FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Global Warming Scam





graystonscattery
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!

Take care and all the best

Sue
ocalhoun
Real or not, the real scam is its overblown importance.

It has, as you said, spawned entire industries (and greatly profited certain people, not the least of whom is sitting in the oval office right now), despite the fact that it would only be a small change over the course of centuries, and cause few if any extinctions. Those who cry out that it could cause human extinction are either lying or very, very gullible.
Bikerman
Well, I completely disagree with almost everything said:

a) ANY change in the status quo will profit some and disadvantage others - that is inevitable. The climate scientists who are telling us about global warming (and let us be clear - the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on this) don't stand to make personal fortunes from this. The notion that special interest groups are driving the agenda is largely false. The special interest lobbies are mostly on the side of the status quo (as is pretty much ALWAYS the case in ANY issue).

b) The notion that current politicians stand to gain from AGW is odd - any politician that faces up to AGW MUST make hugely unpopular decisions (increasing the cost of any fossil fuel usage is never going to win votes). This is one major reason the Bush government put so much effort into playing down the issue. Al Gore was interested in climate before he ran for President and now he has time on his hands he continues to pursue his interest by giving lectures around the world. Has he made money from this? Probably. Is this his motivation? Unlikely. If he were only interested in money then he would surely do what most senior politicians do when they leave office - take corporate jobs as advisors or consultants for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, rather than spending large amounts of time and effort speaking to audiences worldwide. I have watched his presentation on the web and although it contains a few items which are controversial and a couple which I think are not evidence based, on the whole I think it is a pretty good effort.

c) Current models predict a rise in global temp of between 2 and 6 degrees this century (that is without including the effects of some predicted tipping points such as the death of the Amazon rain forests or the release of huge amounts of methane from ocean hydrites).
A 2 degree rise would be very bad - millions of people would be badly effected from drought, flooding etc. A 6 degree rise would be catastrophic. It probably wouldn't cause the extinction of humans but it would certainly result in the death of millions.

d) I was closely involved with Y2K. I agree that it was over hyped in the media but that is not the fault of the poor sods like me who had to spend months auditing code. I can tell you with absolute assurance that many people in Wales would now be dead (as a result of inhaling Chlorine Gas) if we had not spotted fundamental errors in code relating to the Y2K bug. I know several colleagues with similar stories. OK, the world did not suddenly come to an end, and there were very few notable problems, but that is due in no small measure to the work that many of us did before the deadline to ensure systems continued to function.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
) The notion that current politicians stand to gain from AGW is odd - any politician that faces up to AGW MUST make hugely unpopular decisions (increasing the cost of any fossil fuel usage is never going to win votes).


Ah, but you don't have to make unpopular decisions about it. You just have to get people to believe that you're more concerned about it than your rival.

And so what if millions die over the course of 100 years? I can guarantee you there will be at least 7 billion deaths in the next 100 years, global warming or no global warming. Meanwhile, overpopulation kills millions right now.

Being such a slow process, I find it difficult to believe that life, human and natural, won't adapt to it faster than it happens in most cases.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
) The notion that current politicians stand to gain from AGW is odd - any politician that faces up to AGW MUST make hugely unpopular decisions (increasing the cost of any fossil fuel usage is never going to win votes).


Ah, but you don't have to make unpopular decisions about it. You just have to get people to believe that you're more concerned about it than your rival.
Only in the very short term. You then have to start making commitments which cost money to your economy
Quote:
And so what if millions die over the course of 100 years? I can guarantee you there will be at least 7 billion deaths in the next 100 years, global warming or no global warming. Meanwhile, overpopulation kills millions right now.
OK - imagine a world where whole countries full of people become forced migrants. Imagine several hundred million people fleeing from flooding and drought (not the scanty million or so of our current worst case disasters).
We are talking about mortality on a scale never seen, or even imagined, outside cold-war nuclear strike plans.
Quote:
Being such a slow process, I find it difficult to believe that life, human and natural, won't adapt to it faster than it happens in most cases.
A valid and telling point. There is a growing lobby in the science and political community that advocate just this - instead of putting all our resources into trying to ameliorate the situation, devote a large chunk into transitional technologies and plans for when it happens.
Personally I think we need both, but at the moment the majority of the effort is still going into persuading people that there IS a problem...
Insanity
No credible evidence? Have you not heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They release a report hundreds of pages long every couple years that is basically nothing BUT evidence.
icecool
Insanity wrote:
No credible evidence? Have you not heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They release a report hundreds of pages long every couple years that is basically nothing BUT evidence.


i agree - and alot of other evidence on top of that.

i am constantly amazed at the deliberate ignorance of some people. yes of course do NOT believe everything you read in the media but ANYBODY whpo has followed environmental events over recent years has to SEE that something drastic is happening.

i guess some people are just happy to be sheep, sit down with their tv dinners watching oprah and live out their lives in ignorant bliss - is it bliss tho? why bother living?
ocalhoun
icecool wrote:

i guess some people are just happy to be sheep, sit down with their tv dinners watching oprah and live out their lives in ignorant bliss - is it bliss tho? why bother living?

Given that Oprah talks about global warming too, Might it not be that those concerned about global warming are also ignorant bliss TV watchers?

Global warming is just a symptom of the real problem. Sooner or later (sooner by recent trends) the human species will increase in number to a point that can no longer be supported. At this point, many will die off until equilibrium is reached.

2 possible permanent solutions:
1- Less humans: somehow get humans to breed less.
2- More room: Expand beyond just the Earth

(Just living more efficiently is NOT a permanent solution. It only delays the inevitable, and at the cost of eventually turning the entire planet into one huge mechanism for keeping humans alive.)
aasrain
2 possible permanent solutions:
1- Less humans: somehow get humans to breed less.
2- More room: Expand beyond just the Earth

(Just living more efficiently is NOT a permanent solution. It only delays the inevitable, and at the cost of eventually turning the entire planet into one huge mechanism for keeping humans alive.) no prblems on it it can cause

edit by rvec: Please use the edit button instead of double posting
Please read the spelling rules
Please do not comment on posts that are against the rules but instead report them and ignore them.
psleang
Bikerman wrote:

c) Current models predict a rise in global temp of between 2 and 6 degrees this century (that is without including the effects of some predicted tipping points such as the death of the Amazon rain forests or the release of huge amounts of methane from ocean hydrites).
A 2 degree rise would be very bad - millions of people would be badly effected from drought, flooding etc. A 6 degree rise would be catastrophic. It probably wouldn't cause the extinction of humans but it would certainly result in the death of millions.


The models also predicted that global temperatures would rise over the past decade. They have stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, 1999 is still the hottest year on record. So, clearly, the models are flawed. I'm not saying they are useless, but should we really expect them to get 2100 right when they just messed up 2010? How many more years of decreasing tempertures will it take before the modelers admit they got it wrong? 10? 20? 50?

Also, a warmer Earth will cause people to die, but it will also save many lives. Growing seasons in the higher latitudes will be longer, fewer people will die of exposure during winter cold snaps, etc. I am constantly hearing about all the ways global warming will kill people, but I rarely hear about studies of the positive effects. There certainly would be positive effects.
Bikerman
psleang wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

c) Current models predict a rise in global temp of between 2 and 6 degrees this century (that is without including the effects of some predicted tipping points such as the death of the Amazon rain forests or the release of huge amounts of methane from ocean hydrites).
A 2 degree rise would be very bad - millions of people would be badly effected from drought, flooding etc. A 6 degree rise would be catastrophic. It probably wouldn't cause the extinction of humans but it would certainly result in the death of millions.


The models also predicted that global temperatures would rise over the past decade. They have stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, 1999 is still the hottest year on record.
Do you just make this stuff up, or do you get it from some conspiracy site?
1999 is not and never was the hottest year on record. That would be 1998 (because of the strong El Nino effect that year). There is some dispute about whether 2005 was very slightly warmer or very slightly cooler than 1998 - the difference was a few hundredths of a degree either way.
So what we have is an exceptionally hot year in 1998 and a similarly hot year in 2005 - the two hottest years since reliable records began in the 1800s. The temperature in 1998 was influenced by the El Nino effect - there was no such effect in 2005.
The MET office site says that global temperatures have risen about 0.1 degree (C) between 1998 and 2007 using the standard 'decade' average.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html
quex
graystonscattery wrote:
It is good to see that scientific views on this are changing...there is no credible evidence to support the global warming theory.


o.o Are you serious?

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


Good lord, you are serious.

The profit argument is a logical falsity. Opportunism is a major driving force in human nature: profiting off of major concerns of society, new threats, new technology, etc. It's only our ingenuity coming into play, as it always does, when mankind faces a new challenge... or, as in this particular case, new knowledge regarding an older problem. Want better coverage in cheaper paint? Try the new lead-infused formula. Ten years later, afraid of your children getting lead poisoning from all that lead paint? Hire a professional remover. Same story with asbestos. You could argue that both of those things are just scares so that painters, installers, and removal groups could profit. That wouldn't change the fact that people have lead poisoning or are dying from asbestosis.

In the same way, one cannot argue that simply because a profit is being made under the banner of the "green" movement, the damage being caused by the over-release of greenhouse gases does not exist. The damage is visible and recordable. Children do have lead poisoning from paint, factory workers are dying from asbestos-triggered lung cancer, and the carbon emissions in our atmosphere are increasing the average temperature of our planet.

Quote:
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...


Actually, not so huge... but yes, that was a panic. With a deadline, even. Just like all the end-of-the-world cults, only this time it threatened our bank accounts and credit records, so of course everyone was interested. When the deadline passed, our fears were assuaged, and we went back to coding... albeit more carefully. If we play our cards correctly, this will happen again in the case of global climate change: we'll pay attention, make the necessary adjustments, and return to advancing our species -- a little more carefully.

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


Haha, Gore is such a dick. If that's your biggest source of ire against global climate change, though, you're really not making such an impression yourself. Even if the messenger is an idiot, the message might not be without merit.
pscompanies
Global warming is not a scam, there's enough evidence to support it. Anyway, there's no use denying the truth. We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we are borrowing it from our children. So take care of the Earth.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:


Global warming is just a symptom of the real problem. Sooner or later (sooner by recent trends) the human species will increase in number to a point that can no longer be supported.
I feel the same Ocalhoun. Overpopulation being on top of the list of problems of the environment. I can't believe that Governments are not doing more to address this problem.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Governments are not doing more to address this problem.

But an individual government has no immediate reason to limit population (in most cases). People are a kind of resource, and a nation that has more of them is stronger because of it. (Until they get to the point where they have too many, and problems occur.)
icecool
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Governments are not doing more to address this problem.

But an individual government has no immediate reason to limit population (in most cases). People are a kind of resource, and a nation that has more of them is stronger because of it. (Until they get to the point where they have too many, and problems occur.)


Yes but people are also people some may argue - the most developed animal and as such it is instinctive to pro-create

In most developed countries there is some kind of social support system in place if you get sick, out of a job or to old to look after yourself - they may not always work for all people all of the time but there is a kind of safety net.

In most under developed countries which still have the highest population increase these are totally missing - if your family is NOT big enough to support the ones that need it you perish.

Also people all over the world live longer - again in developed countries we do our utmost to prolong life sometimes to the extreme - and at huge expense. Whereas in under developed countries child death raytes are slowly faling and live expectancy is slowly rising but people and institutions are very slow to react to this trend.

Cheers
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Governments are not doing more to address this problem.

But an individual government has no immediate reason to limit population (in most cases). People are a kind of resource, and a nation that has more of them is stronger because of it. (Until they get to the point where they have too many, and problems occur.)
True. This reminds me of certain countries where your success in life is measured by the size of your family, the more children, the more successful you are. Some also use large families as a kind of retirement insurance.
quex
deanhills wrote:
This reminds me of certain countries where your success in life is measured by the size of your family, the more children, the more successful you are. Some also use large families as a kind of retirement insurance.


Retirement insurance, indeed. It's not just individual families... all established nations must rely on a wide base of youth to support their elders.

A case in point on the scale of nations, Japan. A combination of social, economic, and even historical factors have lead to a current birthrate of less than 1.5. That's fewer than one-and-a-half children to every woman of bearing capability (wed or unwed) in the nation, or, if you don't like dividing your babies, something shy of an average of 3 full babies to every two women. The optimum number, without calculating for rates of death, infertility, and population shift, is 2 babies per woman; the obvious reason being that for every couple, 2 babies is the absolute minimum number needed to replace their parents in the sum society. For a successful, competitive society, you technically want the rate a little higher than 2.0.

The infamous sexless marriages of overstressed working couples in business-obsessed Japan, the high popularity of condoms with both men and women of all ages, the incredible expense of pregnancy (not covered by the national health plan) and raising a child all combine with the nation's immediate memory (the era leading up and into the Second World War saw the government launch campaigns to balloon the birthrate for the sake of imperialist nation building) to make Japan a shrinking, greying population state.

Immigration into the nation may be a partial solution, and lawmakers have taken up the idea. There are considerable benefits extended to younger (marriageable) foreigners with a quality education and/or proven abilities in the skilled labor market, especially English-speakers. Healthcare, multiple tax-exemptions, special assistance to acquire housing, and special allowances for relocation and travel, among others. If anyone out there has a burning desire to live in Japan, now is your big chance.

And if I may... as a Friendship Ambassador to the northern prefecture of Iwate, please come enjoy our 60+ double-A rated ski resorts, three dozen wine festivals, idyllic spas, miles of untamed coast, and mountain hiking adventures in the most beautiful kens in the nation. :D
deanhills
quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This reminds me of certain countries where your success in life is measured by the size of your family, the more children, the more successful you are. Some also use large families as a kind of retirement insurance.


Retirement insurance, indeed. It's not just individual families... all established nations must rely on a wide base of youth to support their elders.

A case in point on the scale of nations, Japan. A combination of social, economic, and even historical factors have lead to a current birthrate of less than 1.5. That's fewer than one-and-a-half children to every woman of bearing capability (wed or unwed) in the nation, or, if you don't like dividing your babies, something shy of an average of 3 full babies to every two women. The optimum number, without calculating for rates of death, infertility, and population shift, is 2 babies per woman; the obvious reason being that for every couple, 2 babies is the absolute minimum number needed to replace their parents in the sum society. For a successful, competitive society, you technically want the rate a little higher than 2.0.

The infamous sexless marriages of overstressed working couples in business-obsessed Japan, the high popularity of condoms with both men and women of all ages, the incredible expense of pregnancy (not covered by the national health plan) and raising a child all combine with the nation's immediate memory (the era leading up and into the Second World War saw the government launch campaigns to balloon the birthrate for the sake of imperialist nation building) to make Japan a shrinking, greying population state.

Immigration into the nation may be a partial solution, and lawmakers have taken up the idea. There are considerable benefits extended to younger (marriageable) foreigners with a quality education and/or proven abilities in the skilled labor market, especially English-speakers. Healthcare, multiple tax-exemptions, special assistance to acquire housing, and special allowances for relocation and travel, among others. If anyone out there has a burning desire to live in Japan, now is your big chance.

And if I may... as a Friendship Ambassador to the northern prefecture of Iwate, please come enjoy our 60+ double-A rated ski resorts, three dozen wine festivals, idyllic spas, miles of untamed coast, and mountain hiking adventures in the most beautiful kens in the nation. Very Happy
Good point, and very interesting posting .... thanks! Got me thinking that this has to be a common problem in the developed nations in Europe, the UK, US and Canada as well where the average age is much older. I was also thinking about the older people in the US putting an awesome burden of trillions of debt on its youth and how the smaller numbers of young people is going to lead to really serious problems one day. AND ironically quite a significant part of that debt is owned by Japan Smile
quex
deanhills wrote:
ironically quite a significant part of that debt is owned by Japan :)


Ugh, don't remind me. ;_; We're so screwed...
aningbo
quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ironically quite a significant part of that debt is owned by Japan Smile


Ugh, don't remind me. ;_; We're so screwed...


we are all gonna die.... Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
Founder of Weather Channel Opposes Global Warming
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.