Biggest conspiracy in history, Climate change denial.

reply to post by Atzil321


Lol.. so this is the answer to hundreds of world-renowned credible scientists disproving Al Gore's fear-mongering video? Just out and all these brilliant people liars and say it's a conspiracy? This thread made me laugh. Go check the data for yourselves.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

I'm just saying that to assume that a bunch of hairless monkeys can have a larger effect on the environment than the Sun has, is arrogant.

And I say it's arrogant to presume otherwise .

, it doesn't account for all the climate change that has occurred naturally over the course of this planet's history.

Well obviously past climate change has been down to natural factors. No-one (excpet some sceptics - why?) question that.

But try this analogy. For the past 500 million years there have been forest fires in Earth,

Do you therefore dispute than any forest fire today is caused by humans?



Yes, climate changes naturaly. But that cannot mean that humans cannot also affect climate. Whatever your god might tell you.

Originally posted by ModerateSkeptic


Nature has a way of balancing itself, but whether that balance includes humans, is another question.

edit on 6-10-2011 by ModerateSkeptic because: (no reason given)

No, the human part of the equation is always in effect.

The planet will get rid of us before we get rid of it.

You are 100% correct of both sides using gw.

One through regulation, the other via "green" products.

Do I like my green cleaner? sure. It works and is price comparable to ordinary cleaner.

Do I like the curly light bulbs? Hell no. When did mercury become a good idea? Brass and glass are inert.

The "brass and glass" is usually met by "oh, the power plants have to use so much more to run them as they are inefficient"...blah blah blah.

What about the factories pumping mercury out in china...not to mention god knows what all else.


There is climate change/ global warming / what ever the daily name is. The bottom line is that its big money being made on both ends and,therefore, BS.

reply to post by ErgoSphere


Al Gore is to climate science what the Weekly World News is to current financial events.




Ignorance is funny, but no excuse.

People like to bring up the point that climate denial is being funded by oil companies but what they don't realize is that the theory of manmade climate change is funded by these same groups.

I went to the St. Louis science center over the summer and they had a display on global warming (I'm not sure if it's still there). It had all the usual facts and graphs so I made my way through it quickly. As I waited for my family near the end, I noticed something interesting. It was a wall of donors who made the exhibit possible. The ones that stuck out to me were the Rockafeller Foundation and the Red Crane Foundation. I wasn't sure what the RCF was, so when I got home I googled it, and low and behold it's a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

I was confused as to why the Rockafeller Foundation would fund such a display. I mean say you were accused of blowing up a building. Would you give a bunch of money to a group that was implicating you as the bomber? I don't think so.

The only logical conclusion is that the Rockafeller Foundation and the oil companies it represents stand to make a lot of money off of manmade global warming. Obviously carbon credits come to mind.

Now I don't like to get into the global warming discussion because in the end it's irrelevant. It's a shouting match where both sides are funded by the same shadowy figure. And while we argue about why the climate is changing, we continue to fund the oil companies instead of making a needed change towards renewable energy sources

As I have stated before, I am still on the fence about AGW. But I tend to lean on the side of taking precautionary actions to prevent any of the negative effects of our modern society and it's technology. It's always better to minimize the risk involved when dealing with an issue of life or death proportions.

Lets use an example like acid rain, is the increase in acid rain over the past few decades anthropogenic?
Yes

Does a very small increase in the acidity level cause large negative effects and has the potential for catastrophe?
Yes

Should we take steps to try and reduce our influence on the increase in acid rain?
Yes

We do not really know what the Earths natural balanced temperature is. For all we know the natural temperature will only be balanced when no polar ice exists at all. Perhaps the only reason we have experienced ice ages are due to volcanoes and asteroid impacts.

But, we hope the Earths natural temperature is somewhat close to what we have now. Otherwise the human race is in jeopardy. If we don't take the impacts we have on our climate serious then we do at our own peril. I for one am not going to ignore the existing evidence that supports we are having a significant influence on climate change. No matter how small our impact is in comparison to the natural processes of the planet. We need to change the way society depends on fossil fuels.

reply to post by felonius

Do I like the curly light bulbs? Hell no. When did mercury become a good idea? Brass and glass are inert.

The "brass and glass" is usually met by "oh, the power plants have to use so much more to run them as they are inefficient"...blah blah blah.

What about the factories pumping mercury out in china...not to mention god knows what all else.

On a side note, in addition to the problem with mercury in those energy efficient florescent (CFL) light bulbs. They may also give a off a bad electromagnectic signal that is harmful to us as well.

I can't wait until Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion machine makes this framework come crashing down. The 1 megawatt powerplant is supposed to come online this month. Look that # up, its about to get legit!

reply to post by Atzil321


STRAWMAN!!!!!


Sorry, but people who are against global warming, or those labeled as "Deniers" (LAUGHING MY ASS OFF on that nomenclature) are so trivialized it creates posts like this one.

Those of us who say global warming is BS are speaking mainly to the laws and regulations and the condescending attitudes shoved down our throats.

I have actually heard radio talk shows claiming that the sun (that big yellow thing that provides us with heat and gives us life) has no effect on the heat of this planet.

It is all man caused by carbon and man should give up his and his children's last penny to pay the government to make the boogie man go away. You know Carbon Dioxide is breathed by plants right? Heck, your breathing it right now. It is not gonna hurt, it's okay.

Paying the government more money is not going to do anything to the environment except fill it with poorer people.

Cute the way the phrase has morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Hell, the climate changes every day! *snicker*

Anyone here old enough to remember the late seventies and early eighties? It was "The New Ice Age" that was taking place and we were all gonna freeze to death. Not it is warming, no, wait, just change. Yeah, be afraid of change and give us more money!

We have not had recorded history long enough to predict anything about our environment. This planet has been through cycles we can't even recognize let alone say with any certainty bugs like us are causing any harm or have any control.


I will stand up and say I am against laws based on global warming theories, climate change theories, or new ice age theories and I proudly state I think you are an idiot if you trust the government, television talking heads, Radio talkie voices or Al Gore about any of these.

Ask yourself, have any of these people lied to you before?

The answer is yes, they have.

I don't deny that the climate is changing, seeing as we're going from summer to fall... but I do deny that mankind is killing the planet faster than a certain asteroid that wiped out all life 65 million years ago, or the ice age.

Can I ask you people something? Please explain to me exactly how you propose we go from what we use now, to solar, wind etc. I mean, solar companies are going bankrupt, and somehow, magically, we're gonna have enough solar panels, and wind turbines built ( where exactly?) to transition us from what we use already.

Perhaps if the Liberal academics would put the blunt down, stop testing pot on horny chimps, and actually do some research, we could have a definitive answer on these things.

first of all, the earth is constantly processing fossil remains, thus creating fossil fuels. and now scientists are looking into whether the oily substance created by cooling magma might be used as a fuel ( HAAYY theres a clean renewable energy!!!), that wouldn't require major retrofitting of existing refineries.

and, what about thorium for nuclear power?! look it up, see what you think about it.

oh, and did you know a modern-day diesel electric locomotive can go between 205-250 miles on a gallon of diesel, while emitting less carbon than the semi truck across the way only getting a 1/4 of the gas mileage.
and it doesn't even have a solar panel or a windmill on it.

oh and here's a little science for you Co2 is PLANT FOOD get rid of the co2 you GET RID OF THE AIR WE BREATH! and for those who say like any foods, too much is bad, scientists have discovered that ( oh you guys are gonna love this ) plants have "evolved" ( Darwin! gasp!! ) to process Co2 faster.

but hey, you'll believe what you want... tell me, if climate change is real... why is Algore still flying around in his big fat greenhouse gas emitting plane? he has so much green (as in money) over this whole thing, that he should buy an electric plane!

There is no such thing as global warming caused by factories , The Earth heats up, and the Earth cools down. Its a cycle. Ice Ages, Heat Ages. It seems when people actually look up into the sky they start to actually think about things then they over think them.

"oh look its a cloud. Never seen (noticed ) one before. Must be because of the factories."

its amazing how easily people swallow spin from Big Oil.
has it occurred to any of you GW deniers that Big Oil has the most to gain by
burning fossil fuels? that you have the most to lose by agreeing with them?

Please explain exactly how you think you benefit from burning the last of the planets hydrocarbons...

1. more pollution from burning toxic hydrocarbons?
2. greater dependancy on a finite energy source?
3. higher trade deficits every year?
4. supporting backwards, terrorist funding nations? (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, etc..)
5. destroying the environment.. like mountain top coal extraction, or devastating Canada for it's tar sands

but oh, NASCAR can still race cars in circles! now that's important! woopee!!

why anyone would risk the planet for such CRAPPY payback is beyond me.

burning up all the planets fossil fuels, that took millions of years to form is complete
and utter madness.

reply to post by arufon


ARUFON PLEASE GO to this website

www.longrangeweather.com...

It has a chart of the earths temperature from to 2500 B.C. to now

Also another chart this one going all the way back to the Precambrian period.

science.nasa.gov...


When will people learn this is just a scam to hurt American business and put more money in Al Gore's pockets.

reply to post by arufon


Then tell me oh non big oil kool-aid drinker, how are we to get off this? we don't have any fully electric cars with the range of a gas burner, hybrids still use gas, and costco is actually shutting down their "electric pumps" because no one uses them.

and if you had an electric car that you charged at home, well, where is the power coming from that powers your house? more than likely a coal plant.. so in essence, your little quaint toy, is still polluting.

so here is the conundrum we find ourselves in. are the makers of solar panels and windmills, even hydro-electric power plants, able to supply the demand? not in the near future. yes right now we have all those things in tandem with coal, natural gas, etc. but we just cant do it right now without power companies passing the costs to upgrade, change over, what have you, to the customer. in fact you can kind of see that happening right now.

so are you willing to pay out the butt, to feel a little better about our corner of the globe? how about asking China to stop polluting.. we do it less than them.

oh and if people like you would allow us to drill our own oil, we wouldn't be supporting backwards, terrorist funding nations

reply to post by Atzil321


No , I won't Pay you a Carbon Tax ! GET OVER IT Mr. GORE............




i297.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
....
I'm not even one of the AGW "believers", as you like to call them. But I find your arrogance to be rude and your comments to be a completely fabricated stereotype.

I would guarantee that most if not all the AGW believers in this thread are a lot more informed on this topic than you are.

Really?... Did you even bother to read the accusations made by the OP?... And of course you are so unbiased on this topic that you have nothing to say about his insane accusations about "everyone who disagrees with us is being paid by oil companies to do so" etc, etc.

If you actually did a search on the topics I have posted you would have found dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed research papers I have posted which show how wrong the AGW believers/fans really are.

So, you apparently agree with the OP, yet when someone responds to his claim in almost the same manner instead you turn rabid against those people who dare to say AGW is nothing but a religion...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by colec156

 

Yes, these studies do exist

Some can be found here IPCC and here USGCRP

There are many reports and studies from each year. You must navigate these websites and go to publications. These websites are of the opinion and on the side that AGW is a real concern.

But it's the best collection of real scientific studies and data that is available to the general public.

IPCC Publications

USGCRP Publications

Oh yeah, the IPCC reports...

Riiight, i see how informed you actually are...

I guess you never heard of facts like these...

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.

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’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
............

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

www.guardian.co.uk

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them cou

(visit the link for the full news article)

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
...

www.telegraph.co.uk... tml

Originally posted by mr10k
There is no such thing as global warming caused by factories , The Earth heats up, and the Earth cools down. Its a cycle. Ice Ages, Heat Ages. It seems when people actually look up into the sky they start to actually think about things then they over think them.

"oh look its a cloud. Never seen (noticed ) one before. Must be because of the factories."

So where do you think the Asian brown cloud comes from? Though obviously it has no effect on climate because nothing humans do affects climate, eh?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

If you actually did a search on the topics I have posted you would have found dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed research papers I have posted which show how wrong the AGW believers/fans really are.

I'm so tired of hearing the term "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed doesn't mean peer agreed upon. It doesn't mean peer confirmed. It actually doesn't mean jack.

Anyone can publish their opinion and call it peer reviewed. So you posted some links to peer reviewed papers. So what? I posted links to other "peer reviewed" papers.

I'm not going to waste my time with rude and ignorant people like yourself,

And that's not going over the dozens of scientists who have worked, or work for the IPCC and have been warning people about how Climate Change has been politicized by the IPCC and how they do not care for science...

Just as one example here is one of those scientists who has been trying to warn people about the IPCC...

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
...

cstpr.colorado.edu...


But of course, the AGW fans will claim "those scientists are being paid by oil companies"...