Do you ever want to slap global warming critics?

Question

They all say the same thing. It's "liberal propaganda" or it's BS. Like, the whole damn world knows about it except a few select Americans with a PhD in Redneck Studies. (who somehow have a self proclaimed IQ higher than a Stanford Physicist). The evidence is so in your face that the only way you ca deny it is if you are blind or mentally handicapped. I try to be polite, but my gosh, some peoples heads are literally solid rock.

Answer 1

It's not propaganda, it's an outright BIG LIE! I'd like to slap eco-morons back into the asylums where they escaped from.

Answer 2

As a scientist, I do not berate anyone that is trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, because that is what a good scientist does. You do not try to prove anything as right; you try to find the reasons why it might be wrong.

You make a hypothesis: Added CO2 in the atmosphere increases greenhouse gases.

Now you start to find all the reasons why this could not be true. If you cannot find any reasons why it is not true, then you have increased the likelihood that it is true. You have not proven that it is true, you have only increased its likelihood.

Then you ask another question: Does increasing greenhouse gas levels raise the temperature on Earth?

Then you make a hypothesis: Increasing greenhouse gas levels causes the temperature on earth to rise.

Now you try to prove that statement wrong.

This is how the system works. The people that need to be berated are those that try to avoid the process and jump to the conclusions that fit their belief system. The debate needs to go on, because that is how answers are found. Someone makes a statement and then someone else says “Wait a minute, what about this?” and now you look at what they are saying and how it effects the previous statement.

Those that are challenging global warming are saying, “Wait a minute, what about this?”

Answer 3

What's funny is that I was taught the mechanics behind global warming and the greenhouse effect in elementary school, and I went to a public school in KANSAS. Definitely no liberal eco-nazis there. Go check and see, I'll wait.
.....
.....
.....

Once the issue became politicized in the last 10 years, and really hardcore in the last 5, it became a "debate" in a political sense, which means that idiots started calling each other names over it.

The science behind global warming is sound. It used to be something taught in first grade. The scary thing is, it's not even the worst thing that releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere can do. I've got a degree in chemistry. This is basic chemistry we're dealing with here, and the complexities of global climate do not change the physical properties of the components involved. Their effects will almost certainly be diverted one way or another, but that's a country mile from saying nothing is wrong, or the issue is too complicated to understand.

What the oil companies, and, yes, many on the right, are saying is propaganda on the scale of that hefted around by the tobacco industry in years past.

Answer 4

If you want to be a part of the cure, wear plastic coveralls that completely enclose you body. You can have an air supply, but don't let any exhaled carbon dioxide out. The plastic suit is to keep the CO 2 that your body releases trapped. You must have filters to trap CO 2 in your home, and plants every where. Be sure that you never, ever pass gas as well. There you go, h=get all of your buddies to do the same and you'll all be helping save the planet.

Answer 5

Few accredited scientists totally deny that global warming is happening. What is left unsaid by those who want to entirely blame the phenomenon on George Bush and the Republicans is that global warming IS GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT'S DONE OR NOT DONE. Global warming has occurred naturally countless times over the history of Earth, most of those cycles preceding civilization's rise. Global warming is going to happen this time too, although if our planet would totally unite itself against further polluting the atmosphere the effects might not be as accelerated nor as severe.

Answer 6

It is not that black and white. Would you blame people for the global freezing of the last ice-age and the global warming that followed it? Large warming and cooling cycles occur naturally on the Earth and so when changes of a few degrees occur like now, it is difficult to decide if this is due to man or part of a natural cycle.

Answer 7

I'm a proud global-warming denier.

The most recent outrage I heard from the so-called "global warming" camp comes from a group in Canada who are angling for the Nobel Peace prize for their theory that "global warming" threatens their human rights.

The group says that there's a "right to be cold" and that people like me (Americans) are violating their human rights because we decline to send billions and billions of dollars into the Swiss bank accounts of Third World dictators to buy so-called "pollution credits."

Perhaps if I were to pursue my PhD in "Redneck Studies" I could, like the Asker, understand how this makes sense. I hope you won't berate me too loudly for suggesting that if "global warming" hypocrites would exercise their "right to be cold" by turning down their thermostats and walking more instead of driving their SUVs, maybe you wouldn't have your "global warming"?

Answer 8

I applaud eiscubes for his or her adherence to the scientific method. As a fellow scientist, I have one rule about theory and that is, “The universe is never wrong.” If one derives a theory to model nature, then any deviation of that model from what occurs in nature indicates that, at best, the theory is incomplete or, at worst, is simply wrong. Nature is never suspect.

One application of this rule to “global warming” theory is through simple observation of the historical data provided by the Vostok ice cores found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg . Note the region between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago. The temperature rises at about the 140,000 year mark and the carbon dioxide begins rising shortly thereafter. At about the 130,000 year mark the temperature descends abruptly and consistently while the CO2 concentration remains relatively fixed for nearly 250,000 years. If carbon dioxide concentration controls weather, as the “greenhouse effect” predicts, then this region of the data is anomalous to that prediction. Since nature is never wrong this calls into question the “greenhouse effect” theory and, thereby, the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This feature of temperature changes preceding atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes is apparent throughout the data and indicates that, contrary to popular opinion, temperature controls carbon dioxide concentration and not vice versa.

The theory of anthropogenic global warming depends on the existence of a “greenhouse effect”. That is, if there is a “greenhouse effect” then it can be enhanced by changes in atmospheric constituency. If there is no “greenhouse effect” then it cannot be either enhanced or mediated by man. So, the Vostok data being apparently inconsistent with the “greenhouse effect” theory, one must review that theory based on my primary rule.

The “greenhouse effect” calculation requires two pieces of information: the first is the solar irradiance, P, and the second is the mean absoptivity, a, of the planet. The product of the two is the solar energy absorbed by the planet, i.e.,

Ein=a*(pi*r^2)*P.

The absorptivity is usually determined by the earth's albedo, or the amount of solar energy that is scattered/reflected from the earth. This has been measured since the early 1900's by observations of the illuminated and dark sides of the moon in a particular phase. The result is is to commonly use 0.31 as the absorptivity of the planet. The mean solar irradiance at the earth's orbit distance from the sun (1.0au) is 1366 W/m^2. The pi*r^2 factor is the projected area of the planet (with a radius r) that is struck by incident solar radiation.

The conservation of energy assumption is that the earth reradiates the same amount of energy into space as it absorbs. This is calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law which quantifies the energy radiated from a body at temperature T as the product of the body's emissivity, e, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, s, and the body's temperature to the fourth power, i.e.:

Eout(T)=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^4

s has a value of 5.7*10^-8 W/m^2. The 4*pi*r^2 factor is the surface area of the planet (since it radiates in all directions unlike its absorption profile).

Here is where the "greenhouse effect" theory becomes contrived. The emissivity of a body is, physically, identical to its absorptivity. So, in the variables stated above, e=a. However, the "greenhouse effect" theory, although content with using the mean, albedo-derived absorptivity, postulates a different emissivity that varies with atmospheric composition. This is not supported by theory or experiment.

If one performs the calculation properly,

Ein=Eout, or
a*(pi*r^2)*P=e*(4*pi*r^2)*s*T^... or since e=a
T=(P/(4*s))^0.25, or, quantitatively, using the values above
T=278K (5C)

The "greenhouse effect" theory uses the (unphysical) different values for emissivity and absorptivity

a=0.31 and
e=0.5 to get a value
(a/e)^0.25=0.89, or 89% of the proper calculation.

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory states that the temperature of the planet "should be" 248K (-25C). Then, after making the erroneous calculation, it identifies the atmospheric absorption as the magical reason that the measured global mean temperature is warmer than the flawed value obtained.

The value obtained from the proper calculation falls within the margin of error of the "measured" value of global mean temperature when such a mean includes the entire range from the earth's surface to the upper atmosphere properly weighted by density. This means that the only atmosphere-related terms in the calculation, i.e., absorptivity and emissivity, cancel in the proper calculation and therefore have no effect!

So, the "greenhouse effect" theory is apparently discredited by both this theoretical analysis and the Vostok ice core data, meaning that the “global warming” theory is, at best, incomplete or, at worst, simply wrong. Slapping someone who acknowledges these facts is myopic and displays ignorance of the facts.

Answer 9

your the one that dont know what your talking about. Why dont you liberals stop trying to cause commotion. They arent right just like in the seventys before they thought up global waming they said we were heading into an ice age. And according to them all the sighns pointed to it but if you try hard enough you can tie anything to what ever cause you want to make up. Its like playing the Kevin Bacon game to try and scare the world.

Answer 10

just did
QUESTION
Got anything that is unexplainable?
Tell me any stories, dreams of any kinds that was unexplainable. Tell me if you want them solved. Or tell me unexplained activities that went wrong or in your life.


You are: byderule Your Answer:

why so many American believe that Global warming is A myth or not real or political maneuvers

that to me is un explainable .with thousands of people dead already all over the globe ,In Mexico ,India ,China and Africa as a result from Global warming

it is very strange as if they have been lobotomized or brainwashed or are under some sort of mental control ) strange but true