The Great Global Warming Swindle

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]D Public wrote:

Well ever since we stopped burning trees for fuel that is essentially what we have been doing. We’ve been using carbon that is millions of yrs old and burning it all at once. This happens to preside with a very sharp rise in temperature.

[/quote]

But not in a linear fashion.

The temperature rose fastest in the first half of the 20th century, when we emitted less CO2.

So, either something else is happening and we are just adding to it, or the effect of additional Co2 tapers off.

122

[quote]therajraj wrote:


African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’AcadÃ??Ã?©mie des Sciences et Techniques du SÃ??Ã?©nÃ??Ã?©gal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

[/quote]

Some top quality scientists in Zimbabwe…

The ones I have highlighted are purely political organizations trying to get the Western world to transfer money.

I am actually a member of some of the other organizations listed in the original list. The politics behind their positions is amazing.

AGW is plausible but there are so many lies behind it the science is poisoned. We will not know the truth in our life times.

123

I’m still a skeptic about the actual amount of effect we have on GW, but an interesting read anyhoo

“Itâ??s a scientistâ??s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. Iâ??ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasnâ??t changed.”

From the article.

124

well there are still natural cycles. There are ocean cycles, solar cycles, the earth’s orbital cycle, etc.

The world is too complex to be linear.

The faster temp rise in the early half was largely due to the sun rather than CO2

As far as the 70s ice age myth

In the 70s, a very small minority of scientists thought we were going to enter a glacial period, but they were wrong. The cooling effect was actually due to the aerosols that we were using. They altered the reflective properties of the atmosphere by making it “shinier” which enhanced the reflection of sunlight. Since we banned them, we have had more warming.

So, you can see how difficult it is for a scientist to explain this to the ordinary person who thinks in terms of a false dichotomy. They can only think in terms of black and white. When in reality, the situation is more complex.

125

[quote]D Public wrote:
well there are still natural cycles. There are ocean cycles, solar cycles, the earth’s orbital cycle, etc.

The world is too complex to be linear.

The faster temp rise in the early half was largely due to the sun rather than CO2

As far as the 70s ice age myth

In the 70s, a very small minority of scientists thought we were going to enter a glacial period, but they were wrong. The cooling effect was actually due to the aerosols that we were using. They altered the reflective properties of the atmosphere by making it “shinier” which enhanced the reflection of sunlight. Since we banned them, we have had more warming.

So, you can see how difficult it is for a scientist to explain this to the ordinary person who thinks in terms of a false dichotomy. They can only think in terms of black and white. When in reality, the situation is more complex.

[/quote]

Actually the aerosol particles by themselves didn’t make the atmosphere “shinier”. Aerosol particles, at least in a lab setting, act as an agent of nucleation for water particles. In other words, cloud formation is theoretically magnified by aerosol nucleation.
That means theoretically that the “whiter” atmosphere is more refractive and less sunlight makes it to the surface. The problem here(and why I wrote “theoretically”) is because there have been studies modelling the refractive effect of surface(snow cover) that demonstrate that not all “whiteness” is created equal. In other words, the low level cloud formation caused by aerosol nucleation may not be as powerful as a general increase in cloud coverage due to lower solar magnetic activity(as an example).

126

thanks for clarifying.

Maybe you can answer this or someone else could.

What do you think about some of these tipping point theories?

such as

all of the land locked ice sliding into the ocean due to lack of friction

all the perma frost melting and releasing millions of tons of CO2

the jet stream that flows to the north being disrupted by the ocean temp difference changing

127

[quote]D Public wrote:
thanks for clarifying.

Maybe you can answer this or someone else could.

What do you think about some of these tipping point theories?

such as

all of the land locked ice sliding into the ocean due to lack of friction

all the perma frost melting and releasing millions of tons of CO2

the jet stream that flows to the north being disrupted by the ocean temp difference changing

[/quote]

The planet has definitely had catastrophic globe changing effects linked in models to compounding chain events like the ones you listed. There have been periods of time where earth’s climate ranged from a 100% ice over of the planet to a complete dissolution of the ice caps.
The good news is that these event happen over millions of years. The forces at work are SOOO far beyond what humans can achieve in a short period of time(decades), that it’s absurd to even postulate that humans will cause “unlivable” conditions for the species on earth.
Even if the planet were to warm to the extreme of completely erasing polar glaciers, the neither “the planet” nor “humanity” would suffer as much as they would be forced to suffer under the poverty of a global suffocation of production due to central planning.
Basically if you want people to prepare for rising sea levels, you want them to have enough savings to weather that kind of disaster and productive enough to relocate and rebuild.
By stifling production through regulation and taxation and destroying savings through inflation and income taxes, you make survival impossible for the very people you’re trying to “save”.

128

I’m not that worried about inhospitable conditions. I’m worried about conditions that disrupt the economy such as drought disrupting the food supply. It is clear that there is only so much arable land and fresh water on this planet, and if it were to be reduced or changed in some way then the results would be bad.

There are already is a severe drought across the united states right now. I don’t know if this is a temporary condition or not, but if it is the status quo then we are in big trouble.

If food suppliers were not locked into long term futures right now, then we would be experiencing a very large price on all food.

There is also the bigger issue being that fossil fuels are scarce and largely controlled by nations with known terrorism ties. People want to claim that we have a ton of domestic oil, but we really don’t. If the global economy was running at full speed, the price of gas would be over $5 a gallon easily.

To sit and do nothing is a stupid idea. We would be nowhere in this world if people thought like that.

129

[quote]D Public wrote:
I’m not that worried about inhospitable conditions. I’m worried about conditions that disrupt the economy such as drought disrupting the food supply. It is clear that there is only so much arable land and fresh water on this planet, and if it were to be reduced or changed in some way then the results would be bad.

There are already is a severe drought across the united states right now. I don’t know if this is a temporary condition or not, but if it is the status quo then we are in big trouble.

If food suppliers were not locked into long term futures right now, then we would be experiencing a very large price on all food.

There is also the bigger issue being that fossil fuels are scarce and largely controlled by nations with known terrorism ties. People want to claim that we have a ton of domestic oil, but we really don’t. If the global economy was running at full speed, the price of gas would be over $5 a gallon easily.

To sit and do nothing is a stupid idea. We would be nowhere in this world if people thought like that.

[/quote]

Their are a lot of false premises here starting with a basic miss-characterization of scarcity.
I can elaborate further but that would require a separate thread probably.
I also never suggested anywhere “to sit and do nothing”. The more fundamental concept I was trying to demonstrate was that " INDIVIDUALS across the entire distribution of humanity are capable of fending for themselves if left the freedom to do so. “We” don’t have to do anything especially if it’s through the force of central planners.

130

You see things as if there can only be two opposites on a spectrum, Central planning vs Free markets. Collectivism vs Individualism.

There is something called optimization. You take a free market economy, and you regulate certain areas that do not work. You attempt to use the least amount of regulation to correct these inefficiencies to enhance it.

You assume that collective action cannot work better than individual action when it does in some cases…

Lets say you lived in a small village where your only food source is fish from a nearby lake. If every fisher man acts in his own best self interests and attempts to fish as many fish as possible then eventually there will be no more fish. They would have killed off their only food supply, and they would all die. They should have left some fish so that they could respawn every year, but they did not do it. They actually acted against their own self interests unknowingly.

If all the townspeople had a second chance to do this over, they would definitely agree to limit the amount of fish that could be taken from the lake each day. They would set up a fish regulator consisting of independent townspeople who ensure that only a certain amount of fish are taken each day. They would solve the problem, and it would actually increase competition because the best fishermen could still take all if he had the skill and ability, but it would not cause over fishing.

Some argue that this system is flawed because it takes power from the individual. Who is the guy who decides to limit the fish? Maybe, the fish regulator could get bribed by lesser fisherman. Maybe, people would try to cheat the system and fish outside the pervue of law. So, essentially these individuals think they are somehow being cheated by the fish regulator. They think the good fishermen are cheaters. The only way that they are getting so much fish is because they cheat. These thoughts are compounded because as part of their agreement they agreed to pay a tax for the fish regulators services. So, they think they are being cheated in every way.

Now, after a generation of tranquility in the fishing village, these poor fisherman team up with some rich townspeople who would like to eat more fish than what is currently allowed under the law. They begin to influence others to their beliefs and cause some regular towns people to question the supposed limit on fishing. They somehow convince themselves that these limits are restraining their INDIVIDUAL ability and begin to over fish again which ultimately causes them to kill themselves again.

Regulation may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative. There are no perfect markets. Humans are irrational and markets do not work as they are written about in textbooks. People should be objective in their decisions and base their conclusions on facts and evidence rather than ideology.

I’m certain you think people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in public places too. Maybe I should be allowed to flick the cigarette out of his mouth and call him an asshole. Or, maybe it is simply easier to ban smoking in public places and prevent scenes like that.

131

[quote]D Public wrote:
You see things as if there can only be two opposites on a spectrum, Central planning vs Free markets. Collectivism vs Individualism.

There is something called optimization. You take a free market economy, and you regulate certain areas that do not work. You attempt to use the least amount of regulation to correct these inefficiencies to enhance it.

You assume that collective action cannot work better than individual action when it does in some cases…

Lets say you lived in a small village where your only food source is fish from a nearby lake. If every fisher man acts in his own best self interests and attempts to fish as many fish as possible then eventually there will be no more fish. They would have killed off their only food supply, and they would all die. They should have left some fish so that they could respawn every year, but they did not do it. They actually acted against their own self interests unknowingly.

If all the townspeople had a second chance to do this over, they would definitely agree to limit the amount of fish that could be taken from the lake each day. They would set up a fish regulator consisting of independent townspeople who ensure that only a certain amount of fish are taken each day. They would solve the problem, and it would actually increase competition because the best fishermen could still take all if he had the skill and ability, but it would not cause over fishing.

Some argue that this system is flawed because it takes power from the individual. Who is the guy who decides to limit the fish? Maybe, the fish regulator could get bribed by lesser fisherman. Maybe, people would try to cheat the system and fish outside the pervue of law. So, essentially these individuals think they are somehow being cheated by the fish regulator. They think the good fishermen are cheaters. The only way that they are getting so much fish is because they cheat. These thoughts are compounded because as part of their agreement they agreed to pay a tax for the fish regulators services. So, they think they are being cheated in every way.

Now, after a generation of tranquility in the fishing village, these poor fisherman team up with some rich townspeople who would like to eat more fish than what is currently allowed under the law. They begin to influence others to their beliefs and cause some regular towns people to question the supposed limit on fishing. They somehow convince themselves that these limits are restraining their INDIVIDUAL ability and begin to over fish again which ultimately causes them to kill themselves again.

Regulation may not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative. There are no perfect markets. Humans are irrational and markets do not work as they are written about in textbooks. People should be objective in their decisions and base their conclusions on facts and evidence rather than ideology.

I’m certain you think people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in public places too. Maybe I should be allowed to flick the cigarette out of his mouth and call him an asshole. Or, maybe it is simply easier to ban smoking in public places and prevent scenes like that.

[/quote]

Again, their are a lot of false premises here and you’ve also added quite a few straw man arguments(probably because you’re beginning with false premises). I’d be glad to discuss this with you in a calm and respectful manner, just not in this thread. Their are quite a few threads already discussing collectivism, free markets, etc…

I mean optimally if you want to get a better picture of my(well, not my original ideas of course) view of markets, we’d have to start with human action and that fisherman for example.

Feel free to PM me and we can have a more in depth discussion.