26 replies to this topic

[sofiaweb]

It is good to see that scientific views on this are changing...there is no credible evidence to support the global warming theory.

Many organisations and people have profited by the global warming theories - in fact there is an entire world industry which has grown around it.

Remember the panic over the supposed Y2K bug? A huge inustry was built around that too, millions of dollars of profit made - again on ridiculous and unfounded theories...

Al Gore is certainly profitting from it all - not to mention carbon footprints???? All that private jet travel?????

Ridiculous!

[s243a]

sofiaweb, on Jul 29 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

It is good to see that scientific views on this are changing...there is no credible evidence to support the global warming theory.

Many organisations and people have profited by the global warming theories - in fact there is an entire world industry which has grown around it.

Remember the panic over the supposed Y2K bug? A huge inustry was built around that too, millions of dollars of profit made - again on ridiculous and unfounded theories...

Al Gore is certainly profitting from it all - not to mention carbon footprints???? All that private jet travel?????

Ridiculous!

The earths climate is a hard thing to understand. Weather or not people are having a significant impact on the earths temperature is a matter of debate but what ever impact we may be having is certainly much less then suggested by Al Gore's rants.

[gisellebebegirl]

i dont think that global warming is a scam at all
we are slowly harming our planet by weakening the oxon layer and such
i mean think about it, what good could come out from wasting all of our natural resources and trowing hazardous chemicals up to the roof, none. it harms both our health and the planets health
sure i do not think the world will end because of polution by 2012 or neverless during our lifetime but we sure are speeding the process up, think of global warming as a way that we slowly kill ourplanet little by little
come on dont you think wasting less energy by turning lights off and using our cars and acs less worth many of our animal species lives?

you might think of it as a scam, because now the media has its paws all over it, trying to sell stuff through this economic resession by putting the words "this helps the enviroment, enviromental friendly" on it

but even if its not exactly global warming we are harming our planet

[brittmortimer]

hmm, global warming. if that was only true, but so far all i have read was earth was in fact the same temperature as 1950 and before...
1. I don't believe in it for a few reasons, one its a political hoax more then anything......
2. there are too many facts that its fake, like the ice one the one pole, is melting, but they miss the fact that other pole is 43% bigger.....
Global Warming not something that I readily believe in.

[jayzeed]

I doubt its a scam, Blown out of proportion? maybe. but science is right

[kobra500]

Well a lot of the information about it is Misinformation, how ever the sum of it is not as misinforming as what you just said, anyone who is interested in Global warming which deals with information, misinformation and speculation should watch this video series on youtube.

http://www.youtube.c...4F0994AFB057BB8

But it certainly is not a scam, there certainly is evidence for it. Also in the Case of the Y2K bug they were unsure of what would happen, although what they predicted really was not such.

[s243a]

jayzeed, on Jul 29 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

I doubt its a scam, Blown out of proportion? maybe. but science is right

That statement is so meaningless. Without knowing how much a change in CO2 concentration will effect temperature, or what portion of CO2 the ecosystem will absorb, knowing that CO2 can have an effect on temperature is meaningless. Me farting has an effect on temperature but I don't think it is going to end the world.

[rob86]

I doubt very many of us are qualified to have an intelligent opinion about the "Global Warming" stuff going on. Almost everything you read on the subject is biased and exaggerated with important information purposely left out. The sad fact is most people are so worked about global warming and they don't know anything about it including whether it's a load of crap or a real threat to the world. You see people protesting and arguing about global warming and they most likely don't know a thing about climate that wasn't fed to them by biased sources.

If anyone feels so strongly about it, they should become climatologists to get the facts they want. I'm all for protecting the environment and saving the animals and what not, but I'm not going to go nuts about climate change because it seems highly unlikely that we're having an effect on it.

There's a rule of life to go by and it goes, Truth in uncertainty is almost always inversely proportional to what the masses believe.

In the grand scheme of things 99% of the people who are so vocal about Global Warming = End of the World don't have a clue what's going on. They aren't experts in the field of climate change by any means. They could be right, they could be wrong, but they don't know either way and are just being naive to pretend they know what's going on.

Don't jump on the band wagon because it's the fad of the decade. There have been all kinds of end of the world fads and the world hasn't ended yet and even if it does it probably won't even be our fault.

If the world's truly in danger of some disaster I'm sure there would be a lot less debating about the seriousness of the situation. All the geniuses and climate experts in the world can't unanimously decide whether humans have a devastating effect on the climate? Pfft.


PS: I have a funny feeling that somebody will blow up, disintegrate or otherwise destroy the earth in the future anyway and will make all this climate change stuff irrelevant..

Edited by rob86, 30 July 2009 - 05:00 AM.

[Alex Cicala]

gisellebebegirl, on Jul 30 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

sure i do not think the world will end because of polution by 2012

To True,

People need to understand that if the world's population continue on this path for a while, the world is not likely to end or come to disaster or anything similar. Al Gore's movie "AN Inconvenient Truth" shows people all the possible 'theories' that are out there about Global Warming, He says that the carbon emission content will grow 4 times as it is now, although if this is true it's nothing will can't handle. Plant life will adapt to these changes and so will we. If it is us that will change or technology, us humans on Earth have a way of figuring things out. The issue on Sea Levels is a scary possibility, although people need to realize technology is changing by the minute, we will figure something out such as alternate living spaces for the masses of people and so on. Although Sea Levels are only growing at such a slow rate that it may drop a few Cm's a year as well as rise, it's pretty much all a cycle.

My view on this is that if people could survive some of the Ice Ages those many years ago, well what about now with our kind of technology, heh ??? ... Think about it!

[SpiderVV]

It's definetly not a scam. For example here in portugal, 10 years ago the weather was always mild in the Summer, etc. Now, when it's Winter it's practically hot and then the day next it snows, then in the Summer we get stunning high temperatures and boom, rain days after or even more hot. Also the sea level is going up drastically and all these smokes going to the atmosphere? How come it doesn't do anything?
About the 2012 thing, did the World end in 2000? No.

Edited by SpiderVV, 30 July 2009 - 03:57 PM.

[Echo_of_thunder]

Al Gorey Gore strikes again. I have seen so many topics here of Global warming and all these so called effects that they say that it is having. Hello People Wake up and open your eyes. There is no such thing as real global warming. The earth has phases it will go through ever now and then, such as spring summer fall and winter. This is only one of many Mother Nature has. Yes man is not helping things with all the Beep we are doing to the earth. But Global Warming? That is just 2 words cooked up by people in Washington DC one day to scare the people into using less energy, that's all.

Secondly, we have only been keeping records of temps and such for less than 200yrs. We do not know what the Summer or Winter was like say 500 yrs ago. For all we really know. it could be just like it is today. Weather Patterns change not only daily but hourly. Nothing stays the same. So for GW? The joke is on us. But and this is a big one. We can help by saving what we have.

[s243a]

Echo_of_thunder, on Jul 30 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

Secondly, we have only been keeping records of temps and such for less than 200yrs. We do not know what the Summer or Winter was like say 500 yrs ago. For all we really know. it could be just like it is today. Weather Patterns change not only daily but hourly. Nothing stays the same. So for GW? The joke is on us. But and this is a big one. We can help by saving what we have.

It depends on what method you use to construct past temperatures. If you go by boar holes you might think it was warmer 500 years ago.

Quote

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w239/cl...a/Huangetal.jpg

Then again you may not:

Quote

http://books.nap.edu...id=11676&page=2

It all depends on how you mine the data.

Edited by s243a, 30 July 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[s243a]

On another note here is a documentary on global warming which argues against the consensus:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[s243a]

Here are some more interesting videos:



http://www.youtube.com/v/9tOFoFx7S6M

[iGuest]

I believe global warming is a profitable scam.

they say that the whole in the ozone layer is getting bigger. But leading scientists have said that it is in fact closing. global temperature change is common and the earth goes through stages where it is hot and cold at different times example being ice ages. If you look over temperature on the earth in the last 50 years maybe then it could be at a high but if you look back much later (500 years) there has been much higher temperatures then now and yeah man kind was wiped out then wasn't it.

so my advice is to get into the global warming profit making schemes now! before people relise its a joke. 

-reply by hgdhgyasas

[Diffusr]

If global warming is actually real,and not just a scare mongering tactic run by the likes of Gore etc, then the governments are going entirely the wrong way about tackling the problem.
I don't see how raising taxes for polluters achieves anything except more pollution. Because the polluters will increase production output to cover the costs of paying the taxes and we end up with more pollution and richer governments.
Make it law that polluters must offset thier emissions by planting trees to the equivalent amount, instead of saying that they must pay more taxes. Surely that would be more helpful.
Climate change is a very complex subject that the scientist don't understand completely. There are images of receding ice fronts from different places around the world which is alarming. Then there are reports of more ice than ever on the north pole and the coolest year/decade ever on record involved 2008, so there are conflicting points.
The proper path to take is to assume that our pollution IS causing climate change and respond accordingly. Pollution in general is a bad thing. Encouraging the eco-system to function as it does on its own can only be positive in the end.
If we are going to stop climate change, arbitrarily raising taxes isn't going to do squat.

[ASHISHRANJAN]

hello
hi, i am ashish ranjan
yes the global worming scam each and
every thing in this world

[dangerdan]

The science behind the greenhouse gas effect is indisputable. CFCs do damage the ozone layer, fact. What is up for debate is the extent to which any global changes in temperature or the increase of 'extreme' weather is down to the actions of mankind, as well as the extent to which mankind can reverse them.

The earth has always gone through cyclical phases of temperature, for example, the warming period at the end of the first millennium and the mini ice age in the 14th century. A graph showing emissions rising exponential over the last 30 years is not sufficient to prove global warming, it proves nothing except that emissions are rising, which is obvious given the vast industrialisation and development of countries such as India, China and Brazil.

I think the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph controversy says enough about the way in which the UN must distort that facts in order to gain the desired effect.

[dangerdan]

Diffusr, on Aug 16 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

I don't see how raising taxes for polluters achieves anything except more pollution. Because the polluters will increase production output to cover the costs of paying the taxes and we end up with more pollution and richer governments.
Make it law that polluters must offset thier emissions by planting trees to the equivalent amount, instead of saying that they must pay more taxes. Surely that would be more helpful.

Climate change has been said to be one of the worst cases of market failure in history. Governments must intervene an tax high polluting companies, but this doesn't mean that they will simply increase production, if anything, they will simply increase price and pass the tax onto the consumer. Therefore the emphasis comes to the consumer to choose products made in a more environmentally friendly way, because they have tax relief and are thus not as expensive.

From the business point of view, if businesses are being taxed highly enough because of their high emissions then they are going to look at a way to change this, because ultimately capitalism is based on producing at the lowest price possible, and selling at the highest.

Tax is, in my opinion, one of the only ways to offer an incentive both to consumers and producers that will actually make a difference. The planting of trees idea is a very nice one, in theory, but if you simply allow companies to pollute as much as they want, and simply balance it by planting trees, then THIS is when you will really see pollution and emission start to raise.

[Atomic0]

It is my personal opinion that global warming is indeed happening because I am feeling that summers here in Australia are getting hotter and hotter as every year passes by.

On the topic of taxing pollution, regulations alone to curb the amount of greenhouse being polluted into the atmosphere will not be enough. It will take an emissions trading scheme, where polluters pay a price for the pollution they product, in order for us to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming.

[aurocks]

dangerdan, on Aug 21 2009, 04:33 AM, said:

The science behind the greenhouse gas effect is indisputable. CFCs do damage the ozone layer, fact. What is up for debate is the extent to which any global changes in temperature or the increase of 'extreme' weather is down to the actions of mankind, as well as the extent to which mankind can reverse them.

The earth has always gone through cyclical phases of temperature, for example, the warming period at the end of the first millennium and the mini ice age in the 14th century. A graph showing emissions rising exponential over the last 30 years is not sufficient to prove global warming, it proves nothing except that emissions are rising, which is obvious given the vast industrialisation and development of countries such as India, China and Brazil.

I think the IPCC 'hockey stick' graph controversy says enough about the way in which the UN must distort that facts in order to gain the desired effect.

I would have to agree with you there. There's a serious difference between "climate change" and "global warming." We can definitely cut down on Co2, but we can't control the amount of water vapor or methane that's exposed in the atmosphere with the greenhouse gas effect. Right now the amount of Co2 in the air is like half human caused and half nature caused. I havent really researched what recently happened in Copenhagen, but I would have to assume that it will be about as ineffective as what happened in Kyoto. I think that something needs to be done, but I don't think things like scare tactics are really the right way of going about changing habits like this.

Just my $0.02.

[Echo_of_thunder]

Seems the cat is out of the bag now with all this Global Warming, and I for one am as happy as a lark about it. I have said here in the forum for awhile now that it was a joke. Now it is all coming out of Fake E mails, and edited websites saying of how bad things are when in fact that are not. Yes Al Gore is making a pretty little penny on all of these lies and half truths.

Now I am not saying there is not any problems, there is. But it is not totally due to this Climate Change. Some is due to the people of the world with there trash. but that is just a small percentage of what is happening. The world is changing it's state I feel. Places that are normally cold are getting warmer, warmer climates are getting cooler. Something is not right at all. I hate to say this or even think it but I feel as the North and South Poles are about to switch. I mean think of it this way. All the crazy weather, the earth quakes and all.

But back to the topic at hand. Yes GW was a scam to get people to stop using so much energy. and it worked a little. More and more people and places went and are going green. It should have been stated and done in a better way than they did it though. Myself I hope that these people that are guilty of faking all this should be jailed for there lies to the world of Global Warming. Even though they may have thought that they was doing the right thing, they did it the wrong way.

[dangerdan]

A trading scheme is also known as a tradeable Pollution Permits (TPP) which are example of a market-based instrument that can be used to lower pollution or emissions. The regulator decides upon a level of pollution for the entire industry and then distributes permits to pollute to all the firms in the market. The level of pollution is likely to be below the current level of pollution because otherwise it would not be binding. Upon receiving their permits, firms have three choices; the first is to buy permits from other firms so its pollution can remain constant (and above the level of permits it was issued), the second is to lower pollution equal to their level of permits, and finally the firm could reduce pollution below the level of its permits and could therefore sell the remaining permits on to another firm. Non-polluters can also purchase spare permits, thus reducing the maximum level of pollution possible within the industry. Also, this cost of abating pollution by a unit and purchasing another permit should be exactly the same so that the firm is indifferent between the two options.

In my opinion, TPPs are one of the most effective instruments available to policy makers in this area. Only by valuing environmental resources within a market framework, and assigning a cost to environmental pollution causes the firm to, in theory, act according to the equi-marginal principle.

With regards to Copenhagen, I have an upcoming essay on it, and I was at the demonstrations (hitch-hiked there from Manchester, UK!) so I've been following it quite closely. By the end of the summit, all the UNFCCC had come up with was the Copenhagen accord, an agreement between America, Brazil, India, China and South Africa that is not legally binding in anyway, but simply acknowledges the need for cuts. This acknowledgement for cuts is appreciated but simply not sufficient as any framework has to be legally binding in order to function at all.

In looking at the global issue there has become a three distinct groups of countries;

European Union members
Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European Union
Annex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol (which includes India, China and Brazil)

European union members have all been mandated emissions targets below Kyoto levels, and most countries were close to meeting Kyoto deadlines, and if not have met the deadline by now and continue to cut emissions. In a sense, EU members are 'ahead' in the race to cut emissions, and should find further adaptation well within their capability.

Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol not in the European Union including USA, Canada and Australia were all mandated to cuts by Kyoto though many failed to get anywhere near these targets. The USA did not even ratify the protocol, undermining it somewhat and one of the most significant positive outcomes of Copenhagen is that Obama has led the formation of this Copenhagen Accord.

Annex 2 countries under the Kyoto Protocol which includes India, China, Brazil and all of Africa were not mandated to emissions cuts under Kyoto, and therefore the fact that India, Brazil and China are all on board with this agreement is also going to be significant. However, the African nations, along with Pacific Island and Caribbean Nations wanted $100m pledged in order to help them adapt to impending climate change.

There is a clear switch of emphasis between these two conferences was that Kyoto, in 1997, was about avoiding potential disaster, but not stopping anyone who wants to from developing. Now a clear shift has taken place, with the poorest countries in the world demanding money for the cost they will bear, of the problem, they say, the rich countries caused. The other significant development is that China, Brazil, India and America, (approximately half of the worlds population) have all agreed to hold further talks and sort a framework out.

[eInfiniti]

Global warming - is it a scam or not? I read some of the posts here and am now clueless. This whole thing about global warming is very confusing to laymen. We don't get to see the whole picture or a scaled-down version of it.

Let's hope it's a scam. That way, although we are wasting a lot of resources on the issue, the world will remain to be the same many many years later.

[fermin25]

I read a long time ago that all the global warming thing was only a trap made by the U.S government and a lot of private organizations to stop the development of new economies like Chinese. China is one of the most growth industries and economies in all the planet and all this annoucements only contribute to stop the economical expansion that countries like this are experimentating. Al Gore is a liar there is any proof to assume that global warming is occuring because the pollutest country in the world is the United States, he had speak like a victim. But the truth is that he was the vice-president of United States government he could stopped or only make something to stop the global warming but he made nothing and now he is around the world with a speech to make changes and he could be the favorite candidate to the 2008 elections but he elected to don´t participate and these things talk better than speeches about the real intentions of this mister.

The pollution exist, there is no any doutb about it. But we can´t follow believing that in some years all the ice in the polar lands will melt and all the american central countries will be under the sea in fifty years this is ridiculous and guess what: Nobody is doing anything so where is the alarm if nobody Al gore or the governments are doing something to stop the suspected global warming phenomenon.

All this are lies to keep the persons with fear and stop the economies that are growing to a faster rythm than the Us and European Union economies.

I hope that my answer help to everybody can open their eyes...

Bye.

Edited by fermin25, 12 July 2010 - 03:33 AM.