Do you think Global Warming is just another scare tactic?

Question

Many of us do. But it's pushed in our faces. Where is the evidence anyway?

Answer 1

Yes, it is a very clever scare tactic. My question is; who would profit most from this kind of propaganda? Could it be the Oil Companies? Think back to to the Oil Crunch of the 70's. Back then, the flavor of the month for the geologists, and scientists was that the earth was on the verge of the next ice age and this emerging ice age was due to Carbon emissions. What happened? Fuel prices went thru the roof!!

Fast forward to our present time. Now the new flavor is Global Warming. The Ice Caps are melting, the seas are rising, the temperatures are rising, etc... oh whoa is us. And the supposed cause? Carbon emissions. How could these emissions be the cause of an ice age in the 70's and now, the cause of our planet heating up? Really quite silly.

So,who profits the most during these scare tactics? It's really quite easy to figure this question out now, isn't it. The Oil Companies. They hold the world by the balls. Every person, country, and government is forced to bow down at the feet of The Oil Kings.

The truth of the matter is that this "Global Warming" the scientists and biased media talking heads are feeding us is a natural, cyclical, and scientifically documented, by geologist and scientists that are not getting their findings put to the public, occurance.

Carbon is natural to our atmosphere. Humans are carbon based. All dying matter on this earth emits carbon. So the carbon data that's being fed to us is false, and exagerated. Why? To control you more by driving up costs. It's no coincidence that the Oil Gods post record profits month after month.

How difficult than, would it be for these Gods to pay off the scientific world and media types to falsify information?

Answer 2

Global warming is real and the evidence can be seen in the scientific data of global average temperatures. The scare tactic comes from the "cause and effects" of global warming. Is global warming man-made or is it a natural phenomenon? There is some evidence that human activity may be having an effect on global warming but global warming has occurred many times in the past long before humans even existed. It can't be all man-made. Will global warming cause the extinction of many species including mankind? This is a scare tactic in its purist form. There have been many periods where temperatures have risen and fallen. The current predictions of catastrophe only have the earth warming exponentially with no chance of a natural correction. History would show that a correction will happen regardless of what statistics say.

Answer 3

It is definitely a scare tactic, just like Global Cooling was a scare tactic in the 1970's. For all the scientists who support global warming, there are 5 others that refute it. We just don't hear from them cause it's not as effective at freaking us out. And the flooding someone referred to has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with us building houses below sea level! If hurricanes are supposedly getting so much worse, why was 2006 the quietest hurricane season on record?

Answer 4

those innovations sound advantageous, yet does no longer paintings. a million.) Mass-growing to be flowers - this is called farming, and we don't have adequate land attainable to make adequate. If shall we make yet another Amazon rainforest, we could could sparkling away a hell of somewhat some land, which might have an result via fact the land is used for some thing already! 2.) If we cut back the inhabitants boost, we can harm the international economic equipment and plunge each u . s . a . into harm - say our father and mom - whilst they retire, our technology will could pay the pensions of their technology. If one technology has 10 adults to a million of the subsequent technology, that one guy will could pay for 10 grownup pensions. 3.) Your argument does not prepare international warming - purely via fact CO2 prevents infrared radiation leaving the ambience, it does not recommend that we are spewing out adequate CO2 to also have a noticeable effect. And it does not recommend that that's what's inflicting the earth to warmth up - it could be entirely organic! there have been international warmings and coolings interior the final 2000 years besides, devoid of great exchange in CO2 ranges, that somewhat some info factors that way!

Answer 5

The amount of money in "global warming" is staggering. More money is spent on "global warming" than Exxon makes in profits.

Do you honestly believe that "scientist" can ever be objective to prove this is just a hoax, and cutting off their lively hoods?

Why do you think that there is so much of an effort to discredit people who have determined that this is just a natural warming cycle like the thousands that have come before?

Please - the only thing real about man made global warming is the gravy train that the greedy are drinking from the troughs.

Answer 6

There is no conclusive evidence to support AGW. Take for instance the IPCC draft:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

The radiative parameters for the increase of CO2 are over stated by almost 50%, the radiative parameters for methane are almost 50%. The entire AGW argument hinges on the accuracy of these two variables. The CO2 radiative forcing parameters that the IPCC report rely on do not even account for the complicated configuration of convection,water vapor clouds and atmospheric ice crystals. The hydrological cycle in Earths atmosphere is a chatoic system that is currently beyond the capability of computer simulations to model. However this highly dynamic system is not decoupled from climate as many would like it to be. There is much work left to do to understand the various intricate and vital feedback systems within the dynamics of oceanic and atmospheric coupling. Furthermore the simplicity of the IPCC's conjecture about the lack of solar variability in their projections is in direct conflict with the unanimous consesnus among the worlds scientists that an increase in solar output caused the world to warm from the little iceage, but we are expected to believe that for the next 100 years there will be no variation in solar output.

What a joke.

Answer 7

No. People are not realizing just how serious global warming is.

If we are to continue with the amount of pollution that we currently have, then the entire world is screwed. this will obviously not happen immediatly, but over time, it will!

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING-
1. i think its like 17 % of our freshwater is in the glaciers.
2. if they were to melt, then the water level would rise-A LOT!
3. shore lines would flood and the land will shrink due to the water. this means more people in crammed together and loss of land.
4. the extreme heat is a case of its own. dealing with droughts, and the likes

there is so much more. have you ever seen the movie an inconvienient truth? al gore isnt my fav. person but his movie is really good. and he is right for many things.

it may be a scare tactic, but it sure makes a lot of sense doesnt it????????????????????

Answer 8

So now for the people not believing WE put the CO2 in the atmosphere:

Global atmospheric mass around the earth:
5.148*10^18 kg
=5.148*10^15 t
=5.148*10^12 kt
=5.148*10^9 Mt
=5.148*10^6 Gt
=5,148,000 Gt

Global man-made CO2 (only... it accounts for 70% of all the man-made greenhouse gases):
=24Gt/year

CO2 density=1.98kg/m³
Air density=1.2Kg/m³
Ratio: the CO2 density is around 1.6x the density of air.
This means that for the same weight, CO2 has 1,6 times less molecules (parts)

Now what is the rate we increase CO2 in the atmosphere for sure (counted land use change/deforestation/use of fossil fuels, etc...):

5,148,000 / (24/1.6)=2.9*10^(-6)

Considered in PPM (parts per million) 1 million=10^6

change in PPM = 2.9 * 10^(-6) * 10^(6)
2.9 PPM (per year)

So during the average 1997-2017 period we should increase the PPM concentration by 29PPM

Now look at the measurements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:mauna...

We see an increase of close to 20PPM in the last decade...

THIS IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH MY CALCULATION PUTTING THE MAN MADE CO2 AS CAUSE FOR THE INCREASE IN THE EARTH ATMOSPHERE



If you are not sure of the accuracy of fossil fuel based calculations, check the GHG protocol from the WRI (World Resource Insitute): www.ghgprotocol.com


My goofy memory and physic lessons

PLEASE COPY AND PASTE MY POST EVERY TIME THAT SOMEBODY DENIES THAT CO2 IS MAN MADE !!!
(Quoting me would also be cool :-) )

Answer 9

yes of course it's a scare tactic. and there is no evidence, at least not the kind that can't be refuted by others and they are not being allowed to speak or to gain access to forums where they can voice opposition research. and even though this is true, you haven't seen or heard much from 'big al' gore lately have you? too much anti-gw info gets out DESPITE the fact that the scientists on our side are being censored, so don't worry too much about it...yet.

Answer 10

I do not think global warming is a scare tactic. It is very real. Just look at all the flooding.