View Full Version : "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - BBC
I think every man, women, and child in the world should be made to watch this.
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
A gentleman running for senate in my state addresses this issue. I believe he referenced scientific research and said that a quarter of 1% of global warming was caused by co2. Something that is basically unmeasurable. I havent watched this video yet, but im sure it reinforces my beliefs.
B
Cagemonkey
05-02-09, 10:19
Thanx for the info. Didn't have time to watch the whole movie today, I'll catch up later. I once saw a bumper sticker that said it all "SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF". I wish I knew where I could get these. It hits the nail right on the head.
Thank you for the post, I really enjoyed this movie. You really can not argue with facts. I grew up always hearing about the "greenhouse effect" and "global warning", but now will do further research to see how much more evidence I can find to support this movie. It was a great eye opener.
Thanks for posting this Dinger.
I once saw a bumper sticker that said it all "SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF". I wish I knew where I could get these. It hits the nail right on the head.
http://www.bumperart.com/ProductDetails.aspx?SKU=2004012257&productID=1577
Some of the best info. debunking "global warming" has been put together by Lord Christopher Monckton, a member of the House of Lords in Britain. He is a distinguished scientist, published in all the leading scientific journals, and a firm opponent of "global warming." He has put together a website to fight this myth.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Another good site is: heartland.org
Cagemonkey
05-03-09, 10:33
http://www.bumperart.com/ProductDetails.aspx?SKU=2004012257&productID=1577Thanx for the hook up. I'll have to order some.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-09, 10:44
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
NYT article from Drudge about re-branding global warming
Here's another good link on this from junkscience.com
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
man made co2 in a nut shell
this is what it all comes down to.
Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent). Only 2.75 percent of 0.038 atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic "man made" in origin.
2.75 percent of 0.038 = 0.001045
of the 0.001, want to take a guess what any 1 country is responsible for?
If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.
Man made Co2 has ZERO effect on global temps. our "US" output has ZERO effect in the big picture.
I listened to this at work yesterday. Certainly an interesting video. Unfortunately, since global warming is a "religion" it's not going to change anyone's mind any more than watching a video produced by atheists is going to cause devote Christians to throw away their bibles.
Global warming is "change you can believe in" - regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Yeah i love the people who rant, "Its 100 degrees! we havnt had a tempature hotter than that since 1889!" Well hell, it was hotter then wasnt it? Global warming doesnt exsist, the earth goes through cycles, period.
losbronces
05-06-09, 10:26
Global warming is "change you can believe in" - regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
And it is going to cost us all a bundle. They are rolling legislation through right now, despite the fact that this "issue" is No. 20 on the polled priorities. Just what we need is an energy cost surcharge while we are trying to get the economy going. This policy change will really benefit the economies of China, India and possibly Brazil (I wouldn't count on that though).
You need to have a good crisis or more (e.g., global financial crisis, flu pandemic, guns going to Mexico) to speed the drive for global government (Global solutions for global problems).
Efforts to "level the playing field" globally won't bode well for the U.S.
dirksterg30
05-07-09, 07:49
Another good resource is the Science & Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/)
And it is going to cost us all a bundle. They are rolling legislation through right now, despite the fact that this "issue" is No. 20 on the polled priorities. Just what we need is an energy cost surcharge while we are trying to get the economy going. This policy change will really benefit the economies of China, India and possibly Brazil (I wouldn't count on that though).
You need to have a good crisis or more (e.g., global financial crisis, flu pandemic, guns going to Mexico) to speed the drive for global government (Global solutions for global problems).
Efforts to "level the playing field" globally won't bode well for the U.S.
However, the irony is - as the video pointed out - that their attempts to "level the playing field" are actually countered by their attempts to force green energy on deveoping countries.
BuckeyeBOSS
05-08-09, 07:20
I work with a guy who is an "indoor and outdoor air quality specialist" (for lack of a better term) and has been for decades. He has a Masters in Environmental Health and has consulted with some very large companies, Industrial Hygiene Consulting, EPA Compliance Consulting, even been up at ANWR, etc etc. We've had some conversations on this subject. He said that all of human activity probably causes a fraction of 1% of the global warming we currently see. The rest are natural processes. He still believes, as many do, that companies and people have a responsibility to be as "respectful" to the environment as possible. But not at the cost of our economy or to close down a company.
losbronces
05-08-09, 09:20
However, the irony is - as the video pointed out - that their attempts to "level the playing field" are actually countered by their attempts to force green energy on deveoping countries.
Yes, but those developing countries won't go there without financing provided by the U.S., Japan and the E.C. (China won't be participating in that type of nonsense). If that direction is taken, I see more defaults on LDC debt instruments in the future.
But to be honest, I see more defaults on LDC debt instruments regardless. The LDC debt process is to acquire the debt, steal as much as possible, default on the debt and then repeat.
As its been said, "Green" is the new "Red". The aim is to control the means of production, and now some are using "environmentalism" and "green" policies to stifle and control the free markets.
I contacted Netflix and requested that they add it to their library.
Buckaroo
decodeddiesel
05-09-09, 21:59
Watching the Penn and Teller "Bullshit" on Global Warming and Eco Guilt. You guys should check it out.
thopkins22
05-12-09, 10:25
Is Global Warming a Crisis? Debate at IQ2 Fantastic to see Michael Crichton on top of his game as well.
Playlist (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3364224E89BEBDAC)
Global Warming - what do the numbers show? John Christy at the University of Alabama
Global Warming - what do the numbers show? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA&feature=channel_page)
Dr. Michaels of the Cato Institute and professor at UVA on Global Warming
Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy01J7AyIU0&feature=channel_page) Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkEAd-n5jRg&feature=related) Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Y-N9dnDmU&feature=related)
I strongly recommend watching all three if you're interested in the topic.
This is a great movie, but it is poorly named. Hard to get a coolaid drinker to watch a movie with this title.
parishioner
05-13-09, 21:00
This is a great movie, but it is poorly named. Hard to get a coolaid drinker to watch a movie with this title.
Yea, but its hard to get a koolaid drinker to do anything.
Yea, but its hard to get a koolaid drinker to do anything.
Yes, anything other than vote for chairmen Obama;)
For those that prefer to read: http://www.lomborg.com/
Books by Bjorn Lomborg: The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It
Cool it - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming
"A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.
"Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.
"Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time."
QuickStrike
05-17-09, 05:28
What about methane gas from cattle? My sis has been blabbering about how this is affecting the ozone... and stuff.
Cow farts cannot be THAT bad.
*goes off to watch P&T*
thopkins22
05-18-09, 01:17
What about methane gas from cattle? My sis has been blabbering about how this is affecting the ozone... and stuff.
Cow farts cannot be THAT bad.
*goes off to watch P&T*
Methane IS a significantly more important "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide as is most every other gas that humans indirectly cause...something that vegans rant endlessly about.
However they've made the argument about carbon dioxide which gives us more facts to work with. Never mind livestock....care to guess how many thousands of tons of carbon dioxide is created by termites each year?
Methane IS a significantly more important "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide as is most every other gas that humans indirectly cause...something that vegans rant endlessly about.
However they've made the argument about carbon dioxide which gives us more facts to work with. Never mind livestock....care to guess how many thousands of tons of carbon dioxide is created by termites each year?
I guess we know where another $100 million of stimulus is going:rolleyes::p
Paul, I saw this awhile back. Thanks for letting others know. I thought it was very well done.
I can't even look at Al Gore anymore. Well, I never could to begin with really but ;)
Oh yes, Bjorn Lomborg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrXbufrihOw
There is a part 2 on the right.
I saw him testifying before Congress on C-Span once. Bright guy.
951bulldog
05-28-09, 12:24
The fact that this whole movement has gone from being about global warming a few years back to climate change now, tells everything. First, the Earth was getting warmer. when that was disproven and it was shown that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last decade or so, they changed to climate change. One thing they never mention is that there are no good records of what the global temp was say, 100 or 150 years ago and there are no records period before that. So how could anybody know if the Earth has warmed or cooled by a degree or 2? They can't.
Lastly, want to get a really confused look on a hippy's face? Ask them what happened 10,000 years ago to tend the last ice age. You know, when ice sheets covered all of Canada and half of the U.S. Ya, those ice sheets. They melted. Did cavemen cause that?
outstanding, thanks dinger, everyone i know has been sent a link to it
losbronces
05-28-09, 15:16
I guess we know where another $100 million of stimulus is going:rolleyes::p
There were grants made to study animal methane emissions back in the 1970s and I've seen others since then (sometimes specific to sheep or cattle). A guy that I know got a grant to study the impact of human feces on the Grand Canyon during the 1970s (sometime between 1976 and 1978). Government waste has been going on for a long time...
Thanx for the hook up. I'll have to order some.
Before you stick those on your car you should know that its a slogan for a suicide/VHEM cult, not anti "Global Warming". Type it into google.
Good Video
[QUOTE=951bulldog;378091] One thing they never mention is that there are no good records of what the global temp was say, 100 or 150 years ago and there are no records period before that. So how could anybody know if the Earth has warmed or cooled by a degree or 2? They can't.
QUOTE]
Core samples tend to be quite accurate data. There IS accurate data.
(I have more of a big picture point of view which can be understood due to "our" environment over here :) )
My take on the whole thing is that it's "good". The average person is an idiot and unable to view any subject in a rational manner. The fact is "we" should do something to take greater care of the environment. The ONLY way to get Mr Average to care is to frighten the cr@p out of him. The current lies and rubbish is doing this AND changes that need to be made are being made. The real fight should be to focus the attention on the issues which need it, not side issues.
My country is in a good position to use nuclear power. We have enough land to put the plants right away from anything and areas that are already radioactive. We could also make use of solar and wind power in bulk. Some of the solar tech is old and stable yet quite efficent and low "cost".
Using less oil for uses where other tech works well would lower demand and in every way be a good thing.
At one stage my City has less then 6 months supply of water for over 1 million people. We have been lucky and had some rain but it's still not a good situation. We might be around 18 months now. Without the current c02 push it would be MUCH harder for changes to be made that HAVE to be made. We HAVE to have changes made and without the c02 push many of them would not have the public interest so little would actually get done.
thopkins22
06-04-09, 07:49
Core samples tend to be quite accurate data. There IS accurate data.Agreed. But it doesn't tell us that this is some new and dangerous phenomenon that requires immediate and drastic action. Have you looked at the data?
My take on the whole thing is that it's "good". The average person is an idiot and unable to view any subject in a rational manner. The fact is "we" should do something to take greater care of the environment. The ONLY way to get Mr Average to care is to frighten the cr@p out of him. The current lies and rubbish is doing this AND changes that need to be made are being made. The real fight should be to focus the attention on the issues which need it, not side issues.:rolleyes: Yeah, people are stupid and need governments to lie to them, otherwise we'd be playing with poop in the streets.:rolleyes:
Without the current c02 push it would be MUCH harder for changes to be made that HAVE to be made. We HAVE to have changes made and without the c02 push many of them would not have the public interest so little would actually get done.What changes "have to be made," that higher oil prices won't achieve on their own? We already know that increases in CO2 levels don't correlate very well with dramatic temperature changes, and we know that plenty(most?) places on earth would actually be more habitable by humans with a higher average temperature. What are we fighting? Why? And for that matter, what in the world makes you think that we're capable of doing anything about it?
Even if these things would magically "stop warming," what do you tell the Africans and Asians? Sorry, we've gotten ours...you should probably keep rolling with your expected lifespans that are decades shorter than ours(because they have no energy,) so that those of us in developed countries don't sweat a little more?
A tiny fraction of the money allocated to global warming could have piped fresh water to every single human being in Africa. That wasn't a change they "needed?" The amount of hippie bullshit around this issue is astonishing.
FlyAndFight
06-05-09, 10:59
It's all about the money.
"Follow the money..."
CAP & TRADE - It's the commodity of the future.
It's the next tax farce being prepared for the sheeple of the world...
It's all about the money.
"Follow the money..."
CAP & TRADE - It's the commodity of the future.
You have hit the nail right on the head. Billions will be made off this by the middlemen and I'd bet they are at the end of the trail when you "Follow the money" pushing this agenda.
Backed up by their temporary allies (Extremist Environmentalists) who will push even bad science to drive us back to the Middle Ages or into becoming another third world nation. I have a hard time believing so many intelligent people have never researched this for themselves.
parishioner
06-15-09, 10:54
According to the libtards...
Greenhouses Gases=Bad
CO2=Greenhouse Gas=Bad
Why is that they care so much about CO2 when the fact is WATER VAPOR(another greenhouse gas) makes up 90% of all greenhouse gases?
Why is water vapor not on the EPA's pollutant list? Why do they get off on CO2?
It makes zero sense.
dirksterg30
06-15-09, 12:55
According to the libtards...
Greenhouses Gases=Bad
CO2=Greenhouse Gas=Bad
Why is that they care so much about CO2 when the fact is WATER VAPOR(another greenhouse gas) makes up 90% of all greenhouse gases?
Why is water vapor not on the EPA's pollutant list? Why do they get off on CO2?
It makes zero sense.
It's not supposed to make sense.
It's not supposed to make sense.
Sorry to be a jerk guys but science is not a liberal/conservative argument.
Here's a controlled experiment for non believers:
Equipment:
1. Plastic Bag With No Holes
1. Elastic cord, piece of webbing, or rope
Instructions:
*Take Deep Breath
*Place Plastic Bag Over Your Head
*Use Cord or Webbing to Secure Bag Tightly To your Neck
*Breath In And Out Repeating The Process For Several Minutes.
Don't worry it's just a "liberal" conspiracy when you pass out, not the CO2
Sorry to be a jerk guys but science is a liberal/conservative argument.
Here's a controlled experiment for non believers:
Equipment:
1. Plastic Bag With No Holes
1. Elastic cord, piece of webbing, or rope
Instructions:
*Take Deep Breath
*Place Plastic Bag Over Your Head
*Use Cord or Webbing to Secure Bag Tightly To your Neck
*Breath In And Out Repeating The Process For Several Minutes.
Don't worry it's just a "liberal" conspiracy when you pass out, not the CO2
First, please clarify. Non-believers of man-made climate change?
Second, did you actually watch the video?
I've heard all the arguments, I know them well. Perfect example of a little bit of science coupled with politics, and agenda being a very bad thing. I never intended to get in this discussion on this board (I clicked on the wrong link), and I honestly don't intend on continuing it.
Feel free to believe what you want about this issue. We'll honestly all see the results sooner rather then later, so debate away.
Sorry to be a jerk guys but science is not a liberal/conservative argument.
Here's a controlled experiment for non believers:
Equipment:
1. Plastic Bag With No Holes
1. Elastic cord, piece of webbing, or rope
Instructions:
*Take Deep Breath
*Place Plastic Bag Over Your Head
*Use Cord or Webbing to Secure Bag Tightly To your Neck
*Breath In And Out Repeating The Process For Several Minutes.
Don't worry it's just a "liberal" conspiracy when you pass out, not the CO2
Perhaps you can answer this question. Exactly who are you asking to perform your little experiment here?
Anyone, liberal, christian, conservative, muslim, purple, straight, gay, or angelic that asks the question:
"Why is [it] that they care so much about CO2"
I also find it amusing that on a gun forum that discusses one of the most scientific and technologically advanced personal weapons ever engineered, a weapon that if something is .001" off can fail to operate, is discussing changes of 1 or more percent of the planets atmosphere as if they don't matter.
I mean, I should be able to shoot a .270 round down an AR right? Both my hunting rifle and my AR start with .2 after all...;)
The fact is "we" should do something to take greater care of the environment. The ONLY way to get Mr Average to care is to frighten the cr@p out of him. The current lies and rubbish is doing this AND changes that need to be made are being made. The real fight should be to focus the attention on the issues which need it, not side issues.
You have got to be shitting me.
I've heard all the arguments, I know them well. Perfect example of a little bit of science coupled with politics, and agenda being a very bad thing. I never intended to get in this discussion on this board (I clicked on the wrong link), and I honestly don't intend on continuing it.
Feel free to believe what you want about this issue. We'll honestly all see the results sooner rather then later, so debate away.
Ah, is that kind of like how in the 70s we were told that the Earth was about to turn into a giant ice cube in five years?
Sorry to be a jerk guys but science is not a liberal/conservative argument.
Here's a controlled experiment for non believers:
Equipment:
1. Plastic Bag With No Holes
1. Elastic cord, piece of webbing, or rope
Instructions:
*Take Deep Breath
*Place Plastic Bag Over Your Head
*Use Cord or Webbing to Secure Bag Tightly To your Neck
*Breath In And Out Repeating The Process For Several Minutes.
Don't worry it's just a "liberal" conspiracy when you pass out, not the CO2
What exactly is your little experiment supposed to prove?
Science is not a liberal/conservative issue but utilizing "science" to implement a globalist/socialist agenda of control and redistribution of wealth is straight out of the progressive playbook.
People like dcmanus want to advance their liberal agenda without considering(maybe not even aware of) the large amount of academically provided evidence that refutes global warming. Kind of like the recent congressional hearings that would not allow any one or any institute, academics included, to dispute global warming. NOT ONE "global warming" dissenter was allowed to present evidence to the contrary of so-called "global warming."
Guess what? There is reputable, university/academic based research that disproves "global warming."
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
heartland.org
I can go on with the various reputable and legitimate sources that dispute "global warming."
dcmanus doesn't want to discuss facts, only what he was fed by George Soros and Al Gore. By the way, what about the MANY academics that have ridiculed and disproven Gore's propoganda piece, "An Inconvienant Truth?"
You really want to get into this? Let's do it. I have a double major from a large state university in biology and botany. I can support my side with facts and figures.
Oh, wait a minute, when you run Gore's so called computer models in reverse, they can't predict last years weather. The UN's Climate Change Panel even disputes Gore's claims. Oh yeah, so do articles published in Nature and Scientific American.
Go foist your B.S. on the uneducated, like Gore tries to do. People are waking up to your BS because scientific figures are beginning to dispute the left's propoganda with hard scientific data.
Let's do this!
Anyone, liberal, christian, conservative, muslim, purple, straight, gay, or angelic that asks the question:
"Why is [it] that they care so much about CO2"
You can believe anything you want, even if there are no facts to support your opinion. I support your right to do so. I don't appreciate you telling those folks who don't believe as you do to go kill themselves. Can't you argue your point in an intelligent manner?
I also find it amusing that on a gun forum that discusses one of the most scientific and technologically advanced personal weapons ever engineered, a weapon that if something is .001" off can fail to operate, is discussing changes of 1 or more percent of the planets atmosphere as if they don't matter.
Amusing but not believable? Some of the folks in this group presents are pretty doggone smart. They're believable with respect to firearms, but when facts and evidence is presented which challenges one of your beliefs, they're merely amusing?
your kidding right? First don't accuse me of being liberal simply because I friggen disagree with you! Now who is being judgmental? Seriously think about that, and think about the implications. Don't become what you complain about.
Second I have read several reports similar to what you talk about. The beauty of science is that it can be dis-proven. ALL OF IT. That is the scientific method cut and dry. Does that mean that 1, 2, 10, 15, or even 5% of people offering potential "dissenting research" mean that the general theory is thus dis-proven? NO IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT, unless the research can stand up to the trials and tribulations of the scientific method, peer review, and additional experimentation. If you have a degree like you say you should know this.
Does this mean that Al Gore and the current media circus (both the left and right) are justified in their miss use of science? Absolutely not.
Get over yourself. Read, think, and remember your supposed degree before you write. This is not a debate of politics. Especially when over 90% of scientists globally that are working have used scientific evidence to come to the same conclusion.
People like dcmanus want to advance their liberal agenda without considering(maybe not even aware of) the large amount of academically provided evidence that refutes global warming. Kind of like the recent congressional hearings that would not allow any one or any institute, academics included, to dispute global warming. NOT ONE "global warming" dissenter was allowed to present evidence to the contrary of so-called "global warming."
Guess what? There is reputable, university/academic based research that disproves "global warming."
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
heartland.org
I can go on with the various reputable and legitimate sources that dispute "global warming."
dcmanus doesn't want to discuss facts, only what he was fed by George Soros and Al Gore. By the way, what about the MANY academics that have ridiculed and disproven Gore's propoganda piece, "An Inconvienant Truth?"
You really want to get into this? Let's do it. I have a double major from a large state university in biology and botany. I can support my side with facts and figures.
Oh, wait a minute, when you run Gore's so called computer models in reverse, they can't predict last years weather. The UN's Climate Change Panel even disputes Gore's claims. Oh yeah, so do articles published in Nature and Scientific American.
Go foist your B.S. on the uneducated, like Gore tries to do. People are waking up to your BS because scientific figures are beginning to dispute the left's propoganda with hard scientific data.
Let's do this!
FlyAndFight
06-22-09, 10:05
Global Warming's True Believers
Monday, May 04, 2009
By Jack Kinsella
Despite the realities of the situation, not the least of which is the sudden and total lack of evidence, the faith that True Believers have in anthropomorphic global warming is truly inspiring.
'Anthropomorphic' means 'man-caused' and that is a key element to the entire global warming swindle. If it is man-made, then an argument can be made that man should do something about it.
In such a case, some of the various schemes being advanced, like cap-and-trade, carbon credits and carbon-neutral footprints would make sense. (Almost).
The True Believers don't just have to have faith that the earth continues to warm even as the temperature falls. True Believers must not only have have faith that global warming causes falling temperatures, they have to be willing to make the argument in public.
True Believers must have faith that, despite all that is known about historical weather patterns, this time it is going to be catastrophic unless "something" is done to prevent it.
And more than anything else, True Believers must have faith that global warming is the direct result of human activity. That faith must be unshakeable, otherwise they wouldn't be True Believers. Indeed, one could argue that it is at this point that global warming passes from the realm of science into that of religion.
First off, the earth is carbon-based, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the earth emits carbons into the atmosphere. What would one expect a carbon-based planet to emit?
The planet's atmosphere is designed to function as a greenhouse. Were it not for the canopy of greenhouse gases surrounding our earth, water would boil in the noonday sun, and freeze solid every night. (If water could exist at all).
Let's consider the greenhouse gases themselves, for a second. The big one is carbon dioxide (82%). Carbon dioxide is what you breathe out after you've extracted all the oxygen. Plants breathe in the carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. Without carbon dioxide, plants would suffocate and we would suffocate soon afterwards.
Nitrogen is another pollutant, say the True Believers. Nothing on this earth that grows, a cornfield to a baby nursery, can grow without nitrogen. Carbon dioxide and nitrogen together account for about 90% of greenhouse gases.
According even to Al Gore, ninety-six percent of all the global-warming causing greenhouse gases are emitted by the oceans. That leaves four percent. Two percent of the remaining total is caused by land-locked natural events outside of human control.
That leaves about two percent of the global-warming causing greenhouse gases that one might argue are 'optional' -- that is to say, that can be affected by human behavior, or 'anthropomorphic'. Two percent.
The True Believers claim that human activity is responsible for 14% of global warming gases is almost true. It is actually fourteen percent of the two percent of the whole greenhouse gas cycle. (Cow flatulence accounts for eighteen percent -- so humans aren't even the worst offenders.)
Anthropomorphic greenhouse gases account for a tiny percent of a tinier percent of the whole picture. One can have fun with numbers and demonstrate how greenhouse gases have increased over certain periods of time and then point to rising temperatures.
But that doesn't change the equation. If man-made activity accounts for 14% of 2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, if we doubled our emission levels and temperature fluctuations today, it would still account for just 28% of 2%.
If we totally eliminated man-made emissions, it would reduce greenhouse gases by 14% of 2% of the total.
No matter how one spins the numbers, in reality, human activity is just a drop in the proverbial bucket.
Here's a news flash from 1755: "Scientists Link Sun To Global Warming!"
Scientists have been tracking solar activity since 1755 when astronomers noted a relationship between sunspots and the climate, so they began recording their findings. sunspots come and go in roughly eleven-year cycles, but during the 17th century, they had all but disappeared.
That period of solar inactivity is called the "Maunder Minimum" after the astronomer who discovered it. Since then, science has noted that when the sun’s activity is high and low are related to warm and cool climatic periods.
The weak sun in the 17th century coincided with the so-called Little Ice Age. Coincidence? Sunspot activiy took a dip between 1790 and 1830 and the earth also cooled a little. It was weak during the cold Iron Age, and active during the warm Bronze Age.
During the 20th century the sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.”
Mysteriously, (from the perspective of the True Believers) the sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. And since the turn of the century, sunspot activity has all but disappeared. And mysteriously, so has any evidence of global warming.
The UK Independent recently quoted Marc Hairston of the University of Texas saying of solar activity, "This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not.”
(Editor's note: It's April 29 and it is 35 degrees outside. I thought we'd be out of it by now. But we're not.)
In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton announced: "The science is unambiguous, and the logic that flows from it is inescapable: climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention."
Here's a clue (from a Fox News report): "A greenhouse gases trading system funded with the support of then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, which is likely to play a major role in his $650 million cap-and-trade initiative, lists five present or former top-ranking U.N. officials on its advisory board who've had enormous influence over climate change matters -- including one who received $1 million from a convicted South Korean lobbyist.
The most controversial figure of the five, Maurice Strong, was one of former Secretary General Kofi Annan's key aides at the U.N. for years until the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal forced him to leave. Since then Strong has lived mostly in China. Calls to the exchange for comment about Strong's role, and that of other U.N. figures, were not returned."
Why is it, do you think, that belief in anthropomorphic global warming is primarily a liberal religion? The Bible says, "by their fruits, ye shall know them."
Maurice Strong is serves as Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and as Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank.
He is also, among many other things Chairman of Strovest Holdings, Chairman and Director of Technology Development Corp, Director of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum and Chairman of the Earth Council. Strong's former appointments include Secretary General of the World Bank and Director of the Rockefeller Foundation. He is a leading Bilderberger, and member of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and Club of Rome.
Maurice Strong is to the New Age and environmental movement what George Soros is to the Fascist Far Left. Strong is a Rockefeller socialist proponent of a one world government and one world religion (New Age) with links to the Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Trust) founded by Alice Bailey.
One of his more famous quotes sounds a lot like what is now unfolding before us: "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
There are several things I want you to take note of before we move on. The first is the actual science, to wit: the sudden and inexplicable collapse of solar activity. The second is the corresponding collapse of any evidence pointing to global warming.
The third is the refusal by the fascists, socialists, New Agers and US 'progressives' like Obama, Gore or Clinton to consider the obvious connection between the sun and the weather. (That one never ceases to amaze me).
The fourth is the religious nature of the debate. Scientists who question the global warming 'consensus' are dismissed using the distinctly religious epithet, 'heretic'. Global warming champions revel in the label 'true believers'. Evidence is irrelevant.
Finally, note the way the fear of global warming has reshaped the debate. The fear-mongering is almost cartoonish. The stakes are enormous. Nobody on either side of the debate knows what to do next. Those who advocate doing nothing are even worse than heretics -- it is surreal.
Until one considers it from the perspective of Bible prophecy.
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring: Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. . . . "
"And when these things BEGIN TO COME TO PASS, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:25-26, 28)
your kidding right? First don't accuse me of being liberal simply because I friggen disagree with you! Now who is being judgmental? Seriously think about that, and think about the implications. Don't become what you complain about.
Second I have read several reports similar to what you talk about. The beauty of science is that it can be dis-proven. ALL OF IT. That is the scientific method cut and dry. Does that mean that 1, 2, 10, 15, or even 5% of people offering potential "dissenting research" mean that the general theory is thus dis-proven? NO IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT, unless the research can stand up to the trials and tribulations of the scientific method, peer review, and additional experimentation. If you have a degree like you say you should know this.
Does this mean that Al Gore and the current media circus (both the left and right) are justified in their miss use of science? Absolutely not.
Get over yourself. Read, think, and remember your supposed degree before you write. This is not a debate of politics. Especially when over 90% of scientists globally that are working have used scientific evidence to come to the same conclusion.
Sorry, but it absolutely is a debate of politics.
thopkins22
06-22-09, 13:40
Especially when over 90% of scientists globally that are working have used scientific evidence to come to the same conclusion.
As someone who has written requests for research grants, your chances of getting decent money go up dramatically if you mention how your research will help fix global warming. Percentages mean very little.
As someone who has written requests for research grants, your chances of getting decent money go up dramatically if you mention how your research will help fix global warming. Percentages mean very little.
And now we have the same folks issuing millions/billions in grant money taking control America's health care, finance and manufacturing. We are so, so, so very screwed....
I've heard all the arguments, I know them well. Perfect example of a little bit of science coupled with politics, and agenda being a very bad thing.
How very true. In fact I believe it is more political, or governmental, control being shoved down our very throats at this very moment using science that is not truly settled in this treasonous cap and trade bill. Even if one were to believe in the scam that is global warming the cap and trad will not fix it. In fact in every country that it has been tried the carbon emissions were not effected AT ALL, so that very much to me seems to make it a waste. It is more about tax and control than it is about helping the earth. The weirdest thing about the whole issue, is that when it comes down to it, very few (and none in gov) are really trying to use current technology that could help such as nuclear. That will have to be used to a much larger degree if we are to approach our rising energy needs realistically. I find it sad that people are so short sighted as to think that we all need to go to electric cars, therefore increasing the power demand, then turn around and try to get rid of our coal and oil fired power plants. Then their great answer is to go with wind and solar:rolleyes: please, that is not going to be enough.
Feel free to believe what you want about this issue. We'll honestly all see the results sooner rather then later, so debate away. Do you mean the results that are telling us that the earth is currently cooling, and has been for the last couple years without regard to the carbon levels? Because it seems to me that would indicate that we have nothing to do with the overall climate changing just like we have had nothing to do with the last several warm times or ice ages over the last however many years that the earth has been around.
Personally I am trying to help the environment by producing as much carbon as I can. Because as I recall from grade school, the plants kinda use it for their own growth. But I am no botanist, so I guess I could be off.
parishioner
07-08-09, 20:00
I think its comical how nobody thinks about the sun in regards to global warming.
"O golly, that big flaming, gaseous, volatile, exploding fireball in the sky never fluctuates and couldn't possibly effect the temperature of the earth! It has to be the the CO2 that Al Gore told me about!"
I think its comical how nobody thinks about the sun in regards to global warming.
"O golly, that big flaming, gaseous, volatile, exploding fireball in the sky never fluctuates and couldn't possibly effect the temperature of the earth! It has to be the the CO2 that Al Gore told me about!"
I have been saying this for about a year and a half
j_nosfarato
07-12-09, 11:11
The questions I have are much more mundane. For example, based on the current climate models, all variables being similar for the next few decades, how can the "climate change" scientists accurately predict the weather in the next hundred years but NOT accurately predict the weather for next month?
If it is possible to predict the weather in one hundred years, using the formula the climate change scientists use, should it not be possible to accurately predict the winning lotto numbers for next year? Next month? Tomorrow? Rediculous right? After all there are far fewer variables involved with the lottery box than the climate.
In any event, if the entire world is not on board with the "global Cooling" ahh sorry, "Global Warming" damn! sorry again. I mean "Global Climate Change" agenda, the entire point is moot.
One minor exception. The United States will crumble financialy due to the crushing tax burden( Cap and Tax) placed upon the people in the name of "Climate Change" AKA ahh, weather.
Sorry to be a jerk guys but science is not a liberal/conservative argument.
Here's a controlled experiment for non believers:
Equipment:
1. Plastic Bag With No Holes
1. Elastic cord, piece of webbing, or rope
Instructions:
*Take Deep Breath
*Place Plastic Bag Over Your Head
*Use Cord or Webbing to Secure Bag Tightly To your Neck
*Breath In And Out Repeating The Process For Several Minutes.
Don't worry it's just a "liberal" conspiracy when you pass out, not the CO2
This experiment is invalid as it doesn't take into account the Billions of of Plants and algae that thrive on CO2 consumption.
This experiment is invalid as it doesn't take into account the Billions of of Plants and algae that thrive on CO2 consumption.
SHHHHHH! If it isnt valid then people like al gore cant make millions! Besides, this idea of global warming and CO2 crap has been ingrained into so many people, they think they some how are an expert on it and they know its SOOOO bad and evil. Yet, what they dont tell you is the got there info from a tree hugging website/magazine which makes there profit from pushing this propaganda. What really gets me is the fact that they say the earth is warming or cooling so fast we could enter another ice age or have massive flooding:eek: Yet they have no tempature records past 150 yrs. ago max. Its all a bunch a B.S and it gets annoying to see science used in such a way that it gives it a bad name.:mad:
parishioner
07-12-09, 17:09
This conversation was on the radio the other day.
Im not joking.
Talk show host: Well, did you know that the earth is actually in a cooling trend at the moment?
Caller: Well, the scientists say that global cooling actually causes global warming...
Talk show host: Did you actually hear what you just said?
Caller: Yes, I did.
Talk show host: Ok...next caller.
I find this subject fascinating, mainly because I happen to be currently enrolled in a local University seeking a BAC in Environmental Sciences.
thopkins22
07-29-09, 13:33
Michael Crichton called environmentalism a religion back in 2005. He makes tremendous sense, and I love all the debates that involve him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
This experiment is invalid as it doesn't take into account the Billions of of Plants and algae that thrive on CO2 consumption.
Actually it's invalid because it is textbook non sequitor. It's just the sort of idiotic "experiment" one expects to be invited to perform by a person who has NO interest in reasoned scientifically-based debate.
Global warming nutters are pretty much all the same. They believe.
parishioner
10-22-09, 14:04
Poll: Americans' belief in global warming cools
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_re_us/us_climate_poll
WASHINGTON – The number of Americans who believe there is solid evidence the Earth is warming because of pollution is at its lowest point in three years, according to a survey released Thursday.
The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.
The steepest drop occurred during the past year, as Congress and the Obama administration have taken steps to control heat-trapping emissions for the first time and international negotiations for a new treaty to slow global warming have been under way. At the same time, there has been mounting scientific evidence of climate change — from melting ice caps to the world's oceans hitting the highest monthly recorded temperatures this summer.
The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic's thermostat.
But while the evidence appears clear, only about a third, or 36 percent of the poll respondents feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That's the first decline since 2006.
"The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things," said Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, which conducted the poll from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4. "When the focus is on other things, people forget and see these issues as less grave."
Andrew Weaver, a professor of climate analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, said politics could be drowning out scientific awareness.
"It's a combination of poor communication by scientists, a lousy summer in the Eastern United States, people mixing up weather and climate and a full-court press by public relations firms and lobby groups trying to instill a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the public," he said.
Despite misgivings about the science, half the respondents still say they support limits on greenhouse gases, even if they could lead to higher energy prices, and a majority — 56 percent — feel the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.
But many of supporters of reducing pollution have heard little to nothing about cap-and-trade, the main mechanism for reducing greenhouse gases favored by the White House and central to legislation passed by the House and a bill the Senate will take up next week.
Under cap-and-trade, a price is put on each ton of pollution, and businesses can buy and sell permits to meet emissions limits.
"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll ... is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposes the Senate bill and has questioned global warming science. Republicans in general have grown even more steadfast in their opposition. A majority — 57 percent — now say there is no hard evidence of global warming, up from 42 percent last year, according to the poll.
Other results of the survey also suggest that it will be tough politically to enact a law limiting emissions of global warming pollution. While three-quarters of Democrats believe the evidence of a warming planet is solid, and nearly half believe the problem is serious, far fewer conservative and moderate Democrats see the problem as grave as they did last year.
Regional differences were also detected. People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by Democratic lawmakers from Massachusetts and California.
One of those lawmakers, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, told reporters Thursday that she was happy with the results, given the interests and industry groups fighting the bill.
"Today, to get 57 percent saying that the climate is warming is good, because today everybody is grumpy about everything," Boxer said. "Science will win the day in America. Science always wins the day."
Earlier polls, from different organizations, have not detected a growing skepticism about the science behind global warming.
Since 1997, the percentage of Americans that believe the Earth is heating up has remained constant — at around 80 percent — in polling done by Jon Krosnick of Stanford University. Krosnick, who has been conducting surveys on attitudes about global warming since 1993 was surprised by the Pew results.
He described the decline in the Pew results as "implausible," saying there is nothing that could have caused it.
Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer!
The website at www.moviesfoundonline.com contains elements from the site www.google-query.net, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent. Just visiting a site that contains malware can infect your computer.
For detailed information about the problems with these elements, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.google-query.net.
Learn more about how to protect yourself from harmful software online.
I understand that visiting this site may harm my computer.
thopkins22
10-26-09, 23:06
So, why did you provide a link to it then?:confused: Am I missing some context here?
Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer!
The website at www.moviesfoundonline.com contains elements from the site www.google-query.net, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent. Just visiting a site that contains malware can infect your computer.
For detailed information about the problems with these elements, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for www.google-query.net.
Learn more about how to protect yourself from harmful software online.
I understand that visiting this site may harm my computer.
thopkins22
10-26-09, 23:09
Global Warming - What Do The Numbers Show?
Dr. John R. Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.