Green Myths On Global Warming — Debunked

[jlh]

1. MYTH:  Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming.

FACT:  Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
   
2.  MYTH:  Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die.
 
FACT:  In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
   
3.  MYTH:  Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT:  Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
   
4.  MYTH:  Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT:  96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
   
5.  MYTH:  Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
 
FACT:  A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
   
6.  MYTH:  Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet.
 
FACT:  The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
   
7.  MYTH:  The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming.
 
FACT:  Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.
   
8.  MYTH:  The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
 
FACT:  As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.
   
9.  MYTH:  Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.
 
FACT:  Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.
   
10.  MYTH:  There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
 
FACT  There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
   
https://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

[jlh]

Also:

"Climate chaos? Don't believe it"
By Christopher Monckton
Sunday Telegraph - 05/11/2006
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

[Derek]

You rock. You just made my day.  Recently I read a newspaper article where the author stated that it is a "fact" that global warming is happening and will have disastrous results. The article mentioned that China has outpaced the united states in greenhouse gas emissions. Even so, the pansy liberal who wrote it still found a way to piss on the united states by saying the reason China has outpaced the united states in greenhouse gas emissions is because of so many of our companies investing in factories/production over there. Go figure. America is the big, evil enemy of the world, always.     Objective reporting? I think not.   

I recall reading a book called "Environmental Overkill" by Dixie Lee Ray. There's a lot of good stuff in there similar to what you just posted.

[Derek]

there it is. I should snag a copy for myself. it's been a while since I read it.

Environmental Overkill on Amazon

[rc]

They lost me when they became extremely apocalyptic, began to sound one-sided, made me raise an eyebrow and wonder what they're not saying.  I made a bet with a friend that in 20 years the world will still be here and we'll be fine.  It all reminds me of a story I once heard called Chicken Little.

Here's a site by a guy who helped begin Greenpeace but left them when they became a bunch of kooks: www.greenspirit.com

[prometheus]

Good to see you are attacking reason and science on this subject as well...




Really I am getting so tired of this. If you scream non-sense hard enough and often enough people will start to believe it.


Anyway, there is scientific consensus about this.



Fact is that you are lying and tricking people.

[mcgillcomposer]

Regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring, we should really take better care of our planet.

On another note, it's pretty disgusting that many people only started to care when it become an immediate threat to them.

[prometheus]

I made a bet with a friend that in 20 years the world will still be here and we'll be fine.

Your friend believes global warming destroys the world in 20 years?


Unlike in the evolution debate global warming fights back with stupid propaganda of their own.


It seems that people will only take care of their planet if don't doing so destroys it within 20 years. So that's why here might be this propaganda convincing them about this.

[counterpoint]

First look, who's talking about "Green Myths":

The Association of British Drivers  

Why am I not surprised...?

Btw. there are no bibliographical references which would support the alleged "facts".

[mcgillcomposer]

Let us consider Pascal's wager and apply it to this situation...

1) Global warming is occurring - we act
2) Global warming is not occurring - we act
3) Global warming is occurring - we do not act
4) Global warming is not occurring - we do not act

[counterpoint]

In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.[40] For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. [10]. One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.[41] In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by Gordon McBean and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[thalbergmad]

Regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring, we should really take better care of our planet.

Completely agreed sir.

I have recently given up farting to try and decrease harmful gasses released into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, my car does not do the same.

Thal

[prometheus]

Even if global warming is correct, which seems a pretty solid conclusion, there's still tons of other things we do with the planet that are bad for life on earth.

[pianistimo]

reducing carbon emissions has come down to gas prices.  nobody will go as far as fast with gas prices high.  we've become accustomed to a way of life.  now - we have to learn to reduce these emissions.  ride a bicycle!

[Derek]

Good to see you are attacking reason and science on this subject as well...




Really I am getting so tired of this. If you scream non-sense hard enough and often enough people will start to believe it.


Anyway, there is scientific consensus about this.



Fact is that you are lying and tricking people.

Scientific Consensus

"
Lack of substantial doubt

In its strongest form, the term is used to assert that on a given question scientists within a particular field of science have reached an agreement of rational opinion without substantial doubt, through a process of experimentation and peer review (see scientific method)."

...  wouldn't you say 18,000 signatures on the oregon petition constitutes "substantial doubt?"  ... ? And that I think could be considered fairly harsh "peer review." oh yeah, and where are all the experiments that are helping to show that global warming is really being caused by industrialization?   Did we terraform europa in the past few years and inject greenhouse gases into its atmosphere to see what would happen...? Did I miss something?  Thus, I think it is rather extreme to say there is scientific consensus on this issue. Everything about global warming seems to contradict the definition of Scientific Consensus.

On the contrary, global warming priests, it would seem, are the ones screaming nonsense loud enough. Global warming is a religion. When people don't believe in a God/s, it isn't that they believe in nothing: they believe in anything.

[pianistimo]

you claim to believe only what you see.  what do you see?  wildfires at an alltime high.  animals not migrating properly and going in circles.  the oceans becoming polluted at an alarming rate - and the temperatures (although minimal degrees different) having huge impacts on weather related disasters.  so - is it going to get better.  please say 'yes' if you do not think global warming is important.

and, btw, this year is going to be a bad one for hurricanes again - according to the weather channel.  just be quiet and take science as your god - and go watch the weather channel.  but, when it gets bad enough - you're going to need God.  that is why everyone on this board is a little bit interested in this subject - even though people are pretending they are not.  that is why this is an ISSUE.  i did not start these threads.

also, is global warming all God's fault?

[thalbergmad]

reducing carbon emissions has come down to gas prices.  nobody will go as far as fast with gas prices high. 

An American complaining about gas prices.

I have seen it all now.

How does almost $10 a gallon sound?

Thal

[prometheus]

...  wouldn't you say 18,000 signatures on the oregon petition constitutes "substantial doubt?"

No. That's not the way science works. If you have a scientific disagreement then you respond to the research done by someone else you don't agree with.

But that doesn't happen.


What is happening is that people, mostly scientists not from the relevant field and many non-scientists which means they have just as much credit as you and we, sing a petition. No arguments are made. In science it is not the majority that determines the truth.


You can compare it with this. You have mathematicians, engineers, etc sign a petition opposing evolution and endorsing creationism. At the same time no one counters evolution with scientific arguments and no one prevents the creationism alternative.

So we have a political statement, not a scientific debate. These people signed the petition not because of scientific reasons.


Also, the petition wasn't even against global warming but against a global warming apocalypse.

There is no consensus for a global warming apocalypse, a thing people like Al Gore may represent( haven't seen his movie).

The petition mentions 'catastrophic heating' and 'disruption', not 'global warming'.

And that I think could be considered fairly harsh "peer review."

They aren't people in the field, so they aren't peers. And they don't review scientific arguments, measurements, conclusions, etc. They sign a statement.

Global warming is a religion.

Ooh come on. what?

Why are people so *** clinging to their irrational beliefs? Just sacrifice your own dogma's for a pure interpretation of reality.


Anyway, since I failed to convince you about evolution I will never ever succeed in convincing you about global warming.

[timothy42b]

An American complaining about gas prices.

I have seen it all now.

How does almost $10 a gallon sound?

Thal

Sounds expensive to me, it's only $6.00 in Germany.

But it will sound cheap to our kids.

And $100 will sound cheap to our grandkids.

Fact is, the world ran out of oil in 2004. 

Well, production peaked and started to decline.  With any resource, production increases as you find new locations and improve recovery techniques, then declines after you've got the middle 80% out, and the rest is progressively harder and more expensive to get out. 

So after the peak, the end is obvious.

And that was three years ago.

Locally, even longer.  The continental US, for example, ran out in 1971.  But when you sum the worldwide production rate you find 2004 was the peak.

Meanwhile, demand continues to rise.

Did I say $100?  Might be a $1000. 

[prometheus]

Yeah, oil is worth a lot more than we pay for it.


It took millions of years to form. It's free energy, basically. Because it's energy the sun slowly stored up for us.


Almost all of our energy comes from our sun. To collect as much energy from the sun as we get by burning fossil fuels may very well be impossible.

[soliloquy]

You just made my day.

Ahhh, this thread made my day too.  I needed a good laugh

How completely and hilariously delusional ^^

[ahinton]

Sounds expensive to me, it's only $6.00 in Germany.

But it will sound cheap to our kids.

And $100 will sound cheap to our grandkids.

Fact is, the world ran out of oil in 2004. 

Well, production peaked and started to decline.  With any resource, production increases as you find new locations and improve recovery techniques, then declines after you've got the middle 80% out, and the rest is progressively harder and more expensive to get out.

Fact is, the world didn't run out of oil in 200anything. It still has vast reserves of the stuff, even though some of this may not be so economical to extract. The big problem is that some of it may be becoming ever-increasingly hard to access for political rather than geological/economic reasons. We still need to get away from oil dependence and there are other power sources that are continually being researched, although that research should have gotten to a far more advanced stage by now than it has so far.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

yes.  like wind powered generators.  wind is always available.  we need windmill builders.

say, did you hear about the man who built a car from 42 laptops.  or was it 100?  anyways - it was in popular mechanics.  i don't know why i read that magazine so much.  curiosity, i guess.  i thought it said that the car was faster than a porche.  not sure how long it kept up it's energy level.  perhaps it was designed to race from hookup to hookup.

[cmg]

yes.  wind is always available. 

Not so much anymore, pianistimo. 

Especially since Thal voluntarily put a cap on his output . . .

[pianistimo]

lets not bring thal into this.  *he's getting me some music right now.  king lear overture to be exact. 

forgetting wind for a moment - perhaps we should focus on natural lightening strikes.  there are so many of them here in pennsylvania.  what if we could somehow build a lightening zapper.  so far, only people get zpped here.  last year - a man on his tractor.  another time - a child almost got it - on the way home from school.  think of the natural power that could be tapped from one strike of lightening.  basically a lightening rod with some kind of capability of storing the power.

at the franklin institute there is a lightening maker - actually.  i suppose if we took that idea  and ran with it - we'd keep making lightening over and over and utilizing the power.  or is this what power generators basically do?  i am a dud at science.  i am still impressed with steam engines.  the best science experiment i ever did was to make a 'mousetrap' car with balsa wood and cd's for wheels.  couldn't have anyone heavier than 3 grams sit in one of those cars.

trains may still be the best and most efficient means of transport.  busses and taxis take gas. but, trains can use other more economical means - such as electricity and solar and magnetic power.

[ahinton]

yes.  like wind powered generators.  wind is always available.  we need windmill builders.

No, we don't. Wind turbines, even such as those that are used in certain consistently windy areas, are expensive and environmentally unfriendly to produce, maintain and dispose of and are also very ugly in appearance and, most importantly, not at all efficient in electricity production. Better ways are solar and geothermal, although much research remains to be done (and is being done).

Driving bicycles. as you recommend. only contributes further to the world's carbon dioxide emissions from the bicycle drivers' lungs as they expend their physical energies while driving; it might be good for each driver's individual physical fitness but may not necessarily be so good for the environment in general...

Best,

Alistair

[rc]

Your friend believes global warming destroys the world in 20 years?

Unlike in the evolution debate global warming fights back with stupid propaganda of their own.

It seems that people will only take care of their planet if don't doing so destroys it within 20 years. So that's why here might be this propaganda convincing them about this.

I believe what they say about the planet warming up, I don't believe for certain that it's manmade.  I went along until the media became all-hype about it, then began to wonder.  The friendly bet is that in 20 years it will look like 'global cooling' does now, my friend made a strange comment about how we never hear about it but it's ALL I hear on the news.

I told you before that a simple way I like to measure effeciency is in dollars.  We had that Live Earth on the other day, I wonder how much energy they spent to 'raise awareness', as if somebody who owns a TV didn't know about global warming...  Gore is making a killing on it, and he doesn't do a thing to reduce his own consumption.  There was a documentary, "5 ways to save the world" with some scientists who cooked up a bunch of ridiculous ideas to stop the world from warming.  For a while there were a lot of presentations popping up of various doomsday scenarios.  In short, I see a lot of hypocrites cashing in and little productive action.

Of course we should take care of our environment and reduce our waste.  I'm sick of the hysteria though and my BS radar is going off.  I'm no climatologist nor do I understand how the cosmos work, I'm a guy who likes piano and reads various sources, to me this has become a he said/she said case, either side making a plausible case.  So here is my opinion, that is why I made a friendly bet that the whole thing will look silly in 20 years.

Did you check out some of the articles in that site?  I'm not trying to change your mind, the guy offers some unique perspectives and you may find it interesting.

[jlh]

Gore is making a killing on it, and he doesn't do a thing to reduce his own consumption.  There was a documentary, "5 ways to save the world" with some scientists who cooked up a bunch of ridiculous ideas to stop the world from warming.  For a while there were a lot of presentations popping up of various doomsday scenarios.  In short, I see a lot of hypocrites cashing in and little productive action.

Don't be too hard on the Rev. Al Gore.  Because of his energy consumption, he is saving the world!

https://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

[rc]

Don't be too hard on the Rev. Al Gore.  Because of his energy consumption, he is saving the world!

https://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/281949,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

"They do the Carbon Emissions Offset? What is that -- a '60s dance craze?



That's another one of my friendly bets, Gore will be a historical joke...  A very rich one, my neighbours in Saskatchewan paid $200,000 for him to come talk at a school a few months back

[jlh]

"They do the Carbon Emissions Offset? What is that -- a '60s dance craze?



That's another one of my friendly bets, Gore will be a historical joke...  A very rich one, my neighbours in Saskatchewan paid $200,000 for him to come talk at a school a few months back

You must have some rich neighbors then... 

He spoke at Arizona State University last April... and his speaking fee was $100,000 plus expenses.

Hey... he's gotta make money to pay for his energy consumption! 

[rach n bach]

Come come people... look how much good the internet has done for us

[jlh]

Come come people... look how much good the internet has done for us

Yep, no doubt...  although, many components of today's internet were already put into being well before his first term in congress began.

[rach n bach]

*sarcasm*

[jlh]

*sarcasm*

Gathered that... 

[jakev2.0]

Man, the planet is getting so hot these days.

I think its been working out.

[pies]

a

[pianolearner]

Sounds expensive to me, it's only $6.00 in Germany.

But it will sound cheap to our kids.

And $100 will sound cheap to our grandkids.

Fact is, the world ran out of oil in 2004. 

Well, production peaked and started to decline.  With any resource, production increases as you find new locations and improve recovery techniques, then declines after you've got the middle 80% out, and the rest is progressively harder and more expensive to get out. 

So after the peak, the end is obvious.

And that was three years ago.

Locally, even longer.  The continental US, for example, ran out in 1971.  But when you sum the worldwide production rate you find 2004 was the peak.

Meanwhile, demand continues to rise.

Did I say $100?  Might be a $1000. 

https://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm

https://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm