Global Warming - Complete Hoax
Posted: 2/18/2002 11:12:11 PMBy: Comfortably Anonymous
Times Read: 2,175
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0
Topic: News: Technical
Global Warming is bullshit, with no conclusive evidence backing it up.
* The main limiting factor for most plants is CO2 supply. The only reason we have the atmosphere we do (almost no carbon, lots of oxygen) even though we started out with a carbon-heavy atmosphere is that the plants sucked down every scrap they could get their grubby little leaves on. As one on my professors put it, "dumping CO2 into the attmosphere is like throwing money off a building in New York City: you might change the local environment some, but if you expect it to accumulate and block up the street, you're dreaming."
* I have seen the long term (>1000 year) climate data, and it is noisy . I worked briefly with someone (him in the field, me on the computer) who was trying to correlate data from varrious locations, and the correlations they found (to distinguish global from local) was about as good as it is at present. The noisy climate record isn't a consequence of our ignorance. Against this background, the size of the signal claimed for global warming is absurdly small.
* I'm not an industry flack, fundumentallist, etc. of any stripe, and I am also not a climate expert. I was a botany major for a while, (w. a 4.0 GPA), but then I was also a math major, a physics major, and several others.
* In the 1960s, the more vocal global warming advocates were asserting that, by 2000, the earth would be uninhabitalbly hot. They keep shifting the claims, but it always amounts to "dire things will happen ~40 years from now unless you do what we say now, without wasting time on study or debate." This has biased me against them.
* The people I have personally met who have felt most strongly about global warming seem to 1) fear and resent "technology", and 2) have a burning desire to believe that what they do makes a difference in the big picture. This is pretty easy to test if you bait them with "I heard about an article that may have claimed..." and see which silly statements they will accept & which ones they reject.
It's my conclusion that the reason the "people are changing the Earth's climate" story sells so well (along with nonsense like "cut the plastic tabs on your six packs to save the dolphins") has much more to do with a fear of insignificance and a need for "redemption" than with anything rational.
* The main limiting factor for most plants is CO2 supply. The only reason we have the atmosphere we do (almost no carbon, lots of oxygen) even though we started out with a carbon-heavy atmosphere is that the plants sucked down every scrap they could get their grubby little leaves on. As one on my professors put it, "dumping CO2 into the attmosphere is like throwing money off a building in New York City: you might change the local environment some, but if you expect it to accumulate and block up the street, you're dreaming."
* I have seen the long term (>1000 year) climate data, and it is noisy . I worked briefly with someone (him in the field, me on the computer) who was trying to correlate data from varrious locations, and the correlations they found (to distinguish global from local) was about as good as it is at present. The noisy climate record isn't a consequence of our ignorance. Against this background, the size of the signal claimed for global warming is absurdly small.
* I'm not an industry flack, fundumentallist, etc. of any stripe, and I am also not a climate expert. I was a botany major for a while, (w. a 4.0 GPA), but then I was also a math major, a physics major, and several others.
* In the 1960s, the more vocal global warming advocates were asserting that, by 2000, the earth would be uninhabitalbly hot. They keep shifting the claims, but it always amounts to "dire things will happen ~40 years from now unless you do what we say now, without wasting time on study or debate." This has biased me against them.
* The people I have personally met who have felt most strongly about global warming seem to 1) fear and resent "technology", and 2) have a burning desire to believe that what they do makes a difference in the big picture. This is pretty easy to test if you bait them with "I heard about an article that may have claimed..." and see which silly statements they will accept & which ones they reject.
It's my conclusion that the reason the "people are changing the Earth's climate" story sells so well (along with nonsense like "cut the plastic tabs on your six packs to save the dolphins") has much more to do with a fear of insignificance and a need for "redemption" than with anything rational.
Rating: (You must be logged in to vote)