Climate change: An exaggeration?? A discussion.

[SealLion]

I've been reading and hearing a lot of climate change news lately (and in the past as well), but as learning is a part of one's life and trying to be a little more open-minded on different issues (accepting the fact that we all have opinions and perceptions of our own), I'm starting to believe that climate change isn't all that it's been cut out to be as per the news media's reports.

I find that BBC News has some interesting articles on how much alarmism is in the Climate change news lately.

check it out:


Hardly a day goes by without a new dire warning about climate change. But some claims are more extreme than others, giving rise to fears that the problem is being oversold and damaging the issue.

IMHO, I think that this idea of the dangers of climate change are being oversold.

there's too much alarmist tendencies on the table here.

I recall reading one article on Wikileaks about the climate change issue. Go there if you like and make your own decision on it.

there's more from the above link (which I'll give later):


How much has the planet warmed up over the past century? Most people reckon between two and three degrees. They are not even close. The real figure, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is 0.6C

That could very well be.

I also recall watching a video on the fallacies and misrepresentations of the pro climate-change people and the scoop is out that climate change has been happening on a natural basis since time immemorial.

It's not necessarily due to human investment in it's technologies, but more akin to the sun's solar flares:

The name of the film was: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

HEre's one reason that seems to resonate with me re: this issue:


"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

To serve a purpose.
Ah, yes. That makes sense of it all now.

Here's some insight:


The difficulty for climate scientists is that their work has a political dimension.....

Neat, eh??


.....Take the study carried out by researchers at the Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica. It claimed a link between climate change and frog extinctions. ...The press had a field day, as it seemed to show global warming was causing damage now......

well, it's a sad day that any species would die off due to any human activity where-ever it may be.
But take note:


(Dr Pounds' team found that)....global warming is producing ideal conditions for a fungus to thrive which causes the disease, which then kills off the frogs. Critics say there's a problem with this theory. The fungus doesn't need high temperatures to wipe out frogs. It is killing frogs in different areas with different climates.

It might seem to show a tendency to demonstrate something else here though.

Dont' get me wrong. I'm all for ensuring that the planet stays healthy from human activity.

It's important that the planet and it's environment is sustained. Not necessarily for further human development but also for the environment itself. The environment does need to be protected. That's true.

but there's things here in this article and other articles that I've come across on the internet that seem to suggest that climate change isn't all that it's been made out to be.


( Dr. Pounds)......admitted (he) did not know how the fungus was affected by climate but was confident they had shown as statistical relationship.

there are sceptitcs around:


But there is another group who are involved - climate change sceptics in the United States. ...criticising Dr Pounds' research to show you can't trust climate scientists or the journals they write in.....

read here from the link:


BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | A load of hot air? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm)

Here's another BBC article that kind of substantiates the above view:


Simon Cox reports on how scientists are becoming worried by the quality of research used to back up the most extreme climate predictions.....Every week we are assailed by scare stories about the climate.


Here's the link for the above qoute:


BBC - Radio 4 - The Battle for Influence - Overselling Climate Change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thebattleforinfluence/pip/abkim/)


sending out the truth is one thing, but alarmism on this( or any other issue) is another.

Or is it that climate change isn't what it's really made out to be??
Maybe it is all something that has been happening since 'forever' and climate change isn't an issue that it's supposed to be. Maybe there's other things that are behind the climate change movement.


Here's a YT link to climate change hoax that I found to be somewhat reputable amongst others.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZYCL_JVOLc

There's another thing. when using instruments that show some warming of the plante's surface the actual recorded value is subject to some errors.

Most of the data that you hear about comes from surface weather stations.

Many of these are located in urban areas. Those urban areas have been expanding and using more energy ofc.

So when these stations observe a temperature rise, they are actually measuring an island effect that others like to call the "urban heat island effect".

Apparently, this urban heat island effect is real but small.

Here's the link to the above explanation and others too which bring about a number of arguments and counter-arguments on climate change issues:


BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm)

IDK...I'm just voicing my opinion and maybe some of you would like to respond.

[slikrapid]

I've been reading and hearing a lot of climate change news lately (and in the past as well)

some facts need to be revealed in order to understand some of the reports out there:

- the climate has only one constant characteristic - its the change, it simply changes constantly - that's one of the reasons why weather predictions can't be done weeks in advance and sometimes they are wrong even about the next day's weather - since climate is defined within about a 30 year period it gets even harder as one can only hope that the previous 30 year period can tell you something about the next 30 years - to be relatively sure one would need a few of those periods and take into consideration the effects of the universe too (like the sun influence, earth's rotation cycles, changes in their distance and so on)

- its always more reasonable to take actual measurements on the earth (taking into account margins of error of the used instruments, possible external influences on the instruments and so on) as opposed to computer models, which nowadays make up the basis for way too many predictions of future climate changes, since these models can be easily manipulated (intentionally or not) as they can give extremely different results even with minute changes of the input data

- the media has shown an insatiable appetite for sensationalist news regardless of the area reported from and scientists with lesser moral/scientific values have embraced this trend hoping for publicity, increased book sales & lucrative research deals/funds from interested organizations that support some agenda - for such individuals manipulation of data is nothing repulsive as it brings numerous benefits - also considering the mainstream media, it is owned by big corporations - they are NOT objective - the interests of media owners or news financiers come first - everything that goes against their views/interests gets distorted, ridiculed, denied, marginalized or simply left out of the media

- reports coming from 'world' organizations (UN, WHO,...) or their adviser co-operators cannot be trusted as their imperative is supporting the corporations & international big business - their so called experts & scientists are paid to further the globalist agenda (NWO) - for example the IPCC was specifically created to prove the global warming as a by human activity caused effect, so everything they produce will go in that direction since thats basically their job description

- last but not least there is the profit question - what exactly is achieved by inflating the global warming (caused by humans) story:

creation of new taxes that are (will be) enforced globally on all people & organizations - the so called green taxes and those that refuse to pay will probably be punished by hefty fines under the international or local laws

creation of huge interest in new energy solutions that will naturally cost more than the old ones, but its for the 'right' cause, right?

creating the excuse to pump up the costs for existing energy solutions (or creating artificial shortages), basically forcing the people to choose the new solutions

undermining the ability of 3rd world countries to continue on their path to much wanted prosperity by depriving them of old energy solutions and forcing them into further debt by imposing the emission restrictions & new costly energy solutions

also, this can be viewed as an exercise in imposing global rules for the NWO supporters - if the strategy works, you can expect further global rules spread in the same manner as those related to 'global warming'

naturally, all this doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned about the nature or the earth, but it means they should be careful what is covertly being sold to them and whose interests such global actions really serve - basically when globalists unite behind some idea/action one should be extra careful as these ideas/actions aren't in people's best interest - they serve the corporate interests

---

as for human caused global warming - the theory heavily relies on the supposed increase in CO2 as the main culprit for the greenhouse effect - everything else, like the increase in temperatures, melting ice and whatnot is based on this single argument and is supposed to be a direct result of CO2 influence

the reason why other greenhouse gasses cannot be used to support the theory is because they have already been regulated by various agreements and nowadays these gasses show no increase, rather a decrease or stagnation (this includes methane too)

as we know the main frontman that gave this theory a substantial publicity (and who is in the meantime profiting from it by selling carbon offsets to whoever feels the need to be exculpated from the sin of harming the nature with CO2 emissions) is al gore with his presentation that has the 'hockey stick' diagram as its culminating 'proof' of the human caused CO2 increase (and then naturally the warming increase and so on)

he even got a nobel prize for this and still holds it even though many have shown that his diagram is wrong as he intentionally manipulated the data itself (regarding future prognosis, as they were derived from arbitrarily chosen results of computer models) and also wrongly interpreted the connection between CO2 & temperature (he claimed the rise in temperature is caused by the increase in CO2 but upon closer inspection of the diagram it becomes obvious that its the other way around - the data show that first there is an increase in temperature and then after about 200 years the CO2 follows the temperature trend and starts increasing - this is easily explained by the sun's influence on the earth - as the sun increases its activity or the earth's trajectory comes closer to the sun so the earth gets warmer, which causes the oceans to slowly heat up and release some of its massive amounts of stored CO2 - this is a slow process and it takes around 200 years for the CO2 to follow the heating up caused by the sun)

so the aforementioned natural process is the one thats mainly responsible for global warming & later CO2 increase - as for human influence in CO2 emissions, it is estimated to be around 1-4% (and this influence is not cumulative through years) so if one imagines that we reduce our total emissions by 50% (which is probably impossible to do anyways), then our influence on total CO2 emissions would be 0,5-2%, which shows how minute our actual influence on total CO2 emissions really is - furthermore there are estimates that a larger volcano can emit more CO2 in the air than all humanity (industry included) could do in 200 years! - this alone clearly shows the amount of exaggeration that this 'human caused' global warming theory has been creating without proper scientific basis, but as mentioned above, with the real agenda being the further exploitation of human gullibility or ignorance

also, have you noticed how the 'human caused' global warming theory that started this has been gradually substituted by the term 'climate change' which sounds much more believable :rolleyes: