8 Ridiculous Arguments Against global Warming

1 05 2011

 By Christopher Jay Thompson

 

 

On the website for the American Policy Round Table there was an article called 8 arguments against global warming. This information was supplied by  the Heartland Institute. Before we delve into the contents of that  article, let’s examine what the Heartland institute is. It claims to be a Non-profit research and education organization. Yet, what they really are is a corporate funded media lobbyist group. Some of their  Biggest contributors have been Exxon, Wal-Mart and Philip Morris. So you coul imagine the credibility of an organization that is funded by corporate money.

     So let us now turn our attention to the 8 Arguments against global warming:

1) Most Scientists do not think human activity is responsible for global warming and there is no convincing evidence.

this is false. They refer to the Oregon petition as proof of their statement. As is turns out the Oregon petition is a Fabrication. So there goes that argument.

2) The most reliable sources say there is no data that shows a trend in warming.

False.  NASA says there is a definite trend in warming according to satellite data. I guess they don’t consider NASA a reliable source. But the oil companies are? I guess NASA is a part of this sinister global conspiracy.

3) Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. scientists have also cheated by tweaking the numbers.

False. Although models of the 1990s were rather crude, current models are rather complex. As far as the Question of their acuracy, they are not a magic window into the future. there is no crystal ball.

The accusations of the scientists cheating, there is no evidence to support such a claim. I am curious who there sources(Exxon) are. This argument sounds like more conspiracy theory.

4) IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Yes they have.

 

5)A modest amount of global warming is good for the environment and beneficial to the natural world.

False- First of all I don’t even know what they consider modest. If the global temperature  rises 5  degrees we are toast. Even a 1 or 2 degree rise in global temperature could have serious ramifications. Remember we are talking about global temperature, not regional temperatures.

6) Efforts to reduce green house gasses would be costly and wouldn’t stop the climate from changing.

You have got to be kidding. It would be costly? I think the Fortune 500 companies that are  polluting the most can afford it.

The claim that we can’t do anything about it is just irresponsible. Is is saying”well, we probably can’t stop the climate from changing,so lets just pollute till our heart’s content”.

7) Efforts by state governments  to reduce emissions would be expensive and would bust state budgets.

this falls under the nobody knows for sure category. Yes, the measures would be expensive. But to say that they know for sure that it will bust state budgets is a rash statement. Apparently the Heartland Institute can see into the future. 

8) The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets”. Make no drastic changes. Invest in atmospheric research. Investments should only be made if they are economically viable.

So not true. This one needs no commentary.

 

Well there we have it. Notice how the  arguments contradict one another . They keep shifting from it isn’t real, to humans don’t cause it, to its a good thing,to noting can be done about it. I think the credibility of the Heartland Institute has gone down the toilet.


Advertisements

Actions

Information

29 responses

4 05 2011
marriagecoach1

Nemo, apparently you refuse to read my paper or refuse to comment on it, which is it? I gave you the link.
John Wilder

2 05 2011
rogerthesurf

There you go Nemo,

Some info on Ted Turner.
http://www.jonesreport.com/article/04_08/28turner_911.html

Ted Turner helps fund the UN. Why would a private person no matter how rich, do that then?

Oh in case you still can’t make the connection, the UN both funds the IPCC and supports it administratively and politically.

Here is my question again.

Currently what is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Is it greater than 50%, between 20% and 50%, between 1% and 20% or less than 1%?

Come on, you are busy telling us how dumb we are, surely a smart guy like you would know the answer? I even gave you the answer on a link last week which you never read.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

3 05 2011
nemo

yeah, Because its from Alex Jones it couldn’t possibly be some crazy right wing conspiracy theory.

3 05 2011
nemo

Roger, where are the academic papers to prove it.LOL

3 05 2011
rogerthesurf

Excuse me?

What are you talking about?

I am asking the question, YOU are well advised to find a paper or some other authority that supports your answer! That is if you have an answer.

3 05 2011
nemo

Im talking about your bullshit link. Why ask a question that you already know the answer to.

3 05 2011
rogerthesurf

Nemo,

You really do have a shattered mind.

I ask you a technical question, the answer is the same – whether you support AGW or not.

“Why ask a question that you already know the answer to”

The reason I ask it, is to see if you know. If you did know and had half a brain you would see what such an idiot you are being.

Like I said you are just making an absolute turkey of yourself in this forum.
Typical of most alarmists I suspect.

You really are a joke. This is not insult or abuse but a fact based on observation.

Cheers

Roger

4 05 2011
nemo

Roger I don’t owe yyou shit. I dont have to answer your questions because you didnt answer any of mine. I am not an alarmis I am a realist.Your stance ans a global warming is some wacked out conspiracy theory. You dont find my evidence for you liking, so you insult me. All the evidence points to Oil and energy compsanies paying milliond of dollars to sspread skepticism because it is cheaper than what it would cost to make the nessecesary changes to cut down on emmissions/ Yo8u are just afraid of a possible change to your confortable life style.You are so loyal to the companies who enslave you. Turn of your tv and learn to think for yourself. You do Realise that the more shit you talk, the more I will keep writing about climate change Just to spite you. I am getting tired of this supject already, But I live to piss off morons like you. You believe the things you do just because of your politicaol affiliations, that obviously to the far right. you should move to the states and join the teaparty.

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

If you knew as much about science as you claimed, you would know that all gasses respond to gravity. Some gasses are lighter than air such as helium and hydradgen and others are relatively heavier than air, but air is the constant that gasses are measured against. Since CO2 is so much heavier than air, it readily sinks to the ground. Again, this is why they use it in fire extinguishers because it sinks to the ground and smothers O2 form the fire. It is also the reason that it is scientifically impossible to stay in the atmosphere for 100 years as the very flawed computer model posits for the IPCC
John Wilder

2 05 2011
2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

Just because he says it does not make it so. You can’t repeal the law of gravity. Another brilliant explanation and illustration of CO2 not staying in the atmosphere is the spooky ground fog in movies for effect. Guess what, that is CO2.

John Wilder

2 05 2011
nemo

it this about you mister wilder?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2031722

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

Yes and no. The magazine did not bother to report thta I was homeless as the result of being robbed. I moved from Minnesota to Florida to start a new business. I did not have the ability to pay my bills. It took quite some time to recover from that.

And my post that I wrote is about climate science, more specifically scientifically disproving globa warming claims like massive saltwater fish kills due to fresh water infusion in the saltwater environment. I would really like to hear what you have to say about my scientific refutations.

John Wilder

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

I m not referring to the articles at the top of the page in red, I did not place them there.
John Wilder

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

As I said, my article is the first in the the group. Just paste it into your search engine. And if you punch into the search engine the phrase: “world wide cooling with record low temps being set around the world,” there are tons of articles with mine being the third from the top.

John Wilder

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

By the way, my article appears third on the first page of these sitings, a remarkably good page rank if I do say so myself, and yes, it is all my research.

John Wilder

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

I did my own research. There are multiple sites on the internet all saying the the specific gravity of CO2 is 1.52 or 152% heavier than air. As I said, I have a background in science with a science major and working in a scientific field for a number of years.

John Wilder

2 05 2011
nemo

you have a degree in behavioural science, that’s Psycology, How does t6hat make you an expert on climate science? you also have a degree in theology. thats the real reason you don’t believe in climate change. You dont think god would let us harm the earth, otr that gods creation is too powerful. your sources are 2 blogs, a conspiracy theory website, and some kinda of “news” site who’s credibility is questional at best. look at the my new post, read the documents there. The energy and oil companies are behind climate denial.

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

I also went to nursing school as well. I worked in a scientific field doing water testing on boilers and other chemical analysis. I also won an award for a chemical solution to deck building. As I said, I also have another major in science. The sites that I pasted in besides my own were the top two out of a whole lot of sites. Did you bother to read my post analysis, it is ALL HARD SCIENCE that is not debatable.

John

2 05 2011
nemo

none of those are climate science.

2 05 2011
rogerthesurf

Nemo,

Main trouble with this post, and your others, is that you have not quoted a single academic paper or a report that contains such quotes.

In other words, all you are doing is stating your opinion/beliefs, which is fine. Just do not expect to influence anyone with your opinions.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

2 05 2011
nemo

roger, On commetnts to you I sited som academic papers. I guess they werent good enough. What is your obsession with academic papers. Any college student could write an academic paper, and just be cause it is academic doesn’t necesarily mean its authentic. Roger, exxon even admitted to contributing money to the Heartland institute. The only thing I want to I want to influence my readers to do is to do there own research, and form there own oppinions. You, on the other hand attempt control what your readers know by giving them specific links. Roger, your problem Is that you need to have more on your blog than one page with an insane amount of links to rightwing weabsites funded by oil companies. By the way Roger, do you have any Academic papers to prove your comment?
as you can se, I have not erased any of your comments. Unlike you I do not delete every comment I disagree with.
roger, write more articles, and reaesrch more than one subject. you have way too much time on your hands.

2 05 2011
rogerthesurf

Nemo,

That is simply not true. To have a paper published in a scientific journal, one not only needs to have a minimum level of appropriate education but the paper is reviewed by a group of academics, usually the writer’s academic supervisors, for good scientific practice and standard of content. The publishers also vet and review the paper to make sure it meets their minimum standard.
In other words, there is a lot of research and work and a rigorous minimum standard needed in getting an academic paper published.
http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/index.php/TK/article/viewFile/89/97

Also here is a question for you.

Currently what is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Is it greater than 50%, between 20% and 50%, between 1% and 20% or less than 1%?

Cheers

Roger

BTW, I do not ever delete comments that I disagree with but I most certainly delete ones with abusive ad hominem content.

Ps What about Ted Turner contributing to the UN then? Is that OK by you?
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9709/18/turner.gift/

Let your readers do their own research? Then that lets you off the hook from doing your own right?

2 05 2011
nemo

what the does Ted turner have to do with anything? Come on Roger, you are getting quite silly.

2 05 2011
rogerthesurf

Nemo,
Do you have two eyes?

Answer my question about CO2 if you can and then I will tell you.:)

What does Exxon have to do with anything again?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

1 05 2011
marriagecoach1

You are obviously gulping the koolaid. Here are some facts for you that are not debateable. Google the specific gravity of CO2. You will note that it is 1.52 or in other words 152% heavier than air. The IPCC computer model posits that it will rise into the air and stay there for a 100 years. Not unless we repeal the law of Gravity.

We have actually been in a world wide cooling cycle setting record low temps around the globe for the last 8 years.

The warmest year on record was actually 1934 during the Great Dust Bowls.

I have a whole scientific refutation article that I can send you if you want to read some actual facts.

John Wilder

1 05 2011
nemo

i hope your resources arent from someone like Monkton, a journalist who claims to know more than scientists.

1 05 2011
nemo

actually 2010 was the warmest year on record.

2 05 2011
marriagecoach1

If you punch into Google the phrase world wide cooling with record lows being set around the globe, you will enocunter pages and pages of articles from newspapers around the world. You will also note my paper which is the first of the 3 sitings that I have copied and pasted into this email.

John Wilder

http://marriagecoach1.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/even-more-evidence-disproving-global-warming-theory-scientists-trash-the-scientific-method/

http://gaia.tribe.net/thread/a63e06b8-f1e7-4eaf-90af-4c003f86c915
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-record-low-temperatures-hit-america.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/25/opinion/How-could-CO2-cause-global-warming-30153848.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: