Global Warming: The Greatest Hoax in the History of Science

But what can we do if most of the global warming is caused by forces outside of our control? Send a giant mirror into space to reflect 40% of the Sun's rays? Pump warm air out into space?

Say we find a way to stop using gasoline and we end our pumping of pollution into the atmosphere, yet we find that the Earth is still warming up and it's caused by the Sun and other natural cycles. What then?

Just a thought...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not only that, but we'd have wasted billions of dollars complying with the idiotic Kyoto scheme. As Swivel pointed out, the solutions to enviromental problems will be found and implemented by capitalists without the need for any draconian CO2 restrictions.

I've replaced all my incandecent bulbs with compact fluorescents. This decreases use of electricity on lighting by 75%. I also replaced one of my fuel guzzlers with a more efficient car. Why? In both cases, to save money. Increased efficiency saves money.

This is the kind of enviromentalism that makes sense. Not draconian and arbitrary limits on energy usage that would devastate our economy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that's true we should still do our best to delay our end with the expanding sun or whatever theory that is. The combination of the two; Humans pumping everything we get out of the ground into the atmosphere PLUS a general heating will be bad. Look at the difference topical pollution control did in '72. Why would we not do our best??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Opportunity cost. Money spent on limiting CO2 is not available for other things. Is possibly changing the temperature less than one degree over the next hundred years more important than preventing malaria? More important than clean water? More important than healthcare? More important than education?

 

When does the world get those things? Just add some lead to your tank and prove yourself right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're tiring. NEXT!!

 

Very expected, the way you try to separate the two.

 

His point is valid. Any money sent to one cause (like the war in Iraq) can not be used for another cause (like a war in Iran). I think Global Warming is one of those sensational, politicized subjects that could be an enormous drain on the world economy, without a clear understanding of what we will get for those dollars.

The best analogy I can think of is the world's fascination with putting humans in space. This, to me, has been the biggest waste of money on something that most people have convinced themselves of being a very good thing.

I love science and I love the environment, but I hate waste too much to say that we should just spend as much as possible on whatever our fancy of the decade might be.

 

I doubt that the money climate researchers receive is extreme on the funding scale of sciences.

Not that I have figures. Just my guess.

 

I wonder how many climatologists will lose their jobs if they honestly say that they don't think global warming is manmade?

The boss at the Weather Channel has said that all who disagree with manmade global warming should not work for them.

 

Most researchers don't have a job. They live of grants.

 

I wonder how many grants will be forthcoming for those who disagree that global warming is manmade?

 

The idea is that you put keywords in your grant application that reviewers like. In my field that would be bioengineering and stem cells for instance. Whether you actually work on these topics perse is completely irrelevant.

Same for global warming. What you say in a grant application is irrelevant (relatively) to the actual work you will do.

 

Could not global warming be offset by ejecting dust into the stratosphere, through planned (relatively clean) nuclear explosions? A sort of mild, induced, nuclear winter?

What also about global dimming?

 

Global warming causes more rain and snow clouds from evaporation.

 

I do not think this true, based on a few years of looking at many (perhaps 100) various small biotechs. The only one I know of that is living 100% on grants is Starpharma. They just got another one from a division of NIH. I have a large (for me) position in them, 8,000 ADR shares and now can name them as do not plan on buying anymore. When they get Nasdaq listed, stock will soar, I predict. Few have even heard of this small Australian company now. IMHO, just their 100% owned US company, with most of the dendrimers patents, justifies their current share price. Not easy to buy - somedays the pink sheets (SPHRY) do not even trade. For benefit of Pete, James R and other Australian readers, they are SPL.AX on AuSX, Austrailian stock exchange - wish I could buy direct on the AuSX. - I own others listed there as ADRs.

Most small drug developers and biotechs support their researcher by issue of shares, get loans, cut special convertable issues deals with "venture capital," or partner away good part of their future incomes, if any, to "Big Pharma" for "up front" funds and milestone payments. I do not like "big pharma" as an investment - too much going off patent now and too many law suits at least in US market, but Merck and Abbott took over two of the small companies I owned shares in (KOSP & RNAi) for nice profit to me. (On day the news broke, share price doubled and I already had good profits in both.)

 

Then why are some areas of the world undergoing some of the most devastating droughts in history? Are you saying/implying that global warming is ...selective?

Baron Max

 

The atmospheric currents blow the increased moisture where they will, but there is more moisture in the atmosphere because of global warming.

 

Continued increase in clouds and rain, and so cooling of parts of the Earth, would probably cause the atmospheric currents to therefore alter, to bring clouds and rain to the desert areas.

 

Actually it's doing the opposite. Warming in the atlantic Ocean is causing increased droughts in the already drought-prone area of central Africa.

 

Yes, you might get that one grant. But then try to get anything published if your results don't agree with the "mainstream" view. And if you do get published, good luck on your next grant.