Manmade Climate Change: The pollution of science by politics and the road to world government

a reply to: snchrnct

Oh how I love that lengthy disclaimer.

Yes it is true hat our actions are detrimental to our world, but if you want to see what a Co2 can do to an atmosphere, look at Venus

The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide. Nitrogen exists in small doses, as do clouds of sulfuric acid. The air of Venus is so dense that the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although Venus lies farther from the sun.

And then there is this

On Earth, seasons change based on the planet's tilt; when a hemisphere is closer to the sun, it experiences warmer regions. But on Venus, most of the sun's heat fails to make it through the thick atmosphere. As such, the planet not only doesn't experience significant temperature changes over the course of the year, it also keeps things constant from night to day.

Yes Venus is not Earth it's just a poor extrapolation. Venus' Co2 rich atmosphere makes it hot which is what climate scientists say is happening to our planet and the while Venus doesn't have a tilt it's temperature varies just like Earth, and Earth is experiencing record low temperatures and record high temperatures every year in many places.

Earth is not exactly belching fumes from volcanoes 24/7 either so where does that excess Co2 come from? it comes from destroying forests and burning fossil fuels. We burn those forests and fuels, we are releasing all that Co2, and if Co2 can raise the atmospheric temperature then we are to blame.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

maybe you missed my post where it says the earth had 5times the amount of co2 when dinosours roamed, im sure it couldnt have been to hot because they were some of the biggest things on this planet

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: snchrnct
I don't have time to go through all this but just from poking around a bit, this is a lot less impressive than I'm sure most people will take it to be at first blush.

Great work with this response.
Regardless of one's stance on any subject, we simply cannot accept when people use known fraudulent sources for their argument. Doing so completely negates the point of the discussion, and the website as a whole. So thank you for pointing this out to everybody.

Out out curiosity though, what are you thoughts on things such as:

originally posted by: snchrnct
Another very interesting citation comes from The First Global Revolution, a report written by the Council of the Club Of Rome (COR), an organization that describes itself as a “global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues”.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The passage the OP quoted from appears on page 75 of the First Global Revolution document, a section titled "The Vacuum". The entire section of the report is an interesting one, but I'll admit that I haven't read the whole document at this point. Another interesting passage form the same section as the above quote (occurring before the one snchrnct referred to):

The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose difference from the majority are disturbing.

Can we live without enemies? Every state has been so used to classifying it's neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left the government and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised.The new enemies are different in their nature and location, but they are no less real. They threaten the whole human race, and their names are pollution, water shortage, famine, malnutrition, illiteracy and unemployment. However, it appears that awareness of the new enemies is, as yet, insufficient for bringing about world cohesion and solidarity for the fight.

What's your take on all this?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: snchrnct
Yes it is true hat our actions are detrimental to our world, but if you want to see what a Co2 can do to an atmosphere, look at Venus

This is a very interesting comparison.
I wonder though, if Venus ever had abundant life on it's surface that was dependent on Co2 to survive, something that could use up and convert the Co2 into other gases...

originally posted by: Ghost147
Alright, let's say Climate Change isn't occuring and humans have no effect on the global temperatures at all.

Why, exactly, is it so bad to focus excessively on cleaner fuels, free energy, sustainability, reduction of pollution, reduction of waste, taxation on companies who produce both an excessive amount of pollution and unnecessary pollution when there are greener alternatives, the protection of ecosystems, the advancement in technology that leads to green energy, so on and so forth.

That is what the people who accept the concept of a human-influence over global climate change want. Why is that bad?

You state that "governments and companies" want to benefit off of these changes, yet you seem to dismiss that it would mean the end of one of the most financially backed, money hungry industries in human history, Big Oil.

When sustainable, green, free energy arrives, the fossil fuel industry eventually dies. So the argument that "the government and companies" benefit off of this movement towards sustainable energy is moot considering who would suffer from it.

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

First...climate change does exist. There is no debate. Man-made climate change is a theory and opinion only. Those are the facts.

The reason "it's bad" as you asked is because many of us believe we are being lied to and manipulated in order to force something upon us by our government. THAT is the biggest and most direct problem we have. The secondary problem is the reason the government is forcing this. It is for more taxes and control over us and businesses. So in our view...a lying, corrupt money and power hungry government that has proven it can't be trusted wants more money and control.

We "deniers" and you call us are tired of being played and raped by these people. And while I'm on it...the phrase "denier" is in itself bigoted. We aren't denying anything that is a fact or proven. And until someone proves a fact of man-made climate change, we are not "deniers". The rest of you are just "suckers" or worse yet..."sympathizers" who want government dominance over the citizens.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Let's see, I have a question: Who is rewarded if everybody buys insurance, both individuals and business and the insurance companies and even the re/insurance companies (and the owners)?

You understand that the latter couple of sellers and purchasers on my short list expect to make money on the product that they are selling and that it greatly behooves them to run around screaming that the sky is falling, i.e., more money falls into their pockets.

Not biased? You need a rethink.

And you need to know more about insurance. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. When areas face greater threats, such as tidal flooding, then premiums go up because the risk is greater. As a result many people can't afford it and either don't pay or move away. Everyone knows that at some point the big one will hit California. But earthquake insurance in the State is at a fairly low level because it's bloody expensive.
Insurance companies have to point out the risks in various areas. There's some fascinating data coming out at the moment about the difficulties of insuring the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, because it's a bloody stupid idea.

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

maybe you missed my post where it says the earth had 5times the amount of co2 when dinosours roamed, im sure it couldnt have been to hot because they were some of the biggest things on this planet

Maybe you missed the science that says that humans and dinosaurs aren't the same type of animals and thus would thrive in completely different environments, including CO2 concentration?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i was talking about co2 in relation to rising temperatures , and my point stands.

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i was talking about co2 in relation to rising temperatures , and my point stands.

Not really because dinosaurs are accustomed to different CO2 levels than humans are so dinosaurs able to thrive in one environment doesn't mean that humans would have the same. You literally compared apples to oranges there.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

nice diversion tactic, show me where i compared humans to dinosaurs? i simply said the earth had 5 times more co2 then today and it didnt get to hot for the dinosaurs , if your science on co2 was true they would have died out from heatstroke or they wouldnt exist at all.

why dont you try and disprove the op with all that science you talked about you had in that other thread?

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

nice diversion tactic, show me where i compared humans to dinosaurs? i simply said the earth had 5 times more co2 then today and it didnt get to hot for the dinosaurs , if your science on co2 was true they would have died out from heatstroke or they wouldnt exist at all.

why dont you try and disprove the op with all that science you talked about you had in that other thread?

Why should I bother? You clearly don't know how evolution works if you think you can make the statement you made earlier.

Dinosaurs evolved to be able to live in higher concentrations of CO2 and humans evolved to live in lower concentrations so concentrations that help dinosaurs thrive cannot be used to say that humans would be fine too.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Alright, let's say Climate Change isn't occuring and humans have no effect on the global temperatures at all.

When sustainable, green, free energy arrives, the fossil fuel industry eventually dies. So the argument that "the government and companies" benefit off of this movement towards sustainable energy is moot considering who would suffer from it.

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to control emissions of human emitted greenhouse gases, in particular CO2, not promote sustainable energy. So in effect the Kyoto Protocol has only pushed a drive from coal generation to methane for power generation which is great for big oil because they didn't own the worlds coal. But sadly methane is a green house some 72x more worse than CO2 so we really don't want to see large concentrations of methane released in our atmosphere. Much less fracking which is damaging the earth in more ways than we can imagine.

If they banned methane in favour of 100% solar, pushed democracy instead of fascism, I'd be tempted to join the clan . But sadly the fascist this world are only concerned with profits not the environment. They spin a web of deceit to trap the gullible. and once trapped, tell us, its all good for the environment. Their environment is greed.

a reply to: snchrnct

This thread yet another example of this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once again, this particular brand of global warming opposition is virtually unique to America. Most "conservatives" in other countries oppose global warming because they deem it too big of a problem to address or too damaging to the status quo. Only in America is the anti science approach used with such forward idiocy.

The American petrodollar is based upon the viable usage and safety of fossil fuels. The entire banking system and petroleum industry comprise the largest consolidation of money and power on this planet. The entire economic system and
global power structure is currently dependent on petroleum, this is the genuine reason these powers trying to paint manmade global warming as a hoax. The powers that be derive their power from oil, that is evident in the basis of America's monetary system.

Note how simple the truth is and then note the pages of confusing, winding BS the OP has set forth.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Ghost147
Alright, let's say Climate Change isn't occuring and humans have no effect on the global temperatures at all.

Why, exactly, is it so bad to focus excessively on cleaner fuels, free energy, sustainability, reduction of pollution, reduction of waste, taxation on companies who produce both an excessive amount of pollution and unnecessary pollution when there are greener alternatives, the protection of ecosystems, the advancement in technology that leads to green energy, so on and so forth.

That is what the people who accept the concept of a human-influence over global climate change want. Why is that bad?

You state that "governments and companies" want to benefit off of these changes, yet you seem to dismiss that it would mean the end of one of the most financially backed, money hungry industries in human history, Big Oil.

When sustainable, green, free energy arrives, the fossil fuel industry eventually dies. So the argument that "the government and companies" benefit off of this movement towards sustainable energy is moot considering who would suffer from it.

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

First...climate change does exist. There is no debate. Man-made climate change is a theory and opinion only. Those are the facts.

The reason "it's bad" as you asked is because many of us believe we are being lied to and manipulated in order to force something upon us by our government. THAT is the biggest and most direct problem we have. The secondary problem is the reason the government is forcing this. It is for more taxes and control over us and businesses. So in our view...a lying, corrupt money and power hungry government that has proven it can't be trusted wants more money and control.

We "deniers" and you call us are tired of being played and raped by these people. And while I'm on it...the phrase "denier" is in itself bigoted. We aren't denying anything that is a fact or proven. And until someone proves a fact of man-made climate change, we are not "deniers". The rest of you are just "suckers" or worse yet..."sympathizers" who want government dominance over the citizens.

The genesis of the anti global warming position is based upon the fact that the Global monetary system and the powers that current control the globe are based upon the fossil fuel model. If the Earth halted oil production tomorrow there would be a collapse of the current power structure that has been ruling the globe for a century and more. The primary businesses of banking and energy would be thrown into chaos and the people who are in power now would lose the basis of their power.

The government and the banking system is currently funded by fossil fuels, you have been bilked into believing the opposite is true.

You are not being intellectually honest with yourself.

originally posted by: theboarman
great thread, i couldnt agree more, lets also not forget that dinosaurs had 5 times more co2 then we do today www.livescience.com... yet we got bill nye on fox saying that 0.004% or something crazy small like that will cause the world to become hotter and ruin our lifes.

Ya we had more co2, no one is saying that life can't exist with that, just not what is currently living.

And when did bill nye say that? Or did you just make up a number to try and make a ridiculous claim.

People think in such small scale. The change happening over time has been documented. There is plenty of evidence to state that it is likely man is changing the climate. The weather, temperature, sea levels, biodiversity, and CO2 content of both the ocean and the air are all bits fitting into a large puzzle.

The only thing deniers can do is REFUTE the claims. They don't have exhaustive studies, repeated over and over again, with huge amounts of data collected to suggest otherwise. They only have their distrust of the current data from MULTIPLE sources and cherry picking other bits of relevant data without context to "prove" their point.

Look at the evidence of your eyes. The Maldives and Tuvalu are seeing their shorelines disappearing. Where do you think that water is coming from? Florida coastal cities are seeing off-tide flooding. Massive beachings and fish die offs are occurring more frequently along with coastal toxic algal blooms. The oceans are warming and aren't slowing down.

As our ocean gets warmer, it loses oxygen, which will bring more toxic organisms that spur the release of hydrogen sulfides, which is toxic to ALL life. It's not a single event that kills us, but the combination of extreme weather, lack of food and drinkable water, and then finally poison brought on by all these changes together.

Unless your grandchildren can breathe money, they're probably going to die if we don't make the changes needed soon. Planting trees on a global scale. Quitting burning of carbon. Switching to green alternative energy.

I ended up not having kids and part of me is a little happy about that. The world I'd be handing over isn't going to be better off and I'd have felt like a failure to show them the legacy they'll have to deal with.

I sure hope the experts are wrong, because life is going to get rough for us. We'll look back on the times we ran the tap to wait for cool water and looked in the fridge full of food and lamented that we didn't have anything to eat and we'll probably feel pretty silly and stupid. And all your kids will say is, "Why didn't you think of the life I was going to have to live?"

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Gravity is just a theory too.
You don't know the facts at all if you can't even comprehend what a scientific theory is.

No cares if you think you are being lied to. I think the untrustworthy oil companies are lying to me to get more money as well, so guess it is even.
I'm tired of being raped by them as they get more and more money and screw everyone else.

*loads knowledge cannon


Boom...

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.

a reply to: theboarman

im sure it couldnt have been to hot because they were some of the biggest things on this planet

How "hot" it was then is not really the issue.
The issue is how an increasing global temperature average will affect climates, and thereby human civilization.

Funny that I would come across this in my travels so soon after posting a response on the exact thing I was talking about. Deniers don't understand how or why the scientific process works. They WANT to be wrong, because it teaches them more. No one hopes they're right about climate change, but as scientists they feel obligated to report their findings.

www.techinsider.io...

I am a physics major. I had a class last term on environmental physics. We basically covered all the math and physics behind global warming. Basically we have 5 degrees C of average surface temperature having increased, 2.5 degrees C accounted for from all natural sources, 2.5 degrees C not account for, this unaccounted for 2.5 degrees is mostly from human activity, CO2 output, deforestation, etc. Only thing not accounted for in the main stream model that my class could find was heat from radioactive decay within the earth which would unlikely be significant in contributing to the 2.5 degrees C.

I can see these type of climate change denial threads all day, and I can say that until you actually do the math & physics, from the data, and show me where the problem lies, all this is just hot air spouted by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I did the math & physics myself first hand, a thread like this will never convince the people like me, and other scientists, ever.

I will just say this to anyone who reads these types of threads, these threads are nothing but empty opinions, not science. If you seriously want to know the truth, learn that math and physics and do it yourself.

In our class it was straight up clear, that both sides of the "political debate" were bull#. The go green and the deniers both had huge flaws (most likely deliberate twisting) in what they presented as "scientific evidence" supporting their claims.

Remember folks, politicians and media experts are not trained scientists, they trained presenters/liars, not scientists, for both sides. Take anything any of them say with grains of salt.

We have an issue with warming and environmental damage that left unchecked will lead to not so great living conditions for us, unfortunately more likely sooner rather than later. Also the so called "green" energies are also not as green as they are claimed to be. Nuclear seems the best way to go.

Food for thought, during a calculation in class, our prof was asked how long until the temperature increase is too much, and what will be the max temperature eventually reached? He showed that it would probably hit around a 6 C increase (from current temps) and stop, more CO2 alone would not increase it more (from reasons of physics), and the critical "we are screwed temperature" is unknown and not calculable with any methods he knew (our models for feedback loops currently suck), however, he pointed out that before we hit the 6 C increase, and if there is no source to counter the CO2 increase as we burn all our current oil reserves, we would all suffocate to death before we ever hit the 6 C increase, so there is some food for thought.