The Global Climate debate.....Posioned by Politics?

[edgeburner]

 

Could it be so controversial to global warming that the government fears the real science, so they cover it up by silencing them..

 

Harper here In Canada is well known to do just that very thing

Never trust Nasa or IPCC, trust NOAH instead, and the weather network.

Don't trust NOAH either. I don't think that the government fears the science in reality, because there is no chance that the media will reveal the true science....findings from both sides of the debate....

 

In my opinion, if they think that us evil humans are unabashedly abusing this planet...They should go live in a cave and eat bugs. Set an example and lead from it... Don't fly around the globe on your private jet and dump millions into "green" based political campaigns, Don't tell me to tighten my belt when you loosen yours and eat all of that grilled food your private chef cooks up. Don't preach about conservation when you and your wife take separate flights to the same vacation location....ect, ect...

 

Here is an interesting site...http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

Edited September 18, 2014 by edgeburner

[Thor.]

Actually i came to the conclusion NOAH is actually credible, i have seen many article stating what NOAH has found in the past year or so. Conflicting directly with global warming.

 

NOAH is the one to trust believe me.

 

Plus i am pro clean energy. Some of that stuff on whatsupwiththat is hypercritical at best.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Thor.

[HeyYou]

Right. Windmills, and solar, are NOT clean. have a close look at the materials required, and the process for obtaining, and processing them. Makes a vintage 1900's coal plant look positively clean.

 

Of course the government is touting this as a 'disaster'. Gotta remember the old adage: Never let a crisis go to waste. If there isn't one convenient, create one. Thus, we have "Global Warming", or, climate change, whichever you prefer.

[Thor.]

Thorium reactors or Cold fusion, take your pick.

 

Or the bloombox

Edited September 18, 2014 by Thor.

[kvnchrist]

I don't know anything about this. I'm not educated enough to make an informed comment on any of it, but when I see people in the same fields as those who are proponents of global warming getting threatened with loosing their credentials for opposing the theory, I sense that somethings not right. When people are so invested in this that they want to utterly destroy anyone who voices concerns about it are acting out of raw emotions and that does bode well with my idea of science.

 

Science to me is the ultimate form of the investigation of the real world. The findings should not be a political volleyball pushed by people who have their own agendas and there should not be a financial reward for finding a possibility. This is what I think is driving the entire drama and feeding the frenzy. The notion that both sides have a financial stake in the outcome.

 

As for now, I think the situation is as toxic as the proponents of this theory think Global Warming is and I think the media has made it so for their own financial gain. I think we should look more closely at that before heading out to throw curses at the opposition.

[Thor.]

This is why Our government as of late is silencing the scientists, his view of the climate is definitely corrupt.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sujata-dey/stephen-harper-un-climate-summit_b_5843238.html

[Tidus44]

Is there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet who gives a flying leap about what Canadian politicians think about climate change or global warming?

 

The debate on global warming and climate change is full of dimbulbs on both sides; the deniers who say global warming and climate change doesn't exist, then say the global warming and climate change that they say doesn't exist is caused by something other than CO2 or human activity; and then there is the alarmists who just need the attention of everyone and who I am sure gain great satisfaction in scaring the love beads off of all the tree huggers into thinking the planet is due for a catastrophic disaster of biblical proportions in the next few weeks.

 

The idea that only one side of the debate is influenced by politics and thus all information supporting global warming and climate change is alarmist and corrupted by greed for financial gain and all deniers have information that is 100% factual, honest and infallible because they are only motivated by doing good for the sake of humanity is about as idiotic as stating that the media is an unbiased factual information service that has never sensationalized anything in the name of ratings.

 

The simple fact is, global warming has occurred since the 1800's. It is also a simple fact that CO2 and methane levels have risen significantly in the atmosphere, an increase that can be attributed in part to human activity, and that both these gasses have some impact on the observed warming of the planet.

 

And no, it’s not getting warmer EVERYWHERE all at once in a nice homogenous system with a clearly defined growth; but it is getting warmer on average in some places, colder on average in others, and warmer OVERALL on average.

The thing is, it isn't important that the average global temperature is going up or down as it is that temperature averages have changed; and additionally whether the changes are occurring faster and at some magnitude than previously observed/known. Even extremely small changes to an environment can result in drastic and unpredictable events that can impact the entire environment. The more complex a system is, the more unpredictable the result of changes to factors which make up the system.

For example, the gas composition of the atmosphere has an impact on radiation passing through it. For simplicity’s sake, scientists speak of “greenhouse gases”, a term that only captures the aspect that is considered relevant as the controlling variable presumed to influence radiation reaching the Earth and effecting average surface temperatures. What impact does an imbalance of these "greenhouse gases" have on the environment?

 

Have scientists been fired for not following the direction of their employers? Yes they have, but the media makes it a big deal when the alarmist side fires someone, but they don't say much when the deniers side does.

If the pro-global warming, alarmist side was so corrupt, then why have so many respected scientists at so many universities and research agencies who raise questions concerning the validity of the IPCC's conclusions still have their jobs and research funding? Could it be that a differing view supported by scientific fact questioning a theory is OK, but to run off at the mouth without facts or the authority to do so might get someone fired?

 

There is quite a list of respected scientists who are skeptics (as opposed to deniers) who question a number of aspects of global warming and climate change advanced by the IPCC, but they do not deny that the changes are occurring. The IPCC report (AR5) lists 3 main conclusions;

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
2. There is strong evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.

The skeptics mostly do not deny global warming, but have raised concerns or questioned the conclusion of the IPCC research;

1. questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.
2. that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.
3. that the cause of global warming is unknown.
4. that global warming will have few negative consequences.

 

There are very few (if any) actual research scientists within the field who simply deny global warming and climate change. There are however many youtubers and bloggers who have no background, education or understanding of the complexity of the problem who are more than willing to raise their alarmist views, and way too many who want to believe them.

 

The whole thing comes down to that humans are polluting the planet and it isn't getting less polluted. I doubt very much that the fish are polluting the oceans and water or that animals are polluting the land or the birds are polluting the air. I also doubt that all the pollution is having any impact on the well being of the planet. Honestly, unless some mass from outer space impacts the planet with sufficient force to smash it to pieces, regardless of what humans do the planet is going to survive and be circling the sun for a very long time. The only question is will there be humans still on the planet?

[Thor.]

Global warming is based on a false computer model sense 2006 that does not put our sun as a possible source of climate change or our magnetic field as part of the model itself. Its based on politics and a religious point of view that seems to deny every possible scientific claim because it goes against their belief system.

[JimboUK]

The climate has been changing since the planet developed one.

[HeyYou]

The climate has been changing since the planet developed one.

Exactly. Sometimes, the changes were slow, and gradual, over thousands of years. Other times, the climate would make a major shift in as little as one hundred years. Sometimes, even less than that. Where I live, has been both a tropical paradise, (if you are in to that sort of thing) and buried under a mile of ice. Several times........ and that's just in the last couple hundred thousand years.

 

One of my major malfunctions with the Global Warmists is, they seem to think that the climate is a static system, aside from seasons, that remains the same, forever and ever amen. That is most certainly NOT the case. Not to mention, that the minor variation they are crying about..... right in the neighbor hood of 1-2 degrees C, doesn't take into account possible inaccuracies of the initial data. (I should like to think that our numbers have gotten more accurate since the 1800's, when they first started tracking this data........) Looking at the data in a realistic light, 1 or 2 degrees is a rather insignificant change.