U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Excellent thread OP. It was obvious all this time that "Global Warming" was and is a political tool. It is no longer science, but politics, which is bad in all ways.

When politics makes science we all lose. Al Gore is a prime example.

The Iron mountain Report set up the Blue print for the NWO. In this report came the hoax of Global Warming, long story short. I've studied this for years and made it my passion......THE NWO and its influence in our lives is an incredible story.......


reply to post by Terrylynn

Its politics that you cannot imagine......I've traced this agenda from its inception to now.....its mindboggling.......but getting ready to reach its fruition....

reply to post by Pericle

Originally posted by cryoruggie
You do realize that the whole issue of Global Warming is moot in any case, since in 30 to 50 years there will be no fossil fuels to burn, so it will correct itself.
So why get all hot and bothered about a temporary situation?

During the PETM, 5000GtC (gigatonnes of carbon) appears to have been released over a period of thousands of years, this contributed to a warming event lasting for tens of thousands of years (over 100,000, IIRC).

We are releasing carbon faster than during that event. We also have stores of carbon to surpass that 5000GtC according to estimates.

Thus, although we might run out of cheap oil, we then move to not so cheap and very dirty oil, along with coal.

I don't see carbon emissions ending any time soon, and their effect will be felt for a long time after we stop emitting. But, yes, it will correct itself, might take a while though.

A doublie post

[edit on 26-12-2007 by melatonin]

"What matters is the change to the radiation balance of the Earth, due to emission of greenhouse gases."

Errr come on people. There is something big and yellow that gets up every morning and goes to bed at night that has a bigger affect on the earths radiation balance than a smokestack down the road.

Ignorance.

What is one of the if not the largest industrial pollutant on this planet. Can all you global warming experts please answer that ? I know the answer do you. Hint there was more litigation against this pollutant than any other yet the great USofA decided it's not even harmful, they will blame sulfer and it is 50 times less harmfull than this one. Go ahead do some research.

As for PEAK OIL.. oh come on. Where are all the worlds major oil fields situated ? Let me see.... they wouldn't happen to be near volcanic areas would they or cracks in the earths crust or near mud volcanoes.... Oh yes that's right even if abiotic hydrocarbons are real no one has shown how they can migrate to the earths surface. Errr actually there are some Russian papers showing EXACTLY how this occurs ( you may need to translate some )

As for mankind spewing fourth pollutants that would affect the earths temp... did you know that just one.. yes just one mud volcanoe can expel more natural gas than is in the largets commercial gas field in one eruption ? Oh yes and this has been happening for millions of years... my oh my but of course natural gas is a finite "fossil fuel".

Did you know abiotically generated natural gas was produced in the 90's and the scientists said that this was basiccaly indistinguishable from "biotic" natural gas.... they even said if they could get the funding they believe they could have produced oil abiotically my oh my ( oh and before someone mentions it more complex hydrocarbons were produced the same way not just methane ).... Do you know they have NOT produced oil biotically in labs that replicates the conditions under which they accept it is formed... they have to up the temperature so that it is NOT the same as would occur in a natural environment.. their reasoning is because they say they need to accomidate the passage of time, like millions of years. SO they can't replicate it or even explain how it is formed that way they have to move the goalposts. Where as the abiotic researches ( and this has been done more than once ) mimick the exact conditions that abiotic hydrocarbons would form within the earth.

You have all heard of the military industrial complex form Eisenhowers speach.... This is even more profound.
"In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. "

Now who started the US education board ? Who funds these Universities etc ? Read The shock doctrine by Naomi Klein and you will relaise how these powerful people influence every aspect of our lives...

Did anyone stop to think that maybe 100 of the Fortune 500 companies don't have scientists on the pay roll to dispute global warming?

400 scientist..500 companies.
Seems obvious.

Here's another opinion expressed by a professor of geophysics at the University of Oklahoma:

Washington Times

Here's an interesting quote from the article:

"Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S."

Nine years of almost no global temperature increase. Global warming, huh? This fact is something the I.P.C.C. and others sweep under the rug and hope that no one will notice.






[edit on 12/27/2007 by TheAvenger]

For you, avenger:

Tamino: Wiggles - Signal and Noise

Enjoy.

Good to see that the think-tank associated Deming has moved away from the normal misleading denialists claims of cooling since 1998, since that is clearly wrong. Such dishonest canards lead to a clear reduction in credibility, and many of your 'sceptics' have suffered this. So, well done Deming.

Next we need to get over the point that cherrypicking an anomalous year as a starting point is also bad science for detecting statistical trends. After that, we also need to get over the distinction between noise and signal. And, then, everything should be dandy.

Even if we have 10 years of cooling, it would necessarily mean anything about the effect of human activity, just that other factors are also important. For example, if solar activity falls by 10%, we might expect to see a period of cooling even with increasing human impacts. Similarly, if a volcano pumps out a wad of sulphate aerosols, we might also expect a period of cooling. It's amazing that some people like to trumpet natural variation, but then suddenly forget such processes when rhetorically convenient. Sophistry is good fun I guess.

There are many competing variables acting on climate. Each will contribute. All things being equal, increasing GHGs, increase warming. But we also have other things which are unlikely to remain equal - they may enhance or ameliorate this effect.

Very complex stuff for some apparently...

[edit on 27-12-2007 by melatonin]

This is my first post here, but........ This was a "senate released article". That in itself discredits large amounts of this article. It's like the Government releasing the 9/11 commission reports except on Global Warming. Of course global warming exists, of course humans have an impact on it, just look at cities and what-not next time you're in an airplane. the question is how much of an impact we have, but we most definitely have an impact. Besides, what's wrong with living a little more green?

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by TheAvenger

 

so, avenger ... you have no concerns about the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the melting of the artic ice because both of those have nothing to do with the impact of the human population. then you must be against pollution controls already inacted...therefore i think you should set a good example...i propose that you should move you and your entire family right next to a refinery...of course one that does have the least amount of pollution control systems... and actually show the world how utterly stupid those wacko enviormentilists are !!! i'm sure you can get some financial backing from the oil companies and what a great fraud you will be uncovering

.........don't confuse pollution with global warming now, will you?

This period of warming is cyclic - what do you think happened after the Ice-Age before the last one??? Duh - the Earth warmed up!!

What was the planet at its conception? A very very very very hot ball of molten rock. It cooled. Something planted life on it. Get over it already - this isn't a problem. It isn't man-made, and it won't kill us!

It is interesting that the Governments reaction to this problem is to tax countries like the UK and the US, and introduce carbon trading schemes etc.. - all in the name of the "environment". More like an excuse to raise and even create new taxes!!

If they really care - why is it they tax US, rather than imposing some really strict sanctions on China et al., who are the real pollutors??

A quick bit of Math for ya:

The UK total output of CO2 (all sources) = 2% of total global output in 1 year. In 1 year of Chinese expansion (also allowed for under the Kyoto Protocol until 2012), the increase in Chinas emissions equals the output of the UK, in a single year. By 2012, the INCREASE in output of CO2 by China will be the equivalent of a 400% rise in UK total emissions.

Get the picture yet?? They tax my car, and impose strict standards on it, because transport in the UK equates to 12% of CO2 output. Errm, right. 12% (of UK output) of 2% of total UK output = 0.24% of total UK output. Hardly worth bothering with.

It will take China just 6 weeks of growth to out-strip the savings, assuming the UK gave up ALL forms of transport RIGHT NOW.

This assumes of course that Chinas present growth doesn't accelerate.

Any questions??

If they really cared, they'd tackle China. Simple. Instead, they resort to taxing nations like the UK, who even if nuked out of existence, would make no difference to the global picture.

Why don't they? Because we're not the cause; Global Warming is just a damn good argument for raising taxes and generally making lots of money.

Al Gore won $1.5 Million from his Nobel Peace Prize (and at the same time, devalued the Peace Prize to practically zero), not to mention making millions out of his film.

Al Gores only interest in climate is making money out of it. He isn't doing it for purely altruistic reasons.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

I say this over and over again...

Every day WE (humans) bring (through OPEC alone) 2,600,000 barrels (55 gallon drums) of crude oil to the surface.

Every day WE (humans) burn that oil. Oil that has been locked away from people through layers of time and space for eons.

Smoke

Fire

Flames

Explosions

Exhaust Pipe Hot fuel systems Globally traveling about the HOT BLACK ASPHALT PAVEMENT where there was once cool grass and trees.

150 years ago there was no such thing as crude oil.

Mostly... how can you not see?

Touch hot stove... burn finger.

Look at that... cause and effect... clearly laid out. Even a child could understand....

Toast 2.6 million gallons of oil every day...
React 50,000 tons of uranium every year...

Burnt Earth.

Take your head out of the sand; we're here to deny ignorance.

Any questions?

Sri Oracle

reply to post by TheAvenger


Something seems to be missing from environmental concerns, and that is;
An overall perception that the environment should be cleansed of all contaminants as a scientific and moral model, and that perception should be and should have always been maintained. Even the social architectural elaments of buildings and roads as contributors to such things as heat-chimneys over cities, the way we plant crops and de-forestate and forestate, etc.
It's difficult to grab the 'brass-ring' only to find you've got a tangent that leads to a very diverse pit full of irreconcilable differences. And the general public as voters aren't being served in the best of all ways too!
YEEKS! Who can tie this all together?

Addendum to my last post.
There's a passage in the book of Revelation:
"The time has come to destroy those who are destroying the Earth".
And in Genesis:
"Learn as much science as possible. Science isn't for everybody".
(Salvation is predicated on the potential for all to not be drowned in a hellish quagmire of irreconcilable differences and horrid attitudes).
An example of "....science isn't for everybody" I use is the crippling of psychaitric patients with phenathiazines (tardive dyskinesia) under the aegis of the Hippocratic "Do no harm".. (There are also reports that it's been/being used in China to torture political dissidents).

I just love these threads - a new piece of news comes out and all the pro AGW/al bore fanatics rush to try and rubbish it, always conveniently forgetting that the same can be done with information presented from both sides.

Here's a couple of links
concensus?

what warming?

GW fallacies

peer review LOL

In case some of you don't know, I detest al gore, he's a charlatan, a fake, a conman who is using this for his own political gain.
He is quite possibly the most dangerous man on the planet.

And guys - if you want to buy into0 al bores new religion, then go right ahead - but stop trying to ram it down my throat, just because it's currently trendy - couple of years time you'll all be on a different bandwagon.

my personal opinion

that is true that this "global warming" is just a big fad by a bunch of superficial

people.

Maybe people should direct their energy at real problems like the police or

homeless people.

buthey if doinf fads is your thing thats cool by me.

reply to post by jimmyx


Come on now, you haven't figured that out yet?

It's all about MONEY!

CARBON TAX! What a bunch of _____!

As for the scientists, how about getting a little recognition since they jumped on the "man made" global warming train, more grants and money to do whatever they do.

It's not too often that a climatologist can get this sort of attention.

The earth has always been going thru these cycles. Warming sometimes, getting cooler other times. If we were living in the time of the last ice age, and then when all the ice started melting, and the temperatures started getting WARMER, would you have said that this is a "man made global warming"?

Of course not.

This is the cycles our planet goes thru, scientist DO know it has happened before, warming and cooling of the planet. But they can only find evidence of this from only so far back in time. This planet has been around a whole lot longer than humans have, we have no records of how many times this warming and cooling of the planet may have occurred, BUT we do know it has in the past.

Have humans "contributed" to the warming? Maybe. But not on the scale that Gore ($ carbon tax) or these other scientists ($ grants) would like you to think.

Carbon tax! You got to hand it to the man, what a brilliant scheme! ($$$$$$$)

[edit on 29/12/07 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by melatonin




This is the guy who decided that Michael Crichton would be an ideal individual to provide an insight into climate science. I think he had the GOP memo stating he needed scientific experts, but misread and acquired a sci-fi expert.

Here's a debate for you, Melatonin. Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville

Moderator: Brian Lehrer

N.P.R. Climate Crisis debate








[edit on 1/26/2008 by TheAvenger]