Scientist admits global warming scam, and resigns

I am not doubting the climate is getting warmer, I am against pollution, and I am not a scientist. But if you want my money please be honest and upfront about this whole ordeal. What is it going to cost to clean-up, what must we do, and how do we go about doing it?

I want the whole truth about everything and I want every penny accounted for. I don't want my money to go to heating Mr. Gore's 5th swimming pool while making us feel like criminals against the Earth.

I want independent scientists who want to prove themselves rather then established scientists who want to further their own agenda at any expense.

I love this Earth as much as the next guy, maybe even more. But if you want my money you will have to show me why you need it, don't beat around the bushes.

I see much zealotry in this thread. I encourage you to read this:

www.hindu.com...

understand, we are subject to our propoganda media feeding the frenzy. They set the same crap in schools, wasn't long ago 'Inconvenient Truth' was displayed in classroom in Middleschools...not so much now...

Anyway, I just wanted to address a few things:

The planet Venus is typically pointed at as Greenhouse Gasses out of control...is it Carbon Dioxide? Everything I read states its Water Vapor. How does that sound to Hydrogen fuel and its byproduct...water vapor?

Critics of the CO2 role in climate change point out that water vapours are a far more potent factor in creating the greenhouse effect as their concentration in the atmosphere is five to 10 times higher than that of CO2. “Even if all CO2 were removed from the earth atmosphere, global climate would not become any cooler,” says solar physicist Vladimir Bashkirtsev.

The typical zealotry 'man is bad' theory slams critics, and the propoganda machine rolls and squashes anyone with a differing, and often logical opinion. Think of what the world would be like if Galileao was silenced? This is the same thing...an inquisition because people just want to be right, not examine and re-examine evidence, which is the basis of science...there is no consensus, the debate is NEVER over, or science is not science, its a religion...may i remind you Carbon MONOXIDE is the principal waste byproduct of combustion engines, not Carbon DIOXIDE. This is why prozac'd out people put hoses on tailpipes to their mouths or just sit in a closed garage with the engine running. This deception in my opinion should be sufficient enough to realize that there is more here than meets the eye

Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies, and many other Russian scientists maintain that global climate depends predominantly on natural factors, such as solar activity, precession (wobbling) of the Earth’s axis, changes in ocean currents, fluctuations in saltiness of ocean surface water, and some other factors, whereas industrial emissions do not play any significant role.

Recall the last few major earthquakes caused fluxuations in the Earth's wobble. Climatoligists are seen as the new 'priests' and any other science is discarded as irrelevant...but the truth of the matter is climatoligists are focusing on one part and discounting all the other parts. Notice the 'warming' experienced outside our planet on Mars with their polar ice caps showing meliting is blatantly ignored. The sun is obviously the cause since if you drive your SUV on Mars I need to program it into my GPS...

“The Kyoto Protocol is a huge waste of money,” says Dr. Sorokhtin. “The Earth’s atmosphere has built-in regulatory mechanisms that moderate climate changes. When temperatures rise, ocean water evaporation increases, denser clouds stop solar rays and surface temperatures decline.”

Does this not fit with what we know about nature in general? Nature is a self regulatory system, from the food chain you watch on Nat Geo channels, to the weather, to physics of the solar system...

and one last thing, don't believe for one second that the 'environmental movement' is pure and free of the 'big oil' lie. They control that too, make the product rarer and have their mitts in the carbon trading scheme too. There's oil all over the damned place. I personally think its abiotic as some suggest. Don't deflect the fact that big business controls the media and controls what you think...someone mentioned the Ozone layer?

Russian researchers compare the Kyoto Protocol to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which called for phasing out Freon-12 as a preferred refrigerant. It has since been proved, says Dr. Golubchikov, that chlorine-containing Freon-12 destroys ozone only in laboratory conditions whereas in the atmosphere, it interacts with hydrogen and falls back to Earth as acid rain before it can harm ozone.

The Ozone layer is fine, and it had nothing to do with Freon, it had to everything to do with profit and it had to do with monopoly.

The ultimate irony of the Montreal Protocol is that the new refrigerant is the most potent among greenhouse gases blacklisted under the Kyoto Protocol, and moreover is explosion-prone. The Freon bubble burst when, in 1989, the ozone layer suddenly jumped to the pre-Montreal Protocol level and has since continued to rise. Russian critics of the Kyoto Protocol are convinced that the greenhouse gases bubble will likewise prove short-lived.

Lets sum it up with reality: You are nothing...you are insignificant...and you are not going to save the world, you are not going to save the human race. All you are is a manipulator trying to be on the winning side like this is some big giant football game, cheering your side. Stop cheering for your team, and enjoy the game as it will broaden your perspective. Hydrogen cars are a reality, make them and make them cheap, make refill stations, people will buy them. There's no need to subsidize the entire human race into slavery for it. The people who make the profit are the ones who should foot the bill for the R & D. If we have to foot the bill? Then nobody makes the profit and the profit should go back to the people. Some of you awesome world savers could volunteer to CEO the company and not be like the bankers with the enormous bonuses because you're so noble right? That's what I thought. The tech is there, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Implement a little here and there to offset the effects of one or the other getting into some trouble. The key to computer networking is redundancy and failover...this can easily be achieved in regards to energy infrastructure and expanded GRADUALLY without some F%&ktard telling you you are addicted to oil, blah blah blah. The reason it isn't is because someone wants to make maximum profit by being the only game in town, and your letting them...

Originally posted by kernalpanic
because people just want to be right, not examine and re-examine evidence, which is the basis of science...there is no consensus, the debate is NEVER over, or science is not science, its a religion...may i remind you Carbon MONOXIDE is the principal waste byproduct of combustion engines, not Carbon DIOXIDE. This is why prozac'd out people put hoses on tailpipes to their mouths or just sit in a closed garage with the engine running. This deception in my opinion should be sufficient enough to realize that there is more here than meets the eye

lol, "you need to examine and reexamine evidence. The debates not over. But trussssssst me - the main byproduct of combustion engines is CO"

Fail.

Why to argue again and again about same questions, when you can just read these Q & A:

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says
www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by sergejsh
Why to argue again and again about same questions, when you can just read these Q & A:

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says
www.skepticalscience.com...

LOL!

reply to post by IamCorrect


^^^ he laughs in the face of science!

LAUGHS I tell you!

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by IamCorrect

 

^^^ he laughs in the face of science!

LAUGHS I tell you!

Oh, yes, that's quite the science you have going there. I even recall you admitted in a thread you started on this board that there is an ongoing corporate conspiracy robbing the common citizens of wealth and prosperity, and you seemed to imply that global warming legislation involving cap 'n trade, etc, will amount to killing two birds with one stone, both by helping the environment and balancing distribution of wealth. That's what the global elites say, too.


Perhaps one day you'll wake up and realize that people like Maurice Strong, Soros, the Rockefellers, and the Rotchschild's do not have a humanitarian, socialist goal in mind to bring economic equality and freedom to the world, but that this is only a ruse to give the elite even more power and control than they already have. These same people are the ones fully taking advantage of the corrupt capitalist system we now have in place that you complain about, and if you think these billionaires' real goal is to bring prosperity to the world and the common folk......

This is Maurice Strong, quoted below in various publications, in his own words from 1992, about a novel he'd like to write:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse."

(Source: Conservative environmentalism: reassessing the means, redefining the ends, by James Dunn and John Kinney, pg 5.)

reply to post by BlackOps719

It all sounds like a well orchestrated, well funded, politically designed kickback program. It is by definition a "pay to pollute" program that is being implemented by the U.N. and forced upon the industries of the Earth, designed to benefit only those same elite, powerful industrialists and individuals who were likely responsible for the pollution in the first place.

Racketeering is what they call it.

MY GOSH! I think he's GOT IT!

Those who believe in "Global Warming" seem to think it equates to pollution AND seem to think those who see it as a scam some how think polluting is OK.

This is just not true.

Most of the every day type people who see "Global Warming" as a money making SCAM are appalled at the damage done by the scam because it has diverted Mankind's efforts AWAY from dealing with REAL pollution and focused attention on limiting a vital life giving gas that may be preventing us from sinking into another Ice age if some scientists are to be believed.

If plants could talk I am sure they would be screaming at mankind to release MORE of the life giving CO2 and OH, by the way, please clean up the OTHER REAL pollution...

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present)> ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present... As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent..."

This paper also agrees that we are at the point in the earth's Milankovitch Cycle that should usher in an ice age. The biggest question of course is why we are not covered in ice yet.

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started....

Orthodox Climate Scientists assume "early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started... The biggest problem with CAGW theory, is it assumes no changes in the energy from the sun as received by the earth. However during the 20th century the sun has been very active according to this paper and NASA This is no longer true as we enter the new century according to the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission News

A method for predicting the next Grand Episode, based on previous results on the modes of oscillations in the solar dynamo (summarized in De Jager and Duhau, 2010) was introduced by de Jager and Duhau (2009). One of the results was the recognition of a transition from the Grand Maximum of the 20th century to another Grand Episode. This transition period started in 2000 and is expected to end in 2013.

Based on the above mentioned methodology and by using new data for the geomagnetic aa index we foresee that a Grand Minimum is immanent. Thus, a prolonged period of relative global cooling is forecasted. The relevant mechanisms are described.... The Forthcomming Grand Minimum of Solar Activity

Therefore actual data shows the earth is gradually headed downhill towards another glaciation, the only question is when and how. A quiet sun, cool ocean phases and a major volcanic eruption would be my guess as the trigger point. CO2 warming can not counteract the combined effects of the other three, especially given as the oceans cool the rate of CO2 absorption will increase.

Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade....

But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur...

Also of note is the fact that GLOBAL COOLING was on the Bilderburger schedule this year. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the elite figured out we are headed for a GLACIATION back in the 1970's (remember the CIA report??) and have been making plans all this time and THAT is why they want to severely cull the human herd down to less than a billion BEFORE glaciation and massive wars hit???

reply to post by crimvelvet


Excellent comment as always crimvelvet

I am really tired of being called numerous names simply because I question the entire concept of man-made global warming

Those who believe in "Global Warming" seem to think it equates to pollution AND seem to think those who see it as a scam some how think polluting is OK.
This is just not true.

Such a very true statement

And I contend that you get yourself a fine avatar so that the many posters who appreciate the effort that you put into your posts can recognize you a bit easier

Cheers my friend

reply to post by Nathan-D


I have been reading about troposphere hotspots, but is seems there is all but a consensus among the scientists. The argument has been proposed that any kind of forcing should show these hotspots, also when for example solar activity is the primary cause of temperature increase. As for the temperature data, most sources say that there indeed is warming going on.

Since I am in no position to be judge, I don't see any reason to pick any camp. One thing I can say about this subject is that it is very time consuming to get to well accustomed to and the opinions are very divided. So I would very much appreciate if you can link me to the papers that show the proof for the arguments you make.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have been reading about troposphere hotspots, but is seems there is all but a consensus among the scientists. The argument has been proposed that any kind of forcing should show these hotspots, also when for example solar activity is the primary cause of temperature increase.

And so to use this potential issue (which is anything but resolved) to argue against AGW is a logical fallacy.

Someone mentioned above how people should be able to question science - of course, scientists do this everyday. But terms like 'denialism' and 'denier' are about how people question issues rather than simply questioning (it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it). It's a well-worn rhetorical technique (doubt is our product).

Features of Denialism in a nutshell:
1. Use of conspiracy theory (lulz)
2. Selectivity/cherrypicking (tropical hot spot)
3. Fake experts (e.g., Monckton)
4. Misrepresentation/logical fallacy (lag fallacy)
5. Impossible expectations (observations only since blah blah).

eurpub.oxfordjournals.org...

reply to post by -PLB-

I have been reading about troposphere hotspots and the argument has been proposed that any kind of forcing should show these hotspots.

Very true, any type of forcing could theoretically cause a hotspot, but what matters to everyone is that there is no hotspot (unless you rely on windshear measurements instead of satellites and radiosondes) and therein lies the problem. The hotspot, in the PCMs and as presented in the CCSP report is meant to show *only* under anthropogenic radaiative forcing, specifically water vapour, due to the supposed positive feedback loop. The theory goes something like this: an increase in CO2 (presumably only above 350ppm) will cause warming, and that warming will increase evaporation rates and thus increase the overall temperature of the atmosphere.

Positive feedback from water vapour makes sense intuitively because warmer air can on average hold more water vapour, but it's complex and compounded by many other variables. For example, the extra water vapour will turn into cloud whereupon it becomes a negative feedback by reflecting incoming sunlight away into space and this should lower temperatures. Of course the cloud eventually falls out of the atmosphere as precipitation and takes the climate back to square one. There have been measurements, from the likes of Paltridge, showing that relative humidity has fallen, but to be fair, radiosonde measurements are notoriously unreliable at measuring humidity because their sensors have a habit of drying at high altitudes.

The magnitude of the feedbacks is still very much open for debate.

but is seems there is all but a consensus among the scientists.

Hard to say. No widespread surveys have been undertaken, the largest one has only included 3,000 scientists. Is that enough? The US Senate Minority Report now includes close to 850 and that figure is rapidly increasing. EDIT:And the Oregon petition included (presumably) 30,000 scientists against the AGW hypothesis, but the credibility of that petition is suspect.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Exactly this uncertainty of the feedback effects made me skeptical about CO2 having a large influence. Even the IPCC report shows that the uncertainty of the cloud albedo feedback ranges from negative to positive, totally out shadowing the feedback effect of water vapor. With such uncertainties you can't speak about a solid theory, it is more like a (weather) prediction.

That said, I have no doubt that anthropogenic global climate change is real. I actually find it silly to deny it. What I do doubt is the effect it has. Is it negligible, does it cause minor problems, major problems, or will it even have positive effects? And in my opinion the final verdict is far from settled.

No way anyone can say that Earth is not warming up....But...I will argue the fact that Humans are responsible for it! Heck glacier mountains are melting on Mars....Mars...We have no cars and big industries on Mars !!! Let's face it, the Sun is changing, it's going brighter and brighter and warmer as time passes.....We are coming out of an Ice age people, this does not happen over night. Earth will be warming up for quite some time to come until it reaches it's natural cycle of temperature fluctuation and then will cool again until it is practicably frozen all over again, this has happened before......It's not new. What is new are controlling entities invoking fear to control and profit while they can, create a nation under one controlling power so that absolute governance is achieved.

reply to post by melatonin


en.wikipedia.org...

Carbon monoxide is a major atmospheric pollutant in some urban areas, chiefly from the exhaust of internal combustion engines (including vehicles, portable and back-up generators, lawn mowers, power washers, etc.), but also from improper burning of various other fuels (including wood, coal, charcoal, oil, paraffin, propane, natural gas, and trash).

Yes, internet memes automatically discredit facts. Fail yourself...

reply to post by kernalpanic


From that same site (different page though):

The largest part of most combustion gas is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (except for fuels without carbon); these are not toxic or noxious (although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). A relatively small part of combustion gas is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion, hydrocarbons (properly indicated as CxHy, but typically shown simply as "HC" on emissions-test slips) from unburnt fuel, nitrogen oxides (NOx) from excessive combustion temperatures, Ozone (O3), and particulate matter (mostly soot).

Modern cars often have sensors that detect incomplete combustion and adjust for it.

In the UK, in the period from 1970 to 2007 carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles dropped by 83%

Originally posted by kernalpanic

Carbon monoxide is a major atmospheric pollutant in some urban areas, chiefly from the exhaust of internal combustion engines (including vehicles, portable and back-up generators, lawn mowers, power washers, etc.), but also from improper burning of various other fuels (including wood, coal, charcoal, oil, paraffin, propane, natural gas, and trash).

Yes, internet memes automatically discredit facts.

Fail yourself...

Cheers to PLB for noting the poor scholarship. What you posted doesn't even address the actual point I was making - cars do not produce more CO than CO2.

Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion - a sign of inefficiency in the process. Full oxidation of hydrocarbons gives CO2. This is science covered before GCSE level in the UK. Even when questioned, you still with a second opportunity decide to throw more ignorant BS rather than "examine and re-examine" the actual evidence (i.e., high school science).

If you can't even grasp that level of science, I wouldn't hold out hope for anything more complex. But, hey, keep telling us how science should work, the evil nature of the 'propaganda machine' of climate science, and the Galileo-like status of the merchants of doubt.

Originally posted by stormson

Originally posted by Saurus
reply to post by stormson

 

Only once it has been peer reviewed and accepted is it considered as fact.

if it were only that simple we would have no debates over global warming or evolution.

Well isn't this the whole point - The scientist resigned because the issue is being handled in an unscientific way, yet presented to the public as science.

Originally posted by melatonin
But, hey, keep telling us how science should work, the evil nature of the 'propaganda machine' of climate science, and the Galileo-like status of the merchants of doubt.

edit on 20-10-2010 by melatonin because: piffle and poppycock!

Alot of the propoganda is exposed, as is the witch hunt tendencies. the evidence is there. But, hey. sweep that under the rug...

You are right about one thing, I should have said CO was the byproduct labelled as the pollutant and poison as opposed to CO2, which has now adopted that label also.....

yes.....for ever and 3 days ive been telling ppl that this is a bunch of BS....and the only thing I would get is ooo wow ur an idiot, everyone knows that "Climate Change" is real....HA well here u go...to bad its to late and the effort of getting a Carbon tax is to strong now D: