Climate Change

[Philosopher]

This is one of those issues that is often politicized.

Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed.

John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.

"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.

US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, "are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data."

Mr Coleman's comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State's energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President's pledges to decrease it.

President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.

Despite this, the Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.

He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

In 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was "little evidence" to support the IPCC's claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had purposely emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

Thoughts?

[Risto the Great]

He will start a huge shit fight!
Nations are already trying to commercialise this notion of global warming and momentum seems to favour embracing warming as fact.

I am not convinced about global warming but do believe our world is getting filthier and over populated which does concern me.

[Nikolaj]

It actually sickens me that people still believe in global warming.

Antarctica has grown over 50% of its size within the last 2-3 years. This growth rate is not proportional to any carbon tax implementation or solar generated energy. The real reason is due to a warming period the earth naturally goes through after a certain period of time. This has been proven from previous warming periods documented within the last century or two. This is also consistent with the law of uniformitarianism so we can expect this to continuously happen much like it has in the past.

Nations are already trying to commercialise this notion of global warming and momentum seems to favour embracing warming as fact.

It's because they need you to keep paying your tax's

[George S.]

Scientists have fudged empirical studies to their models and theories.They are all innaccurate.Global warming cooling has always existed and mother nature is very robust and pulls through .The actual truth is that the eareth isgradually cooling aparently we are due for another ice age a mini iceage.THe amount of carbon dioxide on the earth is negligible .That is its not worth considering.Its a scarce trace element.Plants need it to survive.Scientists are just scaring people co2 is a gas we breathe out.Its nothing to be concerned about.

[vicsinad]

I am not convinced about global warming but do believe our world is getting filthier and over populated which does concern me.

I think this is where the concern should be whether or not climate change is happening, and if it is, how much is human caused. There is no arguing that humans are the direct cause of poisoned air, water, and land, and the depleting of several resources, and the extinction of several species. In the end, there's a purpose to not poisoning the world...it's not to prove someone is right, or to save the world, but to ensure our future well-being and survival.

This comes down to respecting the Earth and understanding nature, which is something we've forgotten through the centuries. A little more worshipping of nature is necessary...and a little less of man and ideas.

[Nikolaj]

I think this is where the concern should be whether or not climate change is happening, and if it is, how much is human caused. There is no arguing that humans are the direct cause of poisoned air, water, and land, and the depleting of several resources, and the extinction of several species. In the end, there's a purpose to not poisoning the world...it's not to prove someone is right, or to save the world, but to ensure our future well-being and survival.

This comes down to respecting the Earth and understanding nature, which is something we've forgotten through the centuries. A little more worshipping of nature is necessary...and a little less of man and ideas.

The world is perfectly stable even if we continue at the rate we are going now. 98% of pollution is naturally occurring, the other 2% is man made and will not throw off the worlds uniform continuous cycle. It terms of leaving national parks/major land sources, stopping the use of nuclear power plants, etc are simply common sense - not for the survival of the earth and its nature, but because they're simply not good. Birth defects are 1 in 3 in certain parts of India due to extensive use of nuclear energy. Its pollutant affects human beings, this isn't classified as climate change.

[Philosopher]

It actually sickens me that people still believe in global warming.

Antarctica has grown over 50% of its size within the last 2-3 years. This growth rate is not proportional to any carbon tax implementation or solar generated energy. The real reason is due to a warming period the earth naturally goes through after a certain period of time. This has been proven from previous warming periods documented within the last century or two. This is also consistent with the law of uniformitarianism so we can expect this to continuously happen much like it has in the past.

I am not worried about climate change, as I believe it is a natural phenomenon. There is a reason, for example, Greenland is called "Green". In the early Middle Ages, parts of Greenland were actually verdant green. Today, it is all ice. It is cyclical.

What I am worried and concerned about, however, are genetically modified organisms, pesticides, air and water pollution, the death of bees, radiation, and the degradation of our planet via environmental toxins.

Overpopulation is a myth Risto. Do not believe the hype.

[George S.]

Recently i found the hole in the ozone layer was all bullshit for people to change refrigerants.For someone else to make huuge money.They reckon the hole in the ozone layer was caused by the sun.Look how people were fooled.The earth regardless has been able to pull itself through and repair itself.

[vicsinad]

The world is perfectly stable even if we continue at the rate we are going now.

Actually, the world is never stable. If it was, species wouldn't evolve. So I am grateful for its instability, because I wouldn't be here if it was stable. If it gets too unstable is what I'm worried about...regardless if its caused by humans or not. (For those fundamentalist Christians, if you justify a response that evolution is not real, I will not respond to that).

98% of pollution is naturally occurring, the other 2% is man made and will not throw off the worlds uniform continuous cycle.

Can you clarify what you are saying, or provide a source? Are you saying that the hundreds of millions of tons of plastic in the ocean are caused by non-humans? Or are you talking about CO2? Or the methane released from cows in our corporate agriculture model of farming?

It terms of leaving national parks/major land sources,

I don't quite get what you mean by this...do you mean leave them alone? Why natural parks? And what are major land sources versus minor land sources? How is the value of each determined?

not for the survival of the earth and its nature, but because they're simply not good.

So then why is it not good, for goodness sake? Or for the health of ecosystems and individuals? Clearly, if nuclear (and other pollutions) causes cancer and defects in humans, it also causes genetic deformities in all other species (plants and animals) which could jeopardize the survival of many populations, which could alter ecosystems, which could then affect the climate, which would then be, in part, human caused.

[vicsinad]

Overpopulation is a myth Risto. Do not believe the hype.

Tell that to the deer in many parts of the US.

Sure, the carrying capacity for the overall survival of our species is probably a lot higher than a lot of people believe. However, the carrying capacity for the survival of our species is not the real issue. It's the kind of life individuals will have to live if our population gets exceedingly high. Westerners (as I see it) are not going to easily give up their over-consumptive lifestyle, and others aren't going to easily give up their course to attain what Westerners have. Competition for resources (combined with their privatization) is causing a lot of problems, and will cause a lot more. And this is attributable to population levels. (I'm factoring in that part of being human today, at least culturally, is not understanding how to manage resources. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.)

Now, if you're arguing that humans will peak at maybe 9 billion, or 12 billion, and then go down not due to any grand causes (such as famine, war, cancer and pandemics), I don't buy it.

[Vangelovski]

(For those fundamentalist Christians, if you justify a response that evolution is not real, I will not respond to that).

I don't mean to high jack this thread and if you choose to respond I ask that you respond in the current religion thread going, but I have two questions:

1. Can someone who does not believe in the fundamental doctrines of the faith really be a (insert name of religion here)? If no, then why the addition of "fundamentalist"? Is that just a disingenuous bad habit of trying to undermine people of that faith?

2. Why is it that you refuse to talk about evolution - you've made that clear in other posts? Are you afraid to go into the detail of your faith?

[Nikolaj]

Actually, the world is never stable. If it was, species wouldn't evolve. So I am grateful for its instability, because I wouldn't be here if it was stable. If it gets too unstable is what I'm worried about...regardless if its caused by humans or not. (For those fundamentalist Christians, if you justify a response that evolution is not real, I will not respond to that).

When I said stable I meant the world can support itself even through our actions. This has nothing to do with evolution and that is another topic. I do see you have great faith in evolution so good for you.

Can you clarify what you are saying, or provide a source? Are you saying that the hundreds of millions of tons of plastic in the ocean are caused by non-humans? Or are you talking about CO2? Or the methane released from cows in our corporate agriculture model of farming?

I don't know what you are implying, plastic polymer is not naturally occurring material, what did you think I meant when I said that 98% of the worlds pollution is naturally occurring? The plastic in the sea is man made pollution.

You will see below why this was a misunderstanding. You are speaking of pollution in general where I am specifically talking about pollution based on the first post of this thread (global warming). You will also see how I agree with you on the matter.

I don't quite get what you mean by this...do you mean leave them alone? Why natural parks? And what are major land sources versus minor land sources? How is the value of each determined?

Earth is an extremely beautiful planet, it'd shame if its beauty would go to waste to build cities on top of it? I don't know how you got to your stage of analysis from what I said.

I was implying that we should stop polluting for the healthiness of society and our planet. As opposed to peoples idea that we should stop polluting so the earth doesn't get flooded.

[Risto the Great]

Overpopulation is a myth Risto. Do not believe the hype.

I just don't want them in Adelaide. I can get anywhere I need to be in 20 minutes.

[Nikolaj]

I am not worried about climate change, as I believe it is a natural phenomenon. There is a reason, for example, Greenland is called "Green". In the early Middle Ages, many parts of Greenland were actually verdant green. Today, it is all ice. It is cyclical.

What I am worried and concerned about, however, are genetically modified organisms, pesticides, air and water pollution, the death of bees, radiation, and the degradation of our planet via environmental toxins.

Overpopulation is a myth Risto. Do not believe the hype.

Good to see we're on the same page here, even with vicsinad. Judging by you being the one who posted the thread, I assumed you were already skeptical about GW in general. Climate change shouldn't been seen as this ice-melting polar bears dyeing scenario, it should be seen as a threat to the health of humanity and our planet.

I just don't want them in Adelaide. I can get anywhere I need to be in 20 minutes.

Hahaha, yes, population control so there's no traffic!

[vicsinad]

When I said stable I meant the world can support itself even through our actions. This has nothing to do with evolution and that is another topic. I do see you have great faith in evolution so good for you.

What do you mean by "support" itself? That it will continue to exist, or that it will continue to exist as we know it? That it will continue to exist to support the same kinds of life that exist now, or that it will exist with some forms and types of life? Yes, it has a lot to do with evolution because our climate is, in part, influenced by the life and ecosystems on Earth. When, and to what extent, those species evolve and those ecosystems change, that will affect the world and the climate. So yes, it does have to do with evolution.

I don't know what you are implying, plastic polymer is not naturally occurring material, what did you think I meant when I said that 98% of the worlds pollution is naturally occurring? The plastic in the sea is man made pollution.

You will see below why this was a misunderstanding. You are speaking of pollution in general where I am specifically talking about pollution based on the first post of this thread (global warming). You will also see how I agree with you on the matter.

I had no idea what you meant when you said 98% of the world's pollution is natural occurring. By the definition I know, all pollution is human-made, so when you say that 98% of pollution is natural, I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. Are you talking about CO2, methane, etc.? Which chemical compounds, and do you have a source for that statement? I just don't know what you're exactly talking about.

And p.s., the first post of this thread was about "climate change" like the title of this thread. Your first post was about global warming, and I'm still confused if you're using the two interchangeably.

Earth is an extremely beautiful planet, it'd shame if its beauty would go to waste to build cities on top of it? I don't know how you got to your stage of analysis from what I said.

I was implying that we should stop polluting for the healthiness of society and our planet. As opposed to peoples idea that we should stop polluting so the earth doesn't get flooded.

I do agree with that. I'm just trying to figure out which land should be protected and why. For example, there are many who argue we should stop deforestation because it leads to desertification which leads to change in, at least, local climates (and a lot of local climate changes aggregated together does mean global climate changes). That's fact. So, when someone says we should protect natural places because they're beautiful (which is perception) but not necessarily because deforestation will lead to desertification which will change the climate and our ability to grow food on the scale we currently do (and when they don't see how this is directly related to human well being), it makes me question their original statement about "it sickens me that people actually believe in global warming" and how much they actually know about the issue.

I want to assume you're only saying that the "globe is warming" is a myth, or that "if the globe is warming, it's not human made". But from your response, I can't help but assume you're saying that it sickens you that people actually believe that humans are causing the climate to change. And that statement would be based on a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of natural systems. If you're not suggesting that, then okay.