A skeptics view of Global Warming.

Some interesting perspectives and facts about the main selling points for Manmade Global Warming.

Some are slightly bias towards the Skeptical end while others are very legitimate facts.

Personally, I think its pretty obvious our Climate is changing. I also thing mankind has damaged our environment quite a bit BUT I think a huge amount of "Global Warming" is being sold to us through alarmism and sensationalism in a patronizing way in for profit.

Check it out here:

Clicky

Here's a couple of points that I find most amusing, simply because they counter the more ridiculous end of the Pro Global Warming spectrum.

Silencing Dissent: I believe the climate is always changing. But what percentage of that change is human-induced? Like most, I believe that a more balanced energy supply benefits us politically due to the reduced reliance on foreign sources and benefits us locally due to improved air quality. But several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the "settled science" due to the moral imperative of "saving the planet". As with a religious debate, I'm told that my disagreement means I do not "care enough" and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.

Ah yes, the old 'Spanish Inquisition' end of the debate.. This happens for some reason to be the best end of the pro Global warming debate for me. It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at the argument, your argument will fall on deaf ears simply because going Green is for the greater good. Finally people are starting to see that it is for the greater good.. Pity the corporatists are profiting from the drive for the "Greater Good".

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. Plants release oxygen for us, and we release CO2 for them. Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a "trace gas." We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?

This speaks for itself really. I have always felt that in a planet made of carbon, full of carbon based life forms, that carbon is the warming the atmosphere so much that the planet is "Doomed". Even though the CO2 levels have been fluctuating above and below current levels for billions of years.

Anywho, what do yez think? Personally I would love to start kicking the asses of the alarmists.

[edit on 21/9/09 by Dermo]

Global Warming / Climate Change = the biggest hoax ever created.

I've studied this subject professionally at one point. It's almost funny how big of a lie it is. The climate is actually extremely stable right now. What is NOT stable, you ask?

A worldwide-average temperature-change of 10-20 degrees in less than 50 years. That is "climate change", which we haven't seen in about 11,000 years!!! (We actually would be better off a little warmer, but anyways)

So if one were to look at the climate history of the past 1,000,000 years (for example), there IS a trend: Major Ice Ages!!! We are highly due for one. That is the real threat today, not warming. We're already seeing colder temperatures the past decade over ALL areas that were once covered in glaciers. It's starting out as a mini-ice-age, but it is possible that the world could PLUNGE INTO A MAJOR ICE AGE 20 DEGREES COLDER BY 2050.

That would be the end of the world as we know it. . . and it is going to happen sometime in the next 1000 years, guaranteed. There is a clear cycle of 10,000-12,000-year interglacial periods which we are at the end of right now. Remember it started 11,000 years ago.

Hey,

What does it matter if it is real or not?

The "solutions" put out so far are nothing but a great "scam" and EVERYONE knows it.

There is no miracle solution... electric cars.. .coal power plants.

Algae oil would work but just like everything else if this Carbon Tax is allowed to happen, you will never have a "cure".

There will be to much money to EVER cure the problem.

reply to post by bettermakings


TBH, I wouldn't call climate change a hoax because its been happening since the earth has been capable of sustaining a climate model. But, the sensationalizing of Climate change in order to cause fear is the biggest load of bollix ever.

Yes resources are running out, yes we need to start looking to better ways of making energy and producing food, No my children are not going to drown because of the sea level rising.

i agree that the whole manmade global warming is bunk, but i wouldn't say our climate is stable.
to me its like the calm before the storm, the sun has gone into one of its deepest minumums in recorded history, in 2007 we had around 160 days without sunspots then in 2008 we had 266, this year we've already had 212. if we keep it up we'll break 290. also our magnetic field is doing all sorts of gymnastics

i think we'll probly snap out of this low sun activity around spring 2010 maybe summer and once that happens our sun is going to go berserk for the next 3 years. there will be no talk of ice ages then unless of course yellowstone blows

[edit on 21-9-2009 by hollowhumanity]

The thing is, what can we do about it?

Fair enough, a lot of it is for the greater good but right in the middle of it, we have new taxes and fee's coming in all across the west in order to get us to cut down on our emissions.

The problem is that while these emissions are being taxed, the alternatives are not showing up quickly enough to give us an option to move to lower emission products. So an there will be an abundance of tax collected.

Some countries like France will be doing the right thing and canceling these new taxes by decreasing taxes in products or services that have low carbon footprints.. this seems noble and honest to me.

My own country and the rest of the countries that are using the Anglo Saxon model it seems, will be keeping huge portions of the tax income in order to cover their bailouts during this crises.. or even giving this money to large investment companies for a return.. and not necessarily to be invested in green projects. One of these investment companies happens to be the Rothschild group.. who set up the specific investment company for dealing with carbon tax investments years before the carbon tax idea became any way widespread.. I really hate those bastids.

Also, its so convenient that the US/UK began pushing for the carbon tax as soon as they had bailed out their banks and needed to refill their coffers.

The EU had been on about carbon taxes for decades but wanted to tax the industry, not the consumer.. but we're "socialist" so thats understandable.

global warming due to man is as made up as manbearpig....wasn't there a period in time that numerous volcanoes erupted for many years continuously? wouldn't that exceed what we've done by many times over? the earth goes through periods of warmth and ice ages as far back as we can tell, they are just using it to exploit people for profit and to control the populace more...

funny thread.. it may be true that people may take advantage over global warming and to make money from it thats why its called capitalism..... and do you really think its a hoax when global warming has been known to people since the early 80s??? Just because it may seem like its warming or they may be signs of it cooling that is not to say it is not true. There are other factors that can contribute to climate change over a short period of time like lack of sunspots volcanic eruptions all lead to cooling but that isnt to say warming isnt taking place in the long run. we have had a stable weather system for over 10000 years after the last ice age (these periods of ice ages may be linked to the precession of the earth which hsappens every 26000 yrs) but if u inject extra gases into the atmosphere how the hell can anyone say it is not going to affect the climate.....

[edit on 22-9-2009 by loner007]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by loner007]

We have HACCP and the food safety con job . Preceded by The Grand Federal Reserve rip off and if you look deeply enough you will find the same people behind The Great Global Warming Hoax.

They are David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong worked for the Rockefellers in Saudi Arabian Oil in 1953, was trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and went big in Canadian Oil Companies starting in 1954 despite being a dirt poor high school drop out in 1947. He started the "Environmental Movement/Global Warming Hoax in 1972 and was Chief advisor to the World Bank and the United Nations. In 1981, as head of AZL, he was sued for allegedly hyping the stock ahead of a merger later Al Gore heaped praises on Strong's company Molten Metal Technology, Inc. The stock prices rose sharply "when the federal government decided to stop handing out grants, he and the other corporate officers sold off $15.3 million in personal shares of stock. The stock dropped to $5 soon afterward, but Strong had already made his money." And then there was Strong's involvement in the "Food for Oil Scandal" A moral upstanding citizen this man is NOT. Now we find Strong is one of the Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on Global Warming, along with Al Gore. Obama was the lawyer who helped set the company up. DO you really believe this Con Artist???




This is part of the eleven pages I have showing Global Warming is a Hoax.


First “Follow the Money”: Link

In the USA there has been a lot of money spent on trying to blame Mankind (CO2) for climate variability instead of asking the question what causes climate to vary. Research on anything besides CO2 is despite political pressure. Many papers have a half hearted blurb stating that whatever their research found it is not as big a factor as Man made CO2. Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Obama are all part of the Chicago Climate Exchange And then there is the investment bankers (You always find the bankers behind everything pulling the strings)

THE SUN
Fig 2.1 (pg 6) is the Spectrum of incident solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level. “Because UV radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere, the temperature increase in this altitude range. Located at about 50 km altitude, the stratopause is the top boundary of this layer. ” graph pg 3 fig 1.1 Atmospheric temperature profile and layering Link

The above graphs shows why I can not understand why any one would think CO2 is the main driver of climate. If someone told me it was oxygen, water (Atmospheric and seas) and the sun, I would be more inclined to believe them. CO2 is such a small blip on the energy absorption scale you can barely see it. Also as you proceed from left to right the energy per unit wavelength decreases. This makes CO2 contribution even less Link

There is no more energy to be absorbed at the CO2 wavelengths. Which agrees with Fig 2.1 graph showing CO2 log response: The greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 follows a logarithmic curve with CO2 concentration. As CO2 levels continue to rise, the greenhouse temperature boost from CO2 flattens out. Far from being a "tipping point" the climate effects from rising CO2 fade out. Link

This image, courtesy of Dr. Judith Lean at the US Naval Research Laboratory, shows the same graph as Fig 2.1 with energy variability overlaying the spectrum of solar radiation from 10 to 100,000 nm (dark blue). The variability between Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum is in green and the relative transparency of Earth's atmosphere at sea level is in light blue. Link
UV can vary up to 10% and effects the ozone and stratosphere: “UV variability between 200 and 400 nm is almost a factor of 10 larger than was estimated from earlier satellite data.” Link
“Computer Processing of Remotely Sensed Images” Graph of Sun and Earth black body showing relationship: Link
The NASA graph is a complete and utter lie Link

Why this is a lie is covered in a new peer reviewed paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. By G. Gerlich,  R. D. Tscheuschner: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
Full Paper, 114 pages, 1.54MB and yes I have read the entire paper.

The paper of course was attacked, Dr. Gerlich’s rebuttal to alarmists is preserved at: Link


And on and on


There are also the sub topics of:
MAGNETIC FIELDS

EARTH ROTATION
long-term fluctuation of the Schwabe period (LSP) of sunspots number (SSN) has been found to have high correlation with the variation of the length-of-day

OCEANS
1. Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

2. Southern Oscillation


AND UNDERSEA VOLCANOES:
1. The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgasing from the Earth's interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs

2. Seismic activity in 2008 is apparently FIVE TIMES what it was twenty years ago.

3. team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoe


The Science just does not support CO2 as the man cause of climate variation and the whole hoax is starting to unravel as scientist start to speak out.

Originally posted by crimvelvet

They are David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong

Also, don't forget about the Rothschilds

Wherever there is some kind of bloody controversy in regards super secret, supra national organizations and dodgy investments.. we can always find the Rockafella's and the Rothschilds. Fair enough, much of their work can actually be attributed to the evolution of our civilization but they are just so sneaky about the rest.

And the fact that they were involved in the whole "Manmade Global Warming" thing, even before there was proof of any warming is their MO.

when something is pushed down our throats this hard you know there must be something else going on in the background..

this is a good article.. heres a clip.

BUBBLE #6 Global Warming

Fast-forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's cohead of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.

The new carboncredit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

www.rollingstone.com...

Global warming is a fraud. Climate change is very well real. And in no way are humans at all responsible for any of it. The earth goes through its own climate changes on its own. The greenhouse gases that we as humans have contributed to the atmosphere is so little that it has done nothing.

The most abundant greehouse gas is water vapor. 80% of the greehouse gases are water vapor. Carbon Dioxide only comprises of 5%. and we as humans have only contributed to a total of 3.225% of all of the carbon. The rest is completely natural and would happen whether or not human were on earth.

Also, The wavelengths of the greenhouse gases that keep heat in are proportioned the same. The only difference is that the majority of carbon dioxide is also covered up by water vapor. This means that even if all that carbon were not there the water vapor would still have the same effect.

When you look at the temperature of the earth from a million years ago til now is has changed and fluctuated but has always went back to the way it was and then the opposite. It gets hotter then colder. Thats how the earth works.

In the past hundred years the temperature has fluctuated and we are now at the same temperature as then. and suprisingly, on the downward slope. Meaning that it is going to get cooler before it gets warmer again.

When you look at the rise and fall of temperature over time and then look at carbon levels in the atmosphere during that same time you will see no relation. but, when you compare temperature with water vapor levels they are in direct relation. When there is more water vapor in the air the temperature gets hotter. Carbon does not effect the temperature. Water vapor does.

Today carbon in the atmosphere is way higher than it has ever been. And yet the temperature is less than many other peaks in history. How could this be possible if carbon levels make temperature fluctuate.

Also, when you look at individual temperatures over the course of time it would seem that the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern. and that the southern is getting cooler. This is impossible if you believe that carbon is the cause. Here is why. Carbon levels are the same in every part of the stmosphere. No matter what. It is the same at the north and south poles, at the equator, on ground level and ten miles high. It is constant. But what isnt constant. Water vapor. Is is given off by trees, humans, anything you can think of that is living. and looking at the facts. suprisingly, the northern hemisphere is growing more trees than before and also the southern hemisphere is losing more.

Just as an example. In the desert where there is no water vapor. Is it very hot because it is close to the equator. But when the sun goes down and the greenhouse gases should trap the daily heat in. It doesnt. and it gets very cold. why is that. also, in tropical rain forests. much water vapor. during the day it is hot. because it is on the equator. but at night it remains hot. the greehouse gas there is doing its job and trapping the heat in. So where carbon levels are the same. temperatures are very different and fluctuate rapidly or not at all. Yet the only difference is water vapor levels.

The facts are true. and you cannot argue with facts. Oppinions just dont add up in comparison. this is pure logic.

I do agree with everyone in the world. We must find a way to be cleaner with less polution. Get away from fossil fuels. But lieing to people and scaring them telling them that the earth will be destroyed is unnessesary and should be stopped.

Thank you for reading!