The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

The Doc is on right now on More4 If anyone has that channel

OK so let's say its been determined that humans are the culprit. Does anyone here honestly think that enough radical change would be made to counter the problem? Sure we can change from incandescent light bulbs to more energy conserving fluorescent light bulbs, we can purchase more fuel efficient cars, turn down the A/C, whatever, but would it be enough? People generally enjoy their luxuries/lifestyles and that shared attitude, I believe, would be enough to not impose radical change. I don't think it can be argued that every little bit helps when we have a growing global population most of which is in regions that really don't give a damn what's put in the air or water so long as money is flowing and people are content.

The general feeling would be that its someone else's problem (governments of the world) and that my little bit wouldn't contribute enough to solve the issue anyways so why bother. Try telling joe public that flights would need to be reduced, or that you could only use your car 3-4 days a week or that you shouldn't run your A/C at all for one hot month in the blistering heat and you would quickly see a failed effort. Look what happened during the 2003 blackout in the northeastern US/Canada. No power for a few days and a lot of panic was evident in spite of the fact that we all knew everything would return to normal shortly. To take a phrase from a great movie(3 days of the Condor)..."Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!". A bit extreme yes but possible.

Big business and government are not going to make enough social change as it could cause havoc to world economies because we are too dependent on the very things that may be destroying us. Don't misinterpret me here I want clean air and water too but realistically whats the solution?

brill

[edit on 17-3-2007 by brill]

Originally posted by grover
That film is as much propaganda as what you accuse proponents global warming of doing....

But this propaganda is a problem because their 'wrong', right?

Not one science article or book that I have read say that humans are the sole cause of global warming.

But what would assume from watching TV is that we are somehow doing just enough damage to lead to this so called 'runaway' effect...

The fundamental notion that there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists around the world to foist a fraud upon the rest of mankind and specifically the west is simply put absurd.

Why is it absurd that the words of the vast majority of climate scientist is taken out of context by the few scientist the worlds media have mostly turned to? How many of the 900 odd papers dealing with this general issue ( as found by one climate scientist) do in fact support the fact that humans are the real cause for this so called global warming?

Originally posted by grover
AND if it was proven that you and the other deniers were wrong Muaddib, would you admit it? Somehow I doubt it.

Denying lies is hardly something to apologise for.

Besides that, the reality is we dump way too much crap into the environment and whether the deniers are right or the proponents are, really doesn't matter, it would still behoove us to change our behavior before we make the place unliveable... after all the Earth is finate.

So lets consign billions of human beings to further poverty while reducing the living standards of hundreds of millions simple so we may POSSIBLE ( as per Kyoto ) reduce this warming trend by a degree or two over 100 years? Do you know how absolutely a insane proposition that is and why people think this is a conspiracy against humanity in general?

Teller says that cooling caused by volcanic eruptions shows this technique would work. For exmaple, the erruption of Mexico's El Chichon in the 1980s cooled the Northern Hemisphere by about one-quarter as much as the average prediction for global warming expected by 2100.

According to Teller, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades, and one National Academy of Sciences report a few years ago commented on "the relatively low costs at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented."

Teller and his colleagues presented their proposal for geoengineering at the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in August 1997.

www.ncpa.org...

Both the Pentagon,s aerosol operations and its limited nuclear wars are deeply interconnected. We can trace the beginnings of Operation Cloverleaf right to the Strangelove brain of Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and proponent of nuking inhabited coast lines to rearrange them for economic projects.31 Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter in the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.32

Shortly after Teller,s presentation, the public began seeing frenetic chemtrailing. In 2000, CBS News admitted that scientists were "looking at drastic solutions for global warming, including manipulating the atmosphere on a massive scale." CBS confirmed that the plan to load the air with tiny particles would "deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling."33

Teller estimated that commercial aircraft could be used to spew these particles at a cost of 33 cents a pound.34 This gives credence to a report by an airline manager, forced by a compulsory non-disclosure agreement to remain anonymous, that commercial aircraft have been co-opted to assist the military in consummating Project Cloverleaf.35 A 1991 Hughes aircraft patent confirms that sunscreen particulate materials can be run through jet engines.36 A science textbook now used in some public schools discusses the sunscreen project by showing a large orange-red jet with the caption, "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen." The logo on the plane says "Particle Air."37 The implications of this crucial information should not be understated. A program to make America,s millions of annual jet flights a source of specially designed particulate pollution is serious business.

www.rense.com...

So basically these guys know perfectly well how to 'save' the environment without killing hundreds of millions over the next century. This IS a conspiracy and while your wealth may protect you from your own ignorance not everyone is so lucky.

Originally posted by grover
I understand fully that there are many factors contributing to global warming besides human ones, but to deny that we have any impact on our environment or that our actions will not have any impact is incomprehensible to me.

The technologies that could consign all air pollution to the history books have existed for a century and the fact that they are not in general use PROVES that pollution is a problem created for the purpose of social engineering on a truly grand scale. I refuse to play their game ( if anything to protect my 'station'/wealth) and if you wish to play their game i suggest you be the first to start walking and ripping out your central heating so that you may realise that air pollution is not the worse of your problems when you freeze to death on the first night of your campaign to 'save the planet'. If you want drama lets start.

It goes against everything I have learned over 51 years of the studying our world.

We all make mistakes and the more we make the less inclined we are to improve if only to keep up the pretense that we are not as stupid as our failures would indicate.

Yet many deniers here present discreet facts or data outside of their context and falsely claim them as "proof" that we don't affect the climate.

You affect the climate by merely breathing oxygen but i guess your not going to draw the line there, right? Heating your home and driving around is probably not things your going to give up either, right? Where do you draw the line where 'saving the planet' wont inconvenience you too much and where do you expect others to draw that line? Should everyone contribute equally even if they heat their homes by burning coal? Should we just take apart the industrialized west?

Of course we do, to deny that is absurd.

Of course we affect the climate ( in some unquantifiable way) but will we not be best able to 'fix' it by employing technology and generally industrializing the world and giving people more options?

While we are at that why do we not insist that our governments give up messing with the planet?

Between August and September 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth's surface. In addition, two hydrogen bombs were detonated 160 km over Johnston Island in the Pacific. This was called, by the military, "the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken". It was designed by the US Department of Defence and the US Atomic Energy Commission, under the code name Project Argus. The purpose appears to be to assess the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmission and radar operations because of the electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), and to increase understanding of the geomagnetic field and the behaviour of the charged particles in it.

On 9 July 1962, the US began a further series of experiments with the ionosphere. From their description: "one kiloton device, at a height of 60 km and one megaton and one multi-megaton, at several hundred kilometres height" (K.H.A., 29 June 1962). These tests seriously disturbed the lower Van Allen Belt, substantially altering its shape and intensity. "In this experiment the inner Van Allen Belt will be practically destroyed for a period of time; particles from the Belt will be transported to the atmosphere. It is anticipated that the earth's magnetic field will be disturbed over long distances for several hours, preventing radio communication. The explosion in the inner radiation belt will create an artificial dome of polar light that will be visible from Los Angeles."(K.H.A. 11 May 1962). A Fijian Sailor, present at this nuclear explosion told me that the whole sky was on fire and he thought it would be the end of the world. This was the experiment which called forth the strong protest of the Queen's Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle in the UK.

"On 19 July.... NASA announced that as a consequence of the high altitude nuclear test of July 9, a new radiation belt had been formed, stretching from a height of about 400 km to 1600 km; it can be seen as a temporary extension of the lower Van Allen Belt." (K.H.A. 5 August 1962)

www.globalpolicy.org...

NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"

"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."

"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."

WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones

Malaysia is to use Russian rain-making equipment to clear the haze which has covered parts of south-east Asia for many months.

The rain machine is designed to produce high winds, creating the conditions which cause clouds and rain. The Russians say the winds will not damage property or the environment - and the Malaysian authorities will only have to pay if the rain machine works.

Russia has a long record of attempts to control climate. The latest, in September of this year, involved Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov. He paid the equivalent of £500,000 to stop rain falling during the day of the capital's 850th anniversary celebrations.

BBC-Malaysia calls in Russian rainmakers

Personally i know that even if i am somehow wrong about the seriousness of 'global warming' it's not human industrial activity that is causing it but the deliberate effects of the weapons of those who need problems they can solve by proposing to rob us of energy and thus in large part our freedoms.

Stellar


mod edit, shorten quotes

[edit on 18-3-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by grover
AND if it was proven that you and the other deniers were wrong Muaddib, would you admit it? Somehow I doubt it.

How exaclty has been proven?...

In fact I have shown graphs and research from dozens of scientists and have proven that there are thousands of scientists who disagree with you and those who still want to blame mankind for Global Warming....

Originally posted by grover
Besides that, the reality is we dump way too much crap into the environment and whether the deniers are right or the proponents are, really doesn't matter, it would still behoove us to change our behavior before we make the place unliveable... after all the Earth is finate.

Oh right, so even if you are wrong let's put the global tax on, let's stop every developing nation from trying to develop meanwhile China and India increase their emissions which very soon China will be surpassing the U.S., if it is not already surpassing us.

Even if you are wrong let's "be on the safe side, lets do the radical solutions which will only kill millions of people in undeveloped nations and let's allow developed countries to go into a depression"...

Oh and BTW, since even the EPA now says that CO2 is a pollutant, even thou all life is composed of CO2, and wouldn't exist without it, the policymakers should be taxing people's farts and how much CO2 we are breathing into the atmosphere too... which eventually is probably going to happen with all the BS they keep making up...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by LogansRun

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Is the planet experiencing potentially catastrophic climate change? I think not. Even if it were, we pitiful humans could do nothing about it.

[edit on 3/17/2007 by TheAvenger]

-Hurricane Katrina
-Global average temp increase
-Rising sea levels
-Reduction in polar cap
-Rapid melting of glaciers
-Massive drout (perhaps not where you are....yet)
-Destruction of fresh water supplies
-Driving species to extinction
-Huge "dead" zones in our oceans, so toxic that nothing lives, period.
-Slowing of the ocean current

Avenger,
The Earth has been through this and worse in it's lifespan. You are taking a realtive "blink of an eye" geologically speaking when you talk about the recent rise in tempreature. How did the the Earth get warmer than it is today and hold that temp for over a 1,000 years and the Earth and life on it are still here?

In this last century how come most of the temp increase happened before 1940? There was less industry then and we had the Great Depression, yet the temp rise was significent. Shouldn't it have increased much more post WWII? It didn't, explain that.

Humans can stop global warming as much as we can stop the next ice age. The big thing we need to do is to adapt to the changes that the enviorment bring.

Once again you don't answer questions Muaddib, I asked if you were proven wrong would you admit it...I did not say that you were or even suggested it. You obviously have an agenda or you would not go on the offensive like you do when others doubt your assertions... either that or you are pathetically insecure, and I do not believe that for a minute... if anything arrogance is your sin.

Your claim that this is somehow a global conspiracy against the west in favor of China is simply put absurd.

If you weren't such a restless leg syndrome conservative (as opposed to a knee jerk liberal) Muaddib you would have noticed that I have never said that humans are solely to blame for global warming, rather we contribute to it.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Your claim that this is somehow a global conspiracy against the west in favor of China is simply put absurd.

...... Muaddib you would have noticed that I have never said that humans are solely to blame for global warming, rather we contribute to it.

Not to speak for him, but Muaddib hasn't really asserted that his main point is a global conspiracy favoring China. It has been that humanity is not primarily responsible for the majority of the global warming we are currently seeing.

Grover, while you might not solely blame mankind for global warming, others surely do, with no other causes being close. In your opinion, how much of global warming is attibuted to humans as a percentage? Just curious.

He has in other posts.

As to what I think are precentage of our influence is that would be hard to say. I will give you an example. I live in the Roanoke Valley of southwestern Virginia and we are in a bowl essentially 1,000 feet below the surrounding ridges. We get inversions here and in the summer the air can get so bad that you cannot see Mill Mountain, 2 miles from where I sit but you go 1100 feet up and the air is totally different. The point being while there is an overall ecology it is the micro climates that really matter more. The climate over a city is much different than it is over countryside a few miles away, you rise 100 feet out of the river bottom where I live and the air is different than down in it.... most noticable at night on foot or a bicycle... you might have an area that for various reasons are experincing a cooling where other areas a few miles distance are warming. From what I have read our impact may consist of little more than a degree in temp or less but it is exponential, 1 degree may make it easier for a type of tree to live at a slightly higher altitude or latitude, it grows to that limit, affects the environment around it allowing it to grow a little higher and further north and so it affects the overall environment a little more etc. etc. etc. Does that make since?

Blaming global warming on just human activity is the simplistic media approach... if you read any other the lit. on it at all it quickly becomes clear that the majority of the scientists involved is this have a more nuanced approach.... something Muaddib deliberately downplays or ignores.




[edit on 17-3-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Once again you don't answer questions Muaddib, I asked if you were proven wrong would you admit it...

I don't anwser questions?... You have asked that same questiong several times to me... and i have anwsered you in the past with yes, if you can prove i am wrong I will admit i am wrong..... you have done this several times now, which makes me believe that you think these questions of yours prove your point, or refutes what i am saying...

Originally posted by grover
I did not say that you were or even suggested it. You obviously have an agenda or you would not go on the offensive like you do when others doubt your assertions...

Ah, so I have an agenda, but you don't, even thou you can't even discuss the subject properly......

Right, gotcha...

Originally posted by grover
either that or you are pathetically insecure, and I do not believe that for a minute... if anything arrogance is your sin.

Don't try to project your demons on me please...

Originally posted by grover
Your claim that this is somehow a global conspiracy against the west in favor of China is simply put absurd.

i see....so the plan to cut emissions from countries like the U.S. meanwhile countries like China continue and even increase their greenhouse gas emissions is a very normal and understandable plan according to you... it doesn't matter if China is one of the worse polluters on the planet, and even if China will soon surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions, if it hasn't already.

Gotcha, "the Kyoto protocol" is a perfectly understandable plan, even if it just gives the upper hand to countries like China and India, allowing them to dump chemicals and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like there was no tomorrow, while stopping the economic growth of other countries....

Perfectly clear...

Originally posted by grover
If you weren't such a restless leg syndrome conservative (as opposed to a knee jerk liberal) Muaddib you would have noticed that I have never said that humans are solely to blame for global warming, rather we contribute to it.

Perhaps you don't say it directly but you sure believe the scientists who claim mankind are the sole cause more than those who say we are not. At least that's what I have gathered so far from your discussions, and you only give links to news articles where "some scientists claims it is us who caused the current warming.

It is not what you claim that defines your stance, it is the links that you post and the exceprts only from those who claim mankind is at fault which makes me believe you agree with them.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

I have never once witnessed you admitting you were wrong. I think I discuss the matter quite properly thank you very much. You can throw all the 'facts" you want around and still be wrong. I have said it once and i will say it again you do exactly what you accuse others of doing... you cherry pick the material that supports your viewpoint. At least I admit that I do and I also understand that it is the nature of sites such as ATSNN that it is exactly what people do. We may "deny bias" but that phrase cuts both ways.

I can and do report on many things that I believe are interesting but that does not predicate belief in them.



[edit on 17-3-2007 by grover]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by grover]

I am not the one who time and again asks "can you accept that you are wrong" as if that proves anything. Discuss the topic instead of trying to derail it.

If you think anything I stated is wrong, then show proof and give a reasonable debate on why you think my statements are wrong...

I really don't think anyone is saying that climate change isn't happening. In fact, it would be something if it wasn't. Open any earth science related text and the first sentence will likely be something to the tune of Earth is a dynamic planet. Someone wrote that we are picking out a period which amounts to a geologic tick of the clock and thats true. Historically and prehistorically, we live in one of the calmest times of earth's climate.

I hear a great deal of discussion demonizing CO2 and then read that CO2 is the key gas in our atmosphere that allows this planet to sustain life. I then find out over the years that one eruption from a volcano such as Tambora can spew a hundred times the amount into the atmosphere in seconds than all of the industrialized nations can in 10 years but that was a huge blast and I agree we don;t get those every day.

Looking at all the so called experts charts, I then see that there is a rise in CO2 but it seems that that rise has followed not preceeded the warming trend in this current deglaciation period. This only makes sense and would be expected for many reasons.

So, in conclusion of my thoughts, I will reiterate that in no way do I think there isn't climate change happeneing. I'm certain of it, if fact. I think Skeptic hit the hammer with the nail head when he said that we had better be figuring out how to handle the changes and that means adaptation.

The human ego never ceases to amaze me in that there are people out there who do not accept the natural process of things without thinking that they're species always plays a key role. For this theory which has become politics and has spawn into the new age religion of our time, we will dismantle economies, cause suffering and strife all in effort to "preserve" a static state in a dynamic climate which will continue to do what it always has and always will while in our geologic tick of the clock, we will pound our fists on the table, muddy the waters of what we know and what we don't and when its all never said and never done, we will play as insignificant role as we did during the last warming / cooling trend.

I have stated repeatedly why I think your statement and presentation of facts are wrong... like all of us you pick what supports your argument and ignore what doesn't but more specifically 9 times out of 10 in the articles you site that "prove" human involvement in global warming is wrong YOU are the one drawing that conclusion, not the scientists whose research you are siting.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why does it matter what is causing global warming?

I don't see anyone arguing over whether or not the earth is experiencing potentially catastrophic climate change.
............

Simply because the public is being led to believe that if we don't stop all CO2 emissions like tomorrow, the Earth is going to end.

How many times have i said that we have to make preparations instead of blaming each other and spending billions of dollars trying to stop natural forces we have no control over?

Since there will continue to be those who want to blame mankind and who believe we can stop anything and everything nature throws at us, and since this is allocating money and resources in plans and discussions which are not solving anything, it is up to every individual to be prapared.

Yes, the climate does change all the time and the only thing that we can do is either relocate to areas where we won't be affected as much, or have contigency plans to move in case of an emergency to safe areas, and have all the preparations we can make.

Everyone can do something to prepare themselves, even it is having a few days supply, water, any medicines that you need and a couple changes of clothes in your car.

We might not have another Katrina this year, or we might, being prepared is what makes the difference on whether you survive or you don't if it does happen.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by grover
I have stated repeatedly why I think your statement and presentation of facts are wrong... like all of us you pick what supports your argument and ignore what doesn't but more specifically 9 times out of 10 in the articles you site that "prove" human involvement in global warming is wrong YOU are the one drawing that conclusion, not the scientists whose research you are siting.

And everytime i have shown that you keep lying about that very same statement you just made about me puting words in scientists mouths...which emphasizes the fact that you do seem to agree that mankind is to blame for global wArming, even when you try to claim the contrary.

Look at the video this post is about..all the scientists in it say mankind is not the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change...yet you, once again try to make it look as if they are actually saying the contrary...


[edit on 17-3-2007 by Muaddib]

It BTW is not CO2 per say that is the problem and has never been the problem, it is excessive amounts of CO2 being held a lot that is the issue... and why are excessive amounts of CO2 being held aloft? They are being carried and held aloft by the fine grain nature of the pollutants we spew. Sure a volcanic eruption spews vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but by its very nature the particles involved are course, and as such things go, heavy, falling back to the earth in a handful of years...the stuff we produce, and spew upward are finer grain and stay aloft far longer. THAT is the crux of the issue.

You are confusing CO2, a gas with debris such as ash and dust, solids. But, don't be insulted, I know where you're coming from.

Funny how you first try to claim you are not saying mankind is at fault, but then you come around and claim "mankind CO2 is the problem"....

Like I said at the beginning of this post were I bored and wished to go digging through you tube I could find a film "proving" the exact opposite of yours.... proving what? Nothing ... thats what. Two films two groups of scientists BUT you are the one asserting that your group PROVES that global warming is not caused or influenced by man. So who is doing the asserting here?