Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive4

Cover story?
What is missing from this article to become a cover story? I've looked for a synthetic review of the topic for quite some time, this one might not be perfect, but it's one of the nicest I found on the web, on the readability/helpfulness ratio. Giving it more publicity might help others to find it. dx (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Extent of effect of manmade CO2 emissions on temperature
I found this sentence in the article:

"The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in carbon dioxide."

and I was mainly curious about the extent to which increased CO2 emissions cause an increase in global temperature. That would seem to be the most important question for policy makers, as this determines the cost-benefit analysis involved with potential solutions. I would really like to see references to some studies that attempt to establish estimates of the extent of the causation. RJaguar3 (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The chart from AR4 on radiative forcing is a good summary. I will change the wording, though, should be GHGs and not just CO2. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia says
... global warming does not cause earthquakes (Bloomsday 2011).

So that is settled. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's a CONservapedia and why do we care what they say? Тy  [[User talk:Ty| rannis

]] 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CP managing to have a passing relationship with the truth. (Though I can see that Venusian-scale global warming might well result in earthquakes as the planetary crust approaches melting point) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some drunk in the pub will get things right sometimes by simple chance.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of situations where it could happen, mostly along the lines of "ice cap melts and terrain undergoes isostatic rebound". It's probably not a process you'd be able to observe over a couple of lifetimes though. EVDebs (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

climate change v. global warming
Why the two terms? I've heard people say it's a tactic by the evil scientists when faced with evidence that the world is cooling or whatever-- 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brief explanation. The denialist "climate change is a method to rebrand global warming by the evil liberal science conspiracy" meme always shatters irony meters because the one who was actually behind that was none other than Frank Luntz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very informative, thank you-- 05:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Climate change" also works better explaining it to people. Me to my parents: "Yeah, we had two weeks of arctic weather. 'Climate change' doesn't mean it just smoothly warms up a coupla degrees, it means everything goes crazy for a few decades." - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sidebar in this U.S. EPA web page says "climate change" is meant to indicate that there will be changes in various phenomena (such as rainfall and wind) not just temperature ("warming"). Doctor Dark (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with Global Warming
I believe that global warming is not real because scientists out there do not necessarily agree with it and climate changes all the time and the Earth will warm up, but nowhere near like global warming says it will. Denying Glboal Warming is not pseudoscience, global warming is pseudoscience because it uses politicized science and fixed models that do not account for changes in twenty years time and that global warming is often used as anti-industrial and anti-capitalist propaganda to end all forms of industry and bankrupt the hell out of us. I do not believe in global warming because top scientists in the 70s were talking about a sharp cooling period in the 70s. You point out an increase in temperate from 1940-70, but do not cover the periods since then or fill the gaps. Global Warming is not real. Some argue that carbon dioxide created more wheat production by 50%. Global Warming is not real because carbon dioxide does not increase temperature because if you look at the gas makeup of gases in the atmosphere, you will find out that it is 78% Oxygen 22% Nitrogen and 1% other. There is no increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The gaseous makeup is hydrogen, none of the catastrophes predicted have even happened yet. The ocean has risen, but co2 itself, cannot magically cause rising oceans, but the sun hitting the earth at a certain angle and an axial shift in the earth can cause the oceans to rise, related how the earth spins on its axis. Temperatures rise sometimes because of the sun, and a shift in temperature is caused by the way the atmosphere works by the influence of the sun. The radical changes in tidal flow can cause the oceans to rise based on the moon's gravity. The tides also cause the oceans to rise based on cyclical tidal changes, not global warming. Not everyone believes global warming, and I believe that is a sensationalistic story that is meant to sell headline for the sake of advancing an environmentalist and anti-capitalist agenda against the corporations and it is not denialism on the level of Holocaust Deniers or Pseudoscience to deny global warming, because global warming IS pseudoscience because it does not take into account cyclical tidal changes in the earth's oceans and the shifting of certain currents such as the Gulf Stream, which causes all kinds of wacky weather. Currents cause weather to change radically and climatological changes in the Earth also, NOT GLOBAL WARMING. The earth is not radically warming to the point where life is unbearable. How come it is not stinking hot to the point of being like Venus? I know, because there is AN ATMOSPHERE regulating it based on how cyclical changes in the Earth's atmosphere cause the tides to cause the oceans to rise and shifts in the directions of currents that drive weather, not a sudden and magical warming of the earth, caused by manmade industry, because the earth does a nice job of warming the earth on its own without the helo of manmade industrial output. Thank you very much. It's called cyclical climate change, WHICH IS NORMAL because the climate in Pennsylvania hasn't radically changed to desert yet, when it has, well then there's something wrong isn't there? I do not see any changes in the ocean. The earth is not suddenly gonna flood like Noah's Ark in Genesis because of manmade industry. That's a proven fact. I think that Global Warming is bullshit and a bare-faced lie that is in total conflict with how the laws of physics and basic science work. There is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Thank you for listening.

00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Remember, cyclical changes are NORMAL and so are tidal changes. Combination of tidal and current flows regulate the earth's temperature, NOT GLOBAL WARMING! Let's be clear about this. The tides from the moons' gravity regulate the rising oceans, not global warming, okay. Thank you. 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The sun does not regulate the rising tides of the oceans, because if it did, there would be no oceans. I do not see where you come up with the sun hitting the earth causes the oceans to rise because it doesn't and never will.
 * Yes it does: $$F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ $$ the effect is just small. Oh, and the Global flood never occurred. Also, the changes are gradual. The greenhouse effect is well documented, see Venus for an example. Тy talk 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The effect is small, but global warming says that it is a radical and total change as always, but even so, that does not mean that global warming is real or going to happen the way it's gonna say it's gonna happen. It don't even know where you come up with it mathematically from that formula, but the greenhouse gas effects do not cause the oceans to rise radically or flood the earth or cause weather to cycles to change radically because the earth has a way of regulating itself without co2 emmissions affecting it. C02 emissions do not cause the earth to radically change in the way greenhouse gas effects do or anything like that. The earth does a nice job of regulating itself without the need of manmade pollutants clogging up the atmosphere because the earth is it its own regular and thermostat and decided what the temperature shall be, not greenhouse gases or manmade industry. Let's get that clear right now.

00:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say whether or not the Global Flood occurred or not. I said nothing of the sort. There is evidence in the Black Sea of a global flood from Robert Ballard in the Black Sea off of Ukraine, and some evidence of plants atop Ararat in Turkey. Global Flood did happen, I think because the continents were alleged to be together. Many cultures have similar stories to Noah's Ark about a flood story for example. Gee, I wonder how that happened. http://creation.com/pre-flood-relics-on-the-bottom-of-the-black-sea I did not say whether or not the Global Flood happened or didn't happen, I'm saying that it won't happen because of global warming, either.

00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=ancienthistory&cdn=education&tm=48&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm There are many stories of a flood in many ancient cultures from throughout the world, I believe that something did happen and that we do not have witnesses to prove otherwise, because they're all dead and how has science disproven it? Science cannot explain why all those cultures all have the same story or variation, thereof, of a global flood. I believe that something did indeed happen with a catastrophic flood. The glaciers melted thousands of years ago and created whole geographical features and continents throughout the world, which is a form of flooding. It is not pseudoscience to say that a flood happen, because we have no way of proving otherwise. There is no way to prove differently. Why can't scientists do something else other than attack religion all day because I think that science is not meant to prove or disprove religion because it is meant to prove whether or not a global flood happened, but to prove how things work, not waste time zealously attacking religion. Science should just leave religion alone, in my opinion. 71.116.34.150 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is Newton's equation for gravitational force it is only describing the effect of the suns gravity. Also, see Lake Agassiz, and Category:Global flood in general. Тy talk 00:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's so much gish gallop in these walls of text that it's hard to respond to. Could you briefly tell us what you think is your top slam-dunk argument?--BobSpring is sprung! 10:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)