How did Social Media affected Global Warming?

[Warren]

Global warming is one of the issues that affects us globally, how does social media affected the said global issue?
A example of which is the use of different social networking sites for information dissemination regarding on talks and updates on the said issue, which helps extend the global warming awareness to different parts of the country, even increase awareness to people who are in underdeveloped countries.

[Nitrox do pânico]

media needs instruments such as cameras and stuff...many of these products are made by using essential natural elements such as trees, when this happens, they're decreasing the amount of one of the most important things needed to avoid global warming...second, the production of these materials (cameras, tvs etc) is made in factories and we know that factories release smoke which goes into the atmosphere and this also contributes to global warming...

[NW Jack]

The powers that be have less control over social media than they do over main stream media. Thus, when they try to push an agenda, the social media is one of the first places that spreads the information to counter act the official agenda. Lately, with notable exceptions like the BBC, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...-time.html
main stream media seems to have become more skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG...-top&rd=r2
but this is a recent development. I am not sure whether this reflects the growing skeptic view in the USA, or is more a cause of it. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...g_research

For Warmists, social media has provided an excellent vehicle for recruiting corporate toadies to do Warmist corporate dirty work. http://rense.com/general94/using.htm

For Skeptics social media has been important in putting forward the skeptic view in the past when the major media outlets preferred to ignore Skeptics. YA is one such example, and as such YA has been important in the past in putting out the following Skeptic information:
- Nuclear Energy is not the only viable way to reduce CO2 production. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...514AAtoqo6
- Nuclear Energy is not a viable way to reduce CO2 production. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...131AA570Wh
- Carbon Trading was set up as a scam. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...143AAkWSch
- Recent warming trends are not special. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...204AAV4p0q

[Jeffrey Cole]

Social media has positive and negative results from the ability to spread information. There is a lot of information deliberately being said on the social networks that is incorrect, and even when the information is proved to be totally incorrect, no one corrects the information, and/or once someone believes somthing whether true or false, no amount of evidence will change ther opinion. The problem is that Global Warming/Climate Change caused by anthropogenic (man made) CO2 is not true.

Without greenhouse gasses, the planet would be about zero C average mean temperature. Man Made Climate Change/Global Warming that humans will cause the climate to run out of control?, no. On 8-6-2011, a NASA spokesman stated "the projections that the temperature will rise by 3 C by the end of the century were exaggerated" and "a rise of only 1/2 degree C is possible."

Actually, Man Made Climate Change has been thoroughly disproved. I am pragmatic (facts only) centered. I am not "Skeptical", I know the science along with more than 55,000. scientists world wide. There are only two categories in actual science communities - empirical evidence, and everything else. (Empirical evidence is information confirmed through study, measurement, and observation) All theories, hypothesis, suppositions, and myths fall short of being empirical data because of at least one awkward fact. As being presented, Global Warming/Climate Change has dozens of awkward facts. Address any or many awkward facts, and the theory of GW/CC falls apart.

Humans only emit about 2.5% of all emitted CO2. CO2 levels were measured 90,000 (90K) times since 1812 and levels have been as high as 550 ppma (*almost 150% of today's levels) and varied from 270 to 450 ppma since measurements began. If CO2 were more than doubled to 800 ppma, the temperature variant would only be 0.05 C (1/20 degree C) and would only be realized at night.

CO2 levels for the last 599.2 million years of the last 600 million years were average of 1200 ppma. Only in the last 800K years has it been so low. At 200 ppma, all plants that use photosynthesis go into hibernation and just sit there. At 150 ppma, all plants and life that use photosynthesis will die and become extinct, including most food crops - we will to.

Ice Core measurements are deliberately used to misrepresent CO2 levels because the measurements in ice cores do not take into consideration of variability's and underestimate the true levels. 1960 is also used to show the illusion that humans are causing temperature changes because that's when satellite IR measurements of CO2 were begun. IR readings also do not take into consideration any variability's - time of day, location, altitude with weather patterns, and assumes smooth mixing.

Though CO2 can be a powerful greenhouse gas in isolated controlled lab environments, there are dozens of influential variability factors to offset the 2.5% of any emissions humans cause, and it has actually been volcano venting since the mid tenth century, accelerating in emission rates since 1865 that has risen the CO2 starved atmosphere of planet earth. There is 320 million cubic miles of ocean water, with anywhere from 2 to 12 times as much in the mantle, that is vented about every 3 million years. With all that hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, trillions of tons of CO2 are vented yearly. Humans only emit about 30 billion tons annually. Earth actually needs higher atmospheric CO2 levels. It is a manipulation of the data and information to only create the illusion that people are causing Climate Change/Global Warming.

More than 250 million years ago, CO2 was more than 5000 PPMA, (nearly 600 million years ago it was 7700 ppma) to allow for flora and other photosynthesis life to thrive abundantly. Flowers were 6 feet high and plants were massive. This was the only reason herds of tens of thousands of dinosaurs weighing tons to tens of tons could exist. They ate tons of food daily. Without the high CO2 levels, there would not have been enough food for them.

To understand what it is all about, you can not just simply read talking points that someone wants to "prove" that humans are causing global warming/climate change. There are dozens of variants that are relevant that are ignored to "Prove" humans are causing Global Warming/Climate Change.

A simple start is http://www.petitionproject.org 31,478 scientists in the US alone say that AGW/ACC is only a political ploy and misrepresentation, bad science, and a political agenda being promoted. These are some of the greatest minds in America - Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and everything else.

The bottom line is that Global Waarming/Climate Change is nonexistent as being presented that human CO2 emissions are causing the climate to change..

[toocool]

When dictators tell us what to believe, and they are lying, it's great to have a network of friends that can react with a little resistance. That's exactly what happened with the Global Warming hoax. The big money speculators wanted the climate "experts" to back them with threats of Global Disaster, then they could make billions of dollars in a carbon trading scheme. Their scheme had resistance from the start, but not from the traditional downstream media.

You'll notice in countries where the dictators are trying to control resistance, they try to shut down the internet?