes and alcohol. So given you wont ban petrol and gas and cows how are you going to stop CO2 production?

The only thing that has changed is your level of risk.

Yes. so what is an unacceptable level of CO2 producion and how will you stop it increasing beyond that?

So while it is within the realm of possibility that global warming will stall out indefinably, that it will create a paradise jungle world or Aliens will land and begin singing the YMCA. so while we would all love to see this happen, these are just possibilities.

My personal view is that humans are possibly creating a huge problem. But it isnt only in global warming. But as Im not going t suggest genocide I dont have any ready solution to over consumption and over population

I once read that as human beings we judge someones fitness based on there ability to predict the future. There ability to use the best available information they have available and plan for the likely outcomes based upon there risk and reward. You do this in your personal life and in your professional life. We make choices based upon the best available information.

In the modern world people only care about THEIR welfare and not about things outside themselves and maybe their family country etc. How do you change that?

Currently the best available information says that human affects are causing the warming of our planet and we must take steps to slow or reduce this in order to avoid a wide variety of negative consequences.

Exactly what consequences will occur ar exactly what levels of CO2? And what steps can we take?