Why I stopped believing in the global warming theory.

Now, i don't know if this is the right place to put it. Anyhow, I stopped believing in the global warming theory when I realized it was being used only for politics. I believe in the idea that the Earth is warming and that our fossil fuels contribute to it. But Al Gore just wants to tax everything we do and give money to the new world order. He is nothing but a front man for the new world order when it comes to the ecology. He would rather tax everything than to release the government technologies that could be very beneficial to us. I used to be a hard core defender of it but now I know why it's so hyped.

Good man..! Even the phrase 'Manmade Global Warming' contradicts the fact that the sun has more influence over earth temperatures than mankind.. especially with all the evidence out there about the increase in the suns output over the past two centuries.

To top it all off, the fact that the Rothschilds registered a company for collecting carbon taxes.. years before the global warming hype exploded..

Its a prime example of scientific fact and speculation turning into a political game. If they want to stop the pollution, they should fine polluters.. not tax the # out of everyone and give that revenue to dodgy investment bankers.

I won't delve into the conspiracy aspect of this thread (at least not now) but I do want to throw this link into the mix:

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong."

Of course, we still want to get off of "dirty" fuel sources as quick as possible. Do you guys like second-hand cigarette smoke? If not, you ought to really be irate about constantly inhaling smog. There are also political and economic benefits.

you are totally right. they use a "manmade global warming theory" to tax us all. and to make a fake evidence is simple. how it works? see an short article below:

"In Global Warming however the vast majority of funding is via the public purse and is thus considered to be for the general benefit of mankind. The slight problem with that argument is, one would expect as it is for the public good that the search would be to be for the truth and thus funding would be more proportionate. When was the last publicly funded study questioning the AGW theory?

Whenever government is in the position to decide what scientific projects get funded, it’s going to abuse that power, and political interest groups are going to try to persuade it to abuse that power. Also, in cases where there are genuine scientific controversies, politicians will choose those whose views are politically useful to them, thereby distorting actual controversies in the eyes of the general public and making it more difficult to resolve those debates scientifically.
The bottom line is: when government writes the checks, it will make the rules, and those rules will interfere with scientific independence and scientific integrity."

Notice how all the big pushers of imposing a carbon taxation on us are the same people who spew tons of carbon from their huge cars, private planes, or large homes? Here in Cali, we have a governor that keeps pushing for the global warming agenda and at the same time he commutes from Sacramento to Los Angeles on a near daily basis via private plane.

Carbon taxation has huge benefits for the elites. For example, $10 a gallon gasoline would be devastating for normal people but to a multi-millionaire or billionaire it means nothing. But those same rich guys would have less traffic on the roads, gain more prestige by being the only ones with vehicles, while at the same time keeping us rabble contained in planned population centers.

Then there are people who are actually trying to come up with green renewable energy solutions. But guess what happens to them? Solar energy ruins "pristine" desert. Wind energy chops up birds or ruins the ocean views of certain politicians. Hydro power disturbs the fishies. It seems that the global warming pushers and other elite really don't want to solve any problem (whether or not the problem exists) because the true problem for them is that normal people aren't really controllable until energy is severely limited.

Look, yes, global warming is real. However, I tend to think that it is cyclical. Now, I am not suggesting that humans are not a contributing factor in this. I do believe that we are speeding up the process,but, with that being said, I think it is imperative for everyone to realize that the earth naturally experiences warming and cooling trends.

The Earth has seen dramatic climate fluctuations – veering between cold and warm extremes - over the past three million years, the researchers say.
And changes in the Earth’s orbit and slowly falling levels of carbon dioxide are the cause.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html

Here is another thing to take into consideration:

It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem.
We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim.
British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury

Ice Age

Whatever we are headed towards, I would strongly suggest that people quit finger pointing and arguing and start to prepare, i.e adapt, for whatever is coming our way.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

Well I'm totally lost. You "stopped believing in the global warming theory". And yet,

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I believe in the idea that the Earth is warming and that our fossil fuels contribute to it.

I guess I need to know which "global warming theory" you stopped believing in. There's a theory that states climate change is in process. One version says the Earth is warming. Within that category, one version it's a man made change, or at least people's actions are contributory. Another says it's a cyclical change and will happen despite what we do.

If you believe the Earth is warming and our fossil fuels contribute to it (as quoted above), then you do in fact believe in a global warming theory.

I'm speculating here, but it sounds to me like your issue is with what Al Gore et al. proposes we do about it, and not with the theory (whichever one it is) itself.

Once we clarify that, we can proceed.

So what you believe hasn't actually changed, but you've discovered what you might call "a convenient untruth" that you hope will get us all off the hook for our actions?

"Global Warming" is made up. BUT, global climate change is real. it happens regularly in earth's history, and we are due for another climate shift now, which we ARE going though, but humans are speeding it up... Fast.

changes that used to take 10 years to get, have been met in half the time. we can't blame poor government and political decisions for our bad actions. all that does is help you sleep better at night, it does nothing for helping the earth.

Just because the politics and economics behind it are wrong, doesn't mean that you should give up on what you once believed in! you can take things into your own hands, don't rely on the government, or you are being just as wrong as they are. each one of us can and should reduce our carbon footprint by doing anything we can. the government doesn't have to play a part in this, only YOU do. blaming other people is just an excuse for doing nothing.

We are lazy and selfish people in general. if we can blame people, we usually will, but look where that has gotten us. maybe if people start to change with small things here and there, the world will get better... i mean... it can't get much worse... right?

Polar bears are dying and sea levels are rising.
That's all that matters to me. Lakes are drying up, islands are becoming flooded, you know.
But it's okay if you think it's all just for politics. I know that's what the people dying along Lake Chad think, too.

reply to post by The Vagabond


I believe that the idea of global warming is real.

But I believe in the bilderburg conspiracies and if you believe that you would know that the elite have been planning a global carbon tax for a really long time.

The idea is real, but, yeah, I don't like Al Gore and others.

I also think it's highly exaggerated and it's another way of saying "you caused this mess so we're going to make you pay for it."

Ravenshadow, do you really think all of it was caused by us? The Earth naturally heats up. I raise doubts about how much of it is caused by our fossil fuel consumption.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


What is the collected money going to be used for? Seems that it will thousands of dollars per year per person. Which is money that could be used to purchase individual or community green energy systems, like solar thermal, geothermal, solar electric and wind turbines. If there was a global push to buy these systems the technologies would improve and the price would reduce, but i guess most people will be short the cash.

My main reason for believing global warming is bunk is history prior to the 1400 greenland was full of forest, the vikings that lived there were abled to farm and even grew grapes which is highly temperature sensitive. Truth is used to be a great place to live until it started getting cold! Now we here all the time about arctic ice melt what we dont here is antartic ice has been on the increase for the last 50 years.

The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."

Former Colorado State Climatologist and current senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Dr Roger Pielke Sr is severely critical of the "typical bias that many journalists have." Pielke notes, "The media has ignored the increase in Antarctica sea ice cover in recent years, with at present, a coverage that is one million square kilometres above average."

Ps my theory has to do with the earths wobble northern hemisphere warms up southern gets colder then the process changes again.

[edit on 3/26/09 by dragonridr]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You don't have to believe in conspiracies to know that a lot of powerful people think a carbon tax would be a good idea. And within certain bounds it would be. Pollution already costs us money. We just dont put that expense on the books.

People think that driving a car costs 2 bucks a gallon, so if you wanna take a road trip and you've got the two bucks a gallon to make it, you do it.
It doesn't occur to them that they are putting wear and tear on roads that they have to pay for later, it doesn't occur to them that every car on the road increases the chances of an accident, which they're gonna have to pay for later in the form of more emergency personnel on duty, and of particular relevance to this conversation, it doesn't occur to them that they are putting poison in the air that sooner or later somebody is going to have to pay to clean up.

It's bad business not to account for all costs- you can't stay in the black that way. So I don't think the fact that addressing a real problem will be inconvenient is a valid objection. A valid objection would be "they're going to do it the wrong way, at a disproportionate expense to us, and we need to make them do it right instead".

The IPCC does NOT factor in the activity of the sun as a variable in their computer models.

This should be a giant red flag to anyone who's bought into one of the lies of our age. (That and the fact that the Earth is now cooling...might tip a few folk off... )

Are we to believe that the varying activity of that giant ball of fire in the sky has no impact on our climate, but my pickup truck does?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


You do realise that the very same thing has happened at least twice in the last hundred years to that area and it isn't or wasn't man made then or now! The very term 'Climate Change" is kinda ridiculous when you consider that here in New England I have seen snow, rain, and sunshine and temperatures in the 60's all in a 12 hour period!! Climate changes faster than most folks change their shorts!!


Zindo