Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

reply to post by IamCorrect

It's because they want a world government --- one they control --- and not one that would be beneficial for mankind as a whole.

That is ridiculous. Also Jesse Ventura is not an expert on anything.

DP

reply to post by Aim64C

There's some more fun ones. Let's place the temperature station right behind where we park the jet aircraft.

Airports have always been a center for measuring weather. I dont know why you think it would be any hotter there. Its not like they are constantly putting the thermometer over a flame. Also not disproving GW



Edit to add: There are many other measurements that have been taken too. So... your pretty much saying everyone whos job deals with weather works for Al' Gore

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Nobody is denying climate change. The problem is the Carbon Credits and the fact some very powerful people including Obama's close associates stand to make billions. The other problem is the magnitude of research funding that the scientists involved are receiving. Science is no more immune from greed or saving their own butts than any other group.

The model used for the now infamous Hockey Stick was proven flawed. The data from the satellites put up for this exact purpose show the model is wrong. Many have been caught falsifying data or even leaving data out when it did not work.

I'm no Republican by the way, but I don't want to see the worlds economies hit with this needlessly just so some crooked people can get their money. When billions are involved and large numbers of people could starve to death as a result, you have to be hyper-critical. In fact it would be criminal not to be and just as criminal as those pushing this to make their billions off the backs of more suffering.

None of this is new. The fake Environmentalists have already made huge sums when they learned to do this in the 1970's. Not all of us have short memories. Everything hammered into me by a fanatical Professor back then was false. Every bit of it. If I could find him now, I'd punch him in the nose and demand the money back I wasted on his courses. I'm old enough now I know the word "Activist" is synonymous with "Willing to lie to win an argument". Nothing changes, just the dates.

People who base their beliefs on Politics are sitting ducks for these confidence people. Spend some time looking into Gores dealings and the Chicago Carbon Exchange and then be honest with yourself. Should millions starve and economies fail based on their garbage?

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Prove their methods are wrong. I dont accept random claims that they are. They are smarter and more learned than you, deal with it.

"Prove they are wrong. But they are climate scientists, so it doesn't really matter what you say, they are right."

I suppose one must choose a lord to serve.

For the record, however, I am in the 99 percentile and above when it comes to metrics of intelligence. I don't take kindly to -garbage- saying "I am going to choose to believe this guy because I am too dumb to think for myself." You insult sentience with such sentiments and are undeserving of it.

Here: a nice little primer for you. scienceofdoom.com...

wattsupwiththat.com...

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

www.theresilientearth.com.../climate-sciences-dirtiest-secret

More recently, Tom Siegfried, editor in chief of Science News, wrote an essay entitled “Odds Are, It's Wrong.” In it he addressed the general problem of the misuse of statistics in science and medical research. While not talking speciffically about climate science, here is Siegfried's take on the problem:

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous...

The Wegman Report was the result of an ad hoc committee of independent statisticians who were asked by a congressional committee to assess the statistical information presented in the Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” papers. Dr. Edward Wegman, a prominent statistics professor at George Mason University and chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, headed the panel of experts who examined the use of statistics in climate science. They found the climate science community was far too insular and did not consult with experts in statistics outside of their own field.

Asserting this does not mean it is true. Back up you assertions.

Son, you want to try and demonstrate shifts in global average temperature by hundredths of a degree using stations that do not even discriminate to the hundredth. You -cannot-, in real science, measure to the tenth and spit out values with a hundredth's place. That's basic highschool stuff. Often, your final product will have less data resolution than your measurements.

Attempting to extrapolate beyond what is sampled takes you out of real science and into academic novelties of little practical value. No one can prove what the global average temperature was during the Ice age. We can only estimate based on assumptions. The same goes for any other period of time where a physical measurement was not done. And at that - you have a margin of error in the sampled data, and a margin of error for the average taken from that station (which compounds on the margin of error for the average of multiple stations).

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Airports have always been a center for measuring weather. I dont know why you think it would be any hotter there. Its not like they are constantly putting the thermometer over a flame. Also not disproving GW.

Are you daft?

That station goes against the CENTURY OLD regulations that require those monitoring stations to be at least 100 feet away from microclimate effects - such as buildings, roads, etc.

These things have heat-exchangers blowing on them (the things that take heat from inside your house and pump it outside your house), placed amongst concrete buildings, next to burn barrels (WTF!?) - and with heat generating electronics placed inside the station.

Only 2% of the stations meet the century-old standards for their placement.

The data from these stations supports the claim that their measurements are unreliable and artificially skewed high due to placement concerns.

Edit to add: There are many other measurements that have been taken too. So... your pretty much saying everyone whos job deals with weather works for Al' Gore

Simply take a look at the database that photo-documents all of the temperature sampling stations in the U.S. and provides the individual data reported from each one.

I never mentioned that man's name. I never made any claim against those who take measurements or decide upon where to place these things. Obviously - they are placed out of convenience; not out of some kind of attempt to skew data (most of these stations were around prior to the "Impending Ice Age" scare and the "Global Warming" scare - but have seen rises in their reported temperatures consistent with urban build-up and new micro-climate effects introduced because of it).

However - these stations are intended to be placed based on compliance with the standards set for them. The overwhelming majority are not compliant with the standards, and the data generated from them simply unreliable because of it.

reply to post by Aim64C


Already debunked in other post. Perhaps you should read them. I am not going to do it again.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Already debunked in other post. Perhaps you should read them. I am not going to do it again.

Your "debunk" doesn't meet my criteria for such.

You make a lot of unsupported claims backed by: "The people I listen to are experts."

The fact is that these "experts" want to blame civilization for an increase in average global temperatures of less than one degree celcius using various data sets collected over 30 years (for satellites) and 100 (for temperature stations) after making numerous 'corrections' and various modeling methods. Then attempt to compare global average temperatures against -estimates- of global averages millions of years ago using methods that have no means of being validated at this point in time.

The margin of error for estimating the global average temperature a million years ago is greater than the alleged temperature increase caused by man!

It's garbage.

Further - the types of climate changes we see are increases in storm activity - indicative of more surface heating and turbulence caused by increased solar output. Storms arise from greater differences in local temperatures brought about by uneven heating of the Earth's surface. An increase in the average temperature due to CO2 emissions would not cause an increase in storms.

A little physics goes a long way. I suggest you hit the books and check out of this discussion for a while. Your incompetence is gleaming.

Originally posted by chrismir

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
What now? Go do some research to find out how many of those so-called scientists are receiving grants from parties that have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth (lie).

DuPont has made, and continues to make, BILLIONS from the global warming lie. Al Gore was worth, if I remember correctly, around $12M when he was vice president; now he is worth over $100M.

Those are just 3 examples of entities with a HUGE vested interest in perpetuating the lie.

I'm not stating this as a fact, but I can think of entities with very deep pockets and probably top-notch scientists employed who would have huge interest in the opposite, handing out grants to scientists so they step out the global warming camp. I can't imagine oil companies and other big polluters playing the game one bit fairer as any entity profiting from the global warming hype.

So I think it goes two ways. I wonder which side has the most cash to burn and the biggest interest in steering this discussion.

Thanks for your comments. I would be very interested to see any evidence of Scientists being handed
money to speak out against Global Warming.

reply to post by DragonTattooz


Yes, exactly...Global Warming is a industry, not unlike other dishonest corrupt
industries...such as politics...and traveling snake oil salesman.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by IamCorrect

 

It's because they want a world government --- one they control --- and not one that would be beneficial for mankind as a whole.

That is ridiculous. Also Jesse Ventura is not an expert on anything.

What's so ridiculous about it? THEY OPENLY ADMIT IT.

Quote:
"how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods;”
Source

Quote from UN Chief (L.A. Times article):
"We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this [climate change agenda]."
Source

Quote from Greek Prime Minister Papandreou at Copenhagen (He is also the president of "Socialist International):
"At this time, we are observing the birth of global governance. We must, however, agree to an obligation and be committed to carrying this out."
Source -- contains link to original source

Article with comments by Chavez at Copenhagen:

Then President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

Source

reply to post by RogerT


Well my shot of tap water is good for 20 years now instead of 10.
Tap water is improving.

reply to post by Aim64C

Your "debunk" doesn't meet my criteria for such.

Sorry about that. They were legitimate sources so i don't understand the problem.

The fact is that these "experts" want to blame civilization for an increase in average global temperatures of less than one degree celcius using various data sets collected over 30 years (for satellites) and 100 (for temperature stations) after making numerous 'corrections' and various modeling methods. Then attempt to compare global average temperatures against -estimates- of global averages millions of years ago using methods that have no means of being validated at this point in time.

Really? I thought making 'corrections' to update data was the backbone of the Scientific Method? I really dont get you...

The margin of error for estimating the global average temperature a million years ago is greater than the alleged temperature increase caused by man!

Marin of error? Again, we have had accurate temperature measurement for the last 125. Which have shown an increase in global temperature. That large margin of error you indicate is from the other methods that we use to see past temperatures. These results are relatively in line with each other. All of them indicating the same trend.

This is the instrumental data.(accurate)



This is Proxy data

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

We can get a pretty good idea of what is accurate. As both show the upward trend, it is obvios something is changing.

Further - the types of climate changes we see are increases in storm activity - indicative of more surface heating and turbulence caused by increased solar output. Storms arise from greater differences in local temperatures brought about by uneven heating of the Earth's surface. An increase in the average temperature due to CO2 emissions would not cause an increase in storms.

Storms? Where did you get this data? Round about argument but interesting.

A little physics goes a long way. I suggest you hit the books and check out of this discussion for a while. Your incompetence is gleaming.

I don't get why you go out of you way to insult me. But well played.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Sorry about that. They were legitimate sources so i don't understand the problem.

I don't expect you would. You've not demonstrated an understanding of the concept of disagreement.

You do an experiment and make a conclusion based off of it. I draw into question your methods, and you cite a degree and your experiment, saying they are legitimate sources, and you don't understand the problem I have with your conclusion.

Really? I thought making 'corrections' to update data was the backbone of the Scientific Method? I really dont get you...

No, it's not. The scientific method is a process designed to derive, through experimentation and control of system variables, a cause-effect relationship.

When you take temperature data collected from cities and arbitrarily modify the number in an attempt to compensate for the urban heat island effect; you are, in essence, acknowledging a bias in your sampled data and have no other reliable data source from which to draw. How do you compensate for the heat island effect? There are several different methods used - each derive different temperatures from the same set of data. The merits of each method are their own separate debates as to their accuracy and effectiveness (obviously, if more accurate temperature readings were available, they would be used in place of the data in question).

When we are dealing with a spread of +/-80 degrees in many cases, and wish to derive an average while compensating for the urban heat island effect... and use that same data in an attempt to prove a +0.3 degree trend... it doesn't work, since you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your correction methods.

Worse - the methods are subject o circular reasoning: "we know that there is a warming trend of n, so our model is accurate since it gives us n"

Marin of error? Again, we have had accurate temperature measurement for the last 125.

You need to understand the difference between accurate and precise. Accuracy is simply that - accuracy. If it says it's a hundred degrees, it's a hundred degrees. Precision, however, is another issue. It's really 100.005 degrees - but you have to have some sophisticated equipment to pick that out.

Simply put - many of the stations used to derive data, today, are well below the precision necessary to establish a warming trend of hundredths and tenths of a degree. Most are analog displays with whole-number precision at best.

We can get a pretty good idea of what is accurate. As both show the upward trend, it is obvios something is changing.

Obviously, the climate is going to change.

Storms? Where did you get this data? Round about argument but interesting.

Physics, my friend. There is a reason why average wind speeds increase as you get further from the sun. Energy input into a system is inherently uneven. This causes differences in temperature, voltage, and other potentials within that system, causing the system to exchange energy within itself. Think a pot of boiling water.

When you put less energy into a system, you do not generate near as much turbulence in the system. This is why Mars has much more violent wind-storms than Earth - and Uranus has some of the highest atmospheric velocities in our solar system. Venus is relatively similar to our own - despite being ridiculously hot and flooded with CO2.

APG would predict a more uniform rise in global temperatures, which would - contrary to Gore and other Climate Alarmists - not trigger more storms. Things would simply get warmer and the air a little more humid (which might affect the type of storms a bit, but would not lead to more energetic storms).

This differs from increased solar radiation, which also causes a rise in average temperatures, but allows for more extremes within those averages (the atmosphere has less 'inertia' to dampen temperature differentials).

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by RogerT

 

Well my shot of tap water is good for 20 years now instead of 10.
Tap water is improving.

Mine must have been good for 40 years then, as I haven't needed any since my mum was mislead into believing I needed one back then (and I've stood on plenty of rusty nails!)

ON TOPIC: Thanks AIM64C for your post a few above that clearly shows to the laymen how ridiculous it is to attempt to assert a temperature rise of a fraction of a degree from measurements taken from whole degree apparatus, situated next to man-made heat sources, using some unproveable method to adjust that data so that it fits the intended conclusion. A very nice summary of the ideology of the AGW alarmists methods.

reply to post by Aim64C

I don't expect you would. You've not demonstrated an understanding of the concept of disagreement.

?

No, it's not. The scientific method is a process designed to derive, through experimentation and control of system variables, a cause-effect relationship. When you take temperature data collected from cities and arbitrarily modify the number in an attempt to compensate for the urban heat island effect; you are, in essence, acknowledging a bias in your sampled data and have no other reliable data source from which to draw. How do you compensate for the heat island effect? There are several different methods used - each derive different temperatures from the same set of data. The merits of each method are their own separate debates as to their accuracy and effectiveness (obviously, if more accurate temperature readings were available, they would be used in place of the data in question).

Exactly right. Also its what i said. So... What the hell?

When we are dealing with a spread of +/-80 degrees in many cases, and wish to derive an average while compensating for the urban heat island effect... and use that same data in an attempt to prove a +0.3 degree trend... it doesn't work, since you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your correction methods.

But we can...

Worse - the methods are subject o circular reasoning: "we know that there is a warming trend of n, so our model is accurate since it gives us n"

Science is not circular reasoning...

You need to understand the difference between accurate and precise. Accuracy is simply that - accuracy. If it says it's a hundred degrees, it's a hundred degrees. Precision, however, is another issue. It's really 100.005 degrees - but you have to have some sophisticated equipment to pick that out.

As long as they are accurate(no reason to think they arent) you shouldn't have a problem. Demanding an unreasonable amount of preciseness does not help your case. Beside, the graphs i posted are clearly accurate. Prove they aren't.

Simply put - many of the stations used to derive data, today, are well below the precision necessary to establish a warming trend of hundredths and tenths of a degree. Most are analog displays with whole-number precision at best.

Ok? So whats your point. Temps are clearly rising. This does not disprove that.

Obviously, the climate is going to change.

Ah, but if you noticed the graphs, temps have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age. Unless you going to tell me that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere doesn't affect it at all?

Physics, my friend. There is a reason why average wind speeds increase as you get further from the sun. Energy input into a system is inherently uneven. This causes differences in temperature, voltage, and other potentials within that system, causing the system to exchange energy within itself. Think a pot of boiling water.

Then what does that have to do with global warming?

APG would predict a more uniform rise in global temperatures, which would - contrary to Gore and other Climate Alarmists - not trigger more storms. Things would simply get warmer and the air a little more humid (which might affect the type of storms a bit, but would not lead to more energetic storms).

Since when have there been more storms?

This differs from increased solar radiation, which also causes a rise in average temperatures, but allows for more extremes within those averages (the atmosphere has less 'inertia' to dampen temperature differentials).

No, and i debunked this already.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Wow. I am amazed to find so many sheeple on this very open minded site that have fallen for the global warming hoax. My opinion shifted drastically from total GWist to totally disgusted over a period of 5 years.

It is a very painful process to let go of guilt, convictions and judgments. Man has an inborn ability to want to do the right thing and when we are convinced by governments that we are living in guilt, simply by being alive in the state that they have formulated for us, how much better can the opportunity for guilt be? It is as if we have a natural vulnerability for guilt. Especially if there is not terribly much we can do about the situation. Valcanoes blow out more CO2 at one eruption than what all of mankind does in may years. In all the years of 'Global Warming' how have they really changed our lifestyles to clean up the planet? Have governments changed policy to produce less of anything? Even shopping bags have not taken a fall (only America uses paper bags, pretty much the rest of the world are supplied with plastic bags, apart from a few) in production. The only difference is that we now pay about 40cents ZA here for one bag.

They are exploring the need for 40 new coal mines here in South Africa, dated today:
www.southafrica.info...

Please don't even dare to think to blame SA government. If you actually still think that governments are free and independent, and do not know that they are all controlled by the puppeteers at the top of the pyramid (pun intended) then please do some research on Globalisation, New World Order, Illuminati etc. There puppeteers are STILL continueing to dirty our globe, yet with the next breath they blow utter guilt over you for poluting their planet. Yes, their planet, cause that is what they think it is. Your brain, is theirs too, cause that is what they think. Take back your brain, do some research and think on your own experience on the Global 'Warming' matter.

Before you read further, please open your mind, take a deep breath and be open to the possiblity that all is not as we have been (mis)lead to believe.

After all the debate on this issue, (ok, I have not exactly read every thread thoroughly) I have not seen any debate based on your absolute own experience. Lets think for ourselves for one minute. Is it getting hotter or is it getting colder? Forget what you have been told, and think back with an open mind.

In Durban, Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa, where I lived from 1985 till 1997 (and from 1974 till 1985 in an area a little north of Durban) we never ever had winter. During the time of year that we were supposed to have 'winter' I left for work by foot with a jumper on and took it off before reaching the end of the first street block because it was so hot. Now people buy coats, hot water bottles and electric blankets for Durban winters. We used to swim in the sea all year round, given, the water was slightly cooler in 'winter' but you warmed up pretty quickly and it was still great. We went to Durban recently (now living in Pretoria away from the sea) in June this year, winter here, and it was not pleasant to swim. The air was freezing and the sea cold.
We had snow this year in Johannesburg!!! Do you people understand that it does not ever snow in Johannesburg?

We lived in Italy (Treviso) from 2005 to 2010 where in the 'good old days' it got snowfall maybe once a year for an hour till next year, maybe. We were snowed under totally for weeks and weeks during winter, every winter, since 2008!

There are over 3000 scientist sueing Al Gore for his bogus hockey stick graph. Search Lord Monkton. Check out this documentary, it has 10 parts, really worth watching:

www.youtube.com...

Also do some research on:
Climategate
Lord Christopher Monkton

The beginning of this vid is maybe in Spanish but keep watching. There are people fighting higher up to try and protect YOU agains the brainwashing accepted by billions:

www.youtube.com...



Cap and Trade is what it is about. Al Gore owns huge shares in Cap and Trade. Bringing the world under one tax system, part of the New World Order plan. Also about money and power. The power to polute. This will not stop polution.

Climate has aways changed. Why is snowy Greenland not called 'Whiteland'? It is not green anymore, it is now white. But there was a time when it was green.

We must stop distrespecting our great mother, and start living clean. It is not that we are for pollution, NOT AT ALL! But only sheeple allow governance to think for them, and let the wool be pulled over their eyes.

Button up, next winter gonna freez your buns off!

The sky is not the limit.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Exactly right. Also its what i said. So... What the hell?

Clearly, you have difficulty understanding your own words, much less my own - or you would realize my statement is in complete disagreement with your own.

But we can...

No, we can't. It is -impossible- to verify the methods used to compensate for urban heat-island effects. How much hotter does it get when you lay down a bunch of pavement? We know it gets hotter, but exactly how much that pavement affects the system cannot be controlled - air temperature is not solely dependent upon the presence/lack of a given surface.

Further - it's a bit of a fallacy in and of itself. Obviously - coating large regions of the planet in asphalt and concrete is going to increase average daytime temperatures inside and outside of urban areas (as heat diffuses).

At the end of the day, it is impossible to demonstrate that your temperature figures accurately reflect what the temperature would be if New York City didn't exist. It's like trying to prove what your kids would look like if you would have impregnated your partner in the preceding ovulation cycle.

Science is not circular reasoning...

No, it's not. However, many of the climate scientists claim their models (used to demonstrate a global warming trend) are accurate because they give the 'known' global warming trend (which is established based on the models derived from the 'known' global warming trend).

It's a cyclical reasoning that only supports itself on the surface. Dig into the facts, and it quickly becomes apparent that no one has data that can verify the claims of a global warming trend (much less put a number to it).

As long as they are accurate(no reason to think they arent) you shouldn't have a problem. Demanding an unreasonable amount of preciseness does not help your case. Beside, the graphs i posted are clearly accurate. Prove they aren't.

This, friend, is where you are in -way- over your head, and it shows.

This goes as far back as basic high school chemistry/physics/biology/etc. If I measure my reactants out with a precision to the tenth of a gram, I cannot, later, claim an average (or any other value) with a hundredth. The -best- I can do is x.y +/- 0.1 I can't "zoom in" and play with 0.0x values. I am limited to the tenths. Why? Because my measurement is, inherently, x.y +/- 0.05 because of the way the measuring device works - I can't know if I am getting 1.1 grams or 1.12 grams - the device doesn't distinguish.

Similarly, you don't know if you're measuring 1.1 degrees or 1.13 degrees.

To later come along and claim there is a warming trend of 0.0x degrees over the past decade is an inherently misleading claim, considering the overwhelming majority of measurements taken to provide that data are only precise to the tenths of a degree.

It is like if your girlfriend/wife were to stand on a scale five times every day out of concern for her weight - the scale is only precise to the tenth of a pound. After two weeks, I look over the data and tell you that your girl is going to be a whale in a few years at the rate she is going (a net gain of 0.06 pounds on the average after two weeks).

You can't use a set of data to demonstrate a trend that you claim with more precision than the collected data. It's flawed from the start.

Ok? So whats your point. Temps are clearly rising. This does not disprove that.

Global average is what we are after. The data is simply insufficient to demonstrate a warming or cooling trend. Doing either would be irresponsible.

Ah, but if you noticed the graphs, temps have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial age.

Graphs are wonderful things. It's amazing how you can make the same set of data tell a completely different story, depending upon how you arrange it. Most of the "damning" graphs used by alarmists display a "temperature anomaly" - annual averages and how they deviate from some arbitrarily established "master average" for the planet (let's not even open the can of worms as to how they came up with that). If you notice, the "temperature anomaly" is +/- less than one degree Celsius.

Unless you going to tell me that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere doesn't affect it at all?

Doesn't affect at all and doesn't have a significant impact are two completely different things. The planet is a big place - flatulence from organisms releases more methane into the atmosphere than industry. Volcanoes exhaust more carbon and silicon into the atmosphere than we could ever achieve... to make the claim that our industry is fundamentally transforming the atmosphere is just silly.

Sure - we have an impact. But we are not powerful enough to do as much damage to this planet as our hubris suggests.

Maurice Strong' Global Warming controversies is recent hot topic on internet search. Ten trillion dollars ($10,000,000,000,000) is the conservative estimated money that Maurice Strong, Barack Obama, Albert Gore Jr., and others to make yearly on the alleged scam “global warming.” Here description about the Maurice Strong Global Warming controversies is specified. Uncertainties started when the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was revealed.

It's all about the money people !
lmg.letmeget.net...

Whether GW is true or not is not 100%. Then the question becomes do we believe in it enough to sacrifice our way of life? Wipe out all cars for bikes, coal plants for solar. My bet is just like the industrial age that had a lot more pollution, our technology will naturally progress without suffering through carbon credit schemes, just pure human ingenuity.