Are we all being conned by the global warming fanatics?

Question

The global warming lobby is the fastest growing business on Earth, people who are otherwise a waste of space have cottoned on to the fact that they can make a good living by frightening us to death worrying over something that we cannot control.
Man's part in global warming is miniscule compared to that of the Sun.

Answer 1

Personally I think I'd sooner believe in the fact that pigs really CAN fly than have any part in this nonsense.
Admittedly I buy the fluorescent low-wattage lamps instead of the old g.s. bulbs, but that's as much to stop putting money in the pockets of the electricity shareholders than anything else !

Answer 2

I would like for it not to be true, but I cannot draw any other conclusion from all the evidence I have seen. The natural fluctuations in CO2 between 150 and 250ppm tie in directly with ice ages. These cycles operate on thousands of years. We have taken the CO2 level up to 378ppm in 200 years - higher than it has ever been in the past (at least) 400,000 years. The physics of the CO2 molecule is that it absorbs heat. There is no question that the temperature will rise significantly, causing dramatic changes to our weather.
As for the suns influence - CO2 (and other GH gases) act as the amplifier of solar cycles, so if the sun is heating up we are in an even worse position. Arrhenius was the first scientist to work out the change in temperature with the greenhouse effect, without which the average temp at the earth's surface would be about minus 20 deg C.
The majority of scientists I know are not interested in business, just in solving the problem. It's not fanaticism, just presenting the facts. I do think the media have a lot to answer for by exaggerating claims or not reporting confidence levels or by taking things out of context. We are unlikely to be doomed, but only if we manage to rise to the challenge. You would have to give me some compelling evidence to support the anti-global warming debate than one (grammatically incorrect, unless one man is responsible) line about "Mans['] part in global warming is miniscule compared to that of the Sun" (please see amplifier point above) which you probably read in the daily hate or some other magazine. There are many other things I would like to do with my life but I consider preserving the planet for my and future generations a top priority, and I am certainly not creating myths to make a good living - that's what needless consumerism does.

Answer 3

I believe in global warming, Indeed, I have seen GW in my life time. I do NOT believe however that GW is caused by man's activities but rather by natural warming and cooling cycles.

For the powers that be however, the myth of man being the cause of GW has come just at the right time as it is the perfect screen for hiding the real problem we all fact viz. the end of The Oil Era.

Oil is running out and the politicians are just too scared to tell us - too scared of crating global economic meltdown - and so they hide behind the GW story.

Fuel prices rising, 'pay per mile' road plans - are all to do in trying to wean us away from our dependancy upon oil and nothing whatsoever to do with GW.

Consider; the UK produces 2% of the world's pollution and so if we turned off everything today -ie shut all power stations, stopped all transport, then the most we could save is clealry 2%. China would make this up in a week.

When the oil wells run dry, GW will be but a happy memory.

Answer 4

A United Nations report due out next year will say that mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously predicted.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25%.

Whilst it predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, this is significantly less than some of the Global Warming scaremongers have been predicting.
The IPCC has also been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise in the next hundred years from 34 in to 17 in.

Global Warming enthusiasts have distorted and grossly exaggerated figures. Such transparent wrongful data has harmed their cause substantially.

There are deep misgivings about some of the computer modeling used as a forecast tool. Different scientists and universities reach different conclusions and forecasts from the same data!! It seems to depend on whether they are global warming enthusiasts or not!!

The US government has actually cut back on related energy research and many people are seeing Global Warming as bunk.

But there is a real problem that is called Climate change. Most scientists in the field and most sensible people interested in the environment have recognised it for years. Whilst the dire prediction of the Global Warmers are grossly exaggerated they will continue to detract and distract from the real problems of the world climate. They have become the real problem and threat to the world!!!

It is time to ditch the discredited term ‘Global Warming’, recognise the term ‘Climate Change’ and get on with the problem of identifying, quantifying and seeking solutions.

We need to curb carbon emissions, find new power sources and fuels, but most of all we need some good scientific research and honest and open minded debate.

Answer 5

Hello,

Some of the points you make have a small amount of trueth about them, in terms of people being fearfull. However, I'm not easily convinced myself and always want to question whats going on, and whats being said about climate change.

What does interest me (as a free thinker) is the facts & the evidence. I saw a short film recently about a group of climate change scientists & metrogologists. Based in an American university (sorry! cannot recall which one), they have been collecting global climate data for the past 30 years & have been using a cray super computer to analyse the information.

**(cray super computer is one of the worlds most powerful computers, for example the Met Office here in the UK uses a cray to model our wheather day to day)

**The scientists showed using the cray computer No.1 how the earths climate would change without the effect of mankind. i.e. the natural planetary climate change that would have taken place anyway. Yes! there is a long term shift but this is Nothing new at all. The earth has always undergone cylces of warming & cooling, this is a well known fact. The overall trend was towards a slight warming but nothing that would have catastrophic effects on life or exsistence.

No.2 Then the same scientists showed how the planet has increasingly warmed by tiny amounts over a long period of time. i.e. Mans impact on the climate since the start of the industrial revolution, about roughly 100 to 150 years. **Humans have used the atmosphere as a rubbish dump for a long time but without thinking there might be a cost to pay later on.

No.3 Then the final image the scientists showed was the difference between the natural climate change that would have happened with out man, & then mans impact on the climate. The evidences was stark, it showed with inescapable fact that human activity IS forcing the pace of global warming. The evidence is real. Climate change is happening & happening faster than it would otherwise.

**What the evidences shows is fact but what & how we respond is another question all toegther.

**The questions about how the climate will change are still unknown even by scientists. There is alot of talk about a tipping piont but there are conflicting views on this area too. Its now thought that there may be many kinds of tipping points.

IR

Answer 6

Sadly, environmentalists do not need to make up pretend disasters. There are plenty of real ones and climate change is the most devastating. The evidence does not come from ''global warming fanatics'', but from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) which is made up of the worlds leading climatologists. 15 years ago it was unclear how dramatically the climate was changing and whether humans were responsible. Now there is little doubt. The IPPC panel have no vested interest in making this up, nor do environmental campaigners who have plenty of other issues they could be dealing with. The petrochemical industry do have a reason to deny it as do ordinary people who don't want to think about changing their lifestyles or want to feel smug by criticising genuine people who see a real and scary need to do something about it.

Answer 7

Earth's climate stabilised because much of the carbon was stored in standing timber and fossil fuels. Over the past few hundred years, we've burnt most of the forests and a lot of the coal, gas and oil. This means that the level of carbon dioxide in the air has risen and world climates are changing as a result.

I'm not convinced by the arguments that we can save the planet by using Brand X light bulbs, or by putting windmills on our roofs. To recapture the carbon released since the start of the industrial revolution would require radical action on a global scale and we'll never get that degree of international cooperation.

If we go on as we are, whether we leave our TVs on standby or not, world climate will go through a period of severe instability before settling down into something different. Whether all or part of the human race will survive the changes is another matter.

Answer 8

No, I don't think we are conned at all... we are provided with information and using our 'huge' brains we filter the real from the fiction.
We are being warned, quite urgently that our lifestyles over the last century are a contributing factor to global warming... I see no evidence of it being a fast "growing business"...scientists aren't scientists to make money.... just like teachers don't go into teaching to become wealthy.... doesn't happen.

Umm... How exactly are they making a "good living by frightening us to death" ?
I don't see anyone selling magic hats to protect us or something silly like that...

Any of the environmental products you may mention or think of are actually saving us money (which is universally adored) and help lower the carbon emissions.

Perhaps the climatologists may have come up with the term 'global warming' to make us pay attention because 'acid rain' and 'pollution' wasn't getting through to people.

How many decades did it take to convince people that smoking (first and second hand) causes cancer???
Shockingly, there are still smokers...(even with all the data, evidence and studies....people are so stupid.... really.)

People are so in denial until it hits them in the face or effects someone they care about...then suddenly they 'get it'.

Answer 9

No. You are being conned by the people selling you petrochemicals natural gas and coal. If you want to see who's running a con just spend a little time and research to follow the money on both sides of the question. Do you really think that 90% of the scientists of the world are all wrong and are in a conspiracy against the big oil companies? Get serious kid - you are the one spouting off on yahoo answers - the folks saying global warming is real are a bit more credible than you.

Answer 10

Of course we are being conned, and the government are the worst, the British public fall head over heels to be the first to be conned, A nice hot summer and what do you get, global warming, no rain, global warming, hosepipe ban, global warming, water meters, get the standpipes out, global warming, look at it now, rain, rain, rain, of course global warming there NEVER was a shortage of water now of course it`s the 4x4 that's causing alleged global warming, nothing to do with something like 20 active volcanoes chucking sh1t into the atmosphere, and always have done. We are being conned out of the last penny in our pockets and now the latest, shut the A and E departments in hospitals, have an accident or needing urgent hospital treatment, then what? you die and the government will get more money out of you. Conned? we are being conned all the way down the line and by the time the general public realise it will be too late.

Answer 11

The recent tornado in London was a prime example.
The news media loved it.
Every second comment was ' global warming ' by the presenters.
The weathermen had to bring them back to earth with a more realistic appraisal of the event.

If global warming is becoming an issue due to the CO2 factor then I very much doubt that we can do anything about it anyway.