Global warming proved to be fake

reply to post by cody599

Global warming proved to be fake

Anyone who has been alive for more than two decades knows this whole global warming thing is a political bulldozer. But... it doesn't do you any good. Joseph Goebbels knew that if you told a lie long enough... pounding it over and over into the people, they would begin to believe it.

This subject won't go away because there are powers that need for 'global warming' to take hold so they can do the same...

SnF OP

I will start to worry about my carbon footprint and my CO2 output etc when the war machine stops it damage to this planet. If what the government says is true about global warming then why do we have so many war planes flying every which way. Tank cannon projectiles in spent Uranium not to forget none of the military vehicles have smog control. If global warming is such a problem the government would not have multiple long term wars and the oil trade would be outlawed.

When the government cleans up their act is only when I will look at what I do!

There is no reasonable doubt that we have been deceived and no reasonable doubt that the issue is politicized. The real issue here is the corruption of science itself. As the University of East Anglia emails of Climategate prove, these guys were out to protect their turf and insist on their ideas despite the fact their very own data was in a state of shambles and didn't even prove what they contended. This graph says it all. Explanation below graph



The caption is really not true at all. Temperatures as measure by modern instruments were going up at the time, really. The issue is that green line. They eliminated it to "hide the decline." But what exactly is that green line? It's a measurement of temperature based on tree-ring data. What it shows is that despite temperatures going up, really, the tree ring data shows temperatures going down, which they surely were not doing. now why is this important?

Because it is tree-ring data that was used to tabulate past temperatures. We didn't have accurate thermometers way back then, so the scientists used tree-ring core samples as a "proxy" to stand in for thermometers. In the very first IPCC report (an organization that is almost totally corrupt, btw) they showed a "Medieval Warming Period" that showed temperatures higher than they are now, when wine grapes were grown in Scotland and cattle raised in Greenland. It was warmer than today. This was followed by "The Little Ice Age" which culminated in the late 1700s when the Thames River froze over. It was colder than it is today and we are still recovering from that cold spell, which is WHY temperatures are still rising.

But according to tree ring data from a few pines in Siberia, this has been explained away as a "local variation" so hat the Warming Period and the Little Ice Age both disappear from the graphs. This is part of the way they created the famous "Hockey Stick" graph showing a dramatic increase in temperature. BUT (and this is the important part) how can you use tree ring proxies to report on historical temperatures if the same data contradicts present day temperatures? THAT'S why they erased the green line. It exposes the entire sham. If that green line were just sticking out there like a sore thumb, people would ask why. It's not that one variable in a multi-variable chart showed a deviation. That's not all that unusual in graphs of this type, But if people understood that this one variable was the ONLY variable they had historically, the whole thing falls apart.

reply to post by cody599


Man made global warming is fake... natural global warming is indeed very real, and it occurs in cycles.

Here is another very telling graph putting our current "Global Warming" in perspective:



Here even the Little Ica Age and the Medieval Warming Period pale into insignificance compared to the high heat the Earth has experienced without benefit of SUVs and carbon belching coal plants.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

You do realize right that our current climate is what enabled us to evolve to humans, that our bodies are designed to live in this climate? You do realize that warming and cooling are meant to happen over thousands of years not hundreds? That's how natural warming and cooling work... much longer spans of time. Rapid warming or cooling throws the weather patterns out of whack and before we get to the warm point we can't survive (in another 100-200 years) we will have spent quadrillions of dollars in the attempt.

Also, what the hell are you talking about with farmers adding CO2 to their greenhouses? They do not. CO2 levels rise because the clear material (glass or now more likely plastic) allows solar radiance in but then traps the heat, and the more CO2 is trapped the hotter it gets. That's the whole greenhouse effect, and you have the nerve to call other people stupid? Do you even understand what the greenhouse effect is?

edit on 17-3-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Quote..."Also, what the hell are you talking about with farmers adding CO2 to their greenhouses? They do not".

Farmers do ad CO2...don't be so harsh.

CO2 Enrichment...

In case you do not want to read it all...

CO2 enrichment to levels of at least 800 ppm has been shown to increase the growth rate, yields and early harvests of many crops and is certainly economically viable for most high value crops. Supplying CO2 The two most commonly methods used for CO2 enrichment of a growing area are burning of hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas or propane, and compressed, bottled CO2. There are actually a few other, less practical ways - these are dry ice, fermentation, burning of candles and oil lamps and decomposition of organic matter.

Originally posted by redtic
Daily Mail? Seriously? That's like saying "here's proof from the Weekly World News that Elvis was an alien!"..

doesn't look like you read the credit for the graph on the graph
you should

Increases in atmospheric CO2 parts per million LAGS (which means happens after) increases in overall surface temperature. Not the other way around, never mind CO2 being the cause of any temperature fluctuations. Maybe you haven't had access to the suppressed, REAL sets of numbers like the Marine Sciences Division of the US Coast Guard like I do and have since 1971.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

what the earths temp " should" be, since by nature it should be exactly what it is, no matter what we think it should be.

Yeah, "by nature" - we are far from that now. Nature didn't release gigatons of fossile CO2 from igniting fuel.

This thread is another one of those where you can easily, far too easy spot the US-americans from the members of the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Chinese members, too.

I am sorry to say this, but if you ignore what we are doing right now, we altogether, billionaires and beggars, will suffer the consequences in the not-too-far future. Ignore science, tell us that the bigbad UN wants to stop your "american way of life" - nature will play a nice shoot-em-up with us. 2 degrees celsius more won't matter, it is too cold right now outside your window anyway?

Wellllllll - 2 degrees will destroy more than I could list right now.
You will see. I will see. We all will see.

This is not an "energy cloud from the galactic plane we are crossing", this is not "the barrier to the 5th dimension", this is a change in our planets ecosystem which far-but-very-possible-in-the-future-consequences we are able to see right now, right here, with a minor telescope:

look at the planet Venus.

You are correct that nature does not release fossil CO2, it releases CO2 by way of Volcano.
volcanoes.usgs.gov...

2 degrees wont matter. 10 degrees wont matter. Mother earth regulates herself.
Some species may pass on, but just as it's been for hundreds of thousands of years, others will flourish.

This is the natural progression of the planet earth. There is nothing we can do to kill it. Thinking otherwise is egocentric for us humans.
Look at Japan, 2 nukes dropped, and still life remains. In fact, at least 1 man lived through both, until he passed away over 50 years later.
en.wikipedia.org...

The planet Venus, may have life. A different planet and ecosystem has nothing to do with earth.

Face it folks, humans are not powerful enough to affect our planet.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

what the earths temp " should" be, since by nature it should be exactly what it is, no matter what we think it should be.

Yeah, "by nature" - we are far from that now. Nature didn't release gigatons of fossile CO2 from igniting fuel.

This thread is another one of those where you can easily, far too easy spot the US-americans from the members of the rest of the world, with the possible exception of Chinese members, too.

I am sorry to say this, but if you ignore what we are doing right now, we altogether, billionaires and beggars, will suffer the consequences in the not-too-far future. Ignore science, tell us that the bigbad UN wants to stop your "american way of life" - nature will play a nice shoot-em-up with us. 2 degrees celsius more won't matter, it is too cold right now outside your window anyway?

Wellllllll - 2 degrees will destroy more than I could list right now.
You will see. I will see. We all will see.

This is not an "energy cloud from the galactic plane we are crossing", this is not "the barrier to the 5th dimension", this is a change in our planets ecosystem which far-but-very-possible-in-the-future-consequences we are able to see right now, right here, with a minor telescope:

look at the planet Venus.

Well man from europe, you picked the wrong guy to try and talk # to about science, I know what I am saying is the facts. Yiur just making things up obviously.

Fact venus and earth are nothing alike, and god himself would be required to make earth into venus. Venus has hundreds of our atmosphere worth of gases, occupying the same space, the last probe sent to venus made it to the ground for a couple of minutes before it was crushed like an empty soda can, and that was the russians, ours didnt even make it to the ground before it died.

So venus and earth share nothing but a sun, and neither can be like the other without epic godlike intervention.

Please keep you ill informed, government boot licking, swallow what they tell you to rhetoric over the pond, I have seen how great the carbon market etc are saving the world..........lol, now that is funny.

I will not respond to you again, unless your argument is based in facts, not conjecture, my arguement the entire thread was based in actual verifiable facts. These facts contradict global warming, and prove it is a scam, for making the greedy more money, through tricking the small of mind with cheap tricks. It is the modern equivalent of the snake oil salesman.

But....but.....even the graph in the OP shows the earth is warming.....it just shows it hasn't been heating up as much as older predictions predicted.
That graph STILL shows that it IS warming!

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Here I will repost this you must have missed it.



Could you please point out where co2 levels and warming go hand and hand.

I will admit co2 has increased in the last 100 years, but warming hasn't.

reply to post by Drala


I already post that I stood corrected on that matter. I just don't get why people would do that when CO2 levels will rise on their own in a greenhouse. It seems absurd.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Here I will repost this you must have missed it.

Could you please point out where co2 levels and warming go hand and hand.

I will admit co2 has increased in the last 100 years, but warming hasn't.

edit on 17-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

Ok, look at the chart for 99% of that chart, the red and blue line are closely correlated. So actually that chart does show they go hand in hand, other than the last part.

Seriously, the website you linked to is a horrible source. None of the graphs on the site are sourced with how they obtained the "numbers." Really, all of the graphs look like a person made them up.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Drala

 

I already post that I stood corrected on that matter. I just don't get why people would do that when CO2 levels will rise on their own in a greenhouse. It seems absurd.

Because plants need co2 to live and grow, just like people need oxygen, so when you dont starve them of co2 they grow a lot better.


It is done because co2 isnt some destroyer of worlds, it is a rltrick played on those that will believe it.

It isnt really that hard to understand if you woild just drop the global warming is real stance, for just 1 single minute, than look around the world and you will understand a lot of things people do that make sense.

A comet hit the earth with billions of times the energy of all iur weapons combined, the shockwave travekled around the earth 6 times, and scorched the entire surface, covering it all in ash. The earth and life even lived through that, then the ice age set in, and everything still survived, life and the earth are both way tougher than you give them credit for.

Kan can scar the earth yesx sure we can cause some species to become extinct, we can never end the planet or life on it, it is way outside of our ability to ever accomplish.

reply to post by Ghost375


I knew sombody would fall for that. Yea the graph goes hand and hand 99% of the time. But look where it differs, Right where you and the people claiming that co2 and man are the cause, it's where mankind starts their footprint.

Since you quoted my post you will see at the bottom, I didn't deny the co2 increase. I denied that it caused any warming.

For the source go back to the bottom of page one. You must have missed it since you don't agree with it.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


It's frustrating to have to state my stance every single post. I've said many times now, I don't think global warming will kill the planet. I've said many times CO2 is not a toxin nor a pollutant. We learn pretty early in school that CO2 is good for plants. We also learn pretty early what the greenhouse gas effect is. We know that in a greenhouse, the more CO2 the hotter it gets and the less oxygen there is, so it's hot and harder to breath.

I won't drop 'global warming is real' because it is real, it's basic science. Despite how good CO2 is for plants and the soil and how we need it as much as need oxygen doesn't mean increasing it to the nth degree is a good idea. Warming is meant to happen slowly, in fact our ice age shouldn't be ending for another few thousand years, we shouldn't be as warm as we are now and definitely not as warm as we're predicted to be by the end of the century. So yes, the earth will go on, but it's highly unlikely that we will.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

It's frustrating to have to state my stance every single post. I've said many times now, I don't think global warming will kill the planet. I've said many times CO2 is not a toxin nor a pollutant. We learn pretty early in school that CO2 is good for plants. We also learn pretty early what the greenhouse gas effect is. We know that in a greenhouse, the more CO2 the hotter it gets and the less oxygen there is, so it's hot and harder to breath.

I won't drop 'global warming is real' because it is real, it's basic science. Despite how good CO2 is for plants and the soil and how we need it as much as need oxygen doesn't mean increasing it to the nth degree is a good idea. Warming is meant to happen slowly, in fact our ice age shouldn't be ending for another few thousand years, we shouldn't be as warm as we are now and definitely not as warm as we're predicted to be by the end of the century. So yes, the earth will go on, but it's highly unlikely that we will.

I think some are saying that despite the rise in CO2, for the last decade the temperature is at a standstill.

A new report written by Dr David Whitehouse and published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997. After reviewing the scientific literature the reports concludes that the standstill is an empirical fact and a reality that challenges current climate models. During the time that the Earth’s global temperature has remained static the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide has increased from 370 to 390 ppm.

the Global Warming Standstill pdf

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

" It is done because co2 isnt some destroyer of worlds, it is a rltrick played on those that will believe it."

Historically, Oxygen is the great destroyer of the original planet earth. The photosynthesis byproduct of a planet rich in CO2 for hundreds of millions of years resulted in the "poisonous" current 16% oxygen level. CO2 in prehistoric times was estimated to be so high that animal life using lungs could not exist. Oxygen levels became poisonous to world algae and other plant growth. Then the parasitic life forms called "animal life" was possible.