Man made climate change a lie?

[Cortina]

Know there is a thread on this (sort of) but read this and was interested in what the 'true facts' are as far as we can tell?

Here's the deal. Global Warming Alarmism and keeping the lie alive is now a massive industry. If the IPCC gets its way, it will become the single biggest industry on the planet consuming significant financial resource and killing many other industries. Globally there are already hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake entirely dependent on this lie. The scientists, IPCC, lobbyists, green energy, Govt agencies were the first to feast in this trough. Now with emissions trading schemes, etc. on the horizon the money involved will rapidly escalate from the tens of billions to the tens of trillions of dollars. With those numbers coming, we now see the greediest pigs of all getting involved - the bankers and financiers.

How did we get to this? Well the average person is essentually stupid and has virtually no understanding of science and physics. If a message is repeated enough by people they trust they will eventually believe it is true despite all the evidence, data and facts that show otherwise. That's why we still have religions and belief in god and gods, and accepted that WMDs existed without any proof at all.

It is simple IQ test.

Belief in Man-made Global Warming = total idiot

And the Raleigh cycle post was a joke

really ??!! - gosh - how did I miss that ?

"Well the average person is essentually stupid and has virtually no understanding of science and physics."

Actually I tend to agree with that and that's why theres so many climate change deniers.

People believe what they choose to believe. Some people wish to "prove" that they are "smarter than the average bear" by seeing through all these "conspiracies".

FWIW man made climate change isn't an indisputable fact. Based on what we know now, it is considerably more likely than not. OTOH as someone working with computers, I know these models are far from infallible. I also remember that it's only a couple of decades since we were fearing the next ice age.

While there are many unknown factors and it could be less of a problem than we currently think, we have to base our decisions on what we know now. We do know that we are releasing large quantities of gases that trap more heat in the atmosphere than unpolluted air would. To ignore that and not to attempt to minimise the effect on climate would be irresponsible.

I don't agree with it at all. It's an awful thing to say. Really a sort of we know best and you have nothing to offer sort of thing to say.

See Prof Ian Plimmer Grimma, he's got some valuable insights.

Whether the changes in climate are being caused by humans, or by natural cycles, we are still in the developed world living completely unsustainable lifestyles and need to change. Oil is very much a finite resource (and about to run out), coal is a finite resource, water is a finite resource. We have to stop this.

I agree Bramshott but what we do in the west is going to be so far overtaken by what happens in "developing" countries.

For example in India you can now buy a 1 lakh car ie a car costing about 1200. That means millions more cars on the roads in the next ten years, far outweighing the reductions in car use we might make, which are qualified anyway.

Just posing further issues really: no answers.

There's nothing computer-extrapolated about the fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from about 280 ppm in the years 1000 AD - 1850 AD, climbing to 300ppm in ~1900 and estimated to be 385 ppm today (and still rising fast; many who work in the research area will privately admit that no way are we going to avoid at least 500 ppm). It's a very fast increase compared to anything that has happened historically. We humans dumped that CO2 into the air, it has to have some effect. Even if it's only terribly exacerbating other natural phenomena.

And anyway, OrmIrian is right -- Carbon Emissions are a good surrogate target for all forms of pollution related to transport and manufacturing. Reduce total C emissions and you reduce all forms of pollution.

Ian Plimer and The Great Global Warming Swindle are the same reference: they use the same (dodgy, imho) data and graphs and so on.

But hey, I would point that out, being as I'm just another 'Total Idiot'. .

I would have a lot more time for man-made climate change deniers if they didn't usually go on to say "so it's absolutley fine to carry on doing all the stuff we are doing now and trashing the planet".

If you're not disagreeing that it's happening, just what's causing it, where are the practical plans for dealing with:
Unpredictable weather patterns
Flooding of low-lying countries and ensuing land wars / displacement of people
Chronic water shortages
Continuing to generate electricity without reliance on fossil fuels (which are running out, whether or not you think fossil fuels contribute to climate change).

What I find most amusing is how all all the scientists and politiicians and green activists/lobbyists keep flying around the globe to hold conferences about it - all paid and living off public money while pumping out yet more carbon.

I used to come up against the vested interests in the whole 'global warming industry' a lot when I was an academic. Their very livelihoods depended on keeping the lie going. Also amusing how desperate and viscious they became when anyone dared to challenge them.

Not in the least bit surprised financiers and bankers ae joing the queue at the trough. It is easy money for them - yet more Govt largesse being doled out. They know how that works.

Wow. This thread is a real eye-opener. If you really think it's all a lie, what do you think has made the world's experts in so many different scientific fields participate in it? Do you think they are lying about evolution too

In response to: 'we are releasing large quantities of gases that trap more heat in the atmosphere than unpolluted air would'.

This response from a contact who knows more than me on the subject:

Let's get down to the facts, data and evidence, not the restate the wild claims that are not supported by science or proof. Mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible. The most abundant GHG is water vapor. Mankind's activities produce no more than about 0.28% of the annual increase of GHG - it is negligible. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 99.999% natural. Of the other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and miscellaneous other gases.

Logged

I don't give a toss whether its man-made or not.

What I do know is that we over-consume our natural resources.

So we should stop as much as we can and hope that this has an impact on ice-melting/rising sea levels.

It may or may not but its worth the effort.

"Let's get down to the facts, data and evidence, not the restate the wild claims that are not supported by science or proof"

Hey! Another calm and rational and not at all patronising response to the question then. Why can't your contact refrain from the colourful language if he wants to be taken seriously?

"denyiong that climate change can be blamed on humans is not the same thing as denying climate change."

always annoys me when people don't get this. whenever it's being discussed and i say " i don't believe climate chinge is man made" the instant reaction is always "but the earth is heating up/the ice caps are melting"
i never said they weren't.i simply said i don't think it's man made.

And what does 'logged' mean?

But why does it matter? All the human behaviours that may or may not be causing climate change are also causing other things to happen to our environment that surely no-one in their right minds are prepared to accept are OK. So why not just change those behaviours?

Sure, no proof whatsoever... the poles' ice is meling, many little islands in the Indian Ocean have already been swallowed by the sea (lots of human migration there), more precipitation and some freak weather in the last 40 years. Temperature raises immediatly if air traffic is restricted, etc etc.

Perhaps those are the acts of God rather than of men

Agreed OrmIrian.

Cortina, according to someone else who ought to know:
'water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in determining the current
atmospheric state, contributing around 2/3 of the current greenhouse e®ect,
and CO2 is the next most important, contributing around a quarter [note, not 5%!]. But different considerations apply when we consider the response of any climate state, whether the current or the pre-industrial climate, to perturbations [physicist-speak for changes] to the various gases'...

followed by rambling off into a lot of radiative forcing at the top of the atmostphere, readjustments to radiative-dynamical equilibrium, yada yada yada ...

...but as I said, he doesn't come up with the answer I'd prefer.

If there really isn't concrete proof that man is causing warming in any way I would expect more to be speaking out about it?

Agree about the sense in conserving/not over consuming the resources we have but that's a separate issue.

To Biobytes see stats I posted. It's possible that these events are cyclical.

You said it, Cortina. The fact that so few are "speaking out" rather suggests that the evidence is overwhelming, and that climate change denial belongs in the same category of belief as Intelligent Design.

regardless of whether climate change is happening or not, or whether it is man made or not, surely there is something to be said for trying to live sustainably and with the minimum impact on the world's resources?? Surely, pumping lots of noxious gases into the air around us cannot be good news, whether it is causing climate change or not!

It must be great to know the answers to all the world's questions....

Let's get down to the facts, data and evidence, not the restate the wild claims that are not supported by science or proof. Mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases is negligible. The most abundant GHG is water vapor. Mankind's activities produce no more than about 0.28% of the annual increase of GHG - it is negligible. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 99.999% natural. Of the other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and miscellaneous other gases.

this is pseudo science ! As a person with a PhD in the subject who also knows lots of people who work in the field still I can state this is a misrepresentation of the facts. Yes water vapour is the biggest volume - it is also however very rapidly cycled round the system - it is vital to transporting head around the globe. It is rebalanced very quickly. Carbon dioxide however is a very much slower turn over - so doubling its concentration has a very much more complicated result - a much longer term result - and one that is only very slowly rebalanced by natural cycles.

Yes - the planet will cope - but not in a way that will make life any easier for us or most other species trying to live here.

The longer we deny it, and prefer to believe those who say everything is fine - the less time we have to react, the bigger the impact will be on all of us.

I really resent the misrepresentation of science in the subject

that would be head rather than head - water vapour does not (to my knowledge) transport heads