I need help PROVING the global warming hoax

Oh no, the oil companies are far from innocent... they are of course protecting their profits but their profits are pennies compared to Cap & Trade. Oil companies bring in tens of billions by selling their product..... CAP & TRADE will bring TRILLIONS by taxing all of us.

To be fair, you're comparing net profits (i.e. revenue - expense) with revenue. The United States had consumed about 20 million barrels oil/day at an average of $60/barrel during the years between 2002 to 2008. That means oil companies collected over 3 trillion dollars worth of revenue during those years.


To the OP, I edited my first post in this thread with some references.

Let me say that my opinion has come about via my vast reading on ATS.....

Careful with ATS. It can be very one-sided as there is only about one member who will actually argue that global warming is very real (melatonin).

[edit on 19/1/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by theRiverGoddess


This is EXACTLY what I am talking about...

The spoon feed buzz words off to the masses and make issues over things we probably aren't even causing and even if we are The Planet can flip on it's ear in 3 seconds...

But that mass in the Pacific that's a problem getting NO ATTENTION and it's a right here right now nightmare we can actually do something about...

My water has thousands of chemicals in it... this they do Nothing about...

Species are dying every minute.... not half the attention of global warming...

I'd like to...

See them actually take on the amount of raw BPA in my plastics before my heart stops and I loose my pecker before I worry about a damn 1 degree temperature rise...

I can live in the heat, this crap will Kill me dead...

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
reply to post by theRiverGoddess

 

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about...

The spoon feed buzz words off to the masses and make issues over things we probably aren't even causing and even if we are The Planet can flip on it's ear in 3 seconds...

But that mass in the Pacific that's a problem getting NO ATTENTION and it's a right here right now nightmare we can actually do something about...

My water has thousands of chemicals in it... this they do Nothing about...

Species are dying every minute.... not half the attention of global warming...

I'd like to...

See them actually take on the amount of raw BPA in my plastics before my heart stops and I loose my pecker before I worry about a damn 1 degree temperature rise...

I can live in the heat, this crap will Kill me dead...

lol Star for you, I just want to have my cake and eat it too I guess.

I want them to worry about rising temps and all of those things.

reply to post by whoshotJR


TY...

In the end I'm a massive environmentalist and nature lover...

I just see issues over Global warming as relatively easy to fix by comparison to so much else...

Can't bring species back, chemicals can last thousands of years...

We know how to desalinate water and pipe it.. heck if we can pipe oil from Alaska why not water if areas get dry? I don't even understand why there isn't a pipeline to Africa yet for water... we invented the dike long long ago...no city HAS to flood...

But male sperm counts are down to 1/3 of what they were 50 years ago and hermaphrodites are being born and worse all over the animal kingdom and in human terms...

I just think we have far more pressing concerns in a major way

......BUT what IF all this heat is just getting through to us now because we have mostly destroyed the ozone layer with hair spray?? Could it be that simple?? As Mopus states above, The trend for Eons is periodic Ice Ages, and that is based on real scientific research.

There are a number of skeptic arguments against man-made global warming, many of which are mutually exclusive. You can't blame global warming on the sun one day, El Nino the next day and CFCs (hairspray) the day after, all the while claiming global cooling is occuring. One hat thrown into the ring of global warming culprits is volcanoes. In fact, there are two volcano arguments, each mutually exclusive. One alternative is that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. The other is that a drop in volcanic activity caused global warming. So both volcanic activity and a lack of volcanic activity causes global warming that apparently does not exist? Way to cover your bases!

here is a study on the link between the sun and the climate. If you go back to page one you can find more of these.

We know how to desalinate water and pipe it.. heck if we can pipe oil from Alaska why not water if areas get dry? I don't even understand why there isn't a pipeline to Africa yet for water... we invented the dike long long ago...no city HAS to flood...

But that would require us to adapt to climate change. Why do that when we possibly could prevent climate change? I don't get it. You're against spending money to prevent climate change but are for spending money to adapt to climate change through pipe-dreams like water pipelines to Africa?



& yes, desalinization is needed.

[edit on 19/1/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz

That link is not working for me Cobbz, sorry

I'm attaching a link to a compilation of 500 peer reviewed science papers skepticalof Mann-made global warming. You can easily scroll the titles.

www.populartechnology.net...

At wattsupwiththat.com you can find other relevant articles'. I recommend watching Johnathan Coleman's video where he reveals a just released paper showing how NASA has been deliberately tampering with their methodology to ensure the world is seen to be warming.

eg NASA used to use the weather records for 6000 US sites in the 70s. They now use 1500 sites. Can you guess which sites got dumped? Hint: think snow'n'ice, mountains and rural sites. From having about 200 or so weather sites, California now has 4 - think cities by the beach. 1 in Sandiego and 3 around LA. From what I gathered the largely use these four hot sites to create Californias temperature averages. The weather for the rest of the State gets 'filled in' with the nearest California site or with the nearest data elsewhere - which again is likely to be a City in an adjacent state.

On that basis one suspects the weather for the last 2 decades may have been significantly colder than reported. What they did was sneaky and statistically outrageous. (No honour amongst thieves!)

I suspect the latest embarrassing glacier gaffe was leaked to the press in order to take attention away from the far more damaging attack on Nasa's methodology as shown in the Coleman video.

the next link is good for a quick scientific intro to the reason why CO2 is an innocent party. CO2 only contributes 3% to the green house effect compared with the 95% from water vapour. Of that 3%, the majority o that is just the naturally occurring plant food without which we would all be dead. Only a small portion of that 3% CO2 has been contributed by human activity.

NZclimatescience.net has 2 very good downloads. Look in the top right corner for a layman's guide to global warming and the thriving with nature link

1. Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature

2. Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature.

3. Variations in solar luminosity and their
effect on the Earth’s climate

There are a few more, the previous link should also work again.

[edit on 19/1/2010 by C0bzz]

On the conspiracy side of global warming, www.ecofascism.com/article3.html has some provacative research on the close link amongst many of the promoters. Shell and BP are likely to benefit as it will help them to roll out their natural gas plants. They have huge natural gas reserves and they want more plants throughout the world. Since coal stations are cheaper (even when using the cleanest technology which only results in emissions of CO2 and water vapour). It would be tricky labelling water vapour a pollutant, so I guess it had to be CO2. Is the AGW scam just a happy coincidence for them?

It's interesting to see who owns and is connected with Shell and BP. Many of them are ardent enviromentalists in the British & Dutch aristocracy & royalty.

Isn't lovely when your charitable interests & environmental causes just happen to line up with potential dividend bonanzas and soaring share prices?

Some people are just so lucky!!! They get to cry tears for bears all the way to the bank....

Well, the story starts in 1824. So you have nearly 200 years of scienctific research to disprove. May take some time.

Might be an idea to start by learning the history of the theory?

www.aip.org...

Of course, that only covers the 'greenhouse effect' and the way in which human activity affects the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. Which is just the beginning.

You also need to prove that deforestation has no effect, changes in cloud cover due to human activtity has no effect, aerosols from industry has no effect, black soot and brown clouds have no effect, urbansation has no effect (that means disproving urban heat islands for example - proving that the centre of New York would be exactly the same temperature all year round were it still a mix of marsh and woodland ........

Good luck

Edit: when you've finished, why not round it all off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

[edit on 19-1-2010 by Essan]

Guys,
Keeping all the reasons on one side, I have a query.. What caused the ice-ages in 10,000 BC. Did we have global warming as the reason at that time?

Or, was it cattle-produced-methane which contributed to global warming in those days?

Cheers
The Indian
P.S.: Check the latest link abt global warming and glacial melting in Himalayas being disproved.
www.google.com...

They have huge natural gas reserves and they want more plants throughout the world.

That is correct.

Since coal stations are cheaper (even when using the cleanest technology which only results in emissions of CO2 and water vapour).

Natural Gas has upfront capital costs that are significantly lower than any form of coal, and natural gas can be constructed significantly faster than Coal.



The difference, however, is made up by the cost of the fuel. Coal has a relatively stable price, while natural gas is very volatile. If the price goes up like it has in the past (and it will), then its advantage over Coal regarding cost will disappear and it will even turn into a massive disadvantage. Natural Gas also results in about half the CO2 emissions compared to coal, with huge reductions on SOx and NOx emissions with no need for huge open-cut mines. Therefore, "natural" gas is admittedly far more clean than coal, so many consider it to be "green". That's why it often is pushed by fossil fuel companies as a "solution" to Climate Change. I might add, gas companies also love to promote wind and solar because gas with its low capital cost is ideal at backing up wind and solar when the wind does not blow and the sun don't shine. You can read more in my thread (link in signature).

Personally, give me Nuclear to completely eliminate CO2 emissionsm eliminate the need for fossil fuels in electricity generation and eliminate volatile energy prices.

[edit on 19/1/2010 by C0bzz]

I have made it a point to have a few very simple easy to understand charts at hand. After all most of the people who still believe in AGW, only do so because they have followed what they see or have seen within MSM. ie, Michael Mann's Hockey stick chart, which most warmest say was a mistake but don't say why they took it out of the IPCC report. So by having the hockey stick chart which deliberative took out the medieval warming period, and the little ice age to show an almost straight line, until the last 40 years of so, and then it shows a great incline, which was supposed to show that we, Man are causing Global warming. At this point most people seem to know what your talking about, and agree with you, you usually get something along the lines of "see i told you it was real" So then you pull out the chart that includes the medieval period and the mini ice age, and explain that they started their charts from the beginning of the up turn from cooling to warming which only shows the warming trend, but when you point out that the MWP was a lot warmer that it is now, and we have a long way to go to get anything near those temps, some people do start to see the truth in it. Show that it is unfair to only show the warming from the lowest point of the cool period because it only shows the warming and nothing else. The problem you get then is people asking why they don't show such evidence in the media, and that's where you have to go in to cap and trade and other such schemes to raise taxes etc. I have found it useful recently to show how the top scientist at the IPCC is not actually a climate scientist at all, he is a rail engineer, of which there is plenty of evidence to show that now, and that although the say there are thousands of scientist whom agree with the IPCC idea of AGW, that not all of them are scientists, and that there is now at lease 30.000 scientists whom have signed a petition to stop the entire nonces of AGW. All the information is available and provable on line in various places, and IMO once you sit with a person and show them the facts some of them do come round to the truth. But that's my opinion and how i deal with it, and it has worded for me so far. it might work for you.

[edit on 1,19,2010 by neo5842]

[edit on 1,19,2010 by neo5842]

Originally posted by indian_warrior
Guys,
Keeping all the reasons on one side, I have a query.. What caused the ice-ages in 10,000 BC. Did we have global warming as the reason at that time?

Or, was it cattle-produced-methane which contributed to global warming in those days?

The Ice Ages are caused by changes in Earth's orbit. These should mean that at present the northern hemisphere - especially Arctic regions - should be experiencing warmer winters and colder summers, though not enough to instigate a full blown ice age.

By 10,000BC I assume you mean the Younger Dryas which was a sudden return to ice age conditions in the N Hemisphere, most likely caused by a massive realese of fresh water into the N Atlantic from glacial Lake Agassiz

Ironically, it was global warming - caused by the aforementioned changes in our orbital, accentuated by feedbacks including rising CO2 levels - which caused the melting of the N American ice sheet which fed lake Agassiz and led to the subject breach in the ice dam holding it.

Originally posted by neo5842
After all most of the people who still believe in AGW, only do so because they have followed what they see or have seen within MSM. ie, Michael Mann's Hockey stick chart, which most warmest say was a mistake but don't say why they took it out of the IPCC report.

Most people - especially those of a scientfic bent - believe in AGW because they have read a wealth of scientific literature on the subject. And most despair over the waterered down "lies to children" published in the popular media and by the likes of Al Gore.

The 'hockey stick' was only shown to be slightly out after the publication of the IPCC TAR - it's not been used since (and the AR4 specifically mentioned doubts about the chart), although many other studies suggest it wasn't all that far out.



[edit on 19-1-2010 by Essan]

This global warming and ozone depletion agenda is all taken from the Billy Meiers contact papers with the Plejarans. Check it out.

Originally posted by Essan
Of course, that only covers the 'greenhouse effect' and the way in which human activity affects the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. Which is just the beginning.

Except to most AGW alarmists, it isn't just the beginning. It is the be all and end all that they want people to focus on. That taxable trace gas, which is essential to all life on Earth, is what most so called environmentalists are now focused on, as if it's the new witch to a modern day religion.

Originally posted by Essan
You also need to prove that deforestation has no effect, changes in cloud cover due to human activtity has no effect, aerosols from industry has no effect, black soot and brown clouds have no effect, urbansation has no effect (that means disproving urban heat islands for example - proving that the centre of New York would be exactly the same temperature all year round were it still a mix of marsh and woodland ........

Does anyone claim that any of those have no effect? Sure they all can have a significant effect on local weather, but you're not seriously claiming that the urban heat island effect is causing the climate to warm are you?

Sure, deforestation has definite local effects on weather. Just look at Mt Kilimanjaro, to see how deforestation caused a loss of precipitation (not due to a warming climate, like Al Gore tries to claim). Or look at the black soot and carbon causing the Himalayas to lose snow cover (again, not due to a warming climate, like some will try to claim). And look at the way the UHI effect can cause local temperatures, and therefore local temperature records, to rise over time (actually, you may be right, the UHI effect may be partly to blame for temperature station increases, therefore the calculated global temperature increase.)

But AGW isn't about weather effects due to deforestation or soot or urban areas. At least, not the type of AGW that politicians and alarmists are trying to ram down our throats. It's all about those greenhouse gas emmissions. Do you disagree with this?

Because even though you seem to know that CO2 isn't the driving factor in our climate, will you still defend those who try to push just that, such as the IPCC and their policy makers?

Lots of little things here and there add up over time .....

If you have a house with 1,000 rooms in it and turn on a heater in 1 room, will the average temp of the house increase after 100 years?

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

But AGW isn't about weather effects due to deforestation or soot or urban areas. At least, not the type of AGW that politicians and alarmists are trying to ram down our throats. It's all about those greenhouse gas emmissions. Do you disagree with this?

Time to stop listening to the media and the politicians and pay more attention to the science

Originally posted by Essan
Lots of little things here and there add up over time .....

If you have a house with 1,000 rooms in it and turn on a heater in 1 room, will the average temp of the house increase after 100 years?

Well, no. It may rise slightly, but there will be no "runaway" effect causing the whole house to continue to warm till it burns to ashes in a fiery cataclysm (unless you left the heater next to a flammable substance ). Much of the heat will dissipate through the house, leaving an imperceptible rise in temperature in the remainder of the house. This is because there are much more variables than the one heat source alone.

Heat will dissipate through the roof and windows. And the oustside temperature will have a considerable effect on the temperature inside. So if it gets colder outside, the temperature could likewise drop inside. Also there, may be some unknown feedback witch causes the temperature to stabilise, rather than continue to warm. This is what happens in reality.

Sure if you were oblivious to the other variables, and wanted to promote the lovely warmth of your house, you could. You could say "we know heaters produce heat, and there is a heater. We've known this for over a hundred years. Therefore, the whole house will continue to be toasty and warm, for all time".
But in reality, there are variables whitch haven't been taken into account. Therefore, the seemingly obvious conclusion is incorrect.

Originally posted by Essan
Time to stop listening to the media and the politicians and pay more attention to the science

Couldn't agree more.


Edit to add:
But if you wanted to further prove that the one heater in a massive house will keep the whole thing really warm for over 100 years, how would you do it?

Make a computer model!!

You could make a computer model, tell the model that when you turn a heater on, it will continue to heat the whole house. You might forget to add the variable of the windows, which will lose heat, but that doesn't matter. You already know what you are trying to prove. You then go and run your computer model, and Voila!! There's your proof that your house will always continue to warm.

Now you can charge people who want to stay in your mansion in advance, saying that it is neccessary to ensure warmth in the house for over 100 years. Too bad that when they get there, the one heater isn't actually heating the whole house the way the computer model said it would. But that's OK, you've already got their money.

I like this analogy you got going

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 31-1-2010 by Curious and Concerned]