Scientist admits global warming scam, and resigns

reply to post by munkey66


Not all carbon is returned to the air, so net there is a sink. Thats why there is oil and coal in the ground. Deforestation will thus result in the sink shrinking. The leaves will compose anyhow as we don't really have much use of it. Although cultivated forests actually do help reducing CO2. As long as we do not burn the wood we harvest the CO2 will be contained.

reply to post by cushycrux


Saying we must do something about pollution is 100% different than saying that there is anthropogenic global warming.

I say we need to curb pollution as well. The answer to that is to come down hard on the real polluters, like the corporations that are dumping toxic waste.

Stopping SUVs from being driven or charging people for farting is ridiculous and will do nothing but line certain pockets more.

JAden

reply to post by Nathan-D


I am not sure what you mean by tipping point. By catastrophe I mean that many people die. That doesn't require very dramatical change, relatively speaking. Some scientists even suggest that humans almost went extinct not too long ago because of bad climatic conditions.

reply to post by cushycrux

Why is it so important for you to believe (sorry to know) there is no global warming.

That is very easy:
What was the objective of the global warming scare?

All you have to do is look at what Dr Kissinger said in 1970's:

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world. – Henry Kissinger.

Then look at what Obama's Science Czar, John P. Holdren wrote inhis coauthored 1973 book:

In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries."

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy [see Agenda 21] in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Then look at who made Global Warming popular at the First Earth Summit in 1972 - David Rockefeller's buddy, Canada's Big Oig Mogul, Maurice Strong Look at Agenda 21/Scenerio B1 and who wrote it -Shell Oil's Ged Davis:
www.interacademycouncil.net...
www.eastangliaemails.com...
www.ipcc.ch...
www.inesglobal.com...

Then look at the leaked "danish text"

The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank...

Who controls the World Bank and IMF?

The Chase Bank has had a strong connection to the World Bank, as three presidents (John J. McCloy, Eugene Black and George Woods) all worked at Chase before taking up positions at the international bank. A fourth president, James D. Wolfensohn, is also closely associated with Rockefeller, serving as a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, amongst other family-created institutions.

Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family's Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world's finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and IMF. These luncheons were held at the Playhouse. These regular meetings were also attended by the other internationalist in the family, John D 3rd, up until his death in 1978.
hubpages.com...

A little more digging and you find Maurice Strong is a Senior Advisor to the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation which contributes to both Greenpeace and WWF.

David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, Kissinger and Holdren are all fans of "depopulating" the world and returning it to a feudal state with brainwashed serfs and "The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers..."


Just look at Holdren's definition of human:

In the same book, Holdren and his co-authors made this observation about when a fetus becomes a human being: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

Why the heck do you think the USDA funded Spermicidal Corn and the Rockefellers and the UN have been following a policy of A covert-sterilisation programme?

Open your eyes and you will see all three of Kissinger's control points are just about in place.

Okay, this has always been my Theory on the overall CO2 argument and i'm actually surprised that I don't see this idea often.

What if it's not the CO2 production itself that's increasing?

As we here well know, governments seem hell bent on destroying all the trees and such they can find, so with that decrease in the ability to absorb CO2 and create Oxygen, wouldn't it just APPEAR that CO2 levels increasing is because of the average Joe?

I think it's a distraction tactic.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Can someone please tell me at what point in recent history we deliberately bred in ignorance and complacency to the point where we just take everything thats thrown at us as gospel just because people with lots of money at stake say so?

edit on 18-10-2010 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)

Darwinian evolution. Lots of money to be spent on finding life that accidently created itself in outer space. Textbooks would have to be rewritten, NatGeo couldn't make up programs about knowing how a so called transitional organism lived from simply finding a bone fragment...

Originally posted by stormson
what ever happened to reason? people still bring up "climate-gate" (why does everything have to have -gate? so cliche), even tho it was proven to be a non-event. it was investigated and the results showed no wrong doing by those involved.

A non-event? The panel got caught cherry picking data to support the nwo's agenda of taxing CO2 emissions. As others have said any data that contradicted the scam was ignored. Why is that hard for some people to come to grips with?

Originally posted by stormson
now when it comes to global warming, or as the republicans re-branded it, climate change, its really hard to see where the problem is. is the climate changing? all info points to yes. does man have a hand in that? all info points to yes. can man change the climate? massive deforestation and the atomic bomb points to yes.

Off course man can change the enviroment to some degree. The problem is some people/organisations are above the law and barely touched, yet small time polluters with minimal offenses are prosecuted/harrassed to the maximum.

Instead of focusing on CO2 emmissions they should be focusing elsewhere. Someone mentioned the epa is trying to cut down on carbon monoxide emissions with the addition of a catalyst converter but afaik the government isn't targeting diesel users to the same extent....busses and trucks per unit cause much more pollution than cars.

Then we have chemical processing factories, including petroleum distilleries that also pollute because they are not obligatted to install special filters on their smoke-stacks.

What about permanently banning garbage landfills and forcing garbage incinerators? What about forcing(or at least encouraging) recycling of anything that can be recycled to be recycled?

Originally posted by stormson
for a real quick look at the situ, look at l.a. in the '80's. orange haze and acid rain. cali changed emission standards and look, the air and rain cleaned up (not completely, but its way better). another reasonable look is the think about gravity. all that crap we put into the air is going to come down, usually miles away from where it was spewed in the first place. now think about all the poisoned farmland in the country. all the poisoned water. gee, i wonder how that happened, if not for man?

A good example of unregulated pollution was the american government allowing BP to use corexit dispersants during the gulf of mexico oil leak, when in many other countries it has been banned. They stood by and allowed BP to do almost anything they wanted for 4-5 months.

Of course its easy for the government to flex its muscle when dealing with small corporations and individuals but big multi-national corporations are a different story and need special considerations...........

Originally posted by stormson
now, my question is this. we know that oil and fossil fuels will run out, so why wait and get pinched? why wait for a "mad max" scenario when people are cutting their neighbors throats for a gallon of gas? whether we "go green" due to climate change, or just to get off oil, is not that end preferrable to the do nothing end?

personally, id rather fix a problem (use of fossil fuels) before it becomes necessary, than wait for it to bite me in the butt (running out).

Oil companies and nations that relly on oil for a significant portion of their GDP cannot afford to allow alternative energy theories/methods to emerge unless they themselves control everything. What would saudi arabia, iran, iraq, venezuela, nigeria, usa, uk, russia and many other nations do if oil became irrellevant? How would they keep their economy afloat?

As you can see its not just a few big oil companies that control everything, entire economies and industries relly on oil for existance. Much of the current infrastructure would need modification or simply done away with and that is never an easy decision to make.

The "NWO" is now. It´s taking place as we speak. The world is deforming and every conspiracy theorist on it is just sitting at home and waiting for the NWO-bomb to drop and make a loud noise.

Realize that the time to act against the NWO is NOW.

We are run by LIARS, that is what the climategate shows. Nothing more. You´re life is founded on lies and illusions.

The most logical answer to why things are happening as they are is that "they" (the tricksters, the owners of all the big oligarchs) trying to make everyone focus on what ever it is as long as it isn't THEM SELVES.

You don't care about money? You hate TV? Don't listen to mainstream music and talk about todays headlines? Then talk about chemtrails, or GW, or BP or the Kennedy assassination instead!

If you aren't trapped by their mainstream lies, you get trapped by their non-mainstream lies!

They always have both ways covered, sometimes more. Think about Zeitgeist and the Venus Project for a minute. Doesn't it sound exactly like the NWO, except the surveillance? How hard would that be to implement?

Talk about life after death instead. Ask your friend or a family member, "What will happen to you after you die? What is love? Where is it that you go when you dream, or astral project? Is astral projection real?"

You won´t be able to change the climate, but you can change your LIFE, and other peoples LIVES! Start doing it NOW, stop the NWO!

The conspiracy theories are a conspiracy.

Talk to people. Please, wake up.

Originally posted by -PLB-

I am not sure what you mean by tipping point. By catastrophe I mean that many people die. That doesn't require very dramatical change, relatively speaking.

A tipping point, in climatology vernacularism, basically means any forcing or feedback that causes a swing in temperature. As you know, according to the AGW theory, increased CO2 would be expected to increase temperatures, so we should expect high CO2 levels to correspond with high temperatures and we do see that in glaciological records, although when examined closer we see an 800-year time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, with temperature-change preceding CO2-change. This correlation is present throughout 850,000 years, though that correlation breaks down as we go further back in time. We see extremely cold periods coinciding with super-high concentrations of CO2, like during the Carboniferous Period, but AGW advocates argue that the Sun was significantly weaker thus offsetting the super-high CO2. There are countless examples like this throughout geological history, where CO2 was very low and temperature soared or remained unchanging, and not just for a fleeting decade, but for millions of years.

Some scientists even suggest that humans almost went extinct not too long ago because of bad climatic conditions.

That would have probably been during the last ice-age that ended around 8,000 years ago and lasted for 100,000 years. It would have been tough to survive.

reply to post by Curiousisall

Earth did not have more resources with which to handle it in the past as compared to now, thus moving the tipping point closer?

We're talking about temperature, not the saturation limits of sinks.

that scientist quit because he was given a healthy $um. Hmmmmmm?

!!!! BY THE OIL COMPANIES !!!!

WAKE UP PEOPLE

IF TO MUCH POLLUTION IT DESTROYS OUR PLANET

IF YOU POUR TO MUCH WATER IN A CUP IT SPILLS

IF YOU GOT 2 AND 2 ITS 4... LOL

PEOPLE NEED TO STOP LISTENING TO THE MEDIA AND PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER 2 GET "TRUTH"

reply to post by Nathan-D


It is without doubt that there are other forces, some much stronger than CO2, that cause climate change. That doesn't mean CO2 can't also have significant effect. I do not know if man made increase in CO2 can have a significant enough effect to cause major problems. There are well educated people who say it can, and there are that say it can't. Until I see proof that confirms or refutes it, I will not discount it as a possibility. I am more on the side that it won't have that much effect, because of the lack of proof and lack of a complete theory that takes all factors in account without making major assumptions. On the other hand, the theory does not seem very far fetched to me, and some parts of it have scientific proof to back it up.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


It is very easy to control the scientists if you have a collosal amount of money like the Federal government. You give money to the scientists who produce(or manufacture for that matter) the results you want. If you are a scientist and talk about the UFOs and their technologies, you get shut down all of your funding, and then other scientists learn the pattern quickly and stop talking about the UFOs and their antigravity technology. Then suddenly one guy start talking about the "time machine" and the "advanced civilization" and you are OK, then all of a sudden all of the scientists start talking about time machine and advanced civilization as if they have obtained the permission to use such terms to describe their silly scientific adventure.

Really Pathetic!!

Scientists are supposed to be immune from such outside influence and devote themselves only to the truth of the nature.

NOT SO.

After all, they are all the slaves of the evil masters whoever the evil that might be.

I tend to think that there are reptilian evil entities in collusion with the FEDS trying to prevent humans from getting to the next level of civilization.

I don't know if they are going to win, but sadly, humans needs to wake up before they get slaughtered en mass.

Originally posted by Saurus
All of these 'green' groups who act in the name of protecting the 'planet' are doing so for the benefit of the human race, not for the benefit of the planet as they claim. The motives are entirely selfish.

I never stopped to think about this, but you are exactly right. As long as the planet continues to sustain our lifestyle, nobody gives a rats ass about how green the grass really is. You have just caused an epiphany.

I just wish that all the money these idiots are spending trying to make anyone believe that climate change is man made would pull their heads out of the sand and use that money to find an alternative fuel. It's like two men fighting to the death over the right to take a life or not. In the end, nothing has changed except there is one less idiot breathing the air.

HYDROGEN is the answer. Make cars that can produce it and use it for fuel and quit worrying about how to tax it and make a profit from it. And for that one idiot who is about to tell me it won't work, it hasn't worked yet, but it might very soon.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by munkey66

 

(Rain)forest's, or almost any type of vegetation, are CO2 sinks, not producers. So they reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

Actually not quite - a growing forest is a CO2 sink, because it uses more than it releases. Don't forget plants also expel CO2 just like us:

Photosynthesis and respiration

Stable forests are just a regular part of the balanced natural carbon cycle, while deforestation is a major CO2 source.

Originally posted by melatonin
Hey! When you have nothing of weight to argue a position dragging out zombies is a respectable approach!

Next week: Al Gore is fat v. 1347232.2

Haha! Al Gore is fat cuz he eats yr brains - it sez so in teh emails...


Climate zombies sully the reputation of regular zombies

reply to post by mc_squared


Yes, although the net effect is a sink, also at a constant size. That is why we find coal, oil and gas in the ground.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Yes, although the net effect is a sink, also at a constant size. That is why we find coal, oil and gas in the ground.

The reason we find coal, oil and gas in the ground is because plants and animals accumulate all that excess embodied energy from their surroundings while they are growing, and then hold onto some of it after they die. Also on that level we are dealing with timescales that are totally irrelevant to the climate change debate.

A prior ON topic thread "Lord Monckton: Global Warming is a fraud" LINK to ATS thread

"The earth doesn't need saving, we do!" George Carlin

reply to post by mc_squared


Yes, the plants or trees need to be growing, the forest itself can remain the same size. I initially made a remark about it because somebody claimed that cutting down forests reduces CO2 in the atmosphere as result of less composing material.

reply to post by seataka


Are you kidding? Lord Monckton is the biggest fraud out there.

Climate scientists eviscerate Lord Monckton’s attempt to disinform the U.S. Congress
Nine 'profoundly wrong' claims made by Ukip deputy leader refuted by climate experts in a document filed with US Congress
House of Lords steps up efforts to make Christopher Monckton stop claiming he is a member of the upper house
An angry professor who listened to Monckton's speech at a US university demolishes the wild claims made by the climate denier
Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1
Debunking Monckton Part 2 (updated)

Also google up something called "prawngate" to see what a complete hypocritical tool this guy is.