Why is Global Warming a Hoax??

[musictomyears]

I wonder what your threshold is for a specific gas to have an effect on the climate. If .04% is not enough, how much would it take? You seem to know all about it, so please explain this.

Compared with water vapour, i.e. clouds, CO2 pales into insignificance as a greenhouse gas.

"water vapor, which contributes 36–70%"

Wikimedia Error

Note how shaky the data is: 36–70%, 9–26%, etc.

 

[musictomyears]

There are days when I realize that the Goebbels was right. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes the Gospel Truth.

Unfortunately, yes. Hitler phrased it thusly:

"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Wikimedia Error

 

[0uterj0in]

I dont think that global warming is happening and I am not convinced that there is a climate change occuring.

Why? Based on what? Are you a scientist?

Compared with water vapour, i.e. clouds, CO2 pales into insignificance as a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas? I'm ignorant of how the atmosphere works, but you seem to have some atmosphere expertise. So would you mind explaining this?

 

[skunkape]

Regardless of whether or not burning fossil-fuels is causing global warming, the social benefits of eventually marginalizing the oil-industry in favor of multiple, competing sources of clean energy, would be enormous.
Cadillac just introduced a nuclear powered car that'll run a hundred years without maintenence.
Not in Detroit: Cadillac World Thorium Fuel Concept

 

[musictomyears]

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas? I'm ignorant of how the atmosphere works, but you seem to have some atmosphere expertise. So would you mind explaining this?

Water vapour simply IS a greenhouse gas. I linked to the relevant Wiki page.

Perhaps you need to start doing your own research.

 

[pixelsmith]

this is an excellent example of herd mentality. thank you 0uterj0in.

 

[musictomyears]

Cadillac just introduced a nuclear powered car that'll run a hundred years without maintenence.
Not in Detroit: Cadillac World Thorium Fuel Concept

Great. So, first we establish police states around the world because we are so scared of "terrorists", and then go on to release millions of dirty bombs on wheels?

Cadillac "WTF". Couldn't agree more.

 

[TClaeys]

How can any well-informed citizen (and by well-informed I mean someone who is not entrenched into one answer or the other, but considers both points of view) tell the difference?


I simply can't tell the difference here and I maintain that most of us here don't know either. Are you arguing from a position of authority or are you arguing because of your political beliefs and sense of conspiracy? I have yet to see a sound argument that can account for the vast number of experts on both sides of this issue coming to different conclusions.

This is just it. How can anyone tell the difference between one side or the other?? I think I'm pretty informed on the topic, but I can't say with any great level of certainty what it is. I would say I have a modest amount of faith in the science concerning this topic. I think climate is an overwhelmingly complex system. This is why I remain open to alternatives, even though I am on the side of AGW at the moment. I wouldn't cling to it so strongly as to not consider other possibilities.

But to say that all the scientists are lying just strains credulity. I mean, all of them?? I find it hard to believe that all the major scientific organizations are lying. All of them on the planet?? Please tell me how this happens for those of you that know this. Because apparently some of you have knowledge of this. If you could, please cite some specific examples. Does anyone think that evolution is correct, or is that part of the plan as well??

I find it ironic that some of you who don't believe in the scientists are throwing out scientific figures.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Global Warming is what every other device to lie to people has always been.

Making sure a certain group always will have more than the rest. Power, Money, Material Wealth, it's all for them, and the rest of us are left to pay the way for those who do nothing but reap the benefits of our labor. They are the new pharaohs. They are the uber elite who have controlled the world since the first cave people.

They've always been just a little smarter, or should I say, blood thirsty for more than the average human. It's fine though, when they're being cared for by their robot servants, they won't have the emotional rush of ruling a planet of brain dead duped morons to draw inspiration from, and in the end will die alone, and unmourned.

Unless of course machines learn to cry by then.

 

[TClaeys]

Global Warming is what every other device to lie to people has always been.

Making sure a certain group always will have more than the rest.

Who exactly is this group today??

 

[musictomyears]

I find it hard to believe that all the major scientific organizations are lying. All of them on the planet?? Please tell me how this happens for those of you that know this.

It is not difficult to understand.

#1 Scientists depend on research grants to carry out any work at all.

#2 The two major sources for grants are governments and corporations.

#3 Governments figured that the global warming scare has the potential to generate unlimited carbon tax revenue. Corporations figured that they could sell us on the idea of limited and expensive energy. Thus, governments and corporations have comparable motives for perpetuating the scare.

#4 Science is not neutral. It is a commodity that is bought and paid for.

 

[musictomyears]

Who exactly is this group today??

In a nutshell, the global bankers.

 

[0uterj0in]

Sorry but this doesn't pass the laugh test.

I can think of simpler ways for an "elite" to get their hands on more money and power. Getting a majority of scientists to lie about their own research in order create a fake climate crisis so the government can implement a carbon tax?

Rii-iight.

 

[musictomyears]

Sorry but this doesn't pass the laugh test.

I can think of simpler ways for an "elite" to get their hands on more money and power. Getting a majority of scientists to lie about their own research in order create a fake climate crisis so the government can implement a carbon tax?

Rii-iight.

You want to think about that again. The carbon cycle ( Wikimedia Error ) is fundamental to life on Earth. Lending powers to the government to tax carbon emissions, in effect, permits it to tax life itself. Everybody becomes a polluter - every man, woman and child. Don't forget that we inhale oxygen, but exhale carbon dioxide. They already tried to tax the methane emissions of livestock, it would not surprise me if they would eventually levy taxes on breathing.

Taxing the carbon cycle is an ingenious tool for turning all of us into slaves to a global, eco-fascist system.

 

[Ron Collins]

Oh yeah? Governments around the world are gearing up to tax methane emissions from livestock.

Google "New Zealand fart tax".

I'm sure that if there was a green house effect actually occurring then methane would contribute to it. That was the entire point of my earlier post. In essence to say that methane would be far and away more the culprit than CO2. However, there is no Global warming. There is temperature variation in human altered ecosystems.

There are hundreds of examples of temperatures being taken from places that have had very little if any technological impact over the last 100 years. Those places take daily or weekly temperature readings. Those readings have not changed outside of normal variances. If the "warming trend" was global there would be a detectable rise in temperature everywhere (hence the word global). But that is just not the case. Its just Chicken little stuff folks.

Now, does that mean we should collectively sat screw the environment and stop finding newer alternative fuels and stop trying to lessen the impact humans have on the planet? No. Of course not! These are all good things, we just should not be sold the "the sky is falling" line in order to motivate ourselves to do it.

 

[Ron Collins]

Another important point. Whenever this topic is brought up people start talking about how the glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate. It is a fact that less than 10% of the worlds glaciers have been surveyed. Of that 10% there are examples of glacial thickening. It is also good to point out that ocean levels are not rising. So, where is all this alarming melt water going?

 

[musictomyears]

there is no Global warming.

No there isn't. In fact, Earth has been cooling for more than a year. If this trend persists, we are in for another ice age.

Now THAT would be something to worry about.

 

[0uterj0in]

Taxing the carbon cycle is an ingenious tool for turning all of us into slaves to a global, eco-fascist system.

You're right, that's much more effective than taxing economic activity and usury.

I'm done here. I have better things to do than read this Alex Jones/talk radio horseshit.

 

[Ron Collins]

Sorry but this doesn't pass the laugh test.

I can think of simpler ways for an "elite" to get their hands on more money and power. Getting a majority of scientists to lie about their own research in order create a fake climate crisis so the government can implement a carbon tax?

Rii-iight.

I don't think they are liars per say. They are just looking at a very small amount of data and publishing papers on the conclusions they are drawing. The studies are incomplete and timeframes are too narrow. Climatology and meteorology are far from exact sciences.
We really haven't the foggiest clue about how it all links together over time. A real objective scientist would never look at the limited amount of research for the scope of this problem and make a declaration that anything is "irreversible" or that we are close to "Impending Doom". It is just asinine and irresponsible.
What if that crazy guy from Florida actually got the go ahead to pepper that swath of ocean with iron to incite a massive bloom of CO2 chewing plankton. That is the kind of crap this sort of doom and gloom stuff causes in people. he was about to massively disturb the ecosystem in some "rob peter to pay paul" scenario. Who knows what the affects of that might have been.

 

[0uterj0in]

Climatology and meteorology are far from exact sciences.

Fair enough. So what's your background? Why do you think the scientists aren't looking at enough data? How much data would be enough?