Global Warming: Fake DATA!

[PaulSacramento]

Reality is that everywhere you go ( almost) you see people doing something and where you don't ( China, India for example) you still see people that do know there is a problem.
In fact, I have no doubts that over the last 10 years almost everyone and every country has done something and has produced less than before.
So, where is the data about that?
Because I know for a fact that Canada has, most nordic countries have also, Japan has, the US has also.
Sure maybe not as much as some thing they should BUT we have produced LESS pollution and less waste than before.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abe: Another reason to doubt man's ability to effect global warming is the fact that we have people pushing the threat of global warming,telling us we need to take steps now and stop polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this threat has been used to stifle America's economy while China is not held to the same standards and are allowed to pollute the atmosphere.

Well, ya don't make a decision upon who is saying whatever - be they left, right, believers or naysayers. We need to only assess this based upon factual data accurately assessed - or as close to it as possible. That means we don't listen to the screaming crazies on ANY side. Because, let's be clear, the naysayers are potentially just as dangerous as the present true believers and the globalist left (on GW). It is possible that the screaming crazy believers actually happen to be correct, even if their understandings and reasoning behind their thinking is purely bogus. The naysayers also are operating upon insufficient data and understandings. If we only listen to the naysayers without sufficient verification - well, what they are WRONG? Which brings me to an important qualification.

There is a huge difference, concerning supposed GW, betwixt a naysayer and a SKEPTIC! To me, without more confirmation, better data, more accurate modeling, properly applied and sufficient data, and knowledgeable, prudent people coming to WHATEVER consensus, then I'll remain a skeptic. But with naysayers and true believers - as BOTH tend to have their minds are already made up, to me, both camps are filled with very dangerous people. And, we always, ALWAYS must be wary of studies funded by energy entities! That's just common sense.

Abe: This tells us that there is no real threat and this is just about politics in America. If it was as serious as a threat as we've heard China would not be polluting like they are.

Abe, newsflash: Chinese politicians are no different than others of their kind around the world. They are only concerned with the next election cycle. And when getting elected means making decisions to presently deploy resources where they are most popularly received and perceived NOW, they'll not likely worry too much about some unproven disaster projected for the distant future. A lot of those politicians won't even be alive in 15 or 20 years - think they are worried that people of the future will be upset because they didn't appropriately respond to some theories - even ones that were wildly popular. Nope! Their worried about the next election and votes.

Abe: It does us no good if only countries in the west take steps to prevent global warming while China is allowed to pollute the atmosphere. America has taken steps to not pollute and we clean up after ourselves but China has'nt at all.

Well, factor in many other countries, and you're right - supreme sacrifice in just certain pockets of the West would be insufficient, if we are catastrophically damaging our planet.

Here's the views of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, with a scientific perspective: http://www.reasons.org/articles/what-ab ... al-warming

Yeah,you're right. I just think this is a political issue more than a scientific issue.Thanks for the link.

[abelcainsbrother]

Abe: Another reason to doubt man's ability to effect global warming is the fact that we have people pushing the threat of global warming,telling us we need to take steps now and stop polluting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this threat has been used to stifle America's economy while China is not held to the same standards and are allowed to pollute the atmosphere.

Well, ya don't make a decision upon who is saying whatever - be they left, right, believers or naysayers. We need to only assess this based upon factual data accurately assessed - or as close to it as possible. That means we don't listen to the screaming crazies on ANY side. Because, let's be clear, the naysayers are potentially just as dangerous as the present true believers and the globalist left (on GW). It is possible that the screaming crazy believers actually happen to be correct, even if their understandings and reasoning behind their thinking is purely bogus. The naysayers also are operating upon insufficient data and understandings. If we only listen to the naysayers without sufficient verification - well, what they are WRONG? Which brings me to an important qualification.

There is a huge difference, concerning supposed GW, betwixt a naysayer and a SKEPTIC! To me, without more confirmation, better data, more accurate modeling, properly applied and sufficient data, and knowledgeable, prudent people coming to WHATEVER consensus, then I'll remain a skeptic. But with naysayers and true believers - as BOTH tend to have their minds are already made up, to me, both camps are filled with very dangerous people. And, we always, ALWAYS must be wary of studies funded by energy entities! That's just common sense.

Abe: This tells us that there is no real threat and this is just about politics in America. If it was as serious as a threat as we've heard China would not be polluting like they are.

Abe, newsflash: Chinese politicians are no different than others of their kind around the world. They are only concerned with the next election cycle. And when getting elected means making decisions to presently deploy resources where they are most popularly received and perceived NOW, they'll not likely worry too much about some unproven disaster projected for the distant future. A lot of those politicians won't even be alive in 15 or 20 years - think they are worried that people of the future will be upset because they didn't appropriately respond to some theories - even ones that were wildly popular. Nope! Their worried about the next election and votes.

Abe: It does us no good if only countries in the west take steps to prevent global warming while China is allowed to pollute the atmosphere. America has taken steps to not pollute and we clean up after ourselves but China has'nt at all.

Well, factor in many other countries, and you're right - supreme sacrifice in just certain pockets of the West would be insufficient, if we are catastrophically damaging our planet.

Here's the views of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe, with a scientific perspective: http://www.reasons.org/articles/what-ab ... al-warming

Yeah,you're right. I just think this is a political issue more than a scientific issue.Thanks for the link.

[melanie]

By the 1800's there was estimated to be 1 billion people on earth, 2 billion by 1930. Forward 30 years and the was roughly just under half the amount alive today, around 3.5 billion.
Today over 7 billion.
An increase of 5 billion in under 100 years.
Over a span of thousands of years human growth slowly grew until the industrial revolution. Human population growth is showing no signs of slowing down, without even taking into consideration our greed, waste and negligent practices from a purely scientific standpoint when one species dominates the planet in such numbers the results will impact on the environment.
Cause and effect.
As more land is cleared and more resources needed other species will pay the price, as will natural resources. That's not politics it's math.
How do you clothe and feed in excess of 7 billion people? You do so from the land, you take from the resources.
That resource is earth.
In its abundance of creatures, vegetation, minerals, fossil fuels and water supply's.
People get so caught up in the debate and the politics I think they forget how precious and important this planet is. A very insular, self serving attitude that places humans at the top of the stratosphere, top dog ruling by either a thought pattern of an evolutionary stronghold, or an idea the God gave us dominion.
Either way the intended design was not this.
Animal extinction is not unique to this century or this millennium. The argument that something has always naturally occurred is just pure ignorance or arrogance when the data shows that the rate of extinction occurring now surpasses any mass extinction in previous history by an alarming rate.
Creatures designed by God, for His glory are being wiped from the face of the earth, not due to any other reason but human expansion. Animals that have roamed this planet for countless years are being obliterated for their habitat, for their skins, tusks and fur, for food, for sport, experimentation and by changes to the ecology.
In our greed and arrogance and our position at the top of the food chain we have totally disregarded the balance of the ecosystem, every change, every extinction has a carry on effect. By God's design.
It is a fragile system, with a basic principle you do not take more than you can consume. Every species lives up to this except us.
Not only do we take more, but we exploit and turn all we can into a commodity for a position of advantage.
Plants and seeds are now owned by individuals, patented by companies like Monsanto, who have bio engineered our crops, ownership driven by greed that is changing the ecology of plants and produce. Not to mention the ways in which farming which has been the backbone of agriculture has been manipulated for the benefit of a few.
Farmers have no choice but to comply or lose their income.
Factory farming has become the only financial viable way for the industry to make money. I don't blame the farmers, the companies they sell their meat to dictate the market. More meat, at less cost. The factory conditions paid for and instigated by the market leaders.
They are in debt to the same companies that dictate the conditions.
The biggest price paid by the animals.
God never intended for such cruelty to animals. To treat them as a commodity with zero respect.
The privilege of dominion has a level of responsibility, care and compassion.
Allowing any animal to suffer uneccessary pain or hardship is not the intended design and is not in accordance with the nature of God.
Humans have tipped the balance of nature not only by necessity but more so by greed.
We have managed to 'out fish' our oceans, not by fishermen but by traulers with nets that drag every marine life into massive nets that catch tons of 'fish' with every haul. Times that by several thousand every day.
If that's not sustainable we now have fish pods, in the ocean.
Factory fishing
The ecological damage these 'fish farms' are doing along the coastlines are irreversible. It is the mere magnitude that is needed for consumption that is destroying the ecological balance.
Not to mention the pollution that industry pumps into our ocean everyday.
Fast fashion, in the 1950's and 60's there were 4 fashions trends a year, seasonal. Now it's weekly. Fashion houses sell clothing at a fraction of the cost previously known. India, China and Indonesia pump out clothing that make it so we can buy an outfit for every occasion. All the dyes and chemicals being pumped straight into their waterways.
The long term ramifications for these villages who also drink this water is catastrophic. We don't see that on the morning news!!
But the information is attainable just not readily so. Because industry dictates the media, we are splashed with every angle and image that sells a product.
The ultimate unthinking consumer.
But not uncaring.
I think that if people really knew the price that is paid by people, animals and the enviroment then there would be be a revolution but a very calculated system is in place to keep us ignorant and wanting more.
There is nothing I am more passionate about than firstly animals, humans included followed closely by the enviroment because without a sustainable enviroment then we are all in big trouble!!

[abelcainsbrother]

The earth itself pollutes the planet. I remember when we had the oil spill in the gulf and it had to be cleaned up but there are bacteria that feed on the oil to help clean it up.We have natural oil wells at the bottom of the ocean spewing oil into the oceans and man can do nothing about it.The earth has openings that allow it to happen we just don't see it hapening.We also have volcanoes that are spewing pollutants into the atmosphere and a bad enough volcanoe eruption does far more damage to the atmosphere than man can.We have had climate fluctuations that are normal and it cannot be said that it is man caused. There are cycles with the sun where at times it puts out more heat and energy than at other times and this can heat up the earth and cool the earth. Environmental wacko's in America have used environmental issues to shackle America's economy and all of their predictions about the effects of man-made global warming have turned out to be false prophecys.

[Hortator]

The Earth is pretty tough. It has survived asteroids the size of Texas colliding with it head on.

But to add more meat to this post, I think the modern climate change movement is a corruption of conservationism of the 20th century. Rather than preserve picturesque sites, the movement has shifted towards pure public policy manipulation, energy to be specific. The temptation for mischief is just too great when you deal with energy. If you have a country's energy supply, you have the power to put them back to the stone age.

[abelcainsbrother]

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -Rose.html

[edwardmurphy]

The Earth is pretty tough. It has survived asteroids the size of Texas colliding with it head on.

Nobody has said that climate change will destroy the Earth. Earth will be fine. It's the people of Earth who will suffer.

[Hortator]

The Earth is pretty tough. It has survived asteroids the size of Texas colliding with it head on.

Nobody has said that climate change will destroy the Earth. Earth will be fine. It's the people of Earth who will suffer.

Humans are too stubborn to perish, even if you don't believe in an end times prophecy. We'll build underground vaults, wait for the storm to pass, then come up for real light and rebuild.

Now if the SUN ever went out....

[edwardmurphy]

Sure, humanity will survive but economies will collapse, nations will fail, and billions of humans will perish due to floods, famine, disease, and war.

So is your position that nothing qualifies as a crisis unless it's likely to lead to the complete extinction of humanity?

[Philip]

Ed: Sure, humanity will survive but economies will collapse, nations will fail, and billions of humans will perish due to floods, famine, disease, and war.

So is your position that nothing qualifies as a crisis unless it's likely to lead to the complete extinction of humanity?

Actually, currently, both positions are unproven extremes as to what might happen, or as to what is actually going on. The first, "the sky is falling/melting," is unproven and unknowable. ACB's is, bet the farm/the planet's health that we're not hurting the environment and that there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Don't ever assume that industry doesn't have a huge stake in minimizing its potentially negative impacts. It makes total sense to clean up our emissions - as warming isn't the only concern, obviously. And it does not make sense to create allow some globalist organizations to be allowed to dictate carbon taxes and how that money will be utilized, etc. That's likely just going to be all BS politics and vast billions wasted, mostly to allow unelected people the power to have control, power and influence - and likely without doing a dang thing to address the supposed issues. And not only has the woefully incomplete and terribly short period of data (what's a 150 years of incomplete data in cities to a 4.5 billion year old planet?) been selectively cherry-picked and put into computer model algorithms ridden with unproven assumptions, but to assume all of the many complex variables impacting this issue could be caused or solved by simply (even radically) reducing carbon emissions - how presumptuous. So, yes, clean up our industries, develop and monitor better and better science, but don't let the lefties who would use this politically drive our decisions drive our response. And don't let the naysayers deny reality IF what they say ISN'T reality. Be a climate agnostic - go where good, honest, diligent science might lead us - and keep the politics and the political agenda attachers our of it! The more one researches this issue, the more they should realize how complex it is, and how incomplete our understandings are.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sure, humanity will survive but economies will collapse, nations will fail, and billions of humans will perish due to floods, famine, disease, and war.

So is your position that nothing qualifies as a crisis unless it's likely to lead to the complete extinction of humanity?

Just think,if we have a volcanoe eruption it takes years for the atmosphere to rid itself of the pollution,it blocks out the sun light, and then acid rain for years.