Global Warming Swindle

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2shelbys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a biologist whose primary research interests lie in the response of ecosystems to global climate change (man-made or natural), I can offer my opinion on the discussion of natural and man-induced climate change. First, let me say that I am a devout Catholic and I fully understand our right and duty to use the planet’s resources to perpetuate life. I am not against population growth. To be honest the natural cycles that this documentary discusses are a part of global warming. There is lots of evidence to suggest that natural fluctuations in solar energy and other natural factors such as volcanoes have resulted in large shifts of the planet’s climate in the past. However, when scientists examine the natural changes in these phenomenon (i.e. solar radiation) and look at the amount of change that has occured in recent past there is more than sufficient evidence that these “natural” causes cannot account for the changes that have been observed. On the flip side, when the role of factors that affect climate and are induced by man’s use of natural resources such as fossil fuel combustion and land use change such as deforestation are examined then the reasons behind the observed climate changes are explained in full.

For the Church’s perspective, we can look to the Catechism where it states:

“2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”

Because of the uncertainty that exists with future changes in climate such as global warming and the overwhelming evidence that human activities are substantially contributing to this phenomenon, it is prudent to acknowledge what science is finding and act accordingly by conserving energy and resources for future generations.

God bless!
 
In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

**The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun’s radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

**
 
As a biologist whose primary research interests lie in the response of ecosystems to global climate change (man-made or natural), I can offer my opinion on the discussion of natural and man-induced climate change. First, let me say that I am a devout Catholic and I fully understand our right and duty to use the planet’s resources to perpetuate life. I am not against population growth. To be honest the natural cycles that this documentary discusses are a part of global warming. There is lots of evidence to suggest that natural fluctuations in solar energy and other natural factors such as volcanoes have resulted in large shifts of the planet’s climate in the past. However, when scientists examine the natural changes in these phenomenon (i.e. solar radiation) and look at the amount of change that has occured in recent past there is more than sufficient evidence that these “natural” causes cannot account for the changes that have been observed. On the flip side, when the role of factors that affect climate and are induced by man’s use of natural resources such as fossil fuel combustion and land use change such as deforestation are examined then the reasons behind the observed climate changes are explained in full.

For the Church’s perspective, we can look to the Catechism where it states:

“2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”

Because of the uncertainty that exists with future changes in climate such as global warming and the overwhelming evidence that human activities are substantially contributing to this phenomenon, it is prudent to acknowledge what science is finding and act accordingly by conserving energy and resources for future generations.

God bless!
That is my problem with this issue. Many people speak, as you do, of “overwhelming evidence that man is substantially contributing” and yet no evidence is presented. All I ever see is computer models that assume this is true and project the outcome if the current warming does not follows established trends and instead continues. On the other hand, a great deal of demonstrable scientific evidence has been presented that comfirms the position that it is the sun, not humans, that is causing the current warming just as it has over and over throughout earth’s history.
 
It is true that most of the evidence presented for future changes in temperature are driven by modeling efforts. However, to date we have an approximate 150 year history of warming that has occurred (~1.5 deg. C or 3 deg F). This is actual measured data and these numbers are being driven by increased greenhouse gas emissions. It is no coincidence that the timing of these changes line up almost identically with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, with a few lag years. In addition, the “business as usual” scenario with no changes in greenhouse gas emission drives global temperatures higher than ever in recorded history. At no time since the dawn of modern agriculture have temperatures been this high. This uncertainty is what scares me. Truly, changing natural ecosystems from a forest to a grassland is of little consequence, we know that this type of thing happens and has happened many times and only “environmentalists” (those who construe the science for their own agendas) won’t acknowledge this. For example, where I live now was once ocean bottom, and where I used to live was once tropical forest, now its temperate forest. However, what concerns me the most is feeding the 6+billion of God’s children. We already have problems with global food supply imagine if agriculture is constrained even more in some of these poorer areas, such as the African continent. Human suffering through starvation and sickness will be even more immense than we already see today. I’d personally rather play it safe and lead a “simpler” life that encourages conservation.
 
I have no doubt that the earth is getting warmer. However:
It is true that most of the evidence presented for future changes in temperature are driven by modeling efforts. However, to date we have an approximate 150 year history of warming that has occurred (~1.5 deg. C or 3 deg F).
Can you provide scientific references for your data? My references don’t show what you are reporting. Your numbers are too high.
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3
 
you say:
It is no coincidence that the timing of these changes line up almost identically with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, with a few lag years.
I answer:

Why not? If heating and cooling is a natural part of the earth’s weather cycle and we were coming out of a mini-ice age. Why not have warming now?
Changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth’s tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth’s surface. These orbital processes – which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years – are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory. Source
How do you account for increased sun activity now?
Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.) Source
How do you account for the possibility of increased CO-2 in the atmosphere caused by warming (not the other way around)?
The heating or cooling of the Earth’s surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth’s orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 420,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2001). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low (see Figure 1). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2-temp.gifFigure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (blue) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (red) over the past 400,000 years as inferred from Antarctic ice-core records. The vertical red bar is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2006. From A. V. Fedorov et al. Science 312, 1485 (2006). epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif. Reprinted with permission of AAAS* epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif.
Either we are going to give sources, or we are going to just have a political debate and not come to any conclusions whatsoever.

Sincerely,
An agnostic on the causes of global warming.
 
How do you account for the possibility of increased CO-2 in the atmosphere caused by warming (not the other way around)?
I think we have to use a bit of common sense and see whether what people are telling us is happening makes sense. It’s very straightforward to see, for example, that we’re pumping an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Common sense tells us that at least some of the increase in the atmosphere must be due to that.

Mike
 
I think we have to use a bit of common sense and see whether what people are telling us is happening makes sense. It’s very straightforward to see, for example, that we’re pumping an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Common sense tells us that at least some of the increase in the atmosphere must be due to that.

Mike
Science is about data and replicable experiments.

Common sense has to do with what we see on a daily basis, which has not much to do with science.

You can’t see Carbon Dioxide … or explain photosynthesis or undersea volcanoes by common sense.
 
It is true that most of the evidence presented for future changes in temperature are driven by modeling efforts. However, to date we have an approximate 150 year history of warming that has occurred (~1.5 deg. C or 3 deg F). This is actual measured data and these numbers are being driven by increased greenhouse gas emissions.** It is no coincidence that the timing of these changes line up almost identically with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, with a few lag years**…
How is your premise proved?

The Russian Science Academy has been recording an increase in Solar Radiation in the last 12 years. This is also noted in a reduction the Martian polar “ice” caps.
 
I think we have to use a bit of common sense and see whether what people are telling us is happening makes sense. It’s very straightforward to see, for example, that we’re pumping an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Common sense tells us that at least some of the increase in the atmosphere must be due to that.

Mike
But what %?
 
Wrong. We have no problem with global food supply. There is more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. The problem we have is political where food is withheld from certain groups for some sort of political gain.

World agriculture 2030:
Main findings

World population will grow from around 6 billion people today to 8.3 billion people in 2030. Population growth will be growing at an average of 1.1 percent a year up to 2030, compared to 1.7 percent annually over the past 30 years. At the same time, an ever increasing share of the world’s population is well-fed. As a result, the growth in world demand for agricultural products is expected to slow further, from an average 2.2 percent annually over the past 30 years to 1.5 percent per year until 2030. In developing countries, the slowdown will be more dramatic, from 3.7 percent for the past 30 years to an average of 2 percent until 2030.

However, the developing countries with low to medium levels of consumption, accounting for about half of the population in developing countries, would see demand growth slowing only from 2.9 to 2.5 percent per year, and per caput consumption increasing.

The world population will be increasingly well-fed by 2030, with 3050 kilocalories (kcal) available per person, compared to 2360 kcal per person per day in the mid-1960s and 2800 kcal today. This change reflects above all the rising consumption in many developing countries whose average will be close to 3000 kcal in 2030.

The number of hungry people in developing countries is expected to decline from 777 million today to about 440 million in 2030. This means, that the target of the World Food Summit in 1996, to reduce the number of hungry by half from its level in 1990-92 (815 million) by 2015, will not even be met by 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa is cause for serious concern, because the number of chronically undernourished people will only decrease from 194 to 183 million.

Patterns of food consumption are becoming more similar throughout the world, shifting towards higher-quality and more expensive foods such as meat and dairy products. Meat consumption in developing countries, for example, has risen from only 10 kg per person annually in 1964-66 to 26 kg in 1997-99. It is projected to rise to 37 kg per person per year in 2030. Milk and dairy products have also seen rapid growth, from 28 kg per person per year in 1964-66, to 45 kg now, and could rise to 66 kg in 2030. FAO expects increases in meat and dairy consumption to be less dramatic than in the past.

Cereals are still by far the world’s most important sources of food, both for direct human consumption and meat production. An extra billion tonnes of cereals will be needed by 2030.

The developing countries will become increasingly dependent on cereal, meat and milk imports, their production will not keep pace with demand. By 2030 they could be producing only 86 percent of their own cereal needs, with net imports rising from currently 103 million tonnes to 265 million tonnes by 2030. Traditional grain exporters such as the US, the EU, Canada, Australia and Argentina, and the transition countries as emerging exporters, are expected to produce the surpluses needed to fill this gap. “If real food prices do not rise, and exports of industry products and services grow as previously, then most countries will be able to afford to import cereals to meet their needs. However, the poorest countries tend to be the least able to pay for imports.”

The use of cereals as animal feed does not contribute to hunger and undernutrition. Globally, some 660 million tonnes of cereals are used as livestock feed each year. This represents just over a third of total world cereal use. If these cereals were not used as feed, they would probably not be produced at all, so would not be available as food in many cases, according to the report. More likely, the lack of demand for cereals for livestock production would lead to lower crop production.

Much of future food production growth will come from higher productivity. In developing countries, almost 70 percent of the increase in crop production will come from higher yields, around 20percentfrom an expansion of arable land and around 10 percent from multiple cropping and shorter fallow periods.
[fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7833-en.html](http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/7833-en.html)
 
I think we have to use a bit of common sense and see whether what people are telling us is happening makes sense. It’s very straightforward to see, for example, that we’re pumping an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Common sense tells us that at least some of the increase in the atmosphere must be due to that.

Mike
Well, now that makes sense.

We’ve also created a lot of television stations in recent decades, and most of them now broadcast 24 hours a day. We developed Rock and Roll in the same era, desktop computers, and many other things.

So why not blame all these things – it’s the same logic.😉
 
Well, now that makes sense.

We’ve also created a lot of television stations in recent decades, and most of them now broadcast 24 hours a day. We developed Rock and Roll in the same era, desktop computers, and many other things.

So why not blame all these things – it’s the same logic.
I blame Rock and Roll 😃
 
Originally Posted by clntsprngr
It is true that most of the evidence presented for future changes in temperature are driven by modeling efforts. However, to date we have an approximate 150 year history of warming that has occurred (~1.5 deg. C or 3 deg F). This is actual measured data and these numbers are being driven by increased greenhouse gas emissions. It is no coincidence that the timing of these changes line up almost identically with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, with a few lag years…
How is your premise proved?

The Russian Science Academy has been recording an increase in Solar Radiation in the last 12 years. This is also noted in a reduction the Martian polar “ice” caps.
The Little Ice Age ended about 1850 – but the Industrial Revolution started loooong before that!!
 
Well, now that makes sense.

We’ve also created a lot of television stations in recent decades, and most of them now broadcast 24 hours a day. We developed Rock and Roll in the same era, desktop computers, and many other things.

So why not blame all these things – it’s the same logic.😉
As mentioned earlier in this thread
Correlation is not causality

To get a causality link you have to propose a mechanism
Both the CO2 and solar camps have proposed mechanisms

The rock and roll blamers don’t
Elvis’ gyrations didn’t produce nearly enough friction
😉
 
As mentioned earlier in this thread
Correlation is not causality

To get a causality link you have to propose a mechanism
Both the CO2 and solar camps have proposed mechanisms
I could use their methods and propose a mechanism, myself – but it would cause me to break out in hives.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top