Thread: Global Warming is a hoax to fleece you!!

Global warming is the new religion. And any scienctist that do not tow the line are shunned and mocked and ran out of the industry. IT IS A SHAM. Should we throw caution to the wind? Hell no, but lets not sell our souls for bull shit either.

I'll agree GW is a hoax if you'll agree that 9/11 was an inside job.

My CT is that GW will usher in one world Government in one way or another. If the UN doesn't like what a nation is doing they get involved in that countries' business as it is..

With GW being a supposed "Global" threat that affects all nations, this will open the door to allow Babylonian Rule to Spread even further into nations who want no part of her..

Originally Posted by michaelr

Simple photosynthesis says its good for plants, plants produce oxygen therefore I would surmise that CO2 will be plenty diluted.

Yes O2 % in the atmosphere runs at around 21% while CO2 runs at about 0.03%

As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv. This is 100 ppm (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppm

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is wiki but you can verify the numbers ANYWHERE - even Exxon is not disputing them these days.

If you want to get at global temperatures and cycles then I would refer you to solar cycles. They run every 11 years with a four year upswing in activity and a nine year gradual decrease in activity. Now lay that over your global temperature graphs an be shocked. This next cycle will prove to be an all time high.

How Dumb do you think scientists are? Wait..........don't answer that!

This is well known and has been factored in - tell me did where in the 11 year cycle does your research say Earth currently is??

Rather than debating your points one by one I suggest you read this site - all your favourite long ago debunked myths about global warming in one spot,
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Your Astralian TV stations may be on my side here....Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax

So, they used file footage - does not make the whole thing a hoax. If you watched "Media Watch" you would see that they catch out someone using file footage at LEAST once a week

Originally Posted by michaelr

Simple photosynthesis says its good for plants, plants produce oxygen therefore I would surmise that CO2 will be plenty diluted.

plants take Co2 in the day and release O, at night it reverses....so it would seem to be there's no dilution...even if plants could save us the Tropical forests that take in the most of CO2 are disappearing, northern forests suck at this apparently...

If you want to get at global temperatures and cycles then I would refer you to solar cycles. They run every 11 years with a four year upswing in activity and a nine year gradual decrease in activity. Now lay that over your global temperature graphs an be shocked. This next cycle will prove to be an all time high.

yeah I'd be surprised as solar activity has been level and temps have continued to rise since the 70's which eliminated the solar cycle as the driver of this recent warming... below is the results of those study on solar cycles

Lassen updates his solar cycle data

In 1999, Lassen updated his graph with newer data, now able to filter the later solar cycles (Lassen 1999). His conclusion: “It has previously been demonstrated that the mean land air temperature of the Northern hemisphere could adequately be associated with a long-term variation of solar activity as given by the length of the approximately 11- year solar cycle. Adding new temperature data for the 1990’s and expected values for the next sunspot extrema we test whether the solar cycle length model is still adequate. We find that the residuals are now inconsistent with the pure solar model. We conclude that since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature.”

Lassen 1999 - the top figure compares temperature to solar cycles with the correlation breaking down in the mid 1970's. This is highlighted in the bottom figure, plotting the difference between temperature and solar cycle length.

Other studies confirm Lassen's later conclusion:

• Kelly 1992 models the effects of a combination of greenhouse and solar-cycle-length forcing and compare the results with observed temperatures. They find that "even with optimized solar forcing, most of the recent warming trend is explained by greenhouse forcing".
• Laut 1998 analyses the period 1579–1987 and finds "the solar hypothesis—instead of contradicting—appears to support the assumption of a significant warming due to human activities.
• Damon 1999 uses the pre-industrial record as a boundary condition and finds the SCL-temperature correlation corresponds to an estimated 25% of global warming to 1980 and 15% to 1997.
• Benestad 2005 concludes "There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming."

Solar cycle length as a proxy for long term solar activity tells us solar variations have had very little contribution to global warming since 1975

Your Astralian TV stations may be on my side here....Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax

no different than your iceberg fraud...news agencies always have file photos to go with a story, nothing to see here other than feed the
"area 51 alien autopsy crowd"...

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

Who cares about al gore? You should stop seeing the world through the tiny and completely unimportant american political system.
Yes we don't know exactly how man made CO2 impacts the environment, or whether or not the planet will cool/warm. Is it really important? We know as a fact CO2 is a warming gas impacting the environment and that more is produced (naturally or by man) than nature can handle and recycle. That alone should tell us to be careful and try to reduce our emissions.

Hey, plants like CO2 right ? So, more CO2 = more foliage = more shade thus lowering the planets surface temperature !! Problem solved and you don't even have to buy Al Gore's carbon credits to save the world !

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

Money for who?

The researchers, the promoters, the people selling "green" things, the people selling carbon credits, the university's, the labs, the authors, the publishers, lots of people.

Originally Posted by Six

Hey, plants like CO2 right ? So, more CO2 = more foliage = more shade thus lowering the planets surface temperature !! Problem solved and you don't even have to buy Al Gore's carbon credits to save the world !

And if it was that simple, then there'd be no climate change issue. Unfortunately, ignorance can't make science invalid.

Originally Posted by Ronster

Global warming is the new religion. And any scienctist that do not tow the line are shunned and mocked and ran out of the industry. IT IS A SHAM. Should we throw caution to the wind? Hell no, but lets not sell our souls for bull shit either.

strange how that is...not long ago it was the AGW warming scientists that were being mocked and now they're in the majority...wow those guys are master manipulators intimidating all the smart scientists into going along with the hoax....

Originally Posted by Stinger

The researchers, the promoters, the people selling "green" things, the people selling carbon credits, the university's, the labs, the authors, the publishers, lots of people.

Everyone who is not Cashing in on Big Oil...

Each Party has their own money making scheme.. Ron Paul is no different. He is cornering the market on Personal Liberties and Freedoms..