The Hoax of Global Warming

[bryand]

Wat happened to all the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming?? Inconvenient liar Algae Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize and an academy award for his BS!

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[4 of a kind]

Wat happened to all the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming??

I would guess the same place all the promises Osama made pre-election.

 

[maxd]

Please note that Dr. Mojib Latif, whom you quote above, has gone on to refute the conclusions drawn from his earlier statement:

In an interview today, Dr. Latif told me "we dont trust our forecast beyond 2015" and "it is just as likely youll see accelerated warming" after then. Indeed, in his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the next two decades. He told me, you cant miss the long-term warming trend in the temperature record, which is driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases. Finally, he pointed out "Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

See also:

Fast on the heels of the second warmest August on record and warmest June-July-August for the oceans, NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that this was the second hottest September on record. (dated October 13, 2009)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Some 'hoax'.

Believe what you like but trying to portray people's real concerns over an environmental crisis as deliberate falsehoods or a malicious attempt to cheat anyone into anything is irresponsible at best.

 

[jetset]

That certainly puts a different emphasis on the story......

 

[maxd]

My thing with the whole global warming issue is it may not be real to some of the disbelievers but it's very real to those of us who are seeing it happen and it's effects before our very eyes.

I live in Europe and we were absolutely fried a few years ago, the hottest individual months and the hottest summer on record. It killed 15,000 people in France alone, had an untold effect on the bird and fish life which we still haven't recovered from, and there's every reason to believe that it's going to happen again soon. The bottom line is that

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

... "Europe experienced its hottest weather in at least 500 years."

Let's say the same heatwave crisis had hit the US and it had been American deaths. That works out to 9/11 seventeen times over, if you want to look at it that way, or almost thirty times worse than Katrina. Oh yeah, big 'hoax'.

Obviously the European heatwave was no 'hoax'. It was bitter reality. Ask the families of the old folks who died of dehydration because it was too hot to go outside (tap water in many parts of Europe is pretty much undrinkable). I remember sitting behind our window shutters watching the temperature climb to 45C (113F) and higher and wondering what we would do if it happened again. More deaths? More devastation of the wildlife? A 'hoax'?!?

Now I'll admit that one heatwave does not global warming make but it is a bit of evidence that something might not quite be right. Add to that the flooding in the UK, the rising waters flooding out the South-Pacific, the melting icecaps, Katrina, etc etc and you'd think that folks just might start scratching their heads a little and wondering WTF?

Of course everyone is entitled to their skepticism. To them I say, you best just hope that it isn't your corner of the world that gets fried in the heat next summer, or your parents or grandparents who die of dehydration.

It's all very easy to say "nah, not gonna happen" until it's too late and you're the one bawling for aid or relief or rescue, or compassion. Is it really that hard to show a little respect for the suffering and worries of others, especially when you just happen to have been fortunate enough to have dodged the bullet so far?

 

[bryand]

Temperatures of the earth have increased and decreased since the beginning of time and noone can apparently predict it. There will be consequences if either happen. My point was that if greenhouse gases are causing global warming then why are we taking a break?

0.7 degree average rise in 20 years is a heatwave??? OMG The heat and drought during the early 1930's in the US midwest contributed to the dust bowl but occured way before aerosol cans and automobiles.

Also what the alarmists won't tell you about temporary increases in temperature is the number of people saved from freezing to death!

Maybe temperatures are rising and melting ice caps are causing a rise in sealevel. One thing I'm sure is that people like Al Gore are making untold millions off of the exploitation as if they have even a clue how to regulate it.

 

[RobWin]

Since I could not get a direct response from you Bryan in the "Glenn Beck.. warns of one world government" thread and your thoughts on that, maybe this little bit of info and video will be able to get a rise out of you guys about how this "One World Government" and the "Global Climate Scam" all ties together...

On October 14th 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change and global warming expert, gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Remember too, this is Lord Christopher Monckton speaking here, who is and has been a noted climate change expert for quite some time now!

To be brutally honest though, I think this so called "One World Government" and "One World Currency" will have to bite over half of the planet right smack dab on the Ass before anyone will believe what I and 50,000 others have been trying to warn you guys of for years now!

Just watch and listen...this is related to your thread topic here...


Just a little bio on Lord Christopher Monckton:

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977-79.

In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraphs Magazine in 1981. In 1982 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatchers policy advisor, where he served from 1982 to 1986.

While at 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis(leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasurys economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system) and epidemiological analysis.

On leaving 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton became assistant editor of the newly-formed (and now defunct) newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening Standard from 1987 -1992.

Monckton has since been a director of his own specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called polydrafters. A 1m prize was won after 18 months. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. A second puzzle, Eternity II, is to be launched in July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his scepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign. In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change.
____
____

 

[bryand]

Since I could not get a direct response from you Bryan in the "Glenn Beck.. warns of one world government" thread and your thoughts on that

I have been a fan of Glenn Beck since he was on CNN HL. The one-world gov't seems far fetched to me at this point but one currency is possible especially if China stops buying US securities and the dollar loses most of its value. If you recall Glenn said at the beginning of the clip that the guest may well be wrong. Glenn's point was that the original interviewer did not react with surprise to what he was saying.

At this point in history just about anything could happen. I'm just not ready to say the worst is inevitable.

Sorry for not replying to your post earlier.

 

[RobWin]

I have been a fan of Glenn Beck since he was on CNN HL. The one-world gov't seems far fetched to me at this point but one currency is possible especially if China stops buying US securities and the dollar loses most of its value. If you recall Glenn said at the beginning of the clip that the guest may well be wrong. Glenn's point was that the original interviewer did not react with surprise to what he was saying.

At this point in history just about anything could happen. I'm just not ready to say the worst is inevitable.

Sorry for not replying to your post earlier.

I think the worst is already well upon us all and as Lord Christopher Monckton said, we are already in the 11th hour and the 59th minute. It will soon be too late by the time the New Year arrives. This will be signed in the wee hours in the dark just like we all woke up to the UIGEA.

Thanks....So did you watch that video above? What's your thoughts on that one?

Have any of you guys even heard about or know anything about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009?

I'm sure one of the famous mass media outlets has been speaking of this one, maybe one of you guys can confirm that for me since I hardly ever watch any TV, I'm not sure myself.

Also @ MaxD, Max I'm personally not saying or stating whether this "Global Warming" is real or just hyperbole, I wouldn't know either way. I'm merely just showing how the powers that be are going to use it to help usher in the "One World Government".
____
____

 

[bryand]

Thanks....So did you watch that video above? What's your thoughts on that one?

Playing poker now....will listen later tonight.

Also @ MaxD, Max I'm personally not saying or stating whether this "Global Warming" is real or just hyperbole, I wouldn't know either way. I'm merely just showing how the powers that be are going to use it to help usher in the "One World Government".

Brown noser

Also, here is some conspiracy theory stuff regarding scientist collusion....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[RobWin]

Playing poker now....will listen later tonight.

Dude, it's only 4 minutes long..lol

Also, here is some conspiracy theory stuff regarding scientist collusion....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I actually heard about that about 2 months ago from one of my black underground conspiracy sites..
____
____

 

[maxd]

My point was that if greenhouse gases are causing global warming then why are we taking a break?

A slight and temporary dip in the overall rise of a complex system should hardly be a surprise, and can hardly be taken as evidence that the overall rise does not exist and is a conspiracy theory. To deny the potentially devastating effect of man's "contributions" to the global weather system simply because the rise in temperatures hasn't been perfectly linear seems ... what can I say, willfully negligent comes to mind.

0.7 degree average rise in 20 years is a heatwave???

Are you joking? To raise the temperature of the globe that much in that short a time?? Of course that's a heatwave! It's like someone turned all the burners on!

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I seem to recall seeing ice sample charts going back tens of thousands of years that showed there has never been such a spike in global temperatures (in such a short period of time) as far back as they can determine such things, which I believe is limited by the ice deposited during the last ice age ... approx 60,000-100,000 years if I recall (??).

And the thing about the drought in the 30's, you're suggesting that because heatwaves have happened naturally in the past that global warming doesn't exist and isn't a man-made problem? So if I set fire to your house I'm not really responsible because hey, your place might've burned anyway, my can of gas may or may not have had much to do with it. Sorry but given the seriousness of the issue here and the supporting evidence you could only take such a position if you really, Really, REALLY didn't want to even consider the possibility of what is happening and what may have caused it.

Also what the alarmists won't tell you about temporary increases in temperature is the number of people saved from freezing to death!

I hope you are joking, because if you aren't that's got to be the most outrageous argument _for_ global warming I've ever heard. I seriously doubt that it's "saved" 52,000 lives. Seriously though, this is like saying a nuclear holocaust could be a good thing because then vegetables might grow bigger. Unbelievable!

One thing I'm sure is that people like Al Gore are making untold millions off of the exploitation as if they have even a clue how to regulate it.

Maybe he is, how does that change anything? If it's happening it's happening whether Gore is doing the lecture circuit or not. Surely you understand that your "where there's dollars, there's profiteering" argument cuts both ways? Your friend Glen Beck, amongst many others, are making a mint off of feeding the "ain't happening" crowd what they want to hear. Not to mention the corporate billions that are at stake if, perchance, folks might want to actually do something about the threat to the planet's health and safety.

Whatever, you've obviously got your corner of the debate topics staked out and are happy with it, as do I for that matter. If things should go from bad to worse please remember to remind everyone of the position you took and why, exactly, it was that you did so. I'm sure when food and water become crisis issues they'll be interested to hear the finer details of it all.

 

[bryand]

A slight and temporary dip in the overall rise of a complex system should hardly be a surprise, and can hardly be taken as evidence that the overall rise does not exist and is a conspiracy theory. To deny the potentially devastating effect of man's "contributions" to the global weather system simply because the rise in temperatures hasn't been perfectly linear seems ... what can I say, willfully negligent comes to mind.

Let's see, in this thread you've called my post "irresponsible" and "willfully negligent" (and I assume you are learned enough to understand the term "willful"). If I didn't know better I would think you have a problem with me rather the subject matter.

Are you joking? To raise the temperature of the globe that much in that short a time?? Of course that's a heatwave! It's like someone turned all the burners on!

Maybe you don't recall the 'crisis' caused by alarmists in the 1970's regarding global cooling. We were led to believe we were heading into another ice age!

And the thing about the drought in the 30's, you're suggesting that because heatwaves have happened naturally in the past that global warming doesn't exist and isn't a man-made problem? So if I set fire to your house I'm not really responsible because hey, your place might've burned anyway, my can of gas may or may not have had much to do with it. Sorry but given the seriousness of the issue here and the supporting evidence you could only take such a position if you really, Really, REALLY didn't want to even consider the possibility of what is happening and what may have caused it.

Now that's a comparison stretch.

I hope you are joking, because if you aren't that's got to be the most outrageous argument _for_ global warming I've ever heard. I seriously doubt that it's "saved" 52,000 lives. Seriously though, this is like saying a nuclear holocaust could be a good thing because then vegetables might grow bigger. Unbelievable!

What is unbelievable is that you are suggesting I am in favor of global warming. I simply stated FACT.

Maybe he is, how does that change anything? If it's happening it's happening whether Gore is doing the lecture circuit or not. Surely you understand that your "where there's dollars, there's profiteering" argument cuts both ways? Your friend Glen Beck, amongst many others, are making a mint off of feeding the "ain't happening" crowd what they want to hear. Not to mention the corporate billions that are at stake if, perchance, folks might want to actually do something about the threat to the planet's health and safety.

Another inappropriate comparison. Maybe had I titled this thread "The Expoitation of Global Climate Change" you would have been less combative. Let's agree to disagree and if I roast in the heat and my grandmother dies of dehydration I'll be the first to say you were right

 

[maxd]

Don't have a problem with you personally, do have a problem with the idea of treating reality and physics as if they were options on the McDonalds menu.

Not being "combative" but I am trying to call into question what I consider to be dangerously irresponsible claims that global warming is something Al Gore invented to line his pockets. Besides which you've spent more time here arguing that global warming doesn't exist than you have pointing out how much money Gore or whomever may be making off of popularizing the debate.

People are suffering and being killed because of the disasters caused by these dramatic weather changes. The evidence strongly suggests that man's activities on the Earth have contributed significantly to this. Calling all of this a 'hoax' is awfully easy when it isn't happening to you directly.

The analogies were only stretched insofar as the arguments you presented suggested they need be to make the point. "Global warming is good because less people will get frost-bite", or whatever it was you said? That strongly suggests that the counter-arguments needed to be stated in the broadest possible terms.

But, as you say, best to agree to disagree and return to our respective corners, or whatever.

 

[skiny]

Do I believe in global warming? Yes.

Do I believe in global cooling? Yes.

Do I believe that man made CO2 is a factor? No.

In fact more people don't believe it than people who do but it's political and scientific suicide to say so.

The earth's temperature rises and falls. It always has and the only thing we can do about it is decide to wear a jacket or shorts.

Now I'm not saying be environmentally unfriendly. Sure lets keep the planet as clean as possible but I don't think cutting CO2 emmissions is going to change a thing. At less than 400 parts per billion CO2 makes up for less than half of a percent of the atmosphere.

A study in an article in the 25 November 2005 issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS the nonprofit science society chronicles the stable relationship between climate and the carbon cycle during the Pleistocene (390,000 to 650,000 years before the present). The analysis highlights the fact that today's rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is already 27 percent higher than its highest recorded level during the last 650,000 years.

Sounds scary. It means that previously CO2 levels have peaked at about one third of a percent of the earth's atmosphere. Now they're somewhere between one third and one half of one percent. Now even that may alarm you but lets also keep in mind that man made carbon emissions don't make up that tiny percentage. Try to find an exact number how much of that percentage is our fault. From what I can find it's about 3 or 4 percent. If anyone can find a number with some hard evidence I'd like to know simply because I can't.

But if the 3 or 4 percent is accurate now we're talking about 4% of the 380 ppm being caused by us. Or roughly 15 ppm. Jesus this number is getting small. So why are the world's governments arguing over what percentage we should try to cut this number down to? I've heard 30 to 50 percent reductions. or at best 7 ppm if everyone is actually able to do it. In fact what if we cut all our emmisions? Stop producing the entire 1/10 of one percent or so that make up the world's atmosphere? I just don't see how this is going to change anything.

But putting all that aside the real question is does CO2 even cause climate change? I've overlayed the graphs from the Volstok ice core samples and the earth's temperature over the same 400,000 year time frame and from what I can see although the correlation between CO2 and temperature are obvious, CO2 seems more to react from the earth's temperature than the other way around. I can post this if anyone would like to see it.
This makes more sense to me since the earth's oceans can absorb CO2 faster when it's warm than when it's cold. It takes centuries to warm the oceans so I can see where CO2 levels would eventually rise or fall as the oceans warm or cool.

If I've somehow screwed up the math on this let me know. I don't claim to know everything. I'm just trying to figure it out too.

 

[bryand]

Damn what a great post, Skiny

So many good points:

1. Political suicide to take this position.
2. There is a correlation between average temperature and CO2 level but it is unclear what causes what.
3. Humans cause but a small fraction of overall greenhouse gases.
4. Cyclical warming and cooling is normal.
5. We should all be stewards of the earth as a matter of respect for nature.

One argument hard to debate is the position "What if Al Gore is right?" Should we believe the worst case scenario as an abundance of caution? This I don't know.

 

[skiny]

To be honest with you I don't really care what Al Gore says. He's got his own reasons for whatever the hell he's doing.

I just look at whatever facts I can find and look at them from my own perspective. I don't borrow someone else's conclusions on either side of the debate. I just personally can't see CO2 being the cause. There's no logic behind the conclusion. In fact all the data I've seen points to the opposite of this conclusion.

The question still remains, if CO2 is not causing climate change, why is everyone so set on making us believe it is?

I guess it would have been a good reason for the Canadian Liberals to have pushed through the new "Carbon tax" if they had got elected.

 

[RobWin]

I just look at whatever facts I can find and look at them from my own perspective.

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

 

[bryand]

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

Its the subject of my opening post!

 

[skiny]

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

I'm not a citizen of the USA. Even still I'd like to sit in on this and see exactly what it is they're talking about. I'm sure there will be no debate on whether or not carbon emissions are even a factor of climate change since according to their panel of scientists this is a given.

So what's to discuss? How we can decrease the (apparently) .01% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we're contributing? How we can charge taxes on what we do emit? Or levies on products that emit carbons in the production? Or how we can cap carbon emissions on countries. Even those that have no other real source of energy other than carbon producing ones?

I suspect it will be about as useful as the Kyoto Protocol where we'll set carbon limits and then break and ignore them.

 

[RobWin]

I'm not a citizen of the USA. Even still I'd like to sit in on this and see exactly what it is they're talking about. I'm sure there will be no debate on whether or not carbon emissions are even a factor of climate change since according to their panel of scientists this is a given.

So what's to discuss? How we can decrease the (apparently) .01% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we're contributing? How we can charge taxes on what we do emit? Or levies on products that emit carbons in the production? Or how we can cap carbon emissions on countries. Even those that have no other real source of energy other than carbon producing ones?

I suspect it will be about as useful as the Kyoto Protocol where we'll set carbon limits and then break and ignore them.

Good question and glad you asked...This is directly all linked to this thread post here..

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/glenn-beck-warns-of-one-world-government.34651/

Check out the videos I posted there relating to the treaty and if anyone wants a copy of it as well as:

Lord Monckton addresses the CO2 and .7 degree delema...

MIT Scientists findings discussed...
____
____

 

[bryand]

First I want to find the authors of this piece of trash draft treaty and kick them squarly between the legs. It is page after page of legalease but only makes a few points.

1. Humans have caused the majority of greenhouse gases ("since 1750" )
2. Greenhouse gases are definately causing climate change.
3. We (the committee) will rule the world one day.

 

[skiny]

First I want to find the authors of this piece of trash draft treaty and kick them squarly between the legs. It is page after page of legalease but only makes a few points.

1. Humans have caused the majority of greenhouse gases ("since 1750" )
2. Greenhouse gases are definately causing climate change.
3. We (the committee) will rule the world one day.

I'm still reading through some of these IPCC papers. Some of it I don't quite follow because I'm too lazy to go back and re-read what some of these acronyms are. Some of it makes no sense because it doesn't follow what I thought was known geological science.

 

[bryand]

I'm still reading through some of these IPCC papers. Some of it I don't quite follow because I'm too lazy to go back and re-read what some of these acronyms are. Some of it makes no sense because it doesn't follow what I thought was known geological science.

Some definitions here....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[RobWin]

Its the subject of my opening post!

Yea I saw where you stated "when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference" but was still not sure if you were aware of the "Treaty Draft" or not and what all was in it.

This is totally different from the IPCC papers.
____
____