Overwhelming evidence for climate change is [u]Not ![/u] man made

I starting this thread because I believe we are being mislead and subjected to lies and propaganda on the climate and why it's changing.

I am not a scientist and not an expert on any matter I'm going to provide you with.
Therefore I must ask from you , ( the reader ) not to shoot the messenger.
I can only provide what I've found and I will provide every link I've used to form this thread. And a little of me of course.

I do believe there is climate change going on. I think the environment is in much worse shape then it should and could be. I believe climate change gets the focus of of the environment. only for personal gain. This way it works both ways.
They use climate change to make us pay for something we are not responsible for. And at the same time keep the costs low because there isn't anyone trying to stop any pollution so they do not need to invest on environmental friendly ways to spare the environment.

Evidence for our green energy to be not so green at all and even impossible to achieve some of it.

Wind energy.

The use of wind energy comes with a big flaw in it. ( What if... there is no wind ? )
Well... the solution will knock you of your chair.

China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants !

SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well.

Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.

China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.

Visit the Link to read the entire article.

The massive pollution for the creation of your green technology illusions.

Apparently it's impossible to provide the entire world with electric cars.
There is said that there are simply not enough resources available for more then about 2 million Toyota Prius cars.
This means everything else what requires a electricity is also unachievable !
Not to mention the the nuclear waste it lefts us with. Uranium and Thorium.



Radiative forcing
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e36c15ce6ce9.jpg[/atsimg]

The in the link to this article you will find an explanation of radiative forcing.
It basicly says that the oceans are keeping the heat in and there is nothing we can do about it.

It also comes with a nice picture of the suns rays getting dispersed all over the planet.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a131ba9a63af.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is one where you can see the IPCC only has a good understanding from green house gasses and ony green house gasses.( Is also explained in the link.)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4efa7813e2b.jpg[/atsimg]



Link

Now for the last part.

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
The link
There are even more .

After all this I have to say it's just the tip of the ice berg. Along side the the money involved. (which is usually the main goal for anything )

How can someone still believe in a man made climate change ?

Sincerely yours

-SK

Edit. Spelling.



[edit on 20-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

How about Perpetual Motion Machines?

The problem with green energy is that people are assuming there is a one size fits all solution.
The thinking should be that each area needs to work on what would work for that area. For some it may be wind, for others it may be solar.
And there are growin pains. There aren't any perfect answers right now, its a developement in process, and you have to take all the steps to get to the final products that you need. It is a green race. But you can't take leaps.
As for supplying the world with electric cars, whole entire world doesn't need electric cars, just the few industrialized nations who use oil at an alarming rate.
And again, back to my previous point, it is a step that has to be taken, but it is not a one size fits all answer, it is not the final answer. But it is the stepping stone to better technologies.

reply to post by masonicon


Are you thinking of a something like a water scoop wheel or more to a magnetic motor ?

reply to post by nixie_nox

The problem with green energy is that people are assuming there is a one size fits all solution.

I agree with you that their is no current technology available to stop using oil.

I don't really know where you want to go with your reply

The whole point is that we don't need that junk. Climate change is not caused by man . except for keeping the environment clean and healthy, we can burn all the oil we like.

The production of electric cars is not only limited by the available resources but it leaves to much pollution even nuclear waste.
And in our the current situation the US are the biggest polluters.
How many cars do think are in the US ? 2 millions is just a drop on a burning stove.

Above all this the cars do not even come close to what industry is producing on pollution and Co2

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

1. Issues with wind energy have nothing to do with global warming.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that IPCC chart show the exact opposite of what you think it does?

3. I'm sure I could find data-mines of peer reviewed papers supporting AGW.

4. We can burn all the oil we like? Yeah, until world demand shoots through the roof, the EROI hits rock bottom, supply peaks - meaning fuel shortages and sky-high price therefore high cost of living, all while people die of respiratory illnesses, the environment is destroyed and we have more oil wars.

There is no technology to replace oil, but we need one.

[edit on 20/3/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


To answer your points.

1. No it does not have anything to with global warming and everything with unnecessary investments especially those from the article.
They are backed up by the continuous burning of coal.

I posted this to show our money is used on BS solutions.
We got to get our priorities straight.



2.What do you think it means ? To understand one thing and on almost nothing of the other means you can not make any statement about any result of the two interacting with eachother. The IPCC claims it is a settled science.
Maybe you should read the link where I got it from.

3. Please do I would be much more comfortable if I just see ghosts.

4. According to the explenation ( which you can find in the link ) energy in the form of heat will be for a small part reflect and the rest reaches Earth.
The oceans are absorbing all the heat and keeps Earth's Temperatures stabile. Any heat trapped by for example green house gasses is diminishable.

Take for example a dessert. by day they are ( not all ) hot as hell. During the night they freeze over. That's how fast heat dissapears.
The oceans hold on to the heat and works more like an isolating tool. It keeps us warm when it's cold and it keeps us cold when it's warm.

This means burning coals is not causing global warming.

I must say I do not know this for sure. As I've said before I;m just the messenger and can only give my thoughts on it.

Please read the links in the OP

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]