• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

With all the weather modification by government and private enterprise as well
as experimentation by the military world wide aimed at weaponizing as well as
likely using it against other nations, and this as been going on since at least the
end of WW11, no one as the slightest clue as to what the weather really is like
if left to it's own devises.
There have always been suspicion's that this disaster in 1952 was such a experiment
gone wrong, or right depending on your outlook.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences

So some things that have been done intentionally have affected the climate but somethings we've been doing unintentionally (burning fossil fuels) for the past two and a bit centuries don't count?

I'm glad the Earth and atmosphere can tell the difference between deliberate and accidental actions.
 
Not that they don't count just how much they are doing and how
much that is being done intentionally or by experiments is being
blamed on or hidden behind them.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/world/ipcc-synthesis-report-climate-intl/index.html

‘The climate time-bomb is ticking’: The world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe, new UN report warns
By Laura Paddison, CNN
The world is rapidly approaching catastrophic levels of heating with international climate goals set to slip out of reach unless immediate and radical action is taken, according to a new UN-backed report.

“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a statement to mark the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s synthesis report on Monday. “Humanity is on thin ice – and that ice is melting fast,” he added.

The report draws on the findings of hundreds of scientists to provide a comprehensive assessment of how the climate crisis is unfolding.

The science is not new – the report pulls together what the IPCC has already set out in a cluster of other reports over the last few years – but it paints a very stark picture of where the world is heading.

“This report is the most dire and troubling assessment yet of the spiraling climate impacts we all face if systemic changes are not made now,” Sara Shaw, program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, said in a statement.

The impacts of planet-warming pollution are already more severe than expected and we are hurtling towards increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences, the report says.

While the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels is still possible, the report noted, the pathway to achieving it is rapidly closing as global production of planet-heating pollution continues to increase – emissions grew by nearly 1% last year.

Concentrations of carbon pollution in the atmosphere are at their highest level for more than two million years and the rate of temperature rise over the last half a century is the highest in 2,000 years.

The impacts of the climate crisis continue to fall hardest on poorer, vulnerable countries that have done least to cause it.
 
As any prophet will tell you, it's not good to put dates next to your perditions, nature moves at it's own speed and this is all grist to the skeptical mill , I know why they do it they want people to take drastic action now before it's to late.

I am not skeptical about climate change, and even if it's not a thing I think it's much better to move to more sustainable forms of energy generation, I mean who would be afraid of that? You would be if your whole economy relied on the sale of oil and gas
 
Well, not. Unless you think weatherman is an insult. I simply stated a fact.

Just imagine the response were I to post ‘a pushy Scandinavian teenager’s' opinions here.

He’s a weather announcer with opinions. He has been funded by the Heartland Institute - whether he still is I don’t know - it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s your prerogative to agree with him - I’m just questioning his expertise.
Better perhaps to question the data? That he's a weatherman does not invalidate the point about scaling graphs to make them more/less alarming (using public access data and excel) and he's quite correct to point out how graphs are being scaled to suggest things are far worse than they might arguably actually be. It's a very common way of misrepresenting data and the graph he produced is no worse or better that the one he damns.

Still, if there was a clear properly delineated set of equations that indisputably linked CO2 with climate change, perhaps neither of us would have to waste our respective time.

I've been in this since 2005 and no-one at all in that whole time has been able to provide this to me. Even then, whenever I was asked to debate this, no-one would get on the podium if I insisted on this first point being unassailably supported out of the blocks. Even a wind turbine business owner didn't want to argue this point (and let's be clear, I can generally follow this level of maths and when I'm stuck I have friends who can do it better).

Kind of surprised there isn't a whole page with this on many of the pro-CO2 sites. I do see graphics that are about GCSE level geography standard, a lot of appeals to authority, many of which are specious and a lot of 'assuming it's true, so do what we tell you'.

You however, are free so correct my assumption I'm being bull-shined by alarmists. Write out the maths for me, yourself, no wild goose chase paper links, provide the assumptions made, point me at the data and I'll work it through. If it's correct, I'll share it world-wide and we can all stop debating it based on a clear unequivocal set of connections and correlations, which agree perfectly well with real world measurements, that cannot be disputed.

I'll even send it to Mr. Watt and dare him to publish it.
 
Better perhaps to question the data? That he's a weatherman does not invalidate the point about scaling graphs to make them more/less alarming (using public access data and excel) and he's quite correct to point out how graphs are being scaled to suggest things are far worse than they might arguably actually be. It's a very common way of misrepresenting data and the graph he produced is no worse or better that the one he damns.

Still, if there was a clear properly delineated set of equations that indisputably linked CO2 with climate change, perhaps neither of us would have to waste our respective time.

I've been in this since 2005 and no-one at all in that whole time has been able to provide this to me. Even then, whenever I was asked to debate this, no-one would get on the podium if I insisted on this first point being unassailably supported out of the blocks. Even a wind turbine business owner didn't want to argue this point (and let's be clear, I can generally follow this level of maths and when I'm stuck I have friends who can do it better).

Kind of surprised there isn't a whole page with this on many of the pro-CO2 sites. I do see graphics that are about GCSE level geography standard, a lot of appeals to authority, many of which are specious and a lot of 'assuming it's true, so do what we tell you'.

You however, are free so correct my assumption I'm being bull-shined by alarmists. Write out the maths for me, yourself, no wild goose chase paper links, provide the assumptions made, point me at the data and I'll work it through. If it's correct, I'll share it world-wide and we can all stop debating it based on a clear unequivocal set of connections and correlations, which agree perfectly well with real world measurements, that cannot be disputed.

I'll even send it to Mr. Watt and dare him to publish it.
Expecting me to provide indisputable maths showing CO2 is definitely causing climate change is I’d suggest asking a bit much.

I’m not a scientist, still less a scientist studying climate. I listen to organisations such as NASA & many others who do. My inclination is to take the consensus/majority view from these study groups, which seems to be that human activity/ burning fossil fuels are contributing. Are they all wrong? Maybe, I’m happy to admit I don’t have the scientific knowledge to prove one way or the other.

The result being though that I take these organisations findings/opinion over someone like Mr Watts who doesn’t seem to be disputing an average global temperature increase but presumably doesn’t think it’s anything to do with human CO2 influence. If his view turns out to be correct & there’s nothing to worry about, kudos to him [and you]. We’ll all be happy if that’s the case.

As in all these things, only time will tell.

I don’t think there is absolute proof to convince those who don’t believe AGW.

Do you accept that global warming appears to be happening? If so what’s the cause?
 
There is also the precession of the equinoxes, solar cycles which are not properly understood and may never be if the sun turns out to be an irregular variable as many stars are, ocean salinity driving the currents like the Gulf stream, vulcanism,variability of the Earth's magnetic field, etc.

In my view the climate is changing and downright stupid to pollute if we can avoid it but how much of that change is down to pollution and whether we can halt the changes is uncertain.

I remember a programme years ago where they said that the climate was all over the place before the onset of an ice age and for (geologically) short periods maybe even a decade or less the temperature rose, fell, stabilised then turned cold.

We have very precise data for a very short period, geologically, to tie that in with less precise data is IMO fraught with potential for error.
Couple this with the political opportunity - "Don't complain about what this is costing you, we have to do it to save the planet." - And who knows where we are.

Incidentally "saving the planet" always annoys me, the planet will still be here and probably most other life forms on it would be happier if we weren't. (OK the cats would need to train new staff but other than that :))
 
What makes me suspicious of the whole shebang is the people that tell us that the sea levels are rising and the planet is warming/cooling, the glaciers are melting, etc etc are the ones who get exceedingly richer and richer and buy properties 'on the beachfront'.

IMO if I was concerned about about (eg) a volcano being about to erupt, I would not buy a house on the adjacent land.
 
Our earths orbit is, the same as all the other planets, gradually moving away from the sun, but the sun is increasingly getting hotter and hotter as it fuses together ever lighter and lighter atoms as it ages.
Maybe the earth is not moving away from the sun faster than the sun is getting hotter?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...n-and-so-are-all-the-planets/?sh=320f65206f7d
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-problem-is-getting-worse/?sh=596d10e72748
NASA doesn’t agree with your maybe that the sun is currently getting hotter appreciably.

That article is about the sun’s life over billions of years.
What makes me suspicious of the whole shebang is the people that tell us that the sea levels are rising and the planet is warming/cooling, the glaciers are melting, etc etc are the ones who get exceedingly richer and richer and buy properties 'on the beachfront'.

IMO if I was concerned about about (eg) a volcano being about to erupt, I would not buy a house on the adjacent land.
Suspicion is the operative word. Who are all these people getting 'exceedingly richer & richer' from the global warming swindle & 'buying properties on the beachfront' - can you name one?

Plenty of people around the world live on or near volcanos, even live ones, the reason being eruptions result in very fertile soil.
 
This could go in Fortean documenaries or non-fortean film, but this thread seems like a fine place to include it. Oliver Stone has a film promoting increased nuclear power to fight climate change:
NUCLEAR NOW takes viewers on an educational and thought-provoking journey with legendary director Oliver Stone, as he explores the powerful impact of nuclear energy. The looming climate crisis remains unresolved, and the volume of carbon-free electricity needed over the next 30 years is almost unimaginable. This film aims to remove the fears associated with nuclear energy and highlight the sustainability and affordability it can bring in the pursuit of restoring the world’s ecosystems and economies.
 
This could go in Fortean documenaries or non-fortean film, but this thread seems like a fine place to include it. Oliver Stone has a film promoting increased nuclear power to fight climate change:

The soundtrack is one of the last projects by synthesiser maestro, the late Vangelis.
 
I think it's wise to bear in mind that every living organism affects the environment, usually in multiple ways. Trees may not move around but they can crack rocks and demolish your house - while at the same time replacing CO2 with oxygen.
 
Interesting alternative theory regarding ice ages and CO2: https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/46277/

Some quotes:
CO2 is good for you, and it’s going to get real cold not too long from now
It is speculated that orbital cycles and CO2 are involved, but it has never been explained why some of these orbital cycles produce ice-ages and interglacials, while others do nothing at all.. The intriguing answer, .... (is) humble dust falling on ice sheets and darkening their surface. However, why would dust exhibit this strange intermittency, only arriving in vast dust clouds every 80 or 100 kyr.
But due to oceanic cooling during ice ages, and therefore oceanic absorption of CO2, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are drawn down during the ice age and eventually reach as low as 180 ppm. This is dangerously low for much of the world’s plant life. The result of this low CO2 is that the high altitude Gobi Plateau turns into a CO2 desert.
Thus the delightful conclusion to this study, is that during ice-ages it is low atmospheric CO2 concentrations that cause global warming.
 
Excellent report out today on the role of undersea volcanoes.

Scientists Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change – But the Media Don’t Want to Know.
(...) A group of oceanographers led by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego identified in total 19,325 new volcanoes, or seamounts, to add to the existing known total of 24,643.
(...) Erupting volcanoes under the sea produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide and must play a part in pushing warming water and nutrients around the surrounding areas, with possible effects on currents and surrounding marine life. Some scientists believe that they play an important part in ocean mixing and have a role in determining long-term climate.
report by Chris Morrison
 
Excellent report out today on the role of undersea volcanoes.

Scientists Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change – But the Media Don’t Want to Know.
(...) A group of oceanographers led by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego identified in total 19,325 new volcanoes, or seamounts, to add to the existing known total of 24,643.
(...) Erupting volcanoes under the sea produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide and must play a part in pushing warming water and nutrients around the surrounding areas, with possible effects on currents and surrounding marine life. Some scientists believe that they play an important part in ocean mixing and have a role in determining long-term climate.
report by Chris Morrison
OK, so it is merely coincidence that recent outpourings from marine volcanos has overlapped with the Anthropocene era, and then only noticeably since the Industrial Age?

Intriguing.
 
OK, so it is merely coincidence that recent outpourings from marine volcanos has overlapped with the Anthropocene era, and then only noticeably since the Industrial Age?

Intriguing.
Do you think humans caused these volcanoes, somehow?
 
Farms need water to feed an ever growing population.
But the large industrial operations are killing the small local farmers, who now cannot farm unless they can afford to drill a well. So lots of families who used to earn a living as farmers are out of work, while thier fields lay fallow and weed ridden.
 
recent outpourings from marine volcanos
It's not 'recent outpourings', it's recent discovery and observation. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the ocean beds. The undersea volcanic activity would have been going on, more or less, continuously for thousand upon thousands of years.
Just because humans hadn't found them doesn't mean they weren't there. And there will be plenty more to be found too.
 
Excellent report out today on the role of undersea volcanoes.

Scientists Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change – But the Media Don’t Want to Know.
(...) A group of oceanographers led by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego identified in total 19,325 new volcanoes, or seamounts, to add to the existing known total of 24,643.
(...) Erupting volcanoes under the sea produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide and must play a part in pushing warming water and nutrients around the surrounding areas, with possible effects on currents and surrounding marine life. Some scientists believe that they play an important part in ocean mixing and have a role in determining long-term climate.
report by Chris Morrison

Still reading the Daily Sceptic eh Trev?

This from NASA:

Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in relation to climate change because they release CO2 (and other gases) into our atmosphere.

However, human contributions to the carbon cycle are more than 100 times those from all the volcanoes in the world - combined.
In comparison, while volcanic eruptions do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens-sized eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo-sized eruption of CO2 twice daily.

Essentially, CO2 emissions from human activities dwarf those of volcanoes.
Climate scientists bring up volcanic eruptions to better understand and explain short periods of cooling in our planet’s past. Every few decades or so, there is a volcanic eruption (e.g., Mount Pinatubo, El Chichón) that throws out a tremendous number of particles and other gases. These will effectively shield us enough from the Sun to lead to a short-lived global cooling period. The particles and gases typically dissipate after about 1 to 2 years, but the effect is nearly global.

Comparatively speaking, greenhouse gas warming coming from human activities (primarily driven by the human burning of fossil fuels) will endure for millennia, even longer than nuclear waste.
Unless these discoveries are newly erupting they’re just part of the background volcanic activity that’s been going on forever. They were there emitting CO2 before discovery. The article can be summed up as ‘New Undersea Volcanos Found Due To Improved Mapping’. Bravo but nothing more. He doesn’t even claim volcanic emissions are increasing & if you look it up on institutions which study this, none of them say they are.

If you think NASA are either lying or wrong & prefer to take the daily sceptic opinion it’s up to you. Do you think NASA are deluded or part of the Great Swindle?
 
It's not 'recent outpourings', it's recent discovery and observation. We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the ocean beds. The undersea volcanic activity would have been going on, more or less, continuously for thousand upon thousands of years.
Just because humans hadn't found them doesn't mean they weren't there. And there will be plenty more to be found too.
I'm not in the slightest disagreeing with your point. My point is that the effect of these things has been there in the background all the time and matters not one jot in relation to what human activity has done in recent times.

The current models worked from a basis of a certain level of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, and then what we did on top.

What proportion of the existing levels came from subsea volcanoes is somewhat immaterial — it's incidence was accounted for even if not its source.
 
Well, I've been promised global warming and it's still flippin' cold. In May. Threatened with a possible frost tonight. I've sold all my winter coats based on these promises, who do I sue?
This is why they changed it from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Too many folks laughing, saying that British summers are so miserable, they'd welcome it.
 
Back
Top