UN Blowback: More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Ok, now I have been thinking of what to write, so here it is:

Originally posted by jdub297
GW advocates claim man's contribution of CO2 is causing the climate to warm.

I think that it is a combination. The Earth has many cycles. One of them is temperature, rising and declining- ice ages and warm ages. Not too many centuries ago you could grow grapes up here in Scandinavia!
But these factors are reliant on the consistancy of the eco-systems. But this fragile biosphere is being wrecked by us. One of the most important ones are the rainforests that work as Earth's air-conditioning. These have been violated and does not fill the need any more.
I can not assure you that the CO2 emissions caused by man is causing GW on the scale often talked about, but I can assure you that it has something to do with it, without a doubt in my mind. At least to me, the idea of the suns radiation being trapped beneath the "smog" makes perfect sense to me. This is hard fact, at least locally but maybe not globally. Still, this planet is not that big and what happens in one place will sooner or later affect another one. All of us need to realize our part in the big whole.
Is this so terrible unbelievable?

GW advocates seek to remedy this by enacting a "carbon tax" system that allows people to trade "credits" like stocks and krona depending on their use.

Greedy minds with greedy solutions. Major companies, likewise major contributors to the damage do whatever they can to slip out of this like the snakes they are.

Governments and NGOs are spending billions of US$$ equivalent to study ways to limit or remediate the presence of CO2 in the air.

Well, I am no scientist so I guess I have to think they are doing what they think is the best way to deal with it. Still, there are many things I "have to do" that I don't. I totally see your point. But we have to attack this problem from all angles. This one though, seems a little futile. Yet, the idea I saw with the big plants outside the European coastline that suck down the CO2 and contain it far below the ocean seems pretty cool. They say that it is technically possible to eliminate all of the EU's pollution through this.
However this does not solve the root of the problem. Money well or ill spent? I don't know really.

1. Man's contribution of CO2 does not increase climate change, up or down--this is a fact established by measuring instruments (not people) in place around the world and throughout the oceans.

Still, there are just as many studies to prove the contrary. I think we should assume that we do. We already know that since the industrial revolution, we have done much harm to the planet. Mankind is guilty to all of the pollution and decay of the planet. Who else could it be? The sinister armadillo conspiracy?

Therefore, the money spent by Govt. and NGOs would be better spent minimizing fossil use by exploring solar, wind, geothermal, and alternative fuel/energy sources. Every dollar spent on CO2 (wasted) is a dollar not spent on alternatives.

True, true, true. But this is already being done. As mentioned earlier, we need to do whatever we can. The time is short, and I am not talking only about the classic, popular ideas of global warming and/or cooling but all aspects of limiting our insane impact on the planet as one living organism. No money spent on saving the globe is a wasted one.

2. The "carbon tax" will adversely affect small farms and businesses. Many American farmers are unable to make much profit as things are. Additional taxes will do 2 things: increase prices and bankrupt those who can't.

This is a big, big issue in terms of injustice. The major contributors are getting away while the lesser ones are getting the heavier load. There is no sense of balance here. It can also be seen as a conspiracy of its own: when the smaller business have to close down, the bigger ones can take an even greater chunck of the market. But everyone need to take responsibility here. No one can say that "I am just the little man here, I have no part in this". That is pure ignorance. We have to see that even the small gears are part of the machinery. But as you said, the taxation is not a pretty soultuion on its own. To be effective, it has to be combined with rewards for counter measures. Taxes must be there only for the ones who can do better but won't. The ones who apperently can't afford a change in technology should have the proper funding by the state (from taxation of the bigger companies) or companies who develop this kind of technology.
Besides, we all have to sacrifice in this struggle. When it comes to show the planet we inhabit the proper respect, there are extremely few excuses not to do anything.

3. It makes no sense and is counterproductive to tax something that is unrelated to the supposedGW problem.

Well, at least to me GW is not solely the issue of temperature, it is a combined name for the entire concept of pollution and destruction of the planet, mostly due to overpopulation and obsolete ways of life. We need not to stare blind on one single issue we dissagree with. We have to fix just about everything we so royaly screwed up on this bleeding blue marble floating in the great vast emptiness of space.

Many people out there, and mostly those who fail to think for themselves (who I pity) seem to just stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala, I don't want to hear about it, I wil die soon so it is not my problem, lalalalalaa". These are the enemies of the enitre world and all who inhabits it, even themselves and the children of theirs.
Alot of people also seem to disregard the problems just for the hell of it, just because it will cause them to change the way of life.

My main questioning, however, was to confront the die-hard debunkers of GW that think that the entire debate is a fraud and what their standpoints are. This still remains a mystery since you, good jdub297 still admits that something is worng and needs to be dealt with. Some people seem to disregard everything. This is to me totally not understandable.

And to those who attack Mr. Al Gore; why do you fail so hard to at least give the man some respect? He is really burning for his cause. And before you open your mouths in anger towards him, go get yourself an eqivalent education like his and spend just as much time on research before you think you know it all. I even heard some say that the is "the biggest a-hole of all times", something I find highly repulsive and ignorant. Would he go through all that he done just to rip us off? If you think so, I hardly believe to even spent 10 minutes going through his message. Go read.

I hope the above written will get response with some proper consideration behind it.

Pz.

(Ps. I hail from Sweden, one of the leading countries in the world dealing with this issue and we are way ahead of our EU brothers in sisters. It works just fine. Still some problems, but we are doing all we can. No system is flawless from day one, OK, get that???Ds.

(Sorry for any typo's, it is not my native language...)

Great find, time to bring Gore down for his lies.

-Ign0RanT

reply to post by Jinni


That water-issue you wrote sounds like crazy talk to me! Is it true? We have the cleanest tap-water in the world where I live and it costs so little that regular people usually have it for free. Which it should be. No one can "own" the water and processing is extremely cheap in the long run since supply of water is more or less infinite and without cost.

I feel sorry for this brutal injustice, I really do. All basic needs to sustain life should be free. Period.

Cut the water...man, that is pure fascist!

Originally posted by Raud
Ehm, I was thinking I will make a separate thread with this question, but I will first try to get some answers here...which would be nice n'all.

Indeed and i am glad you bring this up as it goes to the root of why 'peak oil' ( especially any decade soon) and AGW are being so widely propagated by the very same forces in the world that gave us polluted rivers, clean cut forest and atmospheric pollution on a truly vast scale.

So What if There isn't Global Warming?
What is the so called swindle? What is being "swindeled"?

Everyone will be swindled in being forced to accept reduced standards of living in having less access to the energy that is at the root of our independence. That is the goal of both the peak oil and AGW swindles.

What is the scam?
What harm could it do to stop using fossile fuels?

No harm will be done if these same industrial and economic forces long ago allowed humanity to implement all the alternative technologies that could not only prevent the vast majority of polluting substances from being released but also allow energy independence for us all. Since the proponents of these 'problems' cant propose anything but slashing the world population and or reducing the living standards of all it's relatively clear that we are dealing with the same old inhuman reasoning and plotting against us.

What is wrong with stopping the pollution? Burning coal and oil does alot more damage than just CO2 emissions.

Nothing is wrong with preserving the environment we are so dependent on. These people are NOT interested in saving the environment as if they were they are most certainly equipped with sufficient funds and power to implement the economic and industrial changes required to save it.

What is wrong with abandoning the wreckless behaviour towards our planet?

Nothing is wrong with preventing this tiny minority from using their accumulated wealth and power to create global economic system that requires at it's root the continued exploitation of basic resources without making such exercises renewable. In making our economic cycle renewable they will ensure that we do not require their credit industry to acquire goods and once we do not require their credit they lose a great proportion of the control they have over us.

So to all of you who think that the whole GW-deal is a scam, hoax, swindle or whatever: what is the big issue? What is your fear? What could these policies harm, what does it threaten?

Oh it will harm the typical internet user only a little bit but it would be devastating to those who are already living on the margins of survival. These plots are basically intended to slowly impoverish western society while it starves and destroys the 'excess' populations in Africa and the East who are not required to propagate the current world order. Call it a house cleaning if you like.

Personally, I can't see any reason, what so ever not to stop the pollution and move away from this dead-end that fossile fuel-addiction brings.

Well i would love to see the end of the oil age and can in fact prove that we never needed to start it but for the intervention of those who saw vast fortunes to be made from controlling both the supply and the demand.

If GW is not real, why can't we just pretend that it is real, just to prevent it from ever becoming anything?

AGW is not real and even if it were we have perfectly good technologies to counteract it even if only superficially. I would obviously like ALL environmental standards to be raised but i refuse to lower my living standards simply out of ignorance of the true goals of those who never wanted to give us even the little independence we have so far gained.

I think the denial of GW is mostly consistant of a) fear b) the need to be dissident just for the hell of it c) incompetence.

Those who accept AGW is generally far more fearful of the future than those who do not and this is no coincidence. Those who accept ever doom and gloom scenario are generally those who will do least to counteract them and are thus perpetually succumbing to incapacitating pannick.

Many questions here, so you see why I wanted to start a thread...
If this post remains unaswered, I will do it.

Pz.

Well i hope that lays out some alternatives. The only thing to truly choose here is a dark future where you accept AGW as proposed with it's population and living standard reductions ( no other solutions are proposed after all) or accept that the Industrialized western cities were far more polluted and dangerous to our health hundreds of years ago. Yes, things have and will continue to get better unless we throw our collective hands in the air and abdicated on our collective responsibility to continue making the planet a easier and better place for our children.

Stellar

Originally posted by Raud
Eh, what???

Let's tax the hell out of it. It will make us change focus and develop better, cleaner and most of all cheaper energy (at least in the long run).

No, it wont. We have ALWAYS tried to do that and have always been stopped dead in our tracks when it comes to revolutionary changes in our energy economy. Yet ANOTHER tax on our ingenuity and productivity will serve only the same old group who erected this system in the first place.

What can we possible lose from doing that? What grinds the gears are cheap, greedy people afraid of change. Just as always. It is my planet too you know!

Yes, that tiny super wealthy minority are scared to death of losing any of that control and or wealth so they are finding new and more elaborate ways to not only preserve what they have but to convince us to give up even more control to them.

The other factors you mentioned makes no sense at all. It sounds more like the worst case of ill-directed paranoia I have ever heard.

Your only paranoid if their not chasing you. Are you perhaps a billionaire?

It is not communism we are talking about here. Get out from under whatever stone you are hiding beneath.

Poor countries are being kept poor for other reasons.

For what reason are poor countries being kept poor if not to ensure that they do not turn into western style societies where the minority had to give up some of their wealth and control simply to keep their system in place? What reason could be more important to them than the obvious basic one of self preservation?

Stellar

Originally posted by Raud
Lying governments are never ok. But first we need to see if there is a lie here or not. I see pictures of melting polar ice.

Yes, those are the only one's you will see unless you go digging for pictures of growing one's. How often do you see pictures of the twenty thousand odd people who starve to death every day? Does that mean they do not exist for your ignorance of their plight? News is manufactured for good reason as good news is and have always inspired listeners to activity and hope; not something that serves power and wealth.

I see melting glaciers in South America and in the Far East. I see entire nations in Micronesia succumbing to rising water levels. Can't you see that?

Sure there are melting glaciers but the evacuation of a few islands that were mostly below sea level hardly inspires fear in the informed.

So you say that poverty did not exist prior to the GW-debate? And how would you develop the idea that the GW "scam" is causing poverty?

It will result in poverty in those who were slowly gaining access to energy and will kill those who were barely surviving. That is after all the not so hidden intent behind reinvigorating western imperialism to ensure the survival of the global economic structure.

It is not due to that GW causes misgrowth in crops? Because of more rain falling in places where those periods are heavier and vice-versa?

The problem with reasoning such as this is that our climate has never been static. Would the great depression have been so prolonged/deep if not for the droughts in the US?

You posts are to little use, if any at all. None of my questions answered.

You have much reason to take a less hostile tone.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Thank you for the level-headed response. All answers are taken into consideration.

I think it might be a difference where on the planet you live though. Some countries take different approach to this issue.

But corruption is everywhere. I think of it every day, and every time I sink a little deeper into depression...

"Doom-and-Gloom-personality"? Guilty as charged, hehe. But that is just the misanthrope in me talking.
Billionaire? Let's.....say that I am! More chicks that way!
But really, no. Money is bad, bad, bad...

Originally posted by StellarX
You have much reason to take a less hostile tone.

Yeah, I know. But the reply that provoced that was so low in standard my patience ran out.

Sorry for any toes stepped on. Will try to behave. No guarantees though.

reply to post by Raud


Anyone who can manage a online apology ( of any sorts and followed by many 'but's' ) gains a great deal of future credit with me. Obviously my posting style tends towards the aggressive ( 99.99% are in the pointed style you saw above) so i well understand the temptation to give in to 'legitimate' mean responses i so often feel 'entitled' to.

Since the moderators are not selected to actually judge the general merit of posters arguments and resulting 'tone' you can just imagine how far that kind of behaviour get's one around here.

Stellar

chemtrails! no global warming.

Anyone who would believe a politician such as Gore on a matter such as this clearly doesn't understand the first thing about politics.

Politicians lie for a living. Al Gore is no exception. He only got involved when he realized the millions he could make out of his film, touring the lecture circuit talking about his film, and by being hired by governments such as the UK to advise on Global Warming.

A great thread - Starred/Flagged!

The sooner people wake up the the reality that GW is man-made only in so far as the lies behind it, the sooner we can concentrate on the real issues of the world, such as dwindling oil supplies.

Anyone else notice the correlation between energy security and global warming? Why don't they just say that we're running out of oil? As always, the governments of the world are gut-less and won't talk about real issues.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Anyone who would believe a politician such as Gore on a matter such as this clearly doesn't understand the first thing about politics.

Didn't he leave politics? At least he refused to work for the Obama administration.
He said he'd never run for president again. It would like to recall him saying that he is more or less through with politics.

Anyone who would believe a politician such as Gore on a matter such as this clearly doesn't understand the first thing about politics.

Politicians lie for a living.

lol

Do people know the source of the information for the basis of this thread?

James Inhofe. Republican senator for Okie-dokie. Whose campaigns are funded big-time by the energy sector. Indeed, in 2002, only one other senator took more money from such sources. He has apparently received over a million dollars from energy organisations.

This is the dude who brought a science fiction writer to a senate committee to argue against climate science, lol.

Marc Morano is his minion. He of swiftboating fame.

when you come right down to it, the rise in levels of gases OTHER then oxygen, is what concerns me. no oxygen, no people. to hell with all the other arguements about hot, cold, cloudy, sunny, wet, dry.

burning something and man breathing on this planet, uses oxygen. pretty simple really, which one gets to use the last bit of oxygen.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Anyone who would believe a politician such as Gore on a matter such as this clearly doesn't understand the first thing about politics.

Politicians lie for a living. Al Gore is no exception. He only got involved when he realized the millions he could make out of his film, touring the lecture circuit talking about his film, and by being hired by governments such as the UK to advise on Global Warming.
...

The sooner people wake up the the reality that GW is man-made only in so far as the lies behind it, the sooner we can concentrate on the real issues of the world, such as dwindling oil supplies.

Anyone else notice the correlation between energy security and global warming? Why don't they just say that we're running out of oil? As always, the governments of the world are gut-less and won't talk about real issues.

Very good observation about the political motivations behind this travesty.
Thanks for the endorsement.

Here's what's really scary... .

Unfortunatley, Obama has appointed Steven Chu as his Energy Secretary. Recent stories have noted that Chu is a devout follower of the GW scenario, "has nightmares about coal, and believes our gasoline prices should be in line with those of Europe.

See this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...'

For the original articles, see:
WSJ--online.wsj.com...

and The Most Terrifying disclosure about GW:

Washinton post--www.washingtonpost.com...
dyn/content/story/2008/12/12/ST2008121200098.html

(Take a look at the new thread and let me know what you think)

[edit on 14-12-2008 by jdub297]

My opinion on this entire situation:

I doesn't matter AT ALL if global warming is man made or not. Thats a non issue used to keep bitching about the subject rather then doing something.

I doesn't matter if we can delay it from happening by going way more green or not, there's plenty of other reasons why we should use green and clean industrie and power.

Attention Truth(TM) Warriors!

Ngudima Madriguru needs your help to get the truth out...

I am Ngudima Madriguru, Climate Minister of my country. On behalf of my family (the Abacha’s), my country and the Free World I would like to seek your advice and help.

I have data that proves human caused climate change is a hoax, but UN thugs intent on world domination are keeping me from sharing it with you.

linky

The tide is turning, more information via the link!

Ok so what is this about?


On this thread the article is talking about how scientists say GW is made up.


but on This Thread the article is talking about how scientists are saying that the worst is yet to come with GW.

Which to believe?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


If you study the facts, not the opinions, you will find that the unbiased data shows no warming at all but, rather, cooling in general.

Practically speaking, we can't move smog, we can't make it rain, we can't end drought or prevent floods. Every experiment to reduce CO2 thus far has produced more greenhouse gas/consumed more fossil fuel than it has removed.

"Cap and trade" is another securities trading gimmick, like derivatives and collateralized debt obligations or default swaps, that uses up capital that could be spent on environmental remediation that works, e.g. lake and river clean-up, re-forestation; and, increases costs and expenses for ondividuals and small business.

People stand to reap fortunes from CO2 remediation schemes. Follow the money.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
On this thread the article is talking about how scientists say GW is made up.

...the article is talking about how scientists are saying that the worst is yet to come with GW.

Which to believe?

One involves the media reporting scientific findings from experts in climate science, the other is an oil-funded politician deceiving you.

There are no more than a fraction of people with credentials and experience on the issue on Inhofe's 650 list (on which there are not 650, heh). And those are the usual suspects. Some are quotemined and do not agree with Inhofe - they are misrepresented. A few of these know about what Inhofe has done and have asked to be removed, they are still on the list. Many others are random people (TV weathermen, school teachers, engineers) with no or minimal credentials and expertise (e.g., John Kettley). Others are pure snake-oil salesman (e.g., Monckton).

This list is pure deception.

For example, Joanne Simpson is on the list. Associated with her is this quote...

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.

Oooh, sounds damning. But what do the ellipsis hide?

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

linky

Pure dishonest quotemine.

And then we have R.L. Casey, supposedly the director of the 'Space and Science Research Centre'. A non-existent entity apart from a website and a PO box. The dude is a fraud.

But he's now a 'prominent international scientist'? Like Lord Monckton? A British ex-journalist with an arty-type degree?

I could go on and on...but why bother? Dr Richard Courtney? He means the British dude with a Dip. Phil? A diploma in Philosophy? He's doesn't even have a doctorate.

It's a laughable piece of deception, purely an attempt at attracting the ignorant.