Global Warming Propaganda

**Eagleclaw68** · 24-Nov-09, 00:33

All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument.

Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century the end of the second millennium approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that the end of the world is nigh unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.

Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of renewables to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too.

The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming.

Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it.

www.globalwarmingpropaganda.com

**ShelleyCowie** · 24-Nov-09, 00:37

uh-hu...and whats this got to do with the price of cheese?

Sorry had to be said! Anyways, whats the question or was it just a statement?

**Phill** · 24-Nov-09, 00:53

Aye.......

**Through** · 30-Nov-09, 19:24

I do. 0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.

**Rheghead** · 30-Nov-09, 19:25

Originally Posted by Through

I do. 0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.

Go back and rework your figures, if you can't see your error the second time then you are doubly inept.

**Whitewater** · 24-Nov-09, 01:00

I can agree with you on man made global warming. However, global warming does occur, it is perfectly natural as far as the earth is concerned and its relationship with the sun, there are slight tips of the earths axis, this way and that, and in space this changes slightly the earths angle to the sun and other planets, all having effect the climate, these changes occur approx every 6 to 7 hundred years. Sometimes the changes can be very severe. There are also pole reversals which occur from time to time, (not so often a climate change) they cause complete chaos with the planet. I recall reading somewhere in the distant past that we are the 3rd civilisation to walk the earth, so sooner of later one of the prophets of doom will be correct.
To counter global warming the ancient Mayans used to sacrafice virgins, there are not very many of them around these days so we build windmills, equally futile. I know now how Don Quixote must have felt.

**George Brims** · 24-Nov-09, 02:10

I really don't know where to start in answering such nonsense. The oil companies and their paid stooges have made such a great job of turning a scientific issue into a political one that it's probably impossible to have any kind of a reasoned debate about it any more.

The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?

*Please explain the physical principle behind this statement.

**Rheghead** · 24-Nov-09, 08:00

Is it coincidental that anti-global warming propagada is totally void of credible science and heavy on clever wordplay?

The timing of all this is not coincidental on the eve of a major international agreement on Climate Change, to give this rubbish any airtime is totally irresponsible imho.

**Kenn** · 24-Nov-09, 11:01

Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?

**riggerboy** · 24-Nov-09, 11:10

Originally Posted by LIZZ

Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?

the same place the rest of the twats on here get the information, they get kinda what they want then mutilate it until it is what they believe and hey presto """paste""""

globle warming is a natural effect

what caused the last ice age " i dont think it was emmission "

**Through** · 29-Nov-09, 23:29

My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.

If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.

However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.

**Rheghead** · 29-Nov-09, 23:48

Originally Posted by Through

My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.

If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.

However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.

So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?

I'm through with your bs.

**Rheghead** · 30-Nov-09, 17:12

Originally Posted by Through

My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.

If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.

However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.

You've still got a lot to explain.

Why have you used unconventional units? I've seen gas concentrations irt climate change expressed as % by volume, mg/m³ or ppm by volume but never % by mass.

Secondly, and most damning against you, is that even if I convert your figure using conventional methods and using your unconventional units then you are completely off the correct concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 25%.

A typo is forgiveable but grooming the figures is not. Incidentally, that error actually equates to hiding a global temperature warming by CO2 of ~1.3C, twice that of the observed rise over the last century.

**Through** · 28-Nov-09, 00:27

Originally Posted by George Brims

The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?

The "hole" in the ozone layer was discovered in 1974. There is evidence that the "hole" in the ozone layer is healing itself.

New Church, M J et al, Evidence for slowdown in stratospheric ozone loss: first stage of ozone recovery, J Geophys Res, 108(D16) 4507, doi:10.1029/2003JD003471. [AGU]

We have now identified a number of cyclic behaviours exhibited by the ozone layer. What we don't know, is how was the ozone layer behaving prior to first noticing the "hole" in 1974. For all we know, the "hole" is normal.

I keep putting "hole" inside quotation marks, because it is not a hole. It is a thinning of the ozone layer.

Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

**joxville** · 28-Nov-09, 01:16

Originally Posted by Rheghead

I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.

I daresay the majority of people, myself included, find the thought of trawling through scientific papers tedious in the extreme, plus the 'evidence' will be so full of waffle that the man in the street won't be able to understand it, which is the result Government wants anyway. Governments rely on advice from the scientific community, which in turn needs funding, so where will they get the money from?

Originally Posted by Through

Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked.

**Through** · 28-Nov-09, 01:26

Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.

I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.

Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.

My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.

I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus. On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.

Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups. One group go off to try and find better arguments. The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models. More about models later.

Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171. Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."

If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on. This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.

Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.

For example,

Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.

Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.

Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.

If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.

Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.

Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.

**Through** · 29-Nov-09, 23:24

CRU also publish sea level data on one of their web pages. They have been measuring sea level at many of the islands in the pacific for a reasonable number of years. The graphs go up and down a bit, but show no trend overall. The only dramatic event in the charts, is a fall in sea level, that subsequently returns to a value around the norm.

CRU correlate their own data with previous studies that go back far longer and conclude that there is good agreement.

They then go on to say that their graphs prove an upward trend.

I give you two challenges.

1) find the web page and let's see how accessible it is to the public.
2) spot a trend in the charts, either up or down.