There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:29 PM
There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming

Seems that what I have been thinking all along about this Global warming crap is coming to light! Seems many scientists are not jumping on this obviously flawed bandwagon...

December 14, 2004

There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends--be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents--is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling--very slightly--.037 degrees Celsius.

And this one tops the cake if you miss the old air conditioners that actually cool your car etc

Let's just take NASA, for example--the most trusted name in American science. A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into the money trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified launches through the excuse of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming. At the same time, many of NASA's scientists have a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate global warming. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America--if certain things happened.

True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait, and many times they test again before drawing conclusions. Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon--five years before Congress had intended--and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine--Bush's favorite vacation spot.

Two months later NASA announced--on the back pages of the newspapers--that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as Freon was gone forever.

Kyoto is crap and just a method of hammering the American Economy imho

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will--in the short run--cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion--annually.

To force down energy use, the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline--as high as 60 cents per gallon. There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes. The Department of Energy has estimated that electricity prices could rise 86 percent--and gasoline prices 53 percent.

Are you willing to pay these costs based on flawed science? remember that Olives grew in Germany long before the Industrial revolution.


[edit on 16-12-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:53 PM
Well I am a believer that we have affected the environment, but that is just an opinion. There are lot of studies which show the opposite of the above study. European reports show that our tempreture has infact increased and is continuing to do so.

To say we don't polute the atmosphere to the degree it is harmfull to us and around us is very incorrect. Just look at the smog over many major cities, that does not affect our health?

So I agree that global warming is mainly an opinion. But more countries recognise the problem than those that deny it.

You see it as a way to make the US economy go downwards, well thats maybe just paranoia. That argument could be turned around. Maybe the US administration realise what making the use of fossil fuels and being the largest poluter has done and is not prepared to face the financial consequenses.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:38 PM
Ed, thank you for that article. Here on ATS folks notice that Asia has worse pollution, see the brown cloud here:

I just don't think we know enough to say there is global warming. And if there is, how does anyone rally know that this is not a regular cycle?
In my heart I distrust those who favor the Kyoto. I believe they have an anti-US agenda unrelated to the welfare of the planet.

In a way I am amazed by the arrogance of people who believe man can control the earth! We are merely the stewards, not the rulers.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:51 PM
It has been completely acknowledged outside of the US that the Earth is suffering from man made global warming for quite some time now, with the question of authenticity of global warming and the greenhouse not generally raised, as it's generally deemed common and obvious knowledge.

I personally think it is very arrogant to assume that the entire world has signed up to an environmental agreement solely to annoy the US, there are plenty of other and more effective ways that could be done in terms of trade restrictions, especially since the advent of the EU.

The idea of someone, especially a nation, simply not believing in global warming is considered, over here at least, a joke. I've seen it used in stand up routines and as anecdotes at parties.

And of course man can effect the environment. Who killed off the dodo? Who has #ed up the rainforests? It isn't even particularly difficult any more. I am not saying that this view is wrong, just that it is a factor which helps to make many American views laughable to the rest of the world.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:28 PM
The American Policy Center, where the article is from, want to do away with regulations that force big business not to pollute, well, as much as they do. It costs money to dispose of waste, produce cleaner emissions, and not belch poison from factories. This is about how to make more money, not what is actually happening to our environment. Some people don't believe in 'pay as you go' but would rather rape the world now, and let someone else worry about the burden later.

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:00 PM
Even if the theories on gobal warming are not correct i would prefer to live in a cleaner world. There are some cities in the world where the air is barely breathable, in fact even Sydney is bad enough. It's a joy to go to less industrialized areas on vacations and breath sweet, pure fresh air for a change. Even if cars aren't doing long term damage to the environment they are doing damage to my lungs on a daily basis.

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:59 AM
It is truly ignorant to say there is no such thing as global warming, I mean you can see it in major citys. Smog being an examole, also we control our enviroment to the point of destroying it.

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 05:32 AM
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Global Warming is happening. 2004 was the 4th warmest year on record.

Where the doubt comes in is the extent to which human activity is behind it, if at all.

But if there is no global warming and/or it's perfectly natural, does that mean it's okay to continue despoiling the planet? Nope.

And incidenetly, it's worth emphasising that global warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets warmer. Some places may well be colder. It's the planet as a whole we talking about (or which 70% is covered with water) - not just a small little corner like the USA

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by edsingerIt will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs.

Are you kidding? That's 500-2000 even at todays exchange rates. Compared with my annual total energy bill of around 300 per year here in England! How much energy do you yanks use?

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:08 AM
Considering that the reason that china has a brown cloud over it where we don't so much is that we have those regulations in place that prevent industries from placing their profit margin first and burning coal instead. I believe we shouldn't be downgrading the regulations we have. And, well, it would be nice if they enforced the ones they have. Many of our power plants still aren't in compliance with the current regulations. I think China is coming around to seeing the need of some regulations...

"In one of the worlds fastest growing industrial regions, a study finding that a class of pollutants exist at levels four times that of U.S. air quality standards has prompted a Hong Kong public policy group to call for government standards on fine particulate matter. The finding was released by Civic Exchange, a non-profit public policy think tank comprised of scientists as well as representatives from the power and oil industries, government and civic organizations."

Here is what the cost would be for china to clean up there mess least to our standards, or closer.....

"Reducing those pollutants wouldnt add much to the cost of export goods, said Streets. Upgrading motor vehicle emission standards and placing emission controls on power plants and industrial smokestacks among other measures could lower the amount of fine particles and ozone precursors in the region by about 20 to 30 percent. And it would add only three-tenths of a percent to the cost of each good. A $100 DVD player, for instance, would only cost 30 cents more after emissions standards were put in place. Lead was one chemical particle that researchers found in extremely high concentrations in Guangd ong. The lead levels were much higher in Guangd ong than what we find in the U.S., said Bergin.

I kind of doubt that it would cost us much more to implement some of the current technologies we have developed over the past few years to clean up our act a little more.

And, well, it's a health risk.

" Ballantine, who has testified before the U.S. Senate, cited numerous studies that show that poor air quality not only hurts lung development in children, but it also accounts for an increase in heart disease, bronchitis and strokes."

"Repeated exposure to ozone can lead to reduced lung capacity and permanent lung damage according to the EPA.

And, well, I'm sorry. But, if the studies showing that our pollution or global warming are junk science, then why isn't the studies showing that second hand smoke is unhealthy real science? The same standards were probably used, maybe even by some of the same scientists. Are we picking our poisons here?

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:46 AM
I am a american and theres no doute in my mind at all that global warming is real and for the life of me I cant understand why people try to ignore it.
i have been keeping track of highlow temps around america including alaska now for well over 25 years and contrairy to what science has relised on the temp incress is MUCH worse .
25 years agaio in september it was snowing in alaska and even some of the lower states like wyoming and alaskas temp was already droping to down near 10% averge by the begining of october .
in the last ten years it stays over 45% untill december and even ABOVE the artic circle its still just bearly below 32% and this is in early DECEMBER when its sop to be -30 to -60.
what scientest dident relize 30 years agaio when they started studing global warming is that its a geometric progression event .
starts out realy slowly but once it gets going it picks up speed .These poeple spouting everthings fine will have there undeniable proff soon enough we are very close indeed to a major climet shift now. As to what this means no scientest can say because it has never happened this way on earth befor will it heat up to a point then collaps and get realy cold?Or just a massive mealt down that takes just years instead of the 100 we think its going to take? well eather way we are in for a bumpy ride.

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:42 AM
I'd like to thank all those people who think global warming is something serious. Despite the fact that the original poost contradicted itself saying that studies were all wrong, then provided us with a nice one, global warming is evident in our daily lives. Why, all I have to do is look outside my window sometimes, and then I know something's not right. I don't need some over-paid scientist to tell me that, or tell me against it. What the eyes see is more than I'll ever need.

I am afraid to say that my generation will decide the worlds fate. We really have no other choice than to gather and DO something about it. That's why I created my forum here, and I hope someone will take the time to reply, because I always like critics too!


posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
...for the life of me I cant understand why people try to ignore it.
Three words... "personal economical benefit"
It's cheaper for for big money/corporations to destroy environment that protect it and in capitalism profits are what goes before anything else.

The year 2004, punctuated by four powerful hurricanes in the Caribbean and deadly typhoons lashing Asia, was the fourth-hottest on record, extending a trend since 1990 that has registered the 10 warmest years...
Statistics released at the climate change conference showed that natural disasters across the world in the first 10 months of the year cost the insurance industry just over $35 billion, up from $16 billion in 2003.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?... The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that... Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City... The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand."
-- 1991, Chief Economist for the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, Quoted from Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000) p.65; See also Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 233-236 for a detailed look at this; This quote also appeared in the Economist in an article titled "Let them eat pollution".

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:48 PM
"Three words... "personal economical benefit" "

... yep ... 'affluent' but extinct - just great! oh yeah makes absolute sense ...... bury your head in the sand and stick stubbornly to the way things are, [ which really is not that great (take them blinkers off) ]. Keep consuming selfishly, keep getting fat - its all in the name of prosperity. Global warming is happening anyway so what the hell, might as well help it along. Pffft it will all be fine ... and you're willing to bet your children's and grandchildren's lives on it.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by c_au]

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:57 PM
Well there is no doubt Global warming is happening but there is no proof that it is a result of humans and not a natural cycle. There has been 17 Ice Ages in the last 1.8 million years wild changes in earth's climate long before humans were effecting the enviroment in any significant way. The earth goes through climate changes all the time.

Earths climate is not static it changes all the time with human intervention or without it.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 19-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:39 PM
So its ok to keep up toxic levels of pollution (air, land and water), keep burning up more oxygen than can replaced by chopping down old growth forests, keep breaking down eco-systems, etc? Global warming has escalated in the past 50 years - why? Can it be said with absolute certainty that man had nothing to do with it?

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:51 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
There has been 17 Ice Ages in the last 1.8 million years wild changes in earth's climate long before humans were effecting the enviroment in any significant way.

Yes. This is true!

However humans have sped up the process. Do the calculations yourself and see when the next ice age is supposed to be by NORMAL standards. You'll see it's FAR in the future, but we're hearing movies about ice ages, and all this media. Heck, we're talking about it right now. If I ask you the simple question of "what causes ice ages" then i could counter your statement with yur very own answer.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 03:13 PM
The climate MAY be getting warmer (seems to me it is, having 50 years of personal observations), but I very much doubt that it is man made. The earth's climate has had wild fluctuations many times in its history. In fact, for the vast majority of Earth' history, the Earth has been significantly warmer than now. We just happen to be in a cool period, and may simply be returning to average.

We have had 4 ice ages in the last 10 million years. The last one ended only 10,000 years ago. It only makes sense that we are getting warmer, and I would want a lot more proof than we have now that man is causing it. The Earth's climate can be affected by the Sun's variable output, geophysical cycles deep in the Earth, and long, slow cycles in atmospheric behaviour, many of which we are just starting to understand.

There is therefore a very high probability that Man's ascension and industrial revolution are simply coincidental to a natural cycle.

Unfortunately, there are any number of leftwing radical groups that want to use global warming as a scare tactic to further their causes. They make linkages to the hated corporations, globalization, false connections to other, genuine environmental concerns and so on. As a result, there is a lot of junk science being peddled, and our media are irresponsibly printing any "press release" these groups send out, and alarming a population that doesn't have the knowledge to filter the wheat from the chaff.

The real tragedy is that attention is being diverted from genuine concerns. In addition, there is a very real risk that, since we don't truly understand the Earth as a mechanism, that by taking man-made measures against a percieved threat, we could inadvertantly cause unintended consequences. In other words, tinkering with the climate to counter our other tinkering (assuming there's something to it) seems prima facie unwise.

I would like to propose a truce between right and left and making a common cause. I make the following assertions:

1. Pollution is a bad thing per se.
2. We are very wasteful in our inefficient use of energy.

I propose that if we battle both of the above, we will achieve economic savings and reduce (at least in the US and Europe) dependency on foreign energy sources, and of course make them last longer. It will also (according to global warming alarmists) reduce so-called greenhouse emissions. It seems to me that making this common cause will forward both the right and left wing agendas.

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I would like to propose a truce between right and left and making a common cause. I make the following assertions:

1. Pollution is a bad thing per se.
2. We are very wasteful in our inefficient use of energy.

And that, my friend, is somehting I really want to happen, for if that happens, my side is pleased, and like you say, so are you. (even though I am annoyed at your use of politics in this, as I am right winged, it's much easier to deny and live on, then to stop the car, get out, and check the fuel.)

posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:32 PM
Not sure I completely understand your posting, humanoidcontent (I consider myself on the right, too), but I accept the criticism: getting buy-in to a common front while jabbing your putative partner is counter-productive.

Unfortunately, this subject is already badly compromised by politicization, partly because of the actions of special interest groups (those I alluded to, but admittedly also by those who profit from the status quo). Its also partly because it becomes a litmus test of fealty to one's ideology (left or right), leading people to reject good data and logic out of hand, and to embrace the bad because it is self-serving.

new topics
top topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in