Difference between revisions of "Global warming"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (spelling)
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earths' temperature and CO<sub>2</sub> levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.
 
'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earths' temperature and CO<sub>2</sub> levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.
 +
 +
The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.
  
 
== History ==
 
== History ==
Line 25: Line 27:
 
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>
 
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>
  
−
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science?
+
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, insteasd of hitch-hiking everywhere like the [[hippie]] he is. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than some boring, obscure climatologist with no experience at public speaking who we can ignore conveniently?
 +
Furthermore, Gore exhaled molecules of [[Carbon Dioxide]] while lecturing on tour, proving that he is a hypocrite who can be ignored without loss.
  
 
== The scam and liberal bias ==
 
== The scam and liberal bias ==
  
−
It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>.  
+
It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, since the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]] will only provide grants for pro-Global Warming research.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Note that this does not apply to climatologists employed by oil companies, (the main source of the dissenting viewpoint), who are supporting [[capitalism]], making them unimpeachably objective and accurate.
  
 
There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO<sub>2</sub> changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO<sub>2</sub>, but  more CO<sub>2</sub> has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
 
There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO<sub>2</sub> changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO<sub>2</sub>, but  more CO<sub>2</sub> has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Line 37: Line 40:
 
In fact, many experts call global warming a big scam to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears to be a motive in promoting global warming as true.
 
In fact, many experts call global warming a big scam to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears to be a motive in promoting global warming as true.
  
−
If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>
+
If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others, unless we want to take actions to avoid it devastating the planet we live on. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>
  
 
== Conflicting data ==
 
== Conflicting data ==
−
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps. <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>
+
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, unless you accept the notion that massive disruption of existing climate patterns can lead to colder weather occurring. (For example, if warming seawater disrupts the [[Gulf Stream]], Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>
 +
 
  
 
The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>
 
The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>
  
−
Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>  
+
Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, when we didn't have world-wide records, weather satallites or supercomputers, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>  
  
 
== Global warming advocacy sites ==
 
== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Line 52: Line 56:
 
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
 
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
 
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
 
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
−
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.
+
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies. Thank heaven nothing like that could happen on Conservapedia!
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>

Revision as of 19:58, March 11, 2007

Global Warming is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earths' temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be Global Climate Change, as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

History

The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.

1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."

Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to

4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. [1] [2] [3]

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. [4] [5] [6]

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

Al Gore and politics

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..[7][8] On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."[9]

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, insteasd of hitch-hiking everywhere like the hippie he is. [10] Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. [11] So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than some boring, obscure climatologist with no experience at public speaking who we can ignore conveniently? Furthermore, Gore exhaled molecules of Carbon Dioxide while lecturing on tour, proving that he is a hypocrite who can be ignored without loss.

The scam and liberal bias

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, since the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy will only provide grants for pro-Global Warming research.[12]. Note that this does not apply to climatologists employed by oil companies, (the main source of the dissenting viewpoint), who are supporting capitalism, making them unimpeachably objective and accurate.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."[13] Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."[14]

In fact, many experts call global warming a big scam to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming [15] [16] It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. [17] [18] So this appears to be a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others, unless we want to take actions to avoid it devastating the planet we live on. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. [19]

Conflicting data

Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, unless you accept the notion that massive disruption of existing climate patterns can lead to colder weather occurring. (For example, if warming seawater disrupts the Gulf Stream, Europe will fall into another Ice Age.) [20]


The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. [21]

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, when we didn't have world-wide records, weather satallites or supercomputers, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. [22]

Global warming advocacy sites

Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these so called web sites:

  • Climate Crisis Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
  • Stop Global Warming Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
  • Climate Change Blog Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
  • Huffington Post Global Warming Blog Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
  • United Political Debate Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies. Thank heaven nothing like that could happen on Conservapedia!

References

  1. ↑ http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html
  2. ↑ http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/
  3. ↑ http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194
  4. ↑ http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html
  5. ↑ http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS
  6. ↑ http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html
  7. ↑ Myths of Global Warming[1]
  8. ↑ No Evidence for Global Warming[2]
  9. ↑ Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[3]
  10. ↑ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
  11. ↑ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
  12. ↑ FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[4]
  13. ↑ S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)
  14. ↑ What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming [5]
  15. ↑ http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm
  16. ↑ http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
  17. ↑ http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php
  18. ↑ http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm
  19. ↑ http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm
  20. ↑ http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full
  21. ↑ http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_
  22. ↑ http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=26075"