Climate change: Dickering with chemistry and physics ...and losing badly.

Ok, how's this:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Try reading some information about global warming other than the technocrats, whose vested interest remains in keeping up the hoax. The above is a somewhat long read, but there is a ton of information and other links that actually spell out:

1) Why the global warming that went on in the 1900s until the early 2000s wasn't man-made

2) Why CO2 isn't even a possible culprit for global warming and why man's output of CO2 actually doesn't even rival nature's

3) The fact that "global warming" scientists completely ignore real science and have a vested interest in the continued "panic"

That article has a lot of links to scientific evidence, to real scientists who get together and form statements together denouncing global warming and the economic impact the wrongful placement of this issue will bring to the world, for no reason other than to line a bunch of pockets. Al Gore being one of the most notable of those who gains.

Try to read this with an open mind if it's possible. Remember that for centuries the countries of the West KNEW that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. I bet the Chinese during those times snickered and called them barbarians just for that alone...

BTW - in the 70s, we were all going to freeze. The ozone layer was going to disappear and fry us all.

The sky is falling...but Chicken Little, unfortunately for him, couldn't find a way to make money off of it.

If anyone wants to seriously debate man-made global warming, I'd love to. But those I've seen post in favor of the concept of man-made global warming spout the same stuff that you see on the news, which contains about .5% actual science and a LOT of propaganda. Do some real research. Tell me the actual mechanisms of Global Warming AND back it up with specific science, as the article I linked to does. Show me ONE SINGLE computer model that has been created by the "scientists" of global warming who have been able to predict ANYTHING except panic, because they can't predict anything real, never have been able to.

Don't just tell me "because everyone knows it's true and if you have an alternate opinion you must be a redneck hick idiot conservative who has his fingers deep in the oil pie..."

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about pollution, screwing up our oceans, etc. We don't need to destroy our environment, that is a true stupidity. But man-made global warming not being real, but rather a hoax that makes a wide range of people rich using other people's panic as a lever, is a separate topic.
 
redrum said:
garbage. pure garbage.


i can remember growing up, it was all about the rain forest. commercials on tv, fear mongering propaganda everywhere....we must save the rain forest! oh no! it´s the doom of the planet. they´re cutting it all down! guess what, we´re still here.

stop believing and giving any energy to their lies.
Click to expand...

You should have gone with DDT and Silent Spring. So much a better movie than Al Gore's and with a (as for now) higher human death toll.

Your reasoning is too honest to work socially- that is humans not thinking critically but en-masse.

you'd make a very bad politician and a terrible public relations person - no intention to offend!
 
Matt84 said:
You should have gone with DDT and Silent Spring. So much a better movie than Al Gore's and with a (as for now) higher human death toll.

Your reasoning is too honest to work socially- that is humans not thinking critically but en-masse.

you'd make a very bad politician and a terrible public relations person - no intention to offend!
Click to expand...

no offense taken matt, i don't have any immediate plans to run for public office nor engage in PR. i just call it how i see it, even if it means going against the grain of the brainwashed sheeple.

as far as ddt and silent spring, sure we can sit here all day long and make a laundry list of things that kill people. this particular thread happens to be about global warming however.

while we are on the topic though, let's point the spotlight on prescription drugs. did you know that 100,000 americans die each year from prescription drug use complications? funny how the major news outlets will never report this as drug companies as their biggest sponsors.

instead we have to look over our shoulder every 5 minutes in case there might be a terrorist. prescriptions drugs kill far more people each year than all the world's terrorists combined. why isn't the dept. of homeland security raiding every pharmacy in order to arrest and apprehend the evil pharmacists who are dispensing the drugs!

the situation really is pathetic.


100,000 Americans Die Each Year from Prescription Drugs, While Pharma Companies Get Rich. Prescription drugs taken as directed kill 100,000 Americans a year. That's one person every five minutes. How did we get here?
http://www.alternet.org/health/1473...ption_drugs,_while_pharma_companies_get_rich/

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html#ixzz1tMrnLLvs
http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
 
To me once again this is nitpicking to miss the real question...

Does the human animal have an adverse affect on the earth and and our chances for future survival of the race or not...

Whether its by poisoning rivers abusing the worlds available non cycleable resources "Climate change" is really getting lost looking at the trees in a forest. IF not then no problem but if so what can be done and why arent we doing it...everything else is trying to win or lose ego pointed arguments this is if anything what we need not save the planet but to try and save our chances of a spieces on this planet..
 
ElQueso said:
That article has a lot of links to scientific evidence, to real scientists who get together and form statements together denouncing global warming and the economic impact the wrongful placement of this issue will bring to the world, for no reason other than to line a bunch of pockets. Al Gore being one of the most notable of those who gains.
Click to expand...

ElQueso, admittedly I have not taken the time to read the article you posted, and I don't pretend to be omniscient and smarter than everyone else like that blow-hard Redrum, but it seems illogical to me that the idea of man-made climate change was conceived and is perpetuated by people who are striking it rich over the matter. Obviously it's not Halliburton or Exxon Mobile this time around, so who are the powerful puppet-masters that are laughing all the way to the bank on this one, aside from one lonely Al Gore of course. The mighty wind and solar power industries? All of the diabolical scientists afraid of losing their jobs? Who else stands to benefit? And who stands to lose? I have not thought much about it, but I'm guessing the list of those who stand to lose is much much longer than the list of those that stand to gain, and with the potential losses much greater than the gains. Let's get real.
 
KevinK said:
To me once again this is nitpicking to miss the real question...
Does the human animal have an adverse affect on the earth
Click to expand...

Adverse to whom?

The earth as a rock which is not sentient? the vegetation w microorganism that is almost equally non sentient? the animals, individually, which apart from Dogs we have not extended them entitlement but use them for food and for making sure that pharmaceutical companies kill less people?

KevinK said:
and and our chances for future survival of the race or not...
Click to expand...

So, adverse to us. Not necessarily, or rather not at all.
Environmentalism, which the Climate change movement is part of, is a cultural phenomenon not a scientific event.

The industrial revolution IS a scientific event, as one species unprecedentedly begins to garnish exponentially more energy than it would be able to generate by itself / or by its bodies.


KevinK said:
Whether its by poisoning rivers abusing the worlds available non cycleable resources "Climate change" is really getting lost looking at the trees in a forest. IF not then no problem but if so what can be done and why arent we doing it...everything else is trying to win or lose ego pointed arguments this is if anything what we need not save the planet but to try and save our chances of a spieces on this planet..
Click to expand...

You can take care of your own space and make sure it s clean, same with your town, but, as a species, the only thing you can do its to live life to the fullest knowing that you're experiencing the coming of a second Prometheus. We're playing with fire, and it didn't go that bad the first time thousands of years ago, and this time (for the last two centuries that is) might not go that badly either. During the same period in which humankind could destroy itself in a second (MAD, Cold War), nature balanced it out by having humankind venturing successfully into outer space out of our only island also for the first time.

Those are not coincidences but natural symmetry.
 
Shwidelson said:
ElQueso, admittedly I have not taken the time to read the article you posted, and I don't pretend to be omniscient and smarter than everyone else like that blow-hard Redrum
Click to expand...

i apologize to you if my delivery method is not as smooth or diplomatic as it should/could be. however i do not nor i have ever professed to know it all.

i call it the way i see it as it can be frustrating in constantly dealing with people who would rather attack the speaker rather than focus on the message.

i would simply ask that you don't get hung up on my delivery method and instead focus on the essence of what i'm saying. if you have some honest, constructive criticism then i would love to hear it however publicly calling me a blowhard is not the answer.
 
Shwidelson said:
ElQueso, admittedly I have not taken the time to read the article you posted, and I don't pretend to be omniscient and smarter than everyone else like that blow-hard Redrum, but it seems illogical to me that the idea of man-made climate change was conceived and is perpetuated by people who are striking it rich over the matter. Obviously it's not Halliburton or Exxon Mobile this time around, so who are the powerful puppet-masters that are laughing all the way to the bank on this one, aside from one lonely Al Gore of course. The mighty wind and solar power industries? All of the diabolical scientists afraid of losing their jobs? Who else stands to benefit? And who stands to lose? I have not thought much about it, but I'm guessing the list of those who stand to lose is much much longer than the list of those that stand to gain, and with the potential losses much greater than the gains. Let's get real.
Click to expand...

It isn't just Al Gore. He's not the only big name out there - just one of the more visible faces of the lobbyists who push for these laws and benefit from them. It's also a lot of aspects of industry, particularly in the middle of a serious recession when there is so much pressure for governments around the world to spend to develop green energies.

So my personally-known example of people who are directly benefitting from government money giving out to advance green industries.

I have a friend who does business seminars in many states in the US. He tells home builders how to build houses economically, how to manage resources, how to make the best deals when buying material, how to manage your business accounting-wise, etc. He has also been given grants by government agencies to perform some of the seminars.

In those funded by government agencies, he tells the home builders how to take advantage of home upgrading grants available to home owners. There are hundreds of millions of dollars available across the US, millions locally. They give money to the home owners to upgrade their houses to new "green" specs.

This is helping somewhat with the depressed housing market, at least as far as new homes and new remodeling goes. It would be a death blow to many companies who are now taking advantage of these grants to keep barely afloat.

There are examples all over of government-funded interference in the market based on the value of the information related to global warming. There is a treaty binding many nations together, supposedly, in the itnerests of spending huge amounts of money to encourage green industries.

There are a large number of scholars, scientists and engineers who survive on being on the global warming side by way of grants.

I'm not saying this is some huge conspiracy. I don't believe in huge conspiracies - in my opinion they come apart because of the number of people necessarily involved. But that's another discussion.

It doesn't take conspiracy to account for what's going on. Plain old ignorance coupled with excessive greed and corruption works just fine. A few key people to get the ball rolling and it's a money train for a lot people.

If Anthropogenic Global Warming was real and we could do something about it, I'd have no problems with people profiting from real business related to making things "better." As a libertarian I'd still have a big problem with the government giving out money to promote it, but at least it would be an honest reaction to really trying to save the planet and admittedly might even be necessary.

But it's not real. It's sucking up a lot of otherwise productive money. It's causing countries to hamper industries in a time of pretty much world-wide recession unecessarily.

Deal with the real threats. And we have, over the last few decades, cleaned up a lot of stuff. No reason we sholdn't continue to do so.

But doing these things on false science isn't the way. As an example, one of the things the paper I linked to previously mentions is that a high CO2 level is actually very good for everyone. I know that kind of sounds like "radiation is good for you!" unless you understand that CO2 doesn't, and is physically incapable of, adding ANY MEASURABLE difference to the heat of the planet.

And you must understand that plants LOVE CO2. They grow big. They grow strong. They produce more, quickly.

A rise in CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature. It's the other way around. CO2 increase follows temperature increase. We constribute a tiny fraction of CO2 to the air compared to CO2 that is trapped in the ocean, for example. That CO2 is released when the ocean expands due to temperature increases. The biggest cause for temperature increases and decreases are solar cycles.

Look at some of the graphs that are linked to in that article I linked to. There are some that show a direct link to solar cycles and temperature increases, and after, CO2 increases.

We can't control the sun.

We shouldn't be trying to control the Earth's climate by spending money that supports an industry currently only able to expand by artificialy pumping money into it, and won't do anything to change the climate.
 
KevinK said:
To me once again this is nitpicking to miss the real question...

Does the human animal have an adverse affect on the earth and and our chances for future survival of the race or not...

Whether its by poisoning rivers abusing the worlds available non cycleable resources "Climate change" is really getting lost looking at the trees in a forest. IF not then no problem but if so what can be done and why arent we doing it...everything else is trying to win or lose ego pointed arguments this is if anything what we need not save the planet but to try and save our chances of a spieces on this planet..
Click to expand...

See my post below. No one is suggesting that we should just pollute the planet willy-nilly. But doing things to reduce "carbon footprint" when that particularl boogieman isn't real, and doesn't in fact hurt us, is counter-productive.

We've cleaned up a LOT in the States in the last few decades. We can continue to do so. The real problem are a lot of other countries in the world who are going through what we went through as an emerging industrial nation.

But their problem is not a lack of technology to deal with the problem - it is a lack of money to use the latest technology or sometimes an unwillingness to spend the money because of a lack of immediate concern.

As the countries develop, they will get their local environments under control. But we can't afford to buy it for them. We're in our own problems and we shouldn't be concentrating on a boogieman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top