Why are there so many conspiracy theorists trying to debunk global warming? (+ apology)

[BoJangles]

It literally annoys the crap out of me that conspiracy theorists have latched on to global warming, I assume they are fresh from the 9/11 boat. They jump up and down in the face of overwhelming scientific research and claim scientists are being paid by the government to report bad science, or even worse that they are somehow deluded by their own data.

Maybe I'm in the wrong career; I should just go ask the US government to fund some bad research.

If so many scientists are in on this, who is paying them?

It’s funny the people that promote this stuff the most are usually the least educated, are the least likely to have studied anything substantial at uni, and are the first to minimise the efforts of legitimate science while promoting their own substantially undereducated opinions.

I ask you this, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

 

-------------- 

Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... 

*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

It literally annoys the crap out of me that conspiracy theorists have latched on to global warming, I assume they are fresh from the 9/11 boat. They jump up and down in the face of overwhelming scientific research and claim scientists are being paid by the government to report bad science, or even worse that they are somehow deluded by their own data.Maybe I'm in the wrong career; I should just go ask the US government to fund some bad research.If so many scientists are in on this, who is paying them?It’s funny the people that promote this stuff the most are usually the least educated, are the least likely to have studied anything substantial at uni, and are the first to minimise the efforts of legitimate science while promoting their own substantially undereducated opinions.I ask you this, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 
Posted by BoJangles

Sir, as I've said before, I don't think that the majority of "Global Warming Skeptics" are really skeptical of the real science, just skeptical of all of the hype.

Since about 2005 I've been a big supporter of Algae biodiesel, I think that is the fuel of the future, it's clean for the most part, a little more NO2 than petro-diesel, but nothing to get too hung up about, and it's totally self sustaining, and it's carbon neutral, not that I'm all that worried about carbon neutral.

The problem with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just for the sake of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is that it is a distraction from the real socio-environmental issues, the big one for me is toxic water polution.  In the U.S. and other leading nations, we've made great progress, but in many other places, it's pretty scary.

[neilsox]

The harm in supporting extreme interpertations of global warming and extreme solutions is the recent ecconomic down turn will continue if we follow this course. Would someone please propose some detailed solutions that are likely workable and inexpensive.   Neil

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

Would someone please propose some detailed solutions that are likely workable and inexpensive.   Neil
Posted by neilsox

OK, Algae biodiesel.  All of the carbon that the algae uses to create it's hydrocarbon oil comes from the atmosphere, so when you burn the fuel in your car all you are doing is putting the CO2 back into the air where the CO2 came from which the algae took in the first place.  It's perfectly carbon neutral, and you'll get better "gas milage" in a 10 year old, 1998 VW Jetta or 1998 Dodge pick-up truck than you would with the same type vehicle with a gasoline engine.

Plus the fuel is completely non-toxic, you can drink it(if you can stand the taste), just like salad oil.

[BoJangles]

It is indeed promising, though what about production, how energy demanding is the process?

I mean to say, with any large scale operation energy is needed, whats hte low down on production? just big vats?

-------------- 

Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... 

*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

It is indeed promising, though what about production, how energy demanding is the process?I mean to say, with any large scale operation energy is needed, whats hte low down on production? just big vats?
Posted by BoJangles

 

Sir, only about 9 million acres of algae ponds, which compares with 450 million acres used for food crops and 500 million acres for livestock grazing.  and the best thing is that even though it's only 2% of the land already used for food crops, it doesn't need to compete for the same type of land, you can grow this algae in areas that the groundwater is too salty for food crops. 

*EDIT*

that 9 million acre figure is only for the U.S.,  so my guess is 30 million for the entire planet, which really is tiny compared to the amount of acres required for food crops.

 http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The energy to extract the oil out of the algae cells is still expensive, but it's really not out of reach.

This is a great read, but kind of long. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf#search='BioDiesel%20Fuel%20from%20Algae'

[neilsox]

I really like algae oil, especially made in vertical green houses. Green house greatly reduces the water evaporation loss. Potable water may be our next disaster, with some locations already in trouble.

At coal fired electric plants the carbon dioxide goes up a tall chimney with the hot flue gases. At some electric plants, there is room to install  equipment that recovers heat from the very hot flue gas. This reduces slightly the amount of coal used. The perhaps 100 c = 212 f gas is sent by pipeline to algae green houses in all directions. Some of the water vapor condenses out as the gas is cooled by traveling though the pipe. Some of the polutants are also remove with the condensate. Any good ideas on what to do this poison water? Useful chemicals can be recovered, but the initial cost of recovery is high and largely needs to be developed. The still warm flu gases are welcome in the green house on cold December mornings, but overheat the algae and the human workers July afternoons. Some new technology looks promising to recover more heat from the warm gas, at little or no net cost, long term. Initial cost is very high. The flue gas can bubble upward through the descending columns of growing algae. This slows the decent and reduces the weight of the columns. Perhaps half of the carbon dioxide is absorbed by the algae. Trace amount of other stuff in the flue gas may be harmful to the algae. This part has not been tested large scale. It may not be practical to use flu gas from coal fired plants. The flu gas from natural gas turbines, however, has much less nasty stuff, but about half as much carbon dioxide. The reduced percentage of carbon dioxide is likely not a problem, and may be an advantage. In any case the flu gases can be circulated repeatedly though the algae, until it is 90% nitrogen and perhaps 8% oxygen which is a waste product of the algae growth. Any ideas on what to do with the nitrogen which may still be 1% carbon dioxide, other than dump it into our atmosphere? I'm guessing that this is how it will work, so please offer alternative ideas.  Neil

[oscar1]

Replying to:

It literally annoys the crap out of me that conspiracy theorists have latched on to global warming, I assume they are fresh from the 9/11 boat. They jump up and down in the face of overwhelming scientific research and claim scientists are being paid by the government to report bad science, or even worse that they are somehow deluded by their own data.Maybe I'm in the wrong career; I should just go ask the US government to fund some bad research.If so many scientists are in on this, who is paying them?It’s funny the people that promote this stuff the most are usually the least educated, are the least likely to have studied anything substantial at uni, and are the first to minimise the efforts of legitimate science while promoting their own substantially undereducated opinions.I ask you this, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 
Posted by BoJangles

Your analogy about many of the non-believers, or 'deniers' as you call them, resembles either a classic case of political labelling, or a high degree of ignorance, or both. First of all, AGW is not a given, but a scentific theory, which in a free society doesn't have to be accepted by all. Secondly, if the world is indeed in peril because of AGW, no amount of 'belief' is going to do away with it, only appropriate action will. As it so happens, I know more 'non-believers' who are doing something tangible in order to reduce our fossil energy use, than I know 'believers' that do. Many of the 'believers' in fact, are against additional hydro dams, nuclear power stations and bio-fuels, totally going against the grain of the AGW belief they want to impose on us all. In addition, 'believers' are quick to say that lay-men may not question climatologists, experts in the field, yet dare to tell historians that they are wrong about the Medival Warm Period; this has something to do with the hockey stick model of Dr Mann. Then there is this private jetting to pick up a Nobel Prize, SUV-ing to climate conferences, intolerance towards scientists who refuse to fall in line, eco-taxing and not using the proceeds for building renewable energy systems, etc. I, a dispised 'denier', do almost 75 % CO2-neutral, both domestically and work-wise, do you?

[BoJangles]

In the same subtext and flavour as the above post, I give you the following.

Whine, excuses, whine, whine, whine, excuses, excuses, conspiracy, whine, pretty well sums that up.

Global warming is an effect, and an effect that is easily observed. Humans didn’t cause global warming, physics does, however humans ARE pumping scientifically proven greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere at unprecedented rates, this is UNDENIABLE and it shows no sign of slowing down.

For me, global warming is a label and all it means, is that humans are destroying (changing dramatically fast) their own habitat and that of all life on earth in a parasitic way. There are many more ways humans are destroying (changing dramatically fast) their own habitat as well, none of which should be minimised either.

I’ve noticed the biggest tool in the DENIERS tool box are the arguments; AWG is just a theory, there are bigger things to fix, this will ruin our economy, it’s all a conspiracy.

Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your economy is screwed anyway welcome to a depression, as for most of the others, they could easily be used in a creationist argument (enough said).

In regards to “there are bigger things to fix”, I could nearly <flavour removed>, humans aren’t stupid, and we can fix more than ONE problem at once. Though human nature sticks its ugly head in here and dictates, NOOOOO!!! This might affect me!!!!, I might have to change or make a hard decision or even worse, give up something I like, screw you current and future inhabitants of the earth, I like my car and ipod way too much to think about you.

I can see you squirming in your chair as I type.

If you ask me (and you don’t need to because I'm going to tell you anyway), if you’re not part of the solution your part of the problem, and these arguments are indeed the problem. They do nothing but try to derail legitimate efforts to fix perceived issues.

Even if AGW is false, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gases (oh apart from you might have to change something, boohoo)?

Oh and as for the comment about how most DENIERS actually being closet environmentalists who spend their life trying to fix a problem they don’t even believe in, <insert abuse here>

We are custodians of this planet, and as such there should be no monetary or legislative constraints (at all) to fix these perceived issues. Anything less is a crime to all life on earth. And you sir (DENIERS) are the criminal.

So what is my role in this? Well its simple, it’s to make people believe there may be a problem, and to act now, not just on AGW, not just in a personal way but in a wholesale legislative sense. Coincidently, the best remedy I can think of would be to immediately reduce the population on earth by a factor or 10 (if not more).

Thank you for your time and I look forward to more conspiracy theories, whining and whinging.

---

This is not necessarily all directed at oscar1 and more directed at any and every denier, however If someone asks me nicely I might reduce some of the colour and flavour from this post.

 

 

-------------- 

Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... 

*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

In the same subtext and flavour as the above post, I give you the following.Whine, excuses, whine, whine, whine, excuses, excuses, conspiracy, whine, pretty well sums that up.Global warming is an effect, and an effect that is easily observed. Humans didn’t cause global warming, physics does, however humans ARE pumping scientifically proven greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere at unprecedented rates, this is UNDENIABLE and it shows no sign of slowing down.For me, global warming is a label and all it means, is that humans are destroying (changing dramatically fast) their own habitat and that of all life on earth in a parasitic way. There are many more ways humans are destroying (changing dramatically fast) their own habitat as well, none of which should be minimised either. I’ve noticed the biggest tool in the DENIERS tool box are the arguments; AWG is just a theory, there are bigger things to fix, this will ruin our economy, it’s all a conspiracy.Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your economy is screwed anyway welcome to a depression, as for most of the others, they could easily be used in a creationist argument (enough said).In regards to “there are bigger things to fix”, I could nearly <flavour removed>, humans aren’t stupid, and we can fix more than ONE problem at once. Though human nature sticks its ugly head in here and dictates, NOOOOO!!! This might affect me!!!!, I might have to change or make a hard decision or even worse, give up something I like, screw you current and future inhabitants of the earth, I like my car and ipod way too much to think about you.I can see you squirming in your chair as I type.If you ask me (and you don’t need to because I'm going to tell you anyway), if you’re not part of the solution your part of the problem, and these arguments are indeed the problem. They do nothing but try to derail legitimate efforts to fix perceived issues.Even if AGW is false, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gases (oh apart from you might have to change something, boohoo)?Oh and as for the comment about how most DENIERS actually being closet environmentalists who spend their life trying to fix a problem they don’t even believe in, <insert abuse here>We are custodians of this planet, and as such there should be no monetary or legislative constraints (at all) to fix these perceived issues. Anything less is a crime to all life on earth. And you sir (DENIERS) are the criminal.So what is my role in this? Well its simple, it’s to make people believe there may be a problem, and to act now, not just on AGW, not just in a personal way but in a wholesale legislative sense. Coincidently, the best remedy I can think of would be to immediately reduce the population on earth by a fact or 10 (if not more).Thank you for your time and I look forward to more conspiracy theories, whining and whinging.---This not necessarily all directed at oscar1 and more directed at any and every denier, however If someone asks me nicely I might reduce some of the colour and flavour from this post.  
Posted by BoJangles

Sir, first off, I'm a skeptic, not a denier, and I've posted many good scientific links to back up my my skepticism.  Mostly from the IPCC.  Others from the Department of Energy and from University of New Hampshire.

The fact is that for this decade, our planet has not gotten any warmer, although it is about .5 degrees warmer than the average of the past 50 years. 

Another big fact.  All of the IPCC's projections from 10 years ago showed that we should be a lot warmer than we actually are.......but we are not.  The Earth's surface temperature hasn't gone up in 10 years, 1998 was a record breaking year, and we have not broken it since.

[Kerberos]

Replying to:

I ask you this, what’s the harm in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 
Posted by BoJangles

About a million dead people in third world nations.

If you want me to believe that it's an acceptable price, then I'm going to need more evidence than Al Gore running around in the snow in Washington crying Global Warming Global Warming.

 

 

LSD, 100 micrograms I.M. 

 

[neilsox]

Hi BoJangles: Your last post is not the way to win support for your ideas.

In my opinion conspiracies are in every aspect of our life, but they are not very effective as various conspiracies cancel each other and people increasingly assume what they see and read is flawed, if not totally wrong. The global warming crowd has been caught in numerous distortions and worse. Are you surprised that many of us assume the truth is approximately opposite on every idea expressed by the human caused global warming enthusiasts? Please try to be moderate and admit your statements may be flawed. Try understating your view. That is often more effective than exaggerating. For example: There is a very slight possibility that the ocean level will rise as much as one inch (average) 2009 to 2019.   Neil

[oscar1]

And you sir (DENIERS) are the criminal. 
Posted by BoJangles[/QUOTE]

I have no I-pod and my car drives on bio-diesel. Oh, and I also wind up my clocks.

[BoJangles]

oops after rereading what i posted i probably went a little overboard for this i apologise to oascar1 and who ever might have been offended, though still, i think im on the moral high ground here.

If im wrong, that's to say if GW isn't mad made, then we have stopped polluting the environment with carbon and such , if im right, then i`ve saved humanity from some disastrous consequences.

Also, i continually hear the words Al Gore in GW topics, personally i haven't seen 1 thing al gore has said about climate change, additionally most climate scientists don't work for him either, they are largely independent, what on earth does al gore have to do with climate change? he is irrelevant, well to me anyway.

In Australia at the moment we are suffering heat waves of 40+ degrees, so most aussies are probably on the same climate change wagon ( i assume ).

-------------- 

Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... 

*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

Also, i continually hear the words Al Gore in GW topics, personally i haven't seen 1 thing al gore has said about climate change, additionally most climate scientists don't work for him either, they are largely independent, what on earth dose al gore have to do with climate change? he is irrelevant, well to me anyway.
Posted by BoJangles

Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize for his "work" on global warming this year. 

[BoJangles]

Yup. Doesn't make any affect on science though, he isn't a scientist ( as far as i know ) , what does the little old climate scientists in the back of burke have to do with al gore? Absolutly nothing.

-------------- 

Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... 

*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

Yup. Doesn't make any affect on science though, he isn't a scientist ( as far as i know ) , what does the little old climate scientists in the back of burke have to do with al gore? Absolutly nothing.
Posted by BoJangles

You are correct that Al Gore isn't a scientist, however, he's pretty much the "spokesman" for the AGW environmental movement.  His claims of quickly rising sea levels and millions of environmental refugees are often not challenged by either the mainstream media, or the majority of the scientific community.  There are several hundred scientists who do challenge the outlandish claims of AGW doom and gloom, but they risk damaging their career in this era of "scientific political correctness" 

This casts doubt on the integrity of the scientific community as a whole.  At this point I have very little faith in "news" outlets such as CNN, Fox, BBC, and and quite a bit of skeptisim in what was once good science reporting such as Scientific American and Nature.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Replying to:

At this point I have very little faith in "news" outlets such as CNN, Fox, BBC,....

Posted by rocketwatcher2001

This is completely unrelated to AGW, but this is how I lost all faith in the news outlets.  Approx. 15 years ago, I was watching CNN's reporting of the war in the Balkins.  They showed a NATO strike aircraft making a bomb run.  The aircraft dropped it's bomb and the camera zoomed out for a wide angle.  Just as the bomb hit you could hear the explosion......but that's impossible.  The reporter was at least 1 mile away, there is no way the sound of the bomb's explosion would reach him until about 5 seconds after the bomb exploded.  It's just like lightning and thunder, if you a some distance from the lightning, you will see it long before the "BOOM" of the thunder reaches you.

 

That is distorting reality to make a story "better" for the camera, or better for whatever...  The fact is, they are distorting reality.

 

[bnbayou]

Please name one theory upon which everyone agrees.

[amaterasu]

Replying to:

The problem with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just for the sake of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is that it is a distraction from the real socio-environmental issues, the big one for me is toxic water polution.  In the U.S. and other leading nations, we've made great progress, but in many other places, it's pretty scary.
Posted by rocketwatcher2001

i couldn't agree more with that.
CDM and JI (Joint Implementation), for instance, could quite easily fall into the wrong hands.