Global warming proved to be fake

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Warming has increased in the last hundred years there is now a lot of data cross faculty to confirm this. Further temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels will always run to some extent in correlation. The warming of the oceans releases C02 in the same way as when you heat water you release oxygen.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty


For the source go back to the bottom of page one. You must have missed it since you don't agree with it.

No, I saw it. That site you link to is complete garbage.

reply to post by purplemer


Hello...... Newman



This new data has been coming out in the last 6 to 8 months. Show me some data that has been posted lately?

reply to post by Ghost375


If you say so.

reply to post by cody599


I agree with the posts here that its a scam..

I would just like to point out that its really not about money..

the money is fiat.

so really its about control.

controlling corporations.

controlling people.

controlling government.

they can make all the fake money they want.

the ultimate point is to limit & segregate the people

through resource class warfare..

divide & conquer.

problem reaction solution.

ps to all the pro GW people..

remember.. the sun is 99% of the mass in our solar system.

the sun controls our weather.. whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Ok, look at the chart for 99% of that chart, the red and blue line are closely correlated. So actually that chart does show they go hand in hand, other than the last part.

Just like Al Gore's big red chart, right? "The correlation is obvious," said Big Al, and it is. You can see that CO2 and temperature go "hand in hand." But Al Gore said CO2 increases CAUSED temperature to rise, and it turns out that the CO2 rise took place 800-1000 years AFTER the temperature rose. When Big Al did his chart the data wasn't all that fine tuned and you couldn't tell. But now the data IS fine tuned and you CAN tell. High temperatures CAUSE CO2 to rise!

Puts kind of a different spin on things, huh? Why? Well people don't know. One speculation is that a temperature rise causes more outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and that there is a significant lag period. The one thing we DO know is the so-called "Hockey Stick" is pure illusion.

Your phrase: "other than the last part" should give you a clue. CO2 has gone way up, but temperature has not. That's kind of the point here.

BTW, the charts I posted are sourced. You can go look up the data yourself.

The problem with the AGW adherents is that they are using coincidental correlation to make their case. Aside from the fact that the sample that they are using (100 years or less in a lifetime of the Earth of over 4 BILLION) is insignificant, there is virtually no way that they can conclude that one variable, namely CO2 levels are the cause of what they see as a warming trend. There are literally hundreds of variables that go into climate, and they have conveniently picked the one they "believe" is responsible for their data(which, as has been pointed out by many here and elsewhere, is cherry picked. Their ignorance in this methodology astounds anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of multi-variable correlation methodologies. Of course, the ignorance of Al Gore is legendary. All one needs do, to see that, is to read this excerpt:

Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[23] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[22] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana

en.wikipedia.org...

I think many of those who pin their faith on the IPCC should understand that this is an Ad Hoc grouping. They review peer reviewed papers, it is not clear if they agree or disagree with what is reported, or investigate the information that the peer reviewed papers themselves are/were based on, even though it is known certain information is/was flawed. They also cannot be satisfactorily be disconnected from government/ Et Al propaganda on local but foreign interests. This is their 'charter'

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

You see, it says ASSESS the information. The rest is bullshi'ite but does include the phrase human-induced climate change, something amazingly not used in the acronym, IPCC, even though AGW was already an acronym in use, something that most everybody could associate with quickly, even if they could not say it in full when drunk! However the presumption already is/was that AGW is the culprit, no matter what, and cosmic rays, and anything else that just might be natural don't count...can't count.
I forget how many drafts and papers the IPCC have produced, I forget how many criticisms there have been of those drafts and papers, including duff links to citations or no links at all. Meh!

reply to post by cody599

Good catch OP. You have noticed that Obama is on the eve of sweeping new Government requirements to study global wrming impact on *EVERYTHING* they do, right? Like "Enviornmental Impact Studies", but additional to them and by the sound of it, covering far more than those ever dreamed of. It's scary times when half baked theories determine policy.

You know what really irks me about this though? Global Warming/Climate change *DOES* exist. It's real enough. Just as global cooling caused many many ice ages...Global warming is likely how we have Antarctica showing a history of rich, deep and full life in it's past. It was a lush place...once. (In a different global location too, I know)

The question is Man-Influenced.......but the Greenie Weenies love mixing that up with the assumption of natural climate change so by the time it's done ... even Earth Cycles become a crisis we MUST spend trillions on and change the planet to fight.

We're going to "fight" nature right into our own total destruction. I don't know it it's supreme arrogance or just old fashioned stupidity among the leaders who should know better. They die WITH US when they get this wrong and try to cool the planet or warm it ...to find out it was doing the opposite of expected, or even something totally different.

Man playing God usually ends with Man MEETING God. This won't end differently, IMO.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Here I will repost this you must have missed it.

Could you please point out where co2 levels and warming go hand and hand.

I will admit co2 has increased in the last 100 years, but warming hasn't.

edit on 17-3-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

do you mean this for someone else ?

you said mankind is having an effect

I asked you what we should do about it

I think you've has this argument so many times you are assuming you know where I am coming from. please stop doing that

I an more concerned with methane hydrate releases and CME's than our activity, but I can't stop methane hydrate releases by changing my insulation

yes, I have brought up volcanoes and methane hydrate. and even the solar cycles have an impact ! egads !!!

all i'm saying is we should control what we can control, and I don't want a carbon tax

you cool with that ?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cody599

 

Good catch OP. You have noticed that Obama is on the eve of sweeping new Government requirements to study global wrming impact on *EVERYTHING* they do, right? Like "Enviornmental Impact Studies", but additional to them and by the sound of it, covering far more than those ever dreamed of. It's scary times when half baked theories determine policy.

You know what really irks me about this though? Global Warming/Climate change *DOES* exist. It's real enough. Just as global cooling caused many many ice ages...Global warming is likely how we have Antarctica showing a history of rich, deep and full life in it's past. It was a lush place...once. (In a different global location too, I know)

The question is Man-Influenced.......but the Greenie Weenies love mixing that up with the assumption of natural climate change so by the time it's done ... even Earth Cycles become a crisis we MUST spend trillions on and change the planet to fight.

We're going to "fight" nature right into our own total destruction. I don't know it it's supreme arrogance or just old fashioned stupidity among the leaders who should know better. They die WITH US when they get this wrong and try to cool the planet or warm it ...to find out it was doing the opposite of expected, or even something totally different.

Man playing God usually ends with Man MEETING God. This won't end differently, IMO.

I haven't seen what Obama is talking about, do you have a link to that? is it about global warming and possible effects, or possible environmental inpact caused by human activities in general, like weather modification, or accidental disaster, or regional accidental disaster that could affect the globe, and so on.

Global warming is all about control and making the Banksters rich . Al Gore is just a puppet for TPTB.Funny thing is that he lost the election and then had a new gig right away .

It's climate change that we are concerned with, not global warming. The problem is that the temperature is getting hotter where it shouldn't be, and colder where it shouldn't be.

For instance, it is Autumn here now in Melbourne, Australia. It also happens to have been the hottest Autumn on record, and this winter coming up, is slated to be the hottest Winter on record.

Whether human induced or not, the climate is changing rapidly in ways that are unstable, as CO2 is filling our atmosphere.

All the changing weather patterns... the jetstream flowing where it never has before, the new EQs, tornadoes... and maybe even the fish and sea-animal-die-offs are all caused by the magnetic poles moving. The magnetism of the earth is changing, which affects everything else. Some people speculate that the magnetic poles will eventually flip- soon, thousands of years from now... who knows?

The magnetic poles shifting could be caused by increased sun activity. So if so, then you can say that Global Warming is true... but of course it isn't what the liberals mean when they use the term.

Whether it is a scam or not, I support such movements.

The overall cause of the global warming policies is good, whether or not someone makes it simply for money.

Overally I prefer any policy that reduces traffic. I have felt disgusted when I have lived in big citys which are full of traffic. It is impossible to breathe, the air is so polluted. Whether it is crbondioxide or whatever else gas, it is not good for health and it is a fact it comes from cars.

Let us be honest, it is basically the only solution to decrease traffic and a good solution.

I personally know some engineers from solar panel and electrical car industries and they work hard to produce better technologies. Although all the tests take lot of money, the equipment is extremely expensive. They are basically living from EU money. And that is something I am proud of though, even though the top rakes in the cream. At least the people who need it also get it from the tax.

Im happy what the town where I currently recidence is taking measures for reducing traffic. Although everything is propaganda for the city council, I like the measures. Couple of years ago bus lanes were introduced, which are lanes where only buses can go. We do not have 10 or 12 lanes, usually 2-3 lanes maximum in both directions and now one is only for buses, although it is half of the time empty, the cars get fined if they go there. They need to be at the traffic jam This year free public transport was introduced, overally I like such policy.

I prefer walking or biking. It was so funny in America to see people often taking a car, even when they go to a place only a mile away or even less. I personally could have easily afforded one, instead I used bicyle for 5 miles on and off work

I own a car here, but I use it maybe 10ish times a year, only when I have some longer trip out of town. Usually I just walk or get public transport.

The whole point of this post was that I would be happy to be taxed more or whatever in order to stop some kind of actions, even if the statistics behind was not valid. I

If somebody banned coca-cola from here, while saying it was poisonous. Even though I have nothing against coke, I would not mind getting it banned and replaced with some natural juices or higher taxes on coke and these are given as support to the better drinks. I would not mind if bycicle or shoes company made up some statistics in order to tax car drivers more or rise gas prices. Overally anything like that would benefit society at whole, so why not

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


You might not follow the bible but the later days were prophesied to be be like this where the seasons were not that much different .

My fundamental difficulty isn't with the numbers, it's with the scientists. Read Cabin's post just above. His position seems to be that it's fine to lie and destroy the credibility of science if it leads to the result he wants, apparently regardless of what others want. The same seems to hold true for the IPCC and climate "scientists."

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Climate change
There are many more quotes, equally damning, at the link. This creates the impression in my mind, and in many others', that there is no real science behind the concept of unnatural climate change.

To Charles:

Everything depends on the cause.

Suggest one better solution, which would effect on the same result as the global warming has, whether it is true or not.

Would there be any way to get the companys away from polluting the air. One of the companies of my friend had to buy an extremely expensive filtring system to reduce their overall pollution. Nothing like that would be possible, if no proof was behind (even fake).

Companys want money, they do not usually care how much bad they do to the nature and overall areas. Basically no company would install such system if the law did not say so and the lawmakers need something to base the law on, otherwise it could not be pushed through. You would not be able to put more taxes on cars which are not economic, like Hummer, without the laws that require it. Again to put on the tax, a proof, something scientific is needed to back it up. You can not make the companies stop pollution if you can not prove the negative effects of it.

It is the same with substances that may cause cancer. Usually companies do not care whether they use one or not, as long as it is legal. For it to become illegal a definite proof is needed although it can be required after longer period, which would mean that many people may have cancer from it already. In such situation also lieing would not be bad

Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing in order to get the best results...

Someone said that humans were not powerful enough to destroy the Earth..............well it would appear we are determined to give it our best shot!

We devote our lives in the pursuit of money forgetting that there could come a time when it is not worth the paper it's printed on. That time could be a lot sooner than some of us seem to think!

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.......

i read somewhere that the united nation has to jump through hoops everytime they need funding and the carbon tax will finally give the UN their own source of income to enforce their reign of terror