Debunking the Global Warming Conspiracy Theory

[JonTheSavage]

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

Scientific, factual information, debunking the neo-left conspiracy theories.

[awesomo]

fair enough. i didn't read the whole thing as i am not a scientist and can't understand most of it. but temperatures have always fluctuated and always will. it is just how things work. i think...

[chuckplumber]

I think it is important to state that using the empirical test of theories, science can not truly prove a theory, but only disprove one. The idea of global warming is a theory. Theories, by definition can only be disproven. If a theory is sound and accurately explains the phenomenon under question, you should find empirical support for it. However, finding support for a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory. The best that one can do is to suggest a probability and then perform experiments to test them. Sadly, this can not be applied in any meaningful way to climate science. All the evidence in this argument is circumstantial by nature.

 

 

Both sides of this argument are stating theories, neither side can PROVE their hypothesis.

 

When the earth either freezes or melts, then we will have facts. Until then, this debate will continue to rage on.

 

I do think that the late George Carlin put it best when discussing the environment: (I paraphrase)

 

"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fu***** people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the f****g planet?

----

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fu****. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

----

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

[hecker]

I think it is important to state that using the empirical test of theories, science can not truly prove a theory, but only disprove one. The idea of global warming is a theory. Theories, by definition can only be disproven. If a theory is sound and accurately explains the phenomenon under question, you should find empirical support for it. However, finding support for a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory. The best that one can do is to suggest a probability and then perform experiments to test them. Sadly, this can not be applied in any meaningful way to climate science. All the evidence in this argument is circumstantial by nature.

 

 

Both sides of this argument are stating theories, neither side can PROVE their hypothesis.

 

When the earth either freezes or melts, then we will have facts. Until then, this debate will continue to rage on.

 

I do think that the late George Carlin put it best when discussing the environment: (I paraphrase)

 

"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fu***** people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the f****g planet?

----

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fu****. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

----

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!"

I basically agree with the quote, but I must say that the statement is overly simplistic. It's not about saving the planet, of course, but about keeping the environment safe for us and for the generations to come. Turn on your thinking box and you will realize that

dumping chemicals into the water, burning/chopping down the trees, poluting the air and destroying the environment in general is going to affect us all in a bad way sooner or later.

Ever heard the phrase "don't sh*t where you live"? (or was it eat?. Yeah, I think I like eat better).

 

I also disagree with the part that says that "we don't know how to care for one another". Of course we know, we just DON'T CARE TO DO SO because of [include your government/media bashing reason here].

 

Cheers,

 

hecker

[Dammacx]

A few simple points. Unless the Earth is smashed by a giant asteroid or comet and turned to dust or the sun expands and eats us up the planet will go on no matter what we do or don't do. It will change and evolve. Animals (including humans) and plants will live and die. Whether we are having a big enough affect with all the {censored} we do to the environment to actually speed up any natural events that would or are happening anyways over time is up for debate. In the end, wouldn't it still be nice not to have all the {censored} that cars and factories and power plants, etc... put into the air be toned down a bit. Wouldn't it be nice if all the waters were just a bit (or alot) cleaner than they are now. Wouldn't it be nice if we had nice large areas of natural forest and jungles, and marsh lands and area's where the other animals we live with could have a nice home that we could visit and share with. Instead of taking the Yes or No side in regards to climate change and whether we as humans are affecting it, could we all just not use some common sense and say hey, instead of a huge smelly garbage dump could we not just recycle and reuse stuff, instead of dumping {censored} into the air or water could we not just spend a little extra time and money to clean it up or find ways of making less nasty. In the end, planet earth will survive with or without us no matter what we do. Whether it will be a nice place to live or not well that is totally up to basic common sense.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I love how you can deny the fact that the earth's temperature has been steadily increasing since the last ice age

[AppleSmartFriend]

I love how you can deny the fact that the earth's temperature has been steadily increasing since the last ice age

 

if there is a ICE AGE then but why people live on IGLOOS. dumb man.

 

global waring is not rl because there is sun and sun makes things hotter. even my nephew nos that and she are just four yrs old. n leopard is all about space n u think mac maker would no a small joint about SUN IN SKY.....

 

rly they r need read sum book bout god cause all politcians live in hell in fire

[Numberzz]

if there is a ICE AGE then but why people live on IGLOOS. dumb man.

 

global waring is not rl because there is sun and sun makes things hotter. even my nephew nos that and she are just four yrs old. n leopard is all about space n u think mac maker would no a small joint about SUN IN SKY.....

 

rly they r need read sum book bout god cause all politcians live in hell in fire

If that is honestly what you think, you should probably think about changing your display name. But good news, you aren't totally wrong! You just left out part of one of your sentences. Here, let me finish it for you:

"rl because there is sun and sun makes things hotter" because of greenhouse gasses. There we go.

[JonTheSavage]

I love how you can deny the fact that the earth's temperature has been steadily increasing since the last ice age

 

So what did you do? Go back in time and give a thermometer to a cave man?

[djet]

Jon, even IF Global Warming is a whole lot of bunk, is there anything bad about protecting the environment? After a trip to Puerto Rico and going to the most secluded places there (on the outlying islands) and easily finding trash, that's sad and shouldn't that be stopped?

 

Not sure if this really applies here but: "The ends justifies the means."

[chuckplumber]

Agree with djet.

 

Just tired of folks making it a political platform and the blame game.

 

Live an environmentally aware life? Good idea for all of us probably.

[JonTheSavage]

Jon, even IF Global Warming is a whole lot of bunk, is there anything bad about protecting the environment? After a trip to Puerto Rico and going to the most secluded places there (on the outlying islands) and easily finding trash, that's sad and shouldn't that be stopped?

 

Not sure if this really applies here but: "The ends justifies the means."

 

Its a conspiracy theory to distract you from the REAL enviromental problems. Like the {censored} that is being dumped into your water to medicate you without your consent. The depleted uranium in Iraq. The trash being dumped into the oceans, etc...

 

None of that is ever brought up in here. Just a conspiracy theory on something that doesn't exist, and has been dubunked countless times.

[iSkylla]

Ice. Rings.

[JonTheSavage]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: iSkylla.

 

Groovy.

[djet]

So you decided to ignore iSkylla for name calling or that kind of stuff, but you do it yourself in every post claiming that everyone else is stupid and ignorant for not accepting YOUR views and daring to challenge your supremacy, but still make posts regarding Hitler, communists, and other groups that very much exemplify the same behavior you do. I'm not attacking you here, I'm just trying to show you the way the rest of us view you.

[killbot1000]

I think most of us are missing the point here.

 

It doesn't matter whether we are causing global warming or not

It doesnt matter whether global warming is real or not.

 

The Earth will be here and living long after we're gone (if we destroy ourselves). Any environmental reforms aren't going to do much for the earth, they are however going to do a lot for us.

 

Whether any of this is true or not we should STILL be trying to reduce our impact on the environment, if not for the environment then for ourselves. Why not work to reduce our emissions, why not try to clean up our steams and rivers, my biggest question here is "why not?"

[djet]

Exactly Killbot.

 

Congarts on your 1200 too.

[killbot1000]

Exactly Killbot.

 

Congarts on your 1200 too.

 

Why thank you! (on both statements)

[Paranoid Marvin]

So what did you do? Go back in time and give a thermometer to a cave man?

 

Ok, there is a fairly large list of things we can go through here:

 

Tree rings.

Tree rings can give us an accurate record of the relative annual temperature, back about a couple thousand years in recent trees, and hundreds of thousands in trees preserved in peat bogs, as well as petrified wood.

 

Ice cores.

I needn't say much about ice cores, except that they can give us, again, an accurate record of relative annual temperature (as well as precipitation and atmospheric content)

 

Coral reefs.

This is a relatively new discovery, but an absolutely fascinating one. I learnt a lot about this method of interpreting past climates when I was at St Andrews university the other week.

What they have discovered is that corals grow at a very precise rate (0.4 microns a day, or somewhere around that) and that the isotopes they absorb depend on the sea temperature.

This means that you can measure the average daily sea temperature going back hundreds of thousands of years!

 

In fact, if you line up the graphs generated from those 3 sources, they all correlate quite well.

In summary, they show large cycles of rise and fall of temperature, going from ice ages, to global warming. We have just come out of the ice age period (the last major ice age was 24,000 years ago, and then a minor one 10,000 years ago) and are in the period of global warming.

 

The interesting thing is that the periods of global warming are always followed by a sudden drop into an ice age.

 

Cave men with thermometers? There are better ways to measure the past climate than that!

[JonTheSavage]

Ok, there is a fairly large list of things we can go through here:

 

Tree rings.

Tree rings can give us an accurate record of the relative annual temperature, back about a couple thousand years in recent trees, and hundreds of thousands in trees preserved in peat bogs, as well as petrified wood.

 

Ice cores.

I needn't say much about ice cores, except that they can give us, again, an accurate record of relative annual temperature (as well as precipitation and atmospheric content)

 

Coral reefs.

This is a relatively new discovery, but an absolutely fascinating one. I learnt a lot about this method of interpreting past climates when I was at St Andrews university the other week.

What they have discovered is that corals grow at a very precise rate (0.4 microns a day, or somewhere around that) and that the isotopes they absorb depend on the sea temperature.

This means that you can measure the average daily sea temperature going back hundreds of thousands of years!

 

In fact, if you line up the graphs generated from those 3 sources, they all correlate quite well.

In summary, they show large cycles of rise and fall of temperature, going from ice ages, to global warming. We have just come out of the ice age period (the last major ice age was 24,000 years ago, and then a minor one 10,000 years ago) and are in the period of global warming.

 

The interesting thing is that the periods of global warming are always followed by a sudden drop into an ice age.

 

Cave men with thermometers? There are better ways to measure the past climate than that!

 

Do these trees, ice cores, and coral reaves indicate that we had an Ice age?

Hardly likely.

[A Nonny Moose]

I love how you can deny the fact that the earth's temperature has been steadily increasing since the last ice age

 

Since when? The Little Ice Age that ended in the 1800's? Plus, with your FSM signature, I'm surprised you didn't realize that the decline of Pirates is the true cause of global warming:

 

That is just to prove that you can "prove" anything with a correlation. Also, have you noticed that "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change" for some inexplicable reason? Did you also know there must have been dangerous polluting SUV's in the Medieval Era, since temperatures were supposedly higher then than they were in the 1990's?

 

I'm all for not polluting and stuff, but JEEZE, what's going to happen if/when global warming is proven wrong? By simply making the name change, it seems like science is trying to get away from "global warming" for some odd reason.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Global warming is an observation. It is and has been happening. No debating that

 

Climate change is a theory, with past observations. Climate change in the past is a fact, climate change in the near future is debatable.

 

Mankind's connection to climate change is debatable, as there are no solid facts or direct observations.

 

Hope that clears things up

[hecker]

Global warming is an observation. It is and has been happening. No debating that

 

Climate change is a theory, with past observations. Climate change in the past is a fact, climate change in the near future is debatable.

 

Mankind's connection to climate change is debatable, as there are no solid facts or direct observations.

 

Hope that clears things up

It sure does. Now I can sleep well at night again!

 

No but seriously, I agree. (Sorry, little high right now)

[Maxintosh]

Whether any of this is true or not we should STILL be trying to reduce our impact on the environment, if not for the environment then for ourselves.

That's it in a nutshell, and speaking of nutshells...

 

 

Its a conspiracy theory to distract you from the REAL enviromental problems.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts

[A Nonny Moose]

That's it in a nutshell, and speaking of nutshells...

You are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts

 

I seem to remember a New York Times editorial stating that Michael Moore was entitled to his own version of the truth after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released...