Aussies Living Simply

"Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change "Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #257181
    AndreAndre
    Keymaster

    I know, I’m being brave here.

    Some of you may have noticed the inevitable locking of the various threads that have been posted from time to time. (who knows, this thread may end up going the way of the dodo too).

    So, let me lay down some ground rules before we begin:

    1 Posts are not to abuse or disparage another person. Abuse will not be tolerated, and those posts will be deleted.

    2 Back up your point of view. (we don’t wan’t another ‘Is so – Is not’ debacle) Any posts that simply refute another’s – without some collaborating evidence, will be deleted.

    3 Stay on topic. While we can use ‘poetic license’ when some posts deviate slightly, those posts that go completely off-track will be deleted.

    Now people, this can be a good, clean forum – or it can (as has been seen previously) fall into a slanging-match. If it gets too bad, I’ll just wipe the whole thread.

    I make no bones about it, I’m on the ‘Climate Change is Real’ and as such, will not be involved with the discussions.

    Be mature. You are adults. Act like it.

    #526661
    calliecatcalliecat
    Participant

    I’m not interested in scientific waffle, but climate change is real, it’s been happening since time began

    it’s called “climate CHANGE” – it happens

    we might have sped things up here and now, but it’s still going to happen

    we just happen to be the ones alive during the next transition

    #526662
    BlueWrenBlueWren
    Member

    …..and without the well evidenced and understood climate changes of the past we would quite likely not even be here to discuss it now.

    Glad they weren’t a hoax anyway.I rather like being a human, and in response to that privilige I do try to be thoughtful about the planet and my place on it and my own responibility for caring for it.

    I’m with calliecat – we may well be speeding it up through “development”, which possibly prevents/alters natural forces from playing out over time as they would once have done , but it was going to happen sometime anyway,and the natural forces may have the last say, whether or not we try to change the outcomes.We just have to deal with it ,hopefully well by those with the appropriate scientific knowledge and skills, and even on our own small back yard scale.For example, I have never before had to deal with a June/July explosion of chickweed in my veg patch after “unseasonal” – who says? – winter rain and warmer temps.

    That’s all I have to say.

    #526663
    calliecatcalliecat
    Participant

    too many people have wanted and tried to dominate Nature, instead of working with it

    and we never will

    #526664
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    calliecat post=347043 wrote: I’m not interested in scientific waffle

    Then you have come to the right thread. As far as I know, no climate scientists post to this forum, so all you will get are comments and opinions based upon differing levels of research. This thread has been started to give everyone at ALS, scientist or not, a soap-box to stand on and air hir views. If you are interested in the science, a good place to start is Skeptical Science, an award winning site where the research into and evidence of global warming/climate change is discussed by scientists and explained in terms most of us can grasp.

    To be clear, I am not a climate scientist, but I have done a fair amount of research into the evidence I can access on the Internet and that has led me to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is real and is probably the greatest threat we humans currently face. I am hoping that someone will come up with compelling evidence to prove that AGW is a hoax and that we have nothing to worry about. This thread has been started with that goal in mind. Let’s see who will stand up and be counted.

    calliecat post=347043 wrote: climate change is real, it’s been happening since time began

    it’s called “climate CHANGE” – it happens

    Yes, natural forces affect global climate and will always continue to do so: see this discussion. The important thing to remember is that the climate changes due to influences we commonly refer to as ‘forcings’ and we have very good knowledge of what those forcings are. As time goes on and more research is undertaken, our understanding of climate forcings is improving. What we already know is that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is far higher than it has ever been since human civilisation began and we know the simple physics that explain why CO2 levels affect global temperatures. Scientific opinion, apart from a few denier echo chambers, agrees that doubling the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels will result in global temperatures rising by about three degrees. The bulk of this information and the underlying data are freely available on the internet, for those who are prepared to do the research.

    calliecat post=347043 wrote: we might have sped things up here and now, but it’s still going to happen we just happen to be the ones alive during the next transition

    According to some theories, the globe should be on a cooling trajectory, due to the Milancovitch cycles. Instead of cooling, we are measuring global warming, so we have not just sped things up: we have, in fact, reversed the natural cycle, by pumping unthinkable amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and by destroying natural carbon sinks by felling huge ares of rain forest. Our industrialisation and our agricultural practices are creating a global atmosphere unlike anything we have been able to trace through paleo records such as ice cores and geology. Extreme temperature anomalies are becoming more frequent, Arctic ice loss in summer is growing, ocean Ph is falling (ocean acidification), species migration toward the poles is accelerating; in short, we are conducting a chemistry experiment on Earth’s atmosphere and we don’t seem to be concerned that Earth is the only planet we have available. If/when the chemistry experiment reaches a critical tipping point, our species might become somewhat rueful that it did not heed the warnings.

    I look forward to hearing from those who believe that Climate Change/Global Warming is a hoax and seeing what robust scientific evidence they bring to our attention. Thanks, Andre, for starting this thread.

    #526665
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    BlueWren post=347045 wrote: I’m with calliecat – we may well be speeding it up through “development”, which possibly prevents/alters natural forces from playing out over time as they would once have done , but it was going to happen sometime anyway,and the natural forces may have the last say, whether or not we try to change the outcomes.

    See my reply to calliecat above. We haven’t sped things up, we have reversed the natural cycle of cooling we should be entering due to the Milankovitch cycles.

    BlueWren post=347045 wrote: We just have to deal with it ,hopefully well by those with the appropriate scientific knowledge and skills.

    If people are looking for a scientific response, I wonder why they are not prepared to accept the scientific knowledge and skills we already have. Science says we are putting our own heads into the noose of dangerous climate change due to our industries and agriculture. Science says that what is happening around the globe is due to us and is not just another natural cycle. If we want science to have a say in how we respond to climate change in the future, why do we not accept the science we already have? Whose advice will we take in future, if we don’t accept the advice we have already?

    Science is clearly saying that AGW is a real and present danger to Earth’s biosphere. Science is advising us to change our ways. Politics, not science, is putting AGW into the too hard basket. Who would you trust more: an expert scientist, or a politician? Look at the controversy about the Carbon Tax/ETS Labor has introduced: plenty of negative press, but precious little negative scientific evidence. Many people are being misled into looking only at the short-term economic cost, instead of the long term economic disaster which will play out, if the existing scientific warnings are ignored.

    #526666
    KrankywitchKrankywitch
    Member

    Based on scientific evidence (ice cores etc) I believe that Climate Change (CC) is a normal and repeating process of this still evolving planet. It is possible that industrialisation has sped up the process microscopically.

    I think the ’cause’ debate simply deflects us from the real issue – what are we going to do to cope with the changes?

    Also, regardless of the cause of CC, we really should be seriously looking at minimizing our impact on the planet.

    I would love to see the Carbon Tax (CT) used to provide rebates/incentives to business to make changes to the way they do business.

    I understand that Federal Government is in fact the biggest generator of carbon emissions (will they be getting a rebate for their increased electricity bills?). I’m sure that could be reduced dramatically by installing solar panels to all government office buildings to power the lighting and installing simple things like motion activated lights.

    I’d like to see all commercial/industrial buildings be required to have 80% of their roof surface solar panelled to power the common areas and outdoor lighting etc. I’d also like to see them install rainwater collection systems to irrigate the landscaping – run on a 12volt pump powered by the solar panels of course.

    If Fed Gov’t used the carbon tax revenue to drive these intiatives and assist business/commercial/industrial building owners with the cost, I would be happy to pay the tax – as the use of carbon emitting power reduces so will the tax and eventually I won’t have to pay it anymore.

    In its current form the CT does not provide any real incentive for polluters to change their ways – they simply pass the additional cost onto consumers and business as usual.

    In addition, with the introduction of the CT, the state funded rebates for home owners to install solar panels etc was dropped – a major step backwards.

    So, I don’t believe that the current CT regime will have any impact on carbon emissions and does not make any real contribution to the problem of our species coping with the coming climate change (whatever caused it).

    I’m still waiting for the real debate to begin – what changes are we going to make to our way of life to adapt to our new climate? What changes to work/leisure/construction/food production etc etc can we start developing now so that we are already adapting as the gradual changes occur. Because of course any really noticeable increase in temperatures/rainfall etc will happen over several generations – not in a year or even a decade. So bring on the real debates and discussions. :tup:

    #526667
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Krankywitch post=347053 wrote: Based on scientific evidence (ice cores etc) I believe that Climate Change (CC) is a normal and repeating process of this still evolving planet.

    There are many lines of evidence telling us that what is currently happening is abnormal. We are adding an enormous forcing to the natural variability.

    Krankywitch post=347053 wrote: It is possible that industrialisation has sped up the process microscopically.

    The vast majority of climate change currently under way is a result of human activity. We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the natural sinks can dispose of it.

    Krankywitch post=347053 wrote: I think the ’cause’ debate simply deflects us from the real issue – what are we going to do to cope with the changes?

    While what you say is true, this thread is for the discussion of whether AGW is a hoax. Many people do not accept the evidence that the climate is changing due to human industry and agriculture. Until our species is ready to accept that our activities, which are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, are the cause, the political reality is that little effort will be made to change the way we treat our planet. In fact, there was a thread here at ALS discussing the impacts of climate change, but that got closed down because most of the recent posts were disputing whether AGW is real or a hoax.

    The scientific evidence is pretty conclusive to indicate that the globe is warming, it is because of us and it will be bad for future generations. Until that evidence is universally accepted, it will be hard to get a concensus on what we can and should do about it.

    #526668
    KrankywitchKrankywitch
    Member

    For the last 20 or so years there have been ice cores taken from both poles that show distinct evidence of dramatic climate change. So dramatic that one core from antartica contained pieces of tropical plants at the 500,000 years ago level.

    The type of ice at different levels indicates the temperature at that age, it can also be measured for carbon levels. At several levels that amount of carbon in the ice is directly relative to the type of ice & therefore the temperature of the planet – higher carbon = higher temp.

    These cores also provide strong evidence that a period of global warming is followed by a period of glacialisation. This planet appears to cycle from cooking to freezing as it evolves – we are lucky enough to have become ‘modern man’ during the long interim of change from freeze to cook.

    The dust bowls of Ethiopia and Eritrea still have residual areas of the rainforests that once covered the sub-Sahara area. They have folklore that describes the climate change that forced the majority of their people to migrate to the Nile Basin (Egypt).

    Israel once was a heavily forested area with regular rainfall. The bible describes agriculture and industry consistent with a temperate climate existing only 2500 years ago.

    Archaeological evidence from Germany suggests that the area was at different times glaciated and sub-tropical.

    The Wollemi Pine is a cold climate species found growing in a temperate rainforest – being 200 million years old, the pine was obviously there before the area became temperate. So what does that indicate about the change in climate in the Lithgow area over the last 200 million years?

    There are maps from the late 1500’s – evidence suggests that they are copies of much earlier maps, perhaps 500 years earlier – that show Wilkes Land (on the Australian side of Antarctica) to be free of ice. Our scientists have only been able to map that coastline in the last 15 years as ground penetrating radar was developed and refined. The Wilkes Land coastline was mapped around 1000 years ago – the same coastline that is currently under tens of metres of ice. So it is clearly likely that as little as 2000 years ago Wilkes Land was not only ice free but possibly inhabited.

    Anyone who wants to drive the ‘man made catastrophy’ wagon can easily turn a blind eye to the multitudes of ‘non-scientific’ anedotal & empirical evidence – if you can’t prove it in a lab or with mathematical equations it does not exist. I like to think that the planet has no reason to lie to us. And I guess there is little fame or fortune to be found in stating that a process is natural and inevitable. So, I stand by my belief that climate change is a natural process that may or may not be accelerated by the C02 generated by industrialised human activity.

    Either way, it is happening, it is inevitable that the human race will have to live with a change in climate. How will they do that?

    I reiterate that the ‘blame game’ is unproductive. Who really cares how the milk got spillled? I want to know what we are going to do to make sure that there is milk for tomorrows cappuccino

    #526669
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: For the last 20 or so years there have been ice cores taken from both poles that show distinct evidence of dramatic climate change. So dramatic that one core from antartica contained pieces of tropical plants at the 500,000 years ago level.

    With respect, the North Pole is covered by sea ice floating on an ocean, so there are no significant ice cores available from the pole itself. I assume you mean cores from the Arctic regions, such as Greenland? Also, I would be interested in an ice core showing evidence of a tropical plant. How did a tropical plant co-exist with an ice sheet? That would certainly strengthen the case for high climate sensitivity, contrary to the published opinions of some notable AGW deniers.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: The type of ice at different levels indicates the temperature at that age, it can also be measured for carbon levels. At several levels that amount of carbon in the ice is directly relative to the type of ice & therefore the temperature of the planet – higher carbon = higher temp.

    I could not have put the AGW case any better: higher carbon = higher temp. Given the measured increase in atmospheric CO2, why would this not be causing the warming we are seeing? Are you saying that CO2 is magically not having any effect, but some undiscovered mechanism is causing exactly the amount of warming we would have expected from the CO2 increase?

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: These cores also provide strong evidence that a period of global warming is followed by a period of glacialisation. This planet appears to cycle from cooking to freezing as it evolves – we are lucky enough to have become ‘modern man’ during the long interim of change from freeze to cook.

    Exactly! Now that we are in a cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycles, why are we measuring increasing temperatures, when historically we should be seeing a cooling? The climate does not change randomly: something has to force a change. We are providing the CO2 increase that is forcing the increase in temperature.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: The dust bowls of Ethiopia and Eritrea still have residual areas of the rainforests that once covered the sub-Sahara area. They have folklore that describes the climate change that forced the majority of their people to migrate to the Nile Basin (Egypt).

    Israel once was a heavily forested area with regular rainfall. The bible describes agriculture and industry consistent with a temperate climate existing only 2500 years ago.

    Archaeological evidence from Germany suggests that the area was at different times glaciated and sub-tropical.

    The Wollemi Pine is a cold climate species found growing in a temperate rainforest – being 200 million years old, the pine was obviously there before the area became temperate. So what does that indicate about the change in climate in the Lithgow area over the last 200 million years?

    So what do all these facts tell us? Answer: they tell us that the climate is sensitive. We know that CO2 stops the Earth from becoming a frozen snowball. We know that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature in future, just as it has in the past.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: There are maps from the late 1500’s – evidence suggests that they are copies of much earlier maps, perhaps 500 years earlier – that show Wilkes Land (on the Australian side of Antarctica) to be free of ice. Our scientists have only been able to map that coastline in the last 15 years as ground penetrating radar was developed and refined. The Wilkes Land coastline was mapped around 1000 years ago – the same coastline that is currently under tens of metres of ice. So it is clearly likely that as little as 2000 years ago Wilkes Land was not only ice free but possibly inhabited.

    I would be interested to see the research into these maps, but I don’t doubt your word that they exist. What does that tell us about the sensitivity of the climate to forcings?

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: Anyone who wants to drive the ‘man made catastrophy’ wagon can easily turn a blind eye to the multitudes of ‘non-scientific’ anedotal & empirical evidence – if you can’t prove it in a lab or with mathematical equations it does not exist.

    If you have no evidence, then what do you base your belief upon?

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: I like to think that the planet has no reason to lie to us.

    Precisely! The evidence is there before us, if only we take the time to puzzle it out.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: And I guess there is little fame or fortune to be found in stating that a process is natural and inevitable.

    Careful, now! You are skirting very close to claiming that two hundred years of climate science is just a great big conspiracy by thousands of researchers. Tin-foil hat time, I think.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: So, I stand by my belief that climate change is a natural process

    Correct. Climate changes due to forcings applied to it and we have very good understanding of what those forcings are.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: that may or may not be accelerated by the C02 generated by industrialised human activity.

    How would anthropogenic CO2 NOT be changing the climate? It either it or it isn’t – you can’t have it both ways.

    Krankywitch post=347059 wrote: Either way, it is happening, it is inevitable that the human race will have to live with a change in climate. How will they do that?

    I reiterate that the ‘blame game’ is unproductive. Who really cares how the milk got spillled? I want to know what we are going to do to make sure that there is milk for tomorrows cappuccino

    While I agree with that sentiment, the topic of this thread is whether AGW is a hoax, not what we should be doing about it.

    #526670
    KrankywitchKrankywitch
    Member

    Sorry Owlbrudder but it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse.

    Final words from me:

    Global warming/climate change is a natural and repeating aspect of this planet . Any human influence is no greater than that of orbital variations & solar activity. The hoax part is that we caused it. The joke is the hubris of any human that thinks we can slow or stop it.

    #526671
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: Sorry Owlbrudder but it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse.

    If that is the impression you get, I apologise unreservedly. I am trying to be accurate and accurately reflect the current state of knowledge about AGW. I am certainly not trying to be obtuse.

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: Final words from me:

    Hey, don’t quit yet, before you explain the evidence that you find so pursuasive. We were only just getting to the interesting bit. 🙂

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: Global warming/climate change is a natural and repeating aspect of this planet

    Prefix that with the word ‘some’ and we would be in agreement. There is always a natural variation in climate, due to a whole raft of causes. However, there is no variability that is without cause – it does not happen unless it is forced to happen.

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: Any human influence is no greater than that of orbital variations & solar activity.

    Can you back that up with reliable, published research, or is it just a personal opinion based on no evidence?

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: The hoax part is that we caused it.

    We are pumping billions of tons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. We know that the world is warming, as we would expect. We know that it is not the sun, or the orbit of Saturn, or leprechauns. The observed warming fits nicely with what we would expect as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2. Where is your alternative explanation for the increased global temperature?

    Krankywitch post=347066 wrote: The joke is the hubris of any human that thinks we can slow or stop it.

    We know why it is happening: anthropogenic CO2 emissions. We control the amount of CO2 we emit. What is so strange about thinking we have the power to influence our climate? You agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? You agree that human emissions have been shown to have caused an unprecedentedly rapid rise to current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, right? I see no joke; I see only the sad fact that intelligent people can be given all the evidence and still refuse to take responsibility for what they are doing.

    If you think that increasing CO2 concentrations will not result in global warming, show the rest of us the science that supports your position. If you think that the increased CO2 does not come from human activities, show us the scientific research that supports your position. I’m talking about real, credible science here, not unsupported opinion.

    Please, I beg of you, prove that AGW is a hoax and not a real threat. Not only will you hear millions of people around the planet breathe a sigh of relief, you will instantly earn a Nobel prize for correcting the physics the rest of us are obviously blinded by.

    #526672
    MetuMetu
    Member

    I have a slight quibble here; as a society, we cannot help the political agenda has taken science on climate change, as if it’s fact. We cannot help there are those who link to scientific evidence, backing pro human-induced climate change either. Because we cannot help it, we are expected to join in to be legitimized. Like one cannot have an opinion on whether Climate Change is a hoax without some kind of scientific evidence?

    Well let’s evaluate that – what is scientific evidence but human values placed on what the mind observes/records/evaluates? If it’s human values we place on observations, can it never be tampered with? Has history shown us it has ever been tampered with?

    Watergate? War of the Worlds? April fools? Ciagrettes not causing lung cancer. We have proven it is possible to hoax members of society legitimately before. It is possible to pay multiple scientists for their opinion to back false data, if they have a human interest in profiteering from it. It is possible for members of parliment to deliberately mislead, if they have a human interest of profiteering also.

    It would have to be infallible human logic which claims Climate Change is indeed, fact, and not in any way in the realms of human misguidance. How is it that science has come to speak on behalf of human interests, as if we were all infallible at interpreting data?

    The stories which come out of Cyclone Tracy (1974) Hurricane Katrina in the US and the Queensland floods in 2011, all speak of natural disasters and people at their lowest. While it demonstrates the good spirit of generosity, there are also tales of dishonesty and corruption too. How is it we can look at anything as fact, without understanding it’s humans in charge of the flow of information?

    I’m currently undoing a lot of damage the scientific community gave me about healthy food. Turns out, a great deal of it is poisonous. But that’s another story. I just wanted to make the correlation that what paid scientists and medical practitioners say about the latest scientific research, causes confusion in interpretation and in some cases, can lead to death. There’s specific data collected by hospitals, about how many people die due to misdiagnosis or, more to the point, the wrong “treatment”.

    While we can swap links on scientific research, in regards to Climate Change, does it prove humans are beyond being lead astray by it’s conclusions? I cannot prove various scientific evidence for Climate Change is a hoax, but it’s evident that humans can lead astray, be led astray, and in a state of denial any of this is going on, whilst ever chasing the facts. 😉

    #526673
    Anonymous
    Guest

    thanks metu,

    we are not allowed to speak against the science or their theories, there is no fact in it eg.,. in a killing no bloodied knife whatever as evidence. it is all theory and conjecture all to aid manipulation by our week kneed leaders. of course they can post what they call evidence, mathematical graphs created by seemingly intelligent people, and seemingly intelligent people pound us with this stuff. shots of Greenland wherever showing it has gone the full cycle to what it was when the vikings were about. makes the place look like a good tourism destination.

    they, them the supporters of the science, then gag us, they have not sold their precept to the aussie community of which last stat’ indicated 67% did not believe it let alone worship it. they sue weather events as examples of this heavier than air gas causing issues and they do i have heard it often said by them. our weather events are just that weather events, if worse then the cause is the removal of habitat forest.

    i’ve tried to say it before not for us to prove against it, but for them to sell it to the community and the gov’ is not the community.

    lets get rid of the speculation; the theory; the conjecture; the perceptions, sell it!!

    len

    #526674
    GgangGgang
    Member

    I never believe science on issues like what is healthy food or good medicine, or safety of chemicals ……. the list is endless 👿 but the reason the science is unreliable is constant – GREED ……. someone is making money from you believing the scientific “facts’ and paying the scientists the “prove” the results they want to sell 👿

    but having said that I do believe 100% that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity ………..

    firstly who is making money from climate change ?? the “big new tax” is a cunning fabrication but just WHO is profiting ?? it is going to cost polluting industries money and the govt is using the income from them to compensate low income earners

    where I live it is glaringly obvious that our climate has changed DRASTICALLY and rapidly 🙁

    I cannot see that the way Humans have interfered with the natural processes of the planet cannot effect it and many ways 👿 the changing climate is just a part of it added to deteriorating quality of the air we breath, the water we drink ……… another endless list denied by paid scientists ………

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.