Global Warming Propaganda

[Rheghead]

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.

How do you know?

[Stavro]

How do you know?

I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.

[Rheghead]

I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.

How did he know?

[Stavro]

How did he know?

There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions.

[3of8]

Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.

Yeah, right! More like a very convenient moneymaker.

A warmer climate means more evaporation which means more rain, it doesn't really get any simpler than that.

Based on what evidence, Rheg? As you have said yourself...

Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.

.... the same can be said of the believers.

Truth is no-one knows really do they? What we have had is climate-change promoters ramming so called facts down our throats left, right and bloody centre and now, if relevant newspaper reports are correct and to believed, we are to pay for the privilege of pumping carbon into the atmosphere in the form of yet more taxes.

However, the so called evidential climate change scientists have had their emails leaked suggesting that they were telling lies and manipulating the debate for their own ends, Indeed, any non believing academics were quite often denied funding grants for their own research as they didn't agree with current thinking on climate change. Hypocritical or what?

Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible and, on the subject of the ozone layer, a hole is found over the Antarctic. How do we know that there hasn't always been a hole there? Only discovered after satellites found the damn thing. Therefore, why can't we reason that as we've had more than one ice age that the earth will get warmer and colder without our help? We can't, can we?

Are we that smug and superior though to think that the human race alone is solely responsible for what happens on this planet? To quote Shakespeare in Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I believe that rings true even more so today.

[Rheghead]

There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions.

Why are they silly?

[Rheghead]

@3of 8 You've heard of the water cycle haven't you? Seen a kettle lately? According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.

[3of8]

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.

Some of us, like me, even have degrees in Environmental Science and don't believe what the newspaper selling headlines say, so please don't make out that you may only be the only educated one in our midst.

[Stavro]

... According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.

Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles?

[Rheghead]

Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible.

Scientific debates are of a different nature to socio-political debates, seeing that climate change is a scientific phenomenon and blogospheres can only deal with socio-political debates then I do share that sentiment.

Ultimately, we need to consult with the scientists who are researching this field directly if we are to get the proper picture on climate change. And we all know what they are saying in accordance with the IPCC.

There are too many 'political scientists' trying to grab the headlines with 'evidence' that disproves AGW, a lot of it is misrepresented scientific papers or even downright lies. Though some points may be valid which have made scientists to go back and reassess things.

I will suggest anyone to consult realclimate.org as their first port of call on climate change. They love debunking all that Great global warming swindle rubbish and such like.

I do recognise that most people are more accustomed to socio-political debating and science very often fails to get its point over to the public because of the trap of coming over in an esoteric fashion. Hence that is why interested groups who want to keep the public away from accepting anthropogenic global warming are already at the advantage.

[Rheghead]

Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles?

Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase. I didn't expect you to understand that.

[3of8]

@3of 8 You've heard of the water cycle haven't you? Seen a kettle lately? According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.

That's right! Well, almost. The amount of water in the water cycle never changes. What does change is the state of the water e.g. liquid, ice, vapour. Without water vapour, co2 alone wouldn't increase the temperature of the earth by about more than 1 degree, which is why I think we're being penalised, tax wise, for nothing. Water vapour absorbs heat and increases the heat in the atmosphere. Satellite measurements have been made 1982 and 2004 to confirm this (not a great length of time really, is it?). Now as the sun heats the earth, the heat reflected back from objects on the earth, even seawater and snow, is absorbed and trapped by the water vapour up there instead of escaping back into space. Ironically, and I'll have to check my facts again, the increase in solar power means that the black photo-voltaic cells that change the light from the sun into electricity, contributes to reflected heat into the atmosphere!

However, one good volcano eruption would blast enough particles into the atmosphere which has the opposite effect. The particles reflect away the heat from the sun and the earth cools.

[gleeber]

That's right! Well, almost.

I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction.
This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies.
I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
You guys are saying there is no problem?

[Mrs Bucket]

I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction.
This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies.
I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
You guys are saying there is no problem?

For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age

[Rheghead]

For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age

they? Again, the they was just a junior post grad student (or summat similiar) who got lucky with his 15 mins of fame and the media fell in love with him for getting them great headlines to sell newspapers.

[3of8]

I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like.

Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.

You guys are saying there is no problem?

I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.

[Rheghead]

I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.

I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about. And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year now. Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.

The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.

If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?

[gleeber]

Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.



I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.

There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least?
Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.

[3of8]

There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least?
Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.

I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.

[3of8]

I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about. And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year now. Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.

The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.

If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?

Hmmm.

The average parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere are between 250 and 350. The average found in a house with good air circulation is between 350 and 1000. So an increase of 2 or 3 ppm isn't going to affect us that much really is it?

An increase in sea level of around 3mm per year. That's around 30mm in 10 years, at the most an inch and a half, maybe 5 inches in 30 years?

Global temperatures up by 1.6 to 5.7C in 90 years from now? In 10 years from now, anything could happen to reduce global temperatures by the same or more. Are your figures based on sound scientific evidence or the hysterical rantings of previously mentioned biased scientists?

Don't know much about Vanuatu apart from being in the Pacific somewhere, but Bangladesh is and has been flooded in the rainy season every year beyond living memory hasn't it? That's why they live in houses on stilts. But, I would imagine that the politicians there have been scared senseless by scurrilous claims made by the pro global warming group hence their being bothered.