Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: swanne

So you deny burning hydrocarbons generate CO2 and we do so since 1800 and not before hence introducing an unnatural source of CO2 to the atmosphere?

Also, as a the PhD in Chemistry that I am C=O have a peak at 2300cm-1 and water does not so, please stop your pseudoscience act, they never say

CO2 and water vapour share infrared band absorption

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ok that's it

Provide the proof that smoking CAUSES cancer! Not epidimiological studies, that merely provide statistical association between smoking and lung cancer but no actual proof.

They said that smoking causes oral-pharangeal cancers. It was proved. It was beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the smoking rate went down and the incidence of oral-pharangeal cancers continued to rise.

www.cdc.gov...

We now know that most of oral-pharangeal cancers, anal, penile, cervical cancers are caused by HPV. Since this discoverery, they have been working like hell to try and associate tobacco use with HPV infections but have been unsuccessful to date.

By using criminal proceeding to shut-down the "tobacco deniers", they have had the floor all by themselves and have been able to say whatever they want without anyone willing to stand up to them. The result has been that research into the control of HPV infection control and treatments of HPV induced cancer treatments have been delayed and underfunded.

This adversely affects everyone. If tobacco disappeared off the plantet tomorrow, all the cancers attributed to tobacco would still exist and this is proven by the fact, the absolute fact that the incidence of these cancers had not decreased in step with the decrease in the incidence of smoking.

Now global warming hoaxers are trying use RICO laws to shut down opponents and critics of global warming science.

If truth no longer matters, if concensus is all it takes to establish science, then we are indeed in very very deep do do and global warming has nothing to do with it.

Tired of Control Freaks

I fail to see what hoax has been unraveled.

All I have see in this OP and it's source is that it is a hoax in and of itself.

Interesting site I found (FYI)
www.climate4you.com...

a reply to: Agartha

No but just follow the logic.

CO2 is now at 400 ppm or so. Of this, 30 % is contributed by fossil fuel burning. That is about 120 ppm.

Now that means that whether we burned fossil fuels or not, the atmospheric CO2 would still be at 280 ppm

Now global temperature has increased by 0.85 degrees celius (I refuse to count this year as we all know that this year's warming is the result of El Nino.

Now what percentage of this temperature can actually be attributed to man's contribution of CO?

According to the IPPC - all of it! Does this make sense to you?

Further, historically, increased temperature and increased CO2 did not occur at the same time but was separated by hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, with temperature increases leading CO2 increases.

According to global warming theory - now CO2 is leading temperature and they are in lock step at the same time.

Does this make sense to you?

Tired of Control Freaks

Let's quit hanging on to this "there is no climate change" propaganda. Stop the denial. Stop fueling the propaganda of big businesses that gain from polluting the earth with their products.
I live in Northern CA. This winter is so abnormal for us. We've been in a major draught. Most of our creeks dried up. Our lakes are dangerously low. We produce the most food for the country and world. When you can't eat anymore, you'll realize what's going on.

originally posted by: okrian

...you should be slammed for posting an article from Natural News, written by Mike Adams who is a raging conspiracy nutbag

Yes... he's the conspiracy nutbag who told us about the forced vax agenda... and he was right. He's the conspiracy nutbag who told us about the nagalase in cancer and autism and vaccines... and he was right. He's the conspiracy nutbag that told us about the damage statins were causing... and he was right. Shall I go on?

I may even agree with some of the things he is skeptical about, but as a source... come on, you can do infinitely better.

Actually no... we can't do better if no one else is willing to challenge the status quo and tell us the truth. If you have better sources for the same information, I'm sure everyone would love to see them also. Got sources???

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't recall this being a thread about proving that smoking causes cancer. I'm well aware of your plethora of threads on the issue already and if I wanted to discuss that topic I would have necroed one of them.

a reply to: Boadicea

I have better sources that paint that guy as a nutbag and climate change is real, but then again you were looking for something to confirm your bias that agw is a hoax right?

PS: he wasn't right about anti-vaxing science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you can't provide the proof that smoking CAUSES cancer then you can't use it as an arguement that people who don't believe in climate change (anthropologically sourced) are "acting' like the tobacco companies.

End of discussion!

It is reasonable and normal that any corporation whose business may be affected by an unproven scientific theory should pay their own scientists to provide rebuttal evidence. And provide it, they certainly have.

Without private corporations with vested interests, we would have no one conducting science that wasn't biased in the other direction.

If you have something to say about the evidence, then say it. But your insistance on the use of Ad Hominem attacks does nothing for your credibility.

Certainly, it speaks of desparation on the part of the whole global warming crowd that they wish to use RICO laws to shut down the discussion of global warming.

And at least one of the scientists who signed the petition to investigate Exxon under RICO laws is currently under investigation for fraud (Shukla)

Tired of Control Freaks

Great post Metallicus. It feels like beating your head against a wall, but keep at it. Orwell might be able to help with motivation:

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."

a reply to: Metallicus

53 flags? A hoax?

If I didn't have to get up this morning and go to work, I would go back to bed because seeing how many people think there's nothing to see, is depressing as all fukc. No warming going on? Just look around you. oy vey. What a sad state of idiots on this planet. Everyone's stupid is showing. Fukc, I'm really disappointed in all of you who flagged this thread.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you can't provide the proof that smoking CAUSES cancer then you can't use it as an arguement that people who don't believe in climate change (anthropologically sourced) are "acting' like the tobacco companies.

End of discussion!

I'm not going to sit back and prove every silly little piece of scientific fact that I mention. What's next are you going to demand a proof of Newton's laws of motion or the theory of Gravity? The fact that you don't want to see the link between smoking and cancer is really irrelevant to the topic at hand here. The point is that the same people who lied to the public for profit before have shifted to lying to the public for profit for a different industry.

www.amazon.com...

It is reasonable and normal that any corporation whose business may be affected by an unproven scientific theory should pay their own scientists to provide rebuttal evidence. And provide it, they certainly have.

Where is it?

Without private corporations with vested interests, we would have no one conducting science that wasn't biased in the other direction.

Bless the corporations for they are super trustworthy and would NEVER lie to us to protect their profits! /sarc

If you have something to say about the evidence, then say it. But your insistance on the use of Ad Hominem attacks does nothing for your credibility.

I'm not ad homineming you. Stop taking things so personally.

Certainly, it speaks of desparation on the part of the whole global warming crowd that they wish to use RICO laws to shut down the discussion of global warming.

And at least one of the scientists who signed the petition to investigate Exxon under RICO laws is currently under investigation for fraud (Shukla)

Tired of Control Freaks

Blah blah blah. Where is the counter evidence to global warming?

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Let's quit hanging on to this "there is no climate change" propaganda. Stop the denial. Stop fueling the propaganda of big businesses that gain from polluting the earth with their products.
I live in Northern CA. This winter is so abnormal for us. We've been in a major draught. Most of our creeks dried up. Our lakes are dangerously low. We produce the most food for the country and world. When you can't eat anymore, you'll realize what's going on.

Except the reason for your drought has more to do with "conservationists" screwing with things there in California than it does with "Global Warming"

Had they not been so concerned with little inconsequential fish etc etc, you would actually be able to store water like you were suppose to be able to do

Now instead you have to dump 100s of tons of PLASTIC BALLS into places just to keep the water you have

Sounds like great "eco warrior" plans to me, lets dump millions of plastic balls all over the place, those wont end up in places they shouldnt!

a reply to: FlySolo

Apparently saying "HOAX HOAX HOAX" over and over again while producing no actual credible counter-evidence of your own is enough to convince people of a hoax... It's such a shame that exploiting gullibility is so easy...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I refuse to read your post. You have NO point unless you can prove smoking CAUSES cancer. I have provided proof that it does not.

Either quit with the ad hominem or lose credibility.

There is NOTHING and I do mean NOTHING wrong with a private corporation funding scientific studies. Someone has to fund them.

What is the mattter - can't your theory stand up to a little criticism?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In a previous thread, I provided you with proof that the Medieval Warming Period was not a regional anomally, mainly affecting northern hemisphere land masses adjoining the Atlantic Ocean.

The description of MWP as a regional anomally is a central plank of the global warming crowd because it is known that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures.

I provided you witha link to a peer-reviewed study of ocean life forms that showed that both the MWP and the Little Ice Age were relected in the pacific ocean and the antartic ocean.

You decided not to respond to it!

So when yyou are given scientific evidence, of the caliber you demand, you ignore it. Then you bang on about private corporations being trust-worthy or not (as if the government is sooooo trust-worthy).

Tired of Control Frreaks

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You and I have had our disagreements regarding a certain topic. Enough to consider you an opponent. But this topic, I am your friend. I'm not joking about the depression. This thread is really sad and so are the people who defend it.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

As far as climate change goes we simply do not have enough raw data to accurately predict what will happen

We absolutely have enough data to know something will happen. We have evidence of climate change right in front of us - in real time, in our real lives in the real world

People don't want to believe in the correlation between human activity and a changing climate? Well, OK. So, let's do nothing. Let's just wait...

We see the ice melting, waters rising, floods and droughts happening, the chemistry and ecosystems of the oceans changing, plant life and species disappearing, changing - moving - all over the planet...

We should do nothing? Because we can't know for certain how the models will play out?

Life in the oceans is migrating north - unprecedented. Yes - let's just wait and see how this goes

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I refuse to read your post. You have NO point unless you can prove smoking CAUSES cancer. I have provided proof that it does not.

Stop trying to drag this topic offtopic with your personal vendetta against tobacco science. I know you don't agree with the science, I'm already frustrated enough talking to people who refuse to get an elementary education on climate science before forming an opinion on it and now you want me to debate your pseudo-scientific claims about tobacco science. Sorry not going to fall for that troll trap.

Either quit with the ad hominem or lose credibility.

If you think that not providing evidence for something is an ad hominem, I'm not sure you know what an ad hominem is...

There is NOTHING and I do mean NOTHING wrong with a private corporation funding scientific studies. Someone has to fund them.

Nothing huh? So corporations would never lie to protect profits? That is your opinion and you are sticking to it?

What is the mattter - can't your theory stand up to a little criticism?

Tired of Control Freaks

Hmmm?? Criticism yes. Goofy red herrings, yelling, and political rhetoric no. That isn't worth really even discussing actually.

I'm more than willing to actually debate science, but you haven't provided me any.