Global warming hoax

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by james_bond_3rd, Nov 10, 2007.

  1. Since this forum is filled with conspiracy theorists, let's have a little more fun.

    The original article has been removed so this is the Google cache
    http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cach...+Geoclimatic+Studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

    Journal of Geoclimatic Studies (2007) 23:3. 221-222

    DOI:152.9967/r755100729-450172-00-3
    Editorial
    Science, we are led to believe, proceeds by means of open-minded enquiry, motivated by the quest for truth. Any scientific theory is valid only for as long as it resists disproof. Such disproofs, far from being discouraged or resisted, are to be welcomed as the means by which knowledge advances.

    This, anyhow, is the story we tell ourselves, at every level of every scientific discipline. Sadly, however, it no longer seems to apply in the field of climate science. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the lead paper published in this edition of our journal. It threatens to overturn the theory to which almost all climate scientists subscribe: that positive radiative forcing (global warming) is largely driven by emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. The paper, by Daniel Klein and colleagues, appears to demonstrate that this is not the case: the process causing global warming is in fact a natural one, which is likely to peak - returning average temperatures to background levels - by the middle of this century.

    In any other field a revelation of this importance would be greeted with tremendous interest by scientific colleagues. If corroborated by further investigation it is likely to have been rewarded with the highest scientific honours: it is no exaggeration to state that this is Nobel Prize material. Instead, attempts to publish this paper have been met with fear, hostility and a closing of ranks. Before approaching this journal, Daniel Klein and colleagues sent their paper to 43 peer-reviewed learned publications. All 43 rejected it. In no case could they provide a scientific justification for their decision. The editor of one very eminent journal told Klein and his colleagues that they were "criminally irresponsible" in seeking to have this material published. This is not, we believe, language appropriate to the advance of scientific understanding.

    Much as we would like to exaggerate the significance of our own journal, we cannot claim that it ranks alongside the great names that rejected this paper. Though we have always strived to maintain the most rigorous scientific standards, we recognise that Klein and colleagues came to us when better options had failed. Delighted as we are to provide a home for it, we deeply regret that they were unable to publish their paper in a better-known journal.

    Nor would it be accurate to claim that we leapt at the chance to publish it. Though we immediately recognised the importance of these findings, we were also aware of the possible consequences of their publication. Ours is a small journal with minimal resources, whose existence has on several occasions been endangered by budgetary crises. We realised that if we were to publish this paper we would be confronting a powerful and hostile scientific establishment, which has the means, if it so chooses, to close us down. But such is the importance of what Klein and colleagues have discovered that this is a risk we are prepared to take.

    This being said, we proceeded with the utmost care before deciding to publish. We subjected it to the most rigorous process of peer-review any paper published in this journal has ever undergone. Though several of them evinced profound concerns about the political implications of publishing this paper, none of our peer reviewers could fault it on scientific grounds. We decided that it is better to be published and be damned by other scientists than not to publish and be damned in our own minds for cowardice.

    We have also taken the unprecedented step of making the paper freely available on our website: something we have been reluctant to do in the past because of our severe budgetary constraints. We hope that even if the paper is dismissed and ignored by those who subscribe to the "consensus" position on climate change, the truth will eventually seep out. We accept that this is not the best route for scientific discourse to take, but none better appears to be available. We publish in trepidation, but in the knowledge that it is the right thing to do.
     
  2. And here is the Google cache for the paper:
    http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cach...lobal+warming+theory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

    Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?

    Daniel A Klein*, Mandeep J Gupta*, Philip Cooper**, Arne FR Jansson**.

    *Department of Climatology, University of Arizona; **Department of Atmospheric Physics, Göteborgs Universitet (University of Gothenburg, Sweden.)

    Received: 18 February 2007 / Accepted: 9th August 2007 / Published online: 3rd November 2007

    ©Inst Geoclimatic Studies 2007
    Abstract

    It is now well-established that rising global temperatures are largely the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The "consensus" position attributes the increase in atmospheric CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuels by industrial processes. This is the mechanism which underpins the theory of manmade global warming.

    Our data demonstrate that those who subscribe to the consensus theory have overlooked the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions. While a small part of the rise in emissions is attributable to industrial activity, it is greatly outweighed (by >300 times) by rising volumes of CO2 produced by saprotrophic eubacteria living in the sediments of the continental shelves fringing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Moreover, the bacterial emissions, unlike industrial CO2, precisely match the fluctuations in global temperature over the past 140 years.

    This paper also posits a mechanism for the increase in bacterial CO2 emissions. A series of natural algal blooms, beginning in the late 19th Century, have caused mass mortality among the bacteria's major predators: brachiopod molluscs of the genus Tetrarhynchia. These periods of algal bloom, as the palaeontological record shows, have been occurring for over three million years, and are always accompanied by a major increase in carbon dioxide emissions, as a result of the multiplication of bacteria when predator pressure is reduced. They generally last for 150-200 years. If the current episode is consistent with this record, we should expect carbon dioxide emissions to peak between now and mid-century, then return to background levels. Our data suggest that current concerns about manmade global warming are unfounded.

    Keywords: global warming, carbon dioxide, eubacteria, Tetrarhynchia, benthic, numerical modelling.
     
  3. Look,

    The fact of the matter is that every plant in our solar system is heating up due to moving a little bit closer to the sun. Mars ice cap is melting also.

    HOWEVER, to deny that humans have any effect on climate is temperature is pure idiocy. It is completely ignoring the endless environmental disasters we have caused and create.

    Go to downtown LA and hang around for a little bit. Then come back and tell us how little effect humans have on the ecology of the planet.

    Alternatively, you can visit China and check out their environmental disaster.
     
  4. humans are not causing global warming. carbon level increases lag temperature warming. the whole deal to this scam is that they want a global carbon tax and the power to control us.

    they tried this before in the seventies.. but at that time it was global cooling.. we were suppose to enter a new ice age... OOPS!!! then the trend reversed... dumbasses.

    people.. wake up.. this chit is in your faces now. they arent smart.. they fk up all the time. to be honest.. it has gotten too easy to figure out.

    pollution however is a different story... but warming is a yawn festival.
     
  5. Really?

    Like I said, go stand in downtown LA. If you think there is no warming effect, you have no clue.
     
  6. come on hydro.. ur smarter than this. i am not denying a warming trend... what i am saying is humans are not the reason for it. from 1940 till 1980 we were in a cooling trend.... this during one of the biggest industrial accelerations known to man kind.

    go back the last 200 yrs... there have been much colder and hotter times than what we are experiencing currently. please watch this.. "global warming swindle"

    <embed style="width:500px; height:407px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-31944410825346433&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
     
  7. This is one topic you do not want to argue with me.

    One fact is that there is a general warming trend in our solar system. This part we cannot do anything about.

    The other FACT, is that the CO2 warming effect does exist in real life. A few places on earth where you can experience this firsthand, as I have said, stand in downtown LA middle of the day. This also happens in Moscow, btw.
    So to deny that humans have an effect on the global ecology is pure idiocy.

    The total human effect on global warming may be exaggerated but it does exist and is getting stronger. The problem with global warming critics is that their own argument falls apart at one end or the other.

    You can deny that CO2 stays in our atmosphere and creates a warming effect, but then you can't deny the effect increased CO2 levels have on our plantlife. No, not happy trees, but weeds that take over soil from friendly plants & agriculture.

    Another anti global warming argument is the volcanic eruption. It does not take in consideration that a volcanic eruption, which sends tremendous GHGs in the atmoshere, has plenty of time to settle itself out afterwards. Nor does it take into consideration what happens in the immediate region, like everything dying out from the smog and gas particles.
    Human generated GHGs never stop, just keep on going & growing, hence never giving the ecology even a chance to balance it out.

    As I have said, there are plenty of real world examples of how human generated exhaust can affect the immediate ecology of a region. It is pure idiocy to assume that this cannot spread to our whole planet.

    Just because the elite are using Global Warming movement to fill their own agenda, does not mean that it is a hoax. It's not a black & white issue but plenty of grey.

    BTW, that video makes some of the most ridiculous claims. Using environmentalism to prevent third world development? Right, just look at China or any WTO zone.
    I'm sure that's what African nations want, a completely destroyed ecology. Yes, let them inhale petro fumes instead of wood fumes.
    Scientists don't get funded by oil/gas/coal lobbyists? Ok, right, Exxon did not have their own guy planted in Bush's administration to completely deny any possibility of global warming.
     

  8. i'm trembling. CO2 levels follow warming not the inverse. the global warming carbon kooks are wrong from the start.

    if you want to pay a global carbon tax then keep playing this fantasy.

    answer me this, why did they try the same scare in the 70's but warned us about a new ice age? come on... ur not this gullible.

    and your "standing in LA" example is beyond ridiculous. the earth goes through cycles... much colder and much hotter than right now....

    not to mention the same oligarchs that scare people like you are the ones who sabotage alternative energy. one big scam..... wake up.
     
  9. What? Only ratboy? Where are the other conspiracy theory believers? I'll give it another day or two.
     
  10. The smog in LA has nothing to do with global warming.

    2 entirely different things.

    What are the specs on man made CO2 release vs total CO2 release? What % are we responsible for vs, say, decomposing plant matter worldwide. Or CO2 release as a result of oceans warming from increased sun activity. What part of the total are we responsible for?

    And that Hydroblunt would think that Ratboy is taking the side of the mythical global elites just goes to show what a total idiot he is....

    Smokin' too many of them (Hydro)blunts I guess.......
     
    #10     Nov 10, 2007