Weather Ch. Founder: The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam

um, yeha, going green is a nice idea and all, but a romantic notion at best. Most of this green type technology is far from green in it smanufacture, and after is all said and done, ends up costing 2-10 times more than what we have now.

No thanks, screw the hooting barn own or whatever the bunny hugger's cause is right now, I'll just burn some more dead dinosaurs so I can get to work. Thanks.

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by treemanx
www.snopes.com...

If you think Al Gore is a champion for fighting against global warming, take a look at this link! He's in it for the money, folks, and here's the proof.

The link you provide compares GW Bush's house and Al Gore's house.

It does not prove "he's in it for the money". It proves he's a hypocrite and that's it.

If you wish to discuss science and reason please use science and reason in your arguments.

[edit on 1/29/09 by stikkinikki]

Lets see here, Ill try and break this down into science and reason for you....

Al Gore cares SO-O-O-O much about the environment, that hes willing to make the hard sacrifices of spending only a mere $2400.00 a month on electricity and nat. gas, instead of his normal $3400.00. He has made so much money off of DUPES that buy into his garbage, so he can afford to scale his mansion needs back a little bit, thus reducing his carbon footprint.

Give us a break man, if this guys lies were a rattlesnake, it would have bit your a** by now. How bout this.... Lets take a step back and look at the bigger picture here.

Al Gore is making a very good living from his environmentalist work, right? Dont you think if he cared so much about what he believes is ruining our planet, that he himself would make the changes in his lifestyle to 'do his part?' Im sorry, but if he really believed his own words he wouldnt live like he does.

Yes, this makes him a hypocrite, but it also shows his personal feelings on the subject of global warming. If thats not enough proof for you that hes only in it for the money, then you must be waiting for the only other thing that could prove it. Which would be....He holds a press conference and tells everyone, "I dont really care about the environment, its a money making scheme."

Heres your sign man.

By the way, stinki, did you not like my link to snopes because it showed Bush in a good light? Im kinda wondering, that you may have liked my link if it hadnt mentioned something good about Bush.

Not a fan of anything that puts ol GW in a good light?

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by Bimbo

 

Bimbo,

Welcome to ATS.

Thanks, I'm starting to get it.

So once you debunk something, dozens more posters pile on responding to the headline only, having never read anything in the actual thread?

Wow, it's like some odd writers guild in WarCraft where reading is forbidden.

I heart the Internet.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Bimbo

 

Thanks for that insight.

Shear jeaniess.

I'm going back to the grown-ups now.

Okidoke!

But you can't get more Grown-Up than 74 year old Johnny Coleman.

I mean take a look at what I read about him on the Internets just today (so it must be true).

That guy is great! He's 74 now, but back in the 1950's hosted a Bandstand show called At the Hop!!!

He's a real Barnum and Bailey genious!

And not only that, in his day they didn't burn fossil fuels. They ate them. Then rolled in butter and walked uphill to school, then uphill back home.

His screed is pure scientific genious by the way.

I mean, this alone makes me want to buy a Hummer.

Originally posted by treemanx
Al Gore cares SO-O-O-O much about the environment...

Ha, ha, ha. I'm with ya. VOTE BUSH!

Do not let that Gore guy anywhere near the White House.

Whew. Glad we settled that.

(Gas will now return to $4 a gallon until Democratic control.)

Originally posted by Bimbo

Originally posted by treemanx
Al Gore cares SO-O-O-O much about the environment...

Ha, ha, ha. I'm with ya. VOTE BUSH!

Do not let that Gore guy anywhere near the White House.

Whew. Glad we settled that.

(Gas will now return to $4 a gallon until Democratic control.)

WOW....That was extremely cynical Bimbo. By the way, you do realize, that election was a couple of years ago.....right?

Originally posted by treemanx
WOW....That was extremely cynical Bimbo. By the way, you do realize, that election was a couple of years ago.....right?

And JUST like I said, gas will now go to $4 a gallon until Democratic control.

Oh, that happened already and OPEC got scared and it went down again?

JUST LIKE I SAID.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Bimbo]

reply to post by stander


recently reposted at www.abovetopsecret.com...

myself, two years ago

Co2 does block IR and the effect is very relevant, but so is its saturation characteristic, which does not scale linearly, which you seem to assume otherwise you'd be much more relaxed about CO2 !

for all who are not yet fully awake: a trace of greenhouse gas will quickly change absorbtion with increasing concentration in the beginning (again very low concentrations) but will tehn gradually level off. after a certain threshold, the increase becomes unnoticable, because all wavelengths in question are already blocked out.


aip.org

...A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were "saturated" — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference

too bad 40% could make all the difference in the world or none at all, depending on the circumstances.

if you want to come to a logical conclusion, you need to go step by step, first of all, how is carbon dioxide supposed to work? blocking out IR light? how much, and which wavelength(s) exactly? knowing that gases have discrete absorbtion spectra helps a lot, i admit. what an absorption spectrum is should be self explanatory, though....

only then can you move ahead and determine how effective that process is, as in how much of the gas does it take to absorb a given amount (say half) of that wavelength within a given distance. the process is quite efficient as pointed out above and increases in gas (usually CO2 and CH4 in this context) levels can only affect what's still getting through....

then you arrive at the concept of diminishing returns, which explains to a good deal why exactly CH4 (methane) is 20 times as bad as the same amount of CO2 in terms of greenhouse 'activity', because there's much less CH4 in the atmopshere and therefore has not reached saturation by a long shot.

none of thes steps are regularly taken in GW discussions, because it's at its core a politcal dispute and facts are lost on all people who wish to take 'sides'. that is because facts cannot be corrupted, just omitted. i'm still trying, though, call me vain.

Originally posted by jdub297
It was proven in 1870 that once CO2 reaches a certain level, it has absorbed all the IR radiation it can and will not absorb anymore no matter how high it increases. IT IS NOT LINEAR!

And who exactly proved that? I guess you had a dream.

Originally posted by Bimbo

Originally posted by treemanx
Al Gore cares SO-O-O-O much about the environment...

Ha, ha, ha. I'm with ya. VOTE BUSH!

Do not let that Gore guy anywhere near the White House.

Whew. Glad we settled that.

Nothing got settled. The debate whether it was Bush or Gore who contributed more to the geenhouse effect by sending methane (fart) gasses to the atmoshere is still open.

Originally posted by die_another_day
The biggest global warming "causer" is actually water vapor.

CO2 comprises so little of the atmosphere compared to water vapor that it is highly unlikely that CO2 is the main culprit.

water has a high specific heat level which allows it to absorb more heat than CO2.

It's all physics and chemistry, not graphs and statistics.

Wrong! But hey you are a skeptic and you can be ignorant. If you denied ignorance (the theme of this website) then you would read a book understand the relationship between water vapour, co2, climate cycles, weather etc etc and not state such idiotic things.

I am not saying this to sway you or other skeptics I never will your ignorance is too entrenched. I firmly believe we (global we) will do too little far too late to prevent irreversible changes due to man made GW.

We are screwed. Give yourself and your fellow skeptics a pat on the back but watch out for my kids who'll be looking for your head on a plate since they have to live with your mess.

i do feel that the who co2 idea is a hoax meant to tax people.

I do believe that alternative sources of fuel should investigated and developed. Fossil fuels won't last forever.

At the very least it will create a ton of new jobs and industry.

Originally posted by Erasurehead
reply to post by Bimbo

 

Bimbo,

Welcome to ATS. So you think he is an idiot because of a job he had in the 50s but you believe Al Gore who has never had any education about the weather and the atmosphere?

Here is an article named the Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from May 2008. 31,000 scientist have signed a petition agreeing with its findings that the whole man made global warming idea is a myth. Read the whole thing, look at all the nice graphs and then comment. Open your eyes to what is happening.
www.oism.org...

Wow! 31,000 scientists with graphs.

Does that include cattle methane charts? Oh that would make a good Farside funny. A man and his son fishing at the farm pound. A cow nearby farts in sight of fishermen. With Farside type serious looks on their faces the father says "There son. There is the bane of all of mankind".

Soon they will tax cattle and other methane producing grazers. Maybe they could rig up burn off units to a cows ass. Yes. A censor would detect the release and fire a cigarette lighter type device that would ignite the gas. Wow just think of what a large field full of cattle would look like at night. All those cattle rigged up with enviro-packs.

Ahh the minute we have to pay money for anything it automatically becomes a scam, I am acquainted with someone who works alongside many politicians and climate change experts, I won't go into details as I doubt they'd want to be in anyway linked with a forum such as this. However what I can tell you is that some climate reports and the research behind them have been funded and indeed doctored by crooked money from various people whose livelihoods would effectively be ruined if not severely damaged by carbon taxes.

(Again apologies for the lack of detail but please understand there are quite severe laws when it comes to slander against people or companies and the person I'm talking about has had to build his reputation on impartiality.
This isn't an exposé, I'm just trying to get you to consider some of the options that may not have been apparent at first.)

I think a carbon tax on the public is somewhat extreme though ask yourself why something so unpopular has been introduced at this late hour in the day. Think recession, think new climate evidence and if you don't believe me go and look at climate records, geologists and weather forecasters should have them.
To avoid taking responsibility for something that threatens our entire planet is pretty darn stupid if you ask me not to mention selfish to expect other people and nations to pick up the pieces for you.

I would imagine the real conspiracy here is the motives behind the OP posting on a board full of easily influenced people, what are your motivations chap? Religion? Money? Going along with the crowd?

Seriously though, never take peoples word for these things, you should know better and as such I'm not asking that you believe anything I say just don't believe anything anyone else has said. Get out there and look for the reports, look to see who's funded them, if its organizations who stand to make a loss from carbon taxes/limits you can bet they're not entirely true, though any person or organization who stands to benefit may have hyped the figures...

Anyone can get information on something and form an opinion but ask yourself, is that information biased and are you forming the right opinion?

Originally posted by malcr
Wrong! But hey you are a skeptic and you can be ignorant. If you denied ignorance (the theme of this website) then you would read a book understand the relationship between water vapour, co2, climate cycles, weather etc etc and not state such idiotic things.

I am not saying this to sway you or other skeptics I never will your ignorance is too entrenched. I firmly believe we (global we) will do too little far too late to prevent irreversible changes due to man made GW.

We are screwed. Give yourself and your fellow skeptics a pat on the back but watch out for my kids who'll be looking for your head on a plate since they have to live with your mess.

tell me who we are meant to believe.
first we start with earth day, which was supported whole heartedly by another politician Senator Gaylord Nelson, not as popular as Gore, but a start.
He was hoping to gain political support for an environmental agenda and combat global cooling
Yes popular science was telling us about an impending ice age.

Now we have another polititian who gains popular support, only this time he called it global warming, he brought out an award winning documentary which was later shown to be very flawed and even an English judge ruled that it had nine scientific errors or omissions.

Now after we had global cooling and global warming they are trying to get everyone to call it Climate change.

Now call me a skeptic, but why if you are so sure the planet is warming do you want to call it climate change?
could their be an under lying agenda?
Surely not, polititians are only out after our best interest and would never lie to us would they?

now another question, why are 30,000 scientists trying to distance them selves from the global warming band wagon?
thats an awful big number of scientists who do not agree with it.

so us skeptics can pat ourselves on the back for wanting real answers to serious questions.
and those on the global warming or is it cooling or climate change band wagon, you can just continue to believe
It is much easier to go with flow and not wanting to be different.

There are no hundreds of thousands of scientists who disagree with this, only some looney from some random station who founded a weather channel that has no association with him any more - and these are the scientists you rely on.


Here is a challenge - go a find some CREDIBLE scientists from some CREDIBLE institutions and present their findings on this issue.

Stop dragging up loooons as evidence, its worse than having to debate creationists......

Originally posted by Bimbo
Very learned (that's two syllables for those moving their mouths along while reading).

Brand new here and already sounding sooooo arrogant and perhaps elitist, if you read the rest of bimbo's post. Otherwise, it was just a classic "shoot the messenger" deflection attempt.

You had an open mind at one time when they filled it full of the 'global warming is caused by humans' BS. So, what happened that you no longer are open to any other ideas on this subject?

The eco-nazis had their chance to pull off the 'global warming caused by humans' fraud, but two things got in their way - people started to ask questions and the climate turned colder. Funny example was Al Gore almost having his recent global warming speech canceled by the DC snow storm.

reply to post by A State Of Mind

I would imagine the real conspiracy here is the motives behind the OP posting on a board full of easily influenced people, what are your motivations chap? Religion? Money? Going along with the crowd?

Yeah, that's it. We here at ATS are a bunch of 'follow the leader' types! We don't think for ourselves, we just go along with the crowd!

I can't even begin to engage this post - one large ad hominem portrayal of people who see the disingenuous nature of the 'carbon-tax' plan as folks who are 'easily-influenced'.

Love the meme... "we bring you fear..., now love us." -AG

Originally posted by audas
There are no hundreds of thousands of scientists who disagree with this, only some looney from some random station who founded a weather channel that has no association with him any more - and these are the scientists you rely on.


Here is a challenge - go a find some CREDIBLE scientists from some CREDIBLE institutions and present their findings on this issue.

Stop dragging up loooons as evidence, its worse than having to debate creationists......

I guess you did not read the whole thread. I hate to repeat myself but here it is again.

Over 31,000 scientists signed a petition agreeing with a study that the climate change is cyclical and not caused by man. Here is the link to the study. You can view all the signatures yourself just click on the signers of the petition links on the left. These are people with PHDs and MDs and surely can't all be idiots or looons as you say.
www.oism.org...

I am done with this thread. Some people just refuse to believe that they are being scammed and refer to outdated research from 10 years ago. Yes we should take care of our planet and start developing alternate fuel sources. It will not happen overnight and paying for carbon credits will not do a thing but increase the cost of living and doing business while lining the pockets of people like Al Gore.