Scientists agreeing end of times is near?

"Can you feel the storm, it's coming"...just kidding there are other things that will get you, before mother nature grows tired of humans and decides to try again. The weather is normal, even when humans don't think it should be like it is, in fact a little to hot for some...I remember some one on this site in another thread about global warming, from Russia saying that he was waiting for global warming, because its to cold in that land...Well be careful what you wish for. Me personally I like my summers to be hot, my winters to be cold and lots of snow, and my falls to be cloudy with rain whenever necessary. Don't believe everything people say, including me.

The Huffington Post ? Hmm..... Sounds more like the National Inquire to me.......

reply to post by Jess_Undefined


What makes you think it has anything to do with mankind?...

Did you know that the Hopi, a tribe of the Maya, and many ancient cultures saw that in this time we are living now that there would be many changes, a tribulation and purification of sorts. This is what happens at the end of every cycle. The Earth is not going to end, but a lot of changes will continue happening, including Climate Change...

Did you also know that even back in 1978 scientists discovered that the Solar System was approaching an interstellar cloud which could change drastically the climate and would affect us for the next 10,000 years or so?...

But no, like always the environlunatics want to claim that mankind is the cause of all of this... Next they are going to claim that we are the cause of the increase in seismic/magmatic activity, as well as the changes occurring in every planet in the Solar System....

It is not directed at you Jessy, I know how easy it is for those who are not informed to fall for the lies of the environlunatics. Nature, and the universe are infinitely more powerful than mankind ever will, and unfortunately there are many people that will never learn this.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
The Huffington Post ? Hmm..... Sounds more like the National Inquire to me.......

It is a very leftist website, and one that tends to "bend" and "twist" the truth towards a leftist agenda whenever it suits them such as this story.

Originally posted by rusethorcain

I don't remember saying people should go without air conditioning. All those quotes were from a link provided in the post.

You posted those quotes as if they were all bad "and causing Climate Change", sorry but there is not a shred of proof of "manmade Climate Change"... Climate Change is a global phenomenon which occurs in some ares first, and then starts spreading.

We have in these forums debunked many times the lies behind the anthropogenic Global Warming claims. The AGW scientists were even caught red handed and had to admit that they fudged the data, and information in order to push for their agendas.

There are many scientist, and they are more than the AGW scientist despite the claims of the contrary, and more are joining the ranks of non-believers in AGW.

There are examples such as Dr. Roy Spencer.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS
The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.
.............................

www.drroyspencer.com...


The above link I posted on the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Well when you don't freeze to death I suppose that will extend your life. Some bum once said "It is easier to starve in a warm climate than a cold one" and studies of Tibetan Monks show an extremely sparse diet extends life dramatically, so longevity has little to do with "harvests"
Moisture spreads germs...

I actually studied under the tutelage of a Buddhist monk and took refuge with him, which means he taught me about Buddhism and the different schools of thought/branches of Buddhism, but i never took the vows.

Becoming a master is very difficult and requires an entire lifetime, and you don't need to be a Buddhist monk to do this, many real martial artists do the same and they live long lives.

I am 38 years old but look like I am in my early 20s, although I am not even close to being a master at anything I know that most people can't follow the path of life of a true martial artist, nor the path of life of Buddhism, or similar spiritual paths, hence a warmer climate will help most people, and btw I never said that I agree with the AGW claim.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
so poster will say that. And sanitation is a problem. Poster believes hygiene is the key to perfect health though there is profit in pills so this is sort of a secret...

Sanitation is the #1 problem with most diseases, it really has nothing to do with climate...

For example...

Outbreak of epidemic typhus in Russia
Original Text
Irina Tarasevich a, Elena Rydkina a, Didier Raoult a Corresponding AuthorEmail Address
Sir
Didier Raoult and colleagues (Aug 1, p 353)1 report an outbreak of epidemic typhus associated with trench fever in Burundi. A similar situation exists in Russia where political transformation has been accompanied by profound changes in social conditions. Lapses in public health and provision of sanitation have been an unfortunate part of this transition, as witnessed by the re-emergence of diphtheria and the increased prevalence of body-louse infestation. Although no large-scale outbreaks of louse-borne typhus have been reported since the 1940s, people with primary infections at that time, remain susceptible to relapse.

www.thelancet.com...

When do you think the above outbreak occurred?...

The outbreak occurred in December, 1997, in Lipetsk, about 360 km from Moscow. The first case was a woman who presented with fever, headaches, a generalised maculopapular rash, and confusion. Her clothes were louse-infested, and subsequent serological testing by immunofluorescence showed a significantly positive titre of 1/128. A titer of IgM superior to 1/64 occurs in recent infections. The patient worked as a nurse in a psychiatric hospital and, as part of the epidemiological follow-up, staff and patients in this hospital were investigated.

www.thelancet.com...

Originally posted by rusethorcain
I posted videos dealing with the aspects and clear warnings and indicators of man made climate change. Somebody spent an awful lot of money to produce the things and they are not the first but last in a long line of warnings coming from around the 50's and 60's.

Don't believe it. I can't make you.
Just try not to breathe cause your using up my air.

Those videos are nothing more than biased, and twists from the facts... We have seen these videos posted before and their premise is not true at all...

BTW, I have already posted several times throughout the years the fact that even in 1978 scientists already knew we would undergo possible dramatic Climate Changes, because the Solar System has been slowly approaching a new region of space where we would encounter a different part of the LIC (Local Interstellar Cloud) which has different composition, density, plasma, radiation, and energy in general from the region we had been.

Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Not to mention that ancient people/cultures also knew about the changes we would encounter, because these changes have occurred before, as it happens at the end of every cycle.

BTW, to show how the AGW scientists were caught red handed, which everyone should know by now, here are a few links, and excerpts.

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglias climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.
.....

www.theage.com.au...

And there is more to the story.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

www.theage.com.au...

And more...

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

www.theage.com.au...

When the news broke, and Jones, and the IPCC top brass decided to pass the fault to one man only the scientists which was accused told what happened...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


BTW, what "money-making scheme" are you talking about?...

The ones the AGW believers came up with trying to impose a One World Government to fight Climate Change?...

The Cap and Trade scheme where people like Al Gore became multi-millionaires by using AGW, meanwhile all they did was sell "carbon credits" to companies so they would keep polluting?...

The Multi-billion dollar industry that is the AGW scam?...

The fact that even oil companies not too long ago, about a year or two ago, began to capitalize and use the AGW claim to make money also?...

Or are you talking about all of the above?



[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

I could keep posting more if you would like, but then again when people start posting too many facts showing AGW is nothing more than a scam we are labeled as "oil kooks" or given other labels to try to dismiss the facts...

"Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes."

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.

www.globalresearch.ca...

In the above link you will find what many of these scientists have to say about the Global Warming scam.

BTW, there is a HUGE different between NATURAL Climate Change, either in warming, or cooling cycles and the whole AGW lie which was once long ago called Global Warming, then changed to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

NATURAL Climate Change has been occurring, but it has nothing to do with mankind. However, I am not advocating the release of real toxic chemicals into oceans, or the atmosphere, but CO2 is neither toxic, nor a pollutant.

Heck the EPA also tried to label WATER VAPOR as a pollutant because in the future we will have more hybrid cars that will release more water vapor which will really increase the warming regionally in the areas these cars will be used.

EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators.
...

www.ecoenquirer.com...

And the above link comes from a "green" website.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

BTW, you were talking about bleaching corals because of atmospheric CO2, yet the Earth has had many times when atmospheric CO2 levels were a lot higher than it is now, and there was life in the oceans, and on land, including corals.

Life always finds a way, and in this NATURAL Climate Change we are experiencing even when there will continue to be species which will go extinct, as it has happened for billions of years on Earth, others will appear. It is part of the whole cycle of life on this planet.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Let me make it simple for all to understand.

A planet that does not have an atmosphere will freeze in the dark. Just look at the Moon as an example.

When a planet has an atmosphere, it helps keep the planet warm by trapping heat. This works because the light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere at one wavelength, and when it reflects off of Earth it is changed to a wavelength that can not pass through the atmosphere, so it is trapped.

You can NOT deny this fact.

Changing the compositon of the atmosphere effects the climate of Earth. It effects the amount of light trapped on Earth.

You can NOT deny this fact.

Air is mainly composed of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, which together constitute the major gases of the atmosphere. The remaining gases are often referred to as trace gases, among which are the greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

You can NOT deny this fact.

Humans, with their machines, are producing amounts of CO2 which the world has never had to deal with.

Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about ONLY 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

To deny that humans effect the climate is like denying the proven science of how greenhouses work.

It's like denying that wearing a thicker jacket will make you warmer.

This is important... Man-made global warming was NOT invented to explain temperature changes on Earth. So arguing about what causes or is causing the temperature changes is irrelevant. Man-made global warming is a REAL and legitimate concern discovered when the interactions between light and atmosphereic gases were studied. Knowledge that atmosphereic gases trap light/heat and knowledge that humans are producing insane amounts of these gases helped create the idea of man-made global warming. You can NOT deny it, it is proven science.

The Earth will not die, or be destroyed completely, but it will indeed undergo many changes in what we consider normal weather conditions. Areas that once were suitable to grow crops could possibly become unsuitable areas to grow crops. Food supplies will be scarce if we don't plan for these climate changes.

There are other unforeseeable changes that can occur. The problem is that humans have never experienced these changes before, so we can't predict what will happen 100%. We can only create computer models that may give us hints.

Personally, I do NOT agree with the OP's post claiming that there is no return. The Earth does have systems which recycle the atmosphere, and filter out some of the CO2. However, if we create too much CO2 we overload these systems, and we create excess CO2 in the atmosphere. IF we found a way to reduce CO2 in HALF, or completely stop creating CO2 with our machines, the Earth just may be able to recycle and filter most of the CO2 and return to normal.

However... by the looks of the amount of deniers, and the greed and love for our polution machines, I don't think humans will be strong enough to take affirmitive action before it's too late.

Earth will survive (it will turn out like Venus), but the living things on it (mainly humans) may find it difficult to survive.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

I also need to say this...

You can NOT disprove man made global warming by showing fraud, and greed, and agendas amoung humans.

Pick up a science book and learn about how different wavelengths of light react with different materials. Learn why visible light doesn't pass through your skin, but x-ray light does. You will understand the greenhouse effect, and how the atmosphere traps light if you learn it yourself. You don't need to listen to scientists... become a scientist!

Man made global warming is a serious concern that a lot of people want to prevent. However, there are also a lot of people who are more interested in profit than they are in the future of humanity. They are the selfish people who say, "I won't be alive to care", and have total disregard for the children and future generations.

There are also people who try to profit off of misforutunes and disasters. There are agendas, there is fraud, there is greed, and there is a lot of politic wars. NONE of this effects the very real nature of man made global warming.

You can show all the manipulated science data you want. You can show all the lies you want, and all the money making agendas you want... none of that effects the very real science of light and matter. None of it disproves the very real science behind man made global warming.

Rest assured, I have no agenda other than assuring the survival of my future children, and my future childrens friends and family (all of humanity). I have spent many sleepless nights contemplating the effects our machines and polution have on our Earth, and believe me when I say that man made global warming is VERY REAL. I am on your side.. I want humanity to prevail, and I want everyone to be safe, and I am telling you... this is REAL, not a conspiracy!

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


Sorry but once again you are wrong... But obviously you are a new member so you don't know how many times your claims have been debunked in this website.

First of all, don't use wikipedia as a source to back your AGW beliefs... it is a known fact that wikipedia is very biased in favor of AGW, and they have fudged data, hidden facts, and even when "real scientists" have tried to show evidence of the false claims made by wikipedia, the wikipedia editors have erased the comments, research, and data of such scientists...

Also, don't use "Fakeclimate.org", I mean "RealClimate.org", it is also known the fact that professor Jones, one of the AGW scientists which was recently caught that he had hidden data, refused to give proof of his claim, and talked about using any legal, and illegal way to keep people in the dark regardgin Climate Change is one of the directors of RealClimate.org. Michael Mann, the creator of the "Hockey Stick graph" is another director of "RealClimate.org", and their website provides "web hosting AND SUPPORT" to web sites like RealClimate.org through EMS, an organization founded by Arlie Schardt, the director of Al Gore's presidential campaigns...

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate(2), and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

www.statemaster.com...

About wikipedia's mass hysteria...

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores in Scotland.

On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming hysteria around the world.

The connection? Oftentimes "inaccurate or deliberately misleading information" published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by unsuspecting readers.

newsbusters.org...

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
Written by James Delingpole, Telegraph | 22 December 2009

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely dont use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedias entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site.

He rewrote Wikipedias articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling.

On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band.

Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the worlds most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
...

www.climatechangefraud.com...


But you want to trust wikipedia?...



[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ghostsoldier


wow... when you can't discuss facts you have to resort to insults... Nice. This is like always the typical response of people who don't have an argument...

BTW, try putting your head in the ocean without surfacing for air, and with no aid whatsoever to breathe air, and then try to tell me that this is proof that water is also a pollutant....

If you want to use an analogy, be sure you know what the heck you are talking about and use a real analogy instead of making red herrings, and false claims...

BTW, ONE MORE TIME... I don't deny that NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE is happening... What people like you can't understand is the difference between the AGW SCAM, and real NATURAL Climate Change...

You want to use insults go back to your high school and use them there, they don't belong in a serious discussion... and you have proven time and again you don't know what a serious, intelligent discussion is all about...

[edit on 10-8-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Sorry but once again you are wrong... But obviously you are a new member so you don't know how many times your claims have been debunked in this website.

I'm sorry, YOU are wrong. NOBODY can debunk what I said, because it is 100% truth.

Care to debunk science behind different wavelengths of light? Care to debunk that smaller wavelengths of light can pass through more dense objects, and larger wavelengths of light can not? Care to debunk the range of weavelengths that CO2 allows and disallows to pass through? Care to debunk the process by which wavelengths of light are changed when reflected off of Earth?

You will fail miserably. You can not debunk the science of light and their interections with different substances.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
First of all, don't use wikipedia as a source to back your AGW beliefs... it is a known fact that wikipedia is very biased in favor of AGW, and they have fudged data, hidden facts, and even when "real scientists" have tried to show evidence of the false claims made by wikipedia, the wikipedia editors have erased the comments, research, and data of such scientists...

Wikipeida is not a source... it is a collection of sources.

I didn't use Wikipedia as a source... I used the sources within Wikipeida to show you how greenhouses work. You can not debunk how greenhouses work!! You can not deny how greenhouses work!

Light passes through the glass at a certain wavelength. The plants absorb this light and heat, and the resulting heat then radiates back at a totally different wavelength which can no pass through the greenhouse glass. You can NOT disprove this!

Heck, I can prove it to be true with my truck! The inside of my truck gets hotter than the outside because light can pass through the window, and when it is radiated off my interior at a different wavelength, it can't escape the windows, and gets trapped.

I just gave you two very REAL experiments that you can study to PROVE that the greenhouse effect is very real. The atmopshere acts like a greenhouse. You can NOT disprove this no matter how hard you try.

You can NOT discredit me by discrediting my sources... I can find a 100 sources of your choice which will agree on how the greenhouse effect works.

Do care to explain how greenhouses work??? You can't debunk what I said, it is the TRUTH.

You failed.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Also, don't use "Fakeclimate.org", I mean "RealClimate.org",

I NEVER used those sources EVER! I don't know what post you are or are not reading, but I never once even mentioned those sources. You sir, are the only one here that seems to have an agenda now. You are claiming I used a source that I never mentioned. Great tacitc... NOT.

Unlike you, I don't need other people to prove man made global warming is a REAL concern. The science behind light and matter is all that is needed, and I can show you 100 real life experiments that you can do at home to prove it.

Your entire post is basically USELESS. You did NOTHING to disprove the science behind different wavelengths of light and their interaction with matter.

Fail, fail, fail.

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I also need to say this...

You can NOT disprove man made global warming by showing fraud, and greed, and agendas amoung humans.

So proving that the AGW scientists were lying, falsifying data, and results, hiding evidence that disproved their claims, and in general keeping people in the dark does not prove THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW?...

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Pick up a science book and learn about how different wavelengths of light react with different materials. Learn why visible light doesn't pass through your skin, but x-ray light does. You will understand the greenhouse effect, and how the atmosphere traps light if you learn it yourself. You don't need to listen to scientists... become a scientist!

Wow... lots of claims, and NONE of it proves your point... if you had actually studied this topic you would know that Earth has had higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and instead of warming, there has been cooling... the opposite is also true, there have been times in Earth's geological record when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now yet there was warming.

Two of such recent periods are the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm periods which were global in nature and much hotter than it has been at any time in the 19th, 20th, or the 21st century... Yet during those times earth's atmospheric CO2 levels were lower by 100ppm...

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Rest assured, I have no agenda other than assuring the survival of my future children, and my future childrens friends and family (all of humanity). I have spent many sleepless nights contemplating the effects our machines and polution have on our Earth, and believe me when I say that man made global warming is VERY REAL. I am on your side.. I want humanity to prevail, and I want everyone to be safe, and I am telling you... this is REAL, not a conspiracy!

Rest assured that I have no agenda and I would also love for my future relatives to survive, including my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, so on, and so forth...

But you know what?... I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS WITH NATURE, AND THE UNIVERSE...

Only a very uninformed person would claim that they have the ability to assure the life of their children, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren and so on...

Earth, and the entire Solar System is moving through space, and encounters different regions of space which does control the climate, as well as seismic/magmatic activity on Earth, and that's without discussing the very real possibility of a large asteroid or comet hitting Earth...

BTW, there is a real possibility that on April 13, 2036 asteroid Apophis could hit Earth and cause massive damage on Earth...

Whenever you, and some others, learn that you have no control over nature, the Solar System, or the Universe, perhaps then you will understand that mankind's activities are not the cause for Climate Change...

Mankind can affect some aspects of the environment, but not the global climate...

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


Maybe this will explain it in a way he can understand...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

But no, like always the environlunatics want to claim that mankind is the cause of all of this... Next they are going to claim that we are the cause of the increase in seismic/magmatic activity, as well as the changes occurring in every planet in the Solar System....

Since when did having a conscience about what we put into the atmosphere, trying to save forests that give us our OXYGEN so that we don't SUFFOCATE TO DEATH, caring about overfishing, toxic waste and other things that negatively affect the environment- make us "environlunatics"?

I have never heard bigger bull $!#% in my life...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
So proving that the AGW scientists were lying, falsifying data, and results, hiding evidence that disproved their claims, and in general keeping people in the dark does not prove THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGW?...

NO it doesn't prove anything. Their false data doesn't disprove anything either. Temperature data does not prove or disprove anything. The science behind light and matter is all that matters.

Once again, IGNORE ALL THE SCIENTISTS. Learn about light and their different wavelengths on your own, and you will see the truth for yourself. Don't pay attention to the motives of others, and do the scientific research yourself.

Ask yourself, how do greenhouses work? Figure it out on your own.

Ask yourself, what role does the atmosphere play on Earth? Figure it out on your own.

Ask yoruself, if you change the atmosphere, what could happen on Earth? Figure it out on your own.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow... lots of claims, and NONE of it proves your point... if you had actually studied this topic you would know that Earth has had higher levels of atmospheric CO2 and instead of warming, there has been cooling...

IF YOU would have actually studied this topic, you would know that during those periods of high CO2 levels, the SUN's OUTPUT WAS MUCH LOWER THAN IT IS TODAY.

Now YOU are relying on temperature data which does NOT effect the very REAL science behind the effects of different wavelengths of light and their effects on matter. You can NOT disprove that our atmosphere traps heat no matter how hard you try.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
the opposite is also true, there have been times in Earth's geological record when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now yet there was warming.

That is not opposite of anything! Less CO2 means less atmosphere, means less protection from the Sun! It's like the Moon with no atmosphere. In the dark it is super cold, and in the light it is super hot.

The atmosphere blocks and traps heat. Your lack of knowledge of this subject is vast.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
But you know what?... I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS WITH NATURE, AND THE UNIVERSE...

Wow, that is complete ignorance! You have way more control than you know. You ARE the universe! You are a part of the universe! What you do effects the universe and nature. Your pollution is only one example.

I can't even fathom how ignorant one would have to be to say the above quote and be serious about it.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Only a very uninformed person would claim that they have the ability to assure the life of their children, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren and so on...

Only a very ignorant person lacking large amounts of knowledge would ever claim they have no control over the future life of their children, and future generations.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Earth, and the entire Solar System is moving through space, and encounters different regions of space which does control the climate, as well as seismic/magmatic activity on Earth, and that's without discussing the very real possibility of a large asteroid or comet hitting Earth...

Humans trash Earth and effect the enviroment around them selfishly, and they have control over THAT. Do you want to be responsible for the death of future generations caused by humans?

I would rather have future generations die from natural disasters than have them die by the hand of ignorant humans.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, there is a real possibility that on April 13, 2036 asteroid Apophis could hit Earth and cause massive damage on Earth...

There is a real possiblity that by April 13, 2036, someone will invent a way to stop the asteroid.

Like I said, I would rather have humanity die by natural disasters than by the hand of ignorant men.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Whenever you, and some others, learn that you have no control over nature, the Solar System, or the Universe, perhaps then you will understand that mankind's activities are not the cause for Climate Change...

You are so blind, It's not even funny. Humans have a LOT of control over nature. We can effect the weather in multiple ways. We can effect the ocean in mutliple ways. We can effect wild life in multiple ways.... we can effect everything...

When humans are powerful enough, we will soon be able to make our own planets, and our own stars. Your lack of knowledge of the universe and your total ignorance of your place in this universe is the prime problem with humanity. There are 1000's just like you who are too blind to see their effects on the environment around them, and believe stupid ideas that you have no effect. You are a disgrace.

I can't believe you don't even understand the effect that humans pollution has on nature.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Mankind can affect some aspects of the environment, but not the global climate...

Humans have the ability to completely destroy the atmosphere which controls our climate.

You sir, are pretty much clueless. Your last post pretty much proves you know nothing about this universe and your position in it, and the power of man.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

I'm sorry, YOU are wrong. NOBODY can debunk what I said, because it is 100% truth.

Care to debunk science behind different wavelengths of light? Care to debunk that smaller wavelengths of light can pass through more dense objects, and larger wavelengths of light can not? Care to debunk the range of weavelengths that CO2 allows and disallows to pass through? Care to debunk the process by which wavelengths of light are changed when reflected off of Earth?

Wow... you seriously need to learn how to make a concise, and intelligent argument, and being able to prove your point, which you haven't.
You cannot make such a "grand generalization and then claim it proves your point...

Atmospheric CO2 constitutes 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere, and that is not a sufficient enough volume to cause any noticeable warming on Earth...

Let's make an analogy, and one that actually makes sense...

Imagine that you work out, and your muscle mass increases by 0.038%, how much more weight are you now able to lift with 0.038% increase in muscle mass?....

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
You will fail miserably. You can not debunk the science of light and their interections with different substances.

Let's actually see who "fails miserably"... let's get to your arguments, and not the red herrings you started with...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wikipeida is not a source... it is a collection of sources.

I didn't use Wikipedia as a source... I used the sources within Wikipeida to show you how greenhouses work. You can not debunk how greenhouses work!! You can not deny how greenhouses work!

You posted wikipedia as reliable source to try to prove your AGW claims, and I actually proved that wikipedia is biased in favor of AGW, and they rig their information, articles, make false claims, and even erase the response made by real scientists just to hide the facts regarding Climate Change.

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Light passes through the glass at a certain wavelength. The plants absorb this light and heat, and the resulting heat then radiates back at a totally different wavelength which can no pass through the greenhouse glass. You can NOT disprove this!

For crying out loud, you don't even know how a greenhouse works... Greenhouses get hot because THERE IS NO AIR CIRCULATION... It has nothing to do with CO2...and in many cases people have to use heaters inside their greenhouses to make it hotter, and in other cases they have to use fans to have some air circulation and make it cooler...

Let me show you what people with greenhouses actually know, and what they have to do...

Cold House vs. Heated Greenhouse

A cold house is the simplest of greenhouses, it is not equipped with any artificial means of heat and thus the growing season is shortened when the outside temperature drops below freezing. It is not possible to grow frost sensitive plants between late fall and the middle of spring unless you provide heat (which would not make it a cold house!). A cold house does extend the growing season from that of the outdoors by trapping the heat from the sun during the day. And it provides a cozy respite for you to work away from the elements of wind and rain; it also protects plants from these same elements too.

When you install a heater into your cold house it becomes a true greenhouse and it transforms the hobby of gardening into a year-round hobby. The minimum temperature required to grow greenhouse plants through the winter is 45° F (7.2°C), so be sure to allow for this extra cost for heating to be included in your monthly budget. Also, be sure that when you begin planning for your greenhouse construction that you build it as near as possible to your house as this will reduce costs for digging and installation of electrical wires (and plumbing if you need that too). It is also better for quick access during the winter months if you have your greenhouse closer to your house.

www.howitworks.net...

Gardeners who have greenhouses increase atmospheric CO2 NOT TO MAKE IT HOT SINCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TEMPERATURE, but rather to INCREASE HARVEST/PRODUCTION of plants/trees....

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Some more info...

As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 200 ppm - will cease to grow or produce. And, growers should be cautious when experimenting with CO2 levels above 2000 ppm. CO2 is heavier than oxygen and will displace the O2 required by both plants and human to function and live. (FYI: OSHA max allowable for human exposure is 5000 PPM). So, air circulation and ventilation is critical to profitable CO2 enrichment.

www.planetnatural.com...

What CO2 does to a greenhouse is to INCREASE THE HARVEST/PRODUCTION OF PLANTS/TREES...but environlunatics claim that CO2 is bad for the environment...

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Heck, I can prove it to be true with my truck! The inside of my truck gets hotter than the outside because light can pass through the window, and when it is radiated off my interior at a different wavelength, it can't escape the windows, and gets trapped.

wow... again the reason why it gets hot inside your truck is because THERE IS NO AIR CIRCULATION...

The Earth is NOT a closed system, there is air circulation all year around, and it is affected by several outside sources from Earth's atmosphere, and not only by the Sun.

The environment in which the Solar System finds itself in also affects the climate on Earth.

That's also without discussing other facts, such as the oceans effect on the atmosphere. In fact recent research has proven that the oceans are the ones which have been heating the atmosphere, and not the other way around.

The oceans trap most of the radiation in the form of heat from the Sun, and it is the oceans which in turn help heat the atmosphere.

Water has a higher heat capacity than air, or than CO2, and in fact water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 ever will be.

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
I just gave you two very REAL experiments that you can study to PROVE that the greenhouse effect is very real. The atmopshere acts like a greenhouse. You can NOT disprove this no matter how hard you try.
....
Fail, fail, fail.

What is "useless" are your illogical, flawed comments, and who "fails, fails, fails" is you when you don't even understand how a greenhouse works...