What if Global Warming is a Red Herring?

I remember reading a reader’s comment to Time Magazine in Aug or Sep 2006. The comment was from a global warming “expert” who happily made it known from her signature block. She said that it was important to end debate of any kind on the subject of global warming. Children should not hear the opposing views because it hampers progress. In other words, brainwashing is acceptable, free speech is not, and the scientific method is no longer needed.

Now before people jump on me for the brainwashing comment, think about what brainwashing actually is. It’s a systematic approach of getting someone to believe whatever you tell them. You do it by silencing critics, not allowing others to voice opinions, controlling what you hear, read, or watch, or learn. Once the other side has been silenced, you can do or say whatever you want. It happens all the time in third world and communist nations.

Stifling discussion is dangerous and wrong. Say what you want about global warming. But the truth is, not everyone agrees. And those who tell you everyone agrees only thinks so because they haven’t heard the other arguments. The argument that it doesn’t matter is absurd. All scientific research matters. If truth and accuracy don’t matter when it comes to global warming, then where do we draw the line? Does it ever matter? Truth and accuracy never matters as long as we can justify it for the “greater good”? The whole global warming alarmist mantra reminds me of the lead up to the Iraq war. What if we demolish our economy and never find the proverbial weapon of mass destruction?

It takes 300 years to offset the amount of energy it takes to create one windmill. Are we making windmills to last longer than 300 years? One post said that San Diego is going through the worst fire season in history. Could it be that the state of California is just too stupid to clear out the dead brush and trees? I drove through Big Bear not long ago. Beetles moved in and infected the trees, killing 90% of the forest. It’s a tinder box waiting for a cigarette. California is suicidal, economically and ecologically.

If global warming is a red herring and we continue to enact crushing laws, it will collapse entire economies, bankrupt nations, create another green tech bubble, tax the hell out of civilians, strangle the poor, and make very few people very rich.

I think the biggest mess comes from the fact that sometimes people don’t even know WHAT they’re questioning anymore. And some people have adopted the attitude of “what, you think the world is flat?” when you even mention questions the idea of global warming DUE TO HUMANS.

The average world temperature is getting warmer. This can be stated as a factual statement (although recent articles in the news regarding the labs that did the worlds most “authoritiative study” then threw away all the original data because they didn’t want to bother backing it up is very shady).

But to say the average world temperature is getting warmer due to humans is a theory, and one that currently can not be proven. We know that the earth went through ice ages and all kinds of global climate change long before the invention of the Automobile, so while we may be spiralling towards death, it does make sense to continually question these things.

And RE the green tech bubble. Yes - thats going to happen, and yes, it will most likely collapse on itself. People also disconnect doing what is right for the environment (recycling, sustainablity) even if it has nothing to do with global warming. But the Al Gore threat of giant-wave death is certainly motivation to recycle your now $.05 water bottles.

It’s really a shame that sustainability has been lumped in with climate change. I know that having a compost bin in my backyard helps my plants grow the next year, but I also know that by me composting it’s not really doing anything to prevent the ice caps from melting, or keeping them melting.

The recent IPCC email leaks seem to confirm my opinion (I think it is mostly a red herring), but I agree with above posts that citing anecdotal evidence (ie - well it’s freezing/burning up this year) on either side is silly.

I see climate change as a dangerous power grab by socialists, while the sustainability movement is something that is rapidly gaining traction in the free market. Sometimes we can get impatient as designers, but when we think of how far things have come in a mere several years, there is ample room for optimism.

do your have a source for this info so that I can look at?

Cameron, have you read any specific IPCC documents that you found more convincing?

why?

which is kinda like an oxymoron.

In light of recent events, I think the IPCC’s credibility is in question.

History is replete with examples of why highly concentrated power in the hands of few is a bad thing. This is necessary to an extent, but we passed the balance point many years ago. Climate change is the ultimate nebulous excuse for more power and less individual freedom.

I don’t see how. In a free market, businesses must offer what customers want or they will die. Sustainability is just the latest variable in the equation.

"I think theory switched to fact in the last few years. "
Theories do not become facts. Facts are observable phenomenon which are interpreted within a philosophical framework to produce a theory. If more and more people agree, it does not become a fact. If more and more facts are interpreted to give weight to the theory, it does not become a fact. Man-made global warming is not a fact. Climate fluctuations have been recorded in places over a relatively short period of time. Those temperatures are the facts. Gathering more temperature recordings does not reveal the cause of those changes.

“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

http://spaceweather.com/

@mgnt8 so it’s the sun?

@cameron yes their credibility has been shaken, but I was just wondering if you knew any specific docs that i could look at, cuz i’ve grabbed the leaked files from the ipcc but reading 1074 e-mails is out of the question for me. there are some other files there that seem to be propaganda tools to change public opinion, i haven’t looked at them in depth.

as far as I know socialism in theory is against power and wealth consolidation by a small minority, not in favor.

and no, business only have to make enough profit to survive, giving costumers what they “want” is one way, there are others. don’t want to go off topic though. The reason I say it’s an oxymoron is because the free market in the end is all about acquiring monopolies and cartels (power consolidation), not about fixing problems, or is it?

Partly. The theory is that clouds created by cosmic rays, which are in part controlled by the activity of the sun, regulate the Earth’s climate.

Also check out http://www.surfacestations.org/
They’ve audited for accuracy over 80% of US temperature stations and found only 10% are accurate within 1 degree celsius.

Climate science is so complex that only a scientist can understand it. The rest of us can only take it on faith. And that’s what it’s turned into - more of a philosophy or religion. Which is cool I guess, if it makes you feel good. But it’s not a good basis to shape policy.

indeed. That’s why i can’t make up my mind on this, to much info on both sides countering each other.
here are some, “it’s not the sun” arguments for example.

this whole issue is stuck on a loop it seems.
the only thing i can be sure of is that the weather out here still looks normal.

I think your statement is spot on, only I would take it a step further:

Climate science is so complex that even the best current mathematical models are crude and primitive, and even the best scientists do not fully understand it yet. For this reason, we should proceed with restraint and moderation in attempts to ‘fix’ things.

Otherwise we might end up with goofy policies (eg: California dumping large quantities of metal into the ocean to balance some chemical) before we understand the negative externalities, and cause problems on a much larger scale.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf

well this sums it up… for now.

Supposedly the “trick” they refer to wasn’t a standard scientific procedure, but an attempt to hide key data which would refute the validity of their global warming climate model, which is popularly referred to as the “hockey stick”.

The “trick” is reconciling tree ring data with temperature readings, which seemed to diverge at the time when the world was supposed to be warming. Apparently, these scientists actually believed that global warming affects modern trees in such a radical way that modern trees become no longer affected by global warming?

Regardless if whether or not Global Warming exist we should continue to do everything we can to recycle reduce and reuse. Not only is it better for the environment but it also results in more cash in our pockets. Going green is the new FAD and I think it’s important to embrace the possibilities instead of mock it. I’m not saying that i think Global Warming is going to destroy us in our life time, but scientist can prove that the world is changing. It’s the small tiny steps that people take that help make a big difference. I know that some people might think that there collection of trash won’t make a difference but it does. Think of it in this perspective. I live in a state that has a bottle deposit on all sodas. I have to pay that deposit at first but if i take the time to take my cans back and recycle them they will refund that deposit. Instead of just throwing my cans away and losing money I’m getting back some of what I had to spend. I know a lot of people would disagree with me but I think that all states should have a bottle deposit. I even think that bottled water should have a deposit even though i think bottle water is expensive enough. I feel that having a deposit on such items is a good incentive to encourage recycling.

My POV in 4 short points:

  • Protecting the environment and wildlife is good and the responsible thing to do.

  • Climate change is real and CAN be overcome with re-design and better design, but is being DELIBERATELY exaggerated to some extent further certain IDEOLOGICAL agendas.

  • The WORST of these is a push for products NOT FULLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE OWNER. E.g. an electric car which - with 1 remote command - will NOT permit you to leave a geographic area you are in.

  • I love solar panels and wind turbines. I do NOT like CONTROL being taken awat from legal PRODUCT OWNERS.

I think the same can be said of the Covid marketplace that was created to cash in on testing kits. The pendulum is reversing course now. Now that the data is collected, the algorithm has been set loose and the outcomes are now there to analyze, it is quite obvious to those who have been paying attention.

I’m surprised I never responded to this 15 years ago. Interesting necro-thread. Many of the responses are just entirely embarrassing.

1 Like

This thread reminds me of a conversation with a friends who, while debating the climate crisis, made an interesting comment: “This is just like the hole in the ozone layer when we were kids…whatever happened to that? Nothing.” It caught me by surprise because I didn’t know what happened with that.
After some quick online searching: nothing happened because we took the scientific theories about its causes seriously and acted on it quickly (and in unison) with the Montreal Protocol, effectively reversing a lot of the damage. The ozone is till in recovery, but we are on track to repair it to pre-80’s levels in a few decades. Great source to read up on this story: What happened to the world's ozone hole? - BBC Future

5 Likes