Global warming - fact or conspiracy?

I've heard a theory that Global Warming was made up by the government for some evil purpose....Hmm....I lookedit up on Wikipedei (Climate change - Wikipedia) and it looked real to me, but than someone posted this link Page Not Found - MichaelCrichton.com to this book called State of Fear. I haven't actually read the book, just that forward by the author. Has anyone read it?Until now I have been 99% that global warming was a real problem, but now I just don't know what to believe anymore. To me this forum is a very reliable source of info, much better than some website.Looking forward to reading your replies. Thanks.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

We had an earlier thread on a similar topic:
Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?People might want to glance over that earlier thread before posting here.

---

If you are interested in climate change, why not read a book about climatology? I'm curious to know why you couldn't be bothered, and instead just surfed around on the web. Laziness? Stupidity? I mean, Crichton is a rightwing sci-fi author for god's sake. Do you really think he is in any way a good source of information?MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

Dang it....I searched for global warming using the search engine, but that thread did not come up... wouldn't you know.Sorry.

Hi Ragged. Welcome to EvC. Being heavily into Bible prophecy and understanding that global warming is a significant factor relative to things prophesied for the end of the age times and the advent of a new millenial climate at the 2nd messianic advent of Christ, the prophetic aspects of global warming is of significant interest to me. Would the Biblical prophecies of global warming be acceptable for discussion and debate in this thread? If so would you edit into your op a statement to that effect so as to make this topically acceptable?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I did a report on this very subject last year, and figured I'd note a few things:
(1) Technological progression has lead to an unnatural increase in the emissions of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, fossil fuel emissions, etc.) that lead to a greater temperature than what would exist without human intervention.
(2) If these emissions remain constant, there will eventually be an equilibrium temperature that is reached which is higher than what is natural.
(3) Even the most extreme (but reasonable) estimations of the impact of human intervention would make our contribution to global warming relatively insignificant to natural global climatic cycles.The point is that we are contributing to global warming, but our impact is minimal. This seems to be the theme of the previous thread (that is, when the posts are relevant) and is what you’ll find if you read Scientific American or watch the Science channel, so I'm not sure how much people would agree to some sort of government conspiracy. If you want more of a controversy, I'd take Buzsaw's approach.

Ragged, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that global warming is real. There are plenty of recorded data on the rate of recession of the arctic ice sheets and glaciers. NASA itself admits of the dramatic decreases in the total ice mass in the northern regions. We have lost some 40% or so of the northern ice cap.What the debate is about is what is causing the effect, whether it's manmade or something else. The scientific community, for now, seems to be split on the issue.

If there is any sort of government conspiracy about global warming in the US, it is a conspiracy to try to cover it up.

This is from:http://www.pacifica.org/programs/fsrn/fsrn_060602.html Seems pretty clear that billions of tonnes of green house gases are getting dumped in the atmosphere.I can honestly say I do not know any one who doubts we are having an effect on the state of climate out side of the Bush Administration.If you want to learn and help, go to:BBC - Science & Nature - Climate ChangeYou can put your computer to good use when it is idle.

PBS did a Frontline/NOVA program discussing the issue. You can find a website summarizing the episode here. what's up with the weather?Following the various links there, you can find a list of scientists who sit on both sides of the question. Perhaps you can link all of the scientists who doubt the human connection to the Bush administration in some way, but I kind of doubt it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I, too, doubt there is any "human connection to the Bush administration."That said, I suspect one could more likely connect doubting scientists to industry-funded research and think tanks: think cigarettes. In addition, there are a few scientists who, like opponents of evolutionary theory, have erected new goalposts each time new data confirmatory of global warming is presented. In any case, the media inclination to list equal numbers of "experts" on every side of an issue fails to reflect the overwhelming consensus on this issue.By the way, IIRC, the Bush White House has conceded that human activity is having an effect on "global climate change" (lilke "Osama" or "Mission Accomplished," global warming is verboten terminology there).Their fall-back position, as I understand it, is that current science cannot distinguish between human-driven change and natural cyclic change, and, in any case, there are no profits or votes to be gained by sacrificing current political capital to long-term problems.I disagree, of course, but my expectation of proof provides me no comfort, cold or hot.

I don't doubt for a second that there is a human connection to the Bush administration. Only humans could screw things up as badly as dumbya and his band of boobs has done.I would point out that simply "connecting doubting scientists to industry-funded research," if in fact that can be done, is nothing more than the ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, it's also possible that they receive industry funding because they have come to conclusions that the industries like, but they come to the conclusions before they received any funding.I'm not advocating any particular position. It's far outside my field of expertise and I certainly haven't looked into it enough to understand the science behind it. However, it is apparent that many scientists on both sides of the issue act a great deal like people more motivated by ideology than by science.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Simply connecting anything to any other thing would likely be fallacious, but in major areas of science and policy contention, it pays to follow the money.The corporate and governmental corruption of science is deep and pervasive; pharmaceutical companies fund studies that are suppressed or selectively released and send prescribing MDs on junkets; tobacco companies bought scientists by the bale; scientists submit papers without divulging financial stakes in the research. Science is a major nexus of power and wealth, so of course corruption and self-interested bias occur within it, just like politics and relgion. Yes, the money can find the researcher before the researcher finds the money.On the government side, the Bush administration attempts to suppress gov't. funded science which undermines their policies while protesting that not enough "good science" has been done, attempting to gag NASA scientists and substituting political calculation for objective evaluation of everything from medications to anti-AIDS strategies.They have squandered billions on their market-ideology obsessions, privatizing security and disaster relief with little to show for it; their market method of trading mercury polluting credits--mercury polluting credits!--would allow increased mercury emissions in some of the already most contaminated areas.They're not just dumb. They're wrong.When one sees a dwindling number of scientists supporting a position against which evidence is mounting high, it is not a fallacy to wonder who is paying for these persistently skeptical voices. I would lend more weight to research into, say, the biological effects of fumes from refining Product X if the grant didn't come from Product X, Inc. or its manufacturers organization--or from Senator Zippy who earmarked the funds because Product X, Inc., donated to his PAC.It would be a fallacy to assume that any of the skeptics are stooges and hacks, but to suspect it is not. I don't see it that way, of course True, there is passion on all sides.But I think many people believe our governments are failing to act on a real global threat due to head-in-the-sand ignorance, good old-fashioned greed, and an ideology of exploitation.That belief, and a passionate involvement in trying to face that threat, might seem ideological to some, but it smells rational to me. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : changed for which to against which: confused the antecedent!

I hadn't heard of this one before...Just when you think the ideas couldn't get any dumber

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after