Who believes "Global Warming" is a CROCK??

[sweet cheeks]

Ok, so we have HAARP, ELF waves, microwaves, SCALAR Weaponry, and what not....

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

[WaveWarrior]

Ok, so we have HAARP, ELF waves, microwaves, SCALAR Weaponry, and what not....

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

[them]

Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

Yes. I can hear your hammer striking.
http://english1010.com/images/hit_the_nail_on_the_head.gif

[bigus_dickus]

Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

it's true. all the planets of our solar system are warming up and this is not because of us people or the earth, it is because of the changes of the sun and it's position in the galaxy. of course we have done anything possible to make this transition hard.

[geewhizz]

Hi guys

Yes i agree with Wavewarrior, Global warming (man made) is bullshit. We are coming to the end of a 26000yr cycle and its quite natural. The other planets in our galaxy are changing and theres no gas guzzling 4x4 cars on them.

The governments around the world will use this to squeeze more taxes and revenue out of us and then make our lives more stressful (they like doing this):eek:

I dont mind these planetary changes because its been nice and mild here in the UK and its Winter!

[thoth]

Basically, as far as the 'physical' "reality" is concerned, or whatever that means to you, we are FUCKED!

[snog]

The absence of physical reality will be a huge relief! Flow with the river otherwise you will be fucked. Don't reside in the stagnant waters that 99% of people are highly addicted to. I realise I'm probably preaching to the converted here :D

[father ted]

It's good to see that most here agree that global warming is natural, why else would All Gore say otherwise? Because he's another cocksucker working for the cocksuckee.
It's good to see him put out this sort of documentary film (Inconvenient truth), it gives us all a chance to furthermore understand the Illuminati's way of thinking. :rolleyes:

[thoth]

The absence of physical reality will be a huge relief! Flow with the river otherwise you will be fucked. Don't reside in the stagnant waters that 99% of people are highly addicted to. I realise I'm probably preaching to the converted here :D

Yes, it will! I am currently in the process of TRYING to relenquish all emotional attatchments to this 'reality' but its not easy. But I have been more successful than most, trust me.

[lu tze]

It appears that the general consensus on this thread is that "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon and that the world is simply going through yet another climate cycle as it has done many times before as opposed to the result of two centuries of industrial activity and relentless pollution by mankind.

It also appears to be the consensus here that "Global Warming" as defined as an overall rise in the temperature of the earth is a reality and that the effects that are being seen is not erroneous data or scaremongering by special interest groups.

It saddens me that even here we have fallen into the all too common trap of arguing about exactly what or who is to blame, is it natural or is it man made, but little consideration has been paid to what we should do about it.

The truth is that its not going to get better if we keep pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will most likely make things better regardless of how what is already there, got there.

The "elite" of society have become rich on the backs of the rest of us, exploiting the worlds natural resources while polluting the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat and the land we live on and still now change the argument towards attributing responsibility.

The truth is that while we are all so wrapped up in blaming each other we are not addressing the real issue which is that the climate is changing and biologically, life on this planet is going to get a lot tougher.

Now regardless of whether you like the man, his politics or his message and it is irrelevant whether the film An inconvenient truth sucks or not, the man has a point and you have to give Al Gore a big gold star for having the balls to get up and make it. We need to do something and we should have done it a while back. Not now but then. Later will be too late.

Al Gore was universally panned for telling us to use less resources and to use what we do use wisely but you must ask yourself who has the most to loose from people heeding his message.

The man is not going to be president, I think he knows that. He owes nothing to the Illuminati masters who rule the world. They let him down. They backed the other guy. The moron who was easier to control.

Think about it. The "elite" are in control of the resources that we as consumers desire. The more we want them the more they can charge us for them as demand outstrips supply. The more they charge the bigger their profits and the richer they get.

As consumption of oil hits a peak and those that control its supply get staggeringly richer as the price of a barrel of the black stuff rockets through the roof who will benefit the least from a drop in its demand.

When the consumer demands that natural resources are conserved by the use of recycled materials, who is going to suffer a drop in profits.

The change starts with the little people. If 200 million Americans woke up tomorrow and said I don't want to drive a 5 liter off road land tank that does 10 miles to the gallon, I want something small and economical that does 40 miles to the gallon instead, it would not matter if the price of a gallon of gas doubled in price if the average American was consuming only a quarter of what they did before. Lets face it the consumer would still be halving their fuel bills and the income for our rich and powerful would also halve but more importantly CO2 pollution would drop by 75%. We win financially AND environmentally.

If we consumed half the energy we presently do the incomes for the fat cat energy companies would halve and then some. They would not be able to charge a premium if supply was outstripping demand.

But you are saying what about the rest. The pollution, the raping of natural resources. What can we do to make the rich and powerful, the corporations that poison us do something about that. That kind of change is driven by political influence. The people with the most to loose from doing something about the environment are those that are in power. Well we are supposed to live in a democracy. We vote these assholes into power. We can choose not to. The 2008 presidential election is coming up. Make the environment an issue. An election is also not far off here on the other side of the Atlantic. We too can do the same thing.

Lets focus our attentions on resolving the problem and not assigning the blame before our cities are under water, our forests are deserts and the half of the population that survives the environmental chaos that is to come subsist on beach front properties that are presently what we know as hill tops.

Call it "global Warming", call it "climate Change", call it what you will if we continue to bicker on about the cause and do nothing about a solution then I am afraid, as it was most succinctly put a few posts higher up in this thread, we are all fucked!

[armin]

I dont believe global warming is a threat at all, just another way of manipulating mankind

[awakensong]

Just like the "peak oil" issue. I'm now hearing those who believe oil is "abiotic" (that the planet produces this naturally and ongoingly), say that there is too mucn oil in the Middle East.

[lu tze]

Just like the "peak oil" issue. I'm now hearing those who believe oil is "abiotic" (that the planet produces this naturally and ongoingly), say that there is too much oil in the Middle East.


I too have heard this hypothesis and though unlikely* it is all the more important that if true green house gasses such as CO2 that have not previously been present in the biosphere are not released into the atmosphere.

*Hydrocarbons existing, originating or deriving directly from biological processes are commonly chiral in nature (In the simplest of terms, they are left or right handed or the actual physical arangement of the atoms that make up the molecule can be aranged in a number of different ways - optical stereoisomers**). If a collection of various hydrocarbons occured as a result of an abiotic process then all optical stereoisomers of the same chemical would occur in equal amounts. In the case of the complex hydrocarbons found within crude oil it is observed that these chemicals will predominantly appear as only a small selection of possible optical stereoisomers compaired with the other possibilities thus betraying their biological origin.


**A perfect example of two optical stereoisomers of the same chemical can be seen with cellulose and starch. Both long chain molecules are made up of glucose (C6 H12 O6) units however glucose exists in 16 forms, only eight of which are actually found in living organisms. Of the 8 remaining forms only two of these actually form the ring shaped molecule that can be used in either starch or cellulose. (alpha and Beta D Glucose) Now these two forms of the glucose molecule are differentiated only by the orientation of a single hydroxyl group in relation to the rest of the molecule. Cellulose is made up of a very long chain of only Beta D Glucose molecules and starch is made up of alternating Alpha D Glucose and Beta D Glucose molecules.

The two hydrocarbon molecules have different properties and with only a brief exception, cellulose is of no use whatsoever to animals without it first being broken down into glucose by bacteria.

The way that biological systems break down molecules has a direct influence on what molecules can be formed as a result so it is entirely possible to determine that complex hydrocarbons found in crude oil are derived from sea creatures and not plants in the same way that it is possible to say that coal is derived from plants and not animals.

It is entirely true that the planet produces oil completely naturally on an ongoing basis, its just that on earth it takes a biological process to do it. The majority of hydrocarbon chemistry is not high temperature chemistry and in fact hydrocarbon moluecles tend to break appart at high temperature rather than form complex structures and the fact that lakes of oil may exist on Saturn's moon, Titan is more to do with the extremely low temperature and the non oxidising nature of the moons atmosphere

The fact that there is "too Much" oil in the middle east has a lot more to do with economic politics and declaired oil reserves and therefore the resulting price of oil than there being a bottomless pool of oil. Saudi Arabia has the same declaired oil reserves now as it did years ago and they have been extracting it at an alarming rate for years. If they make it look as though there isnt a lot left they can force the price up which is why I say that we should take them at their word and conserve the stuff and lessen the demand and so force the price down.

[neutron flux]

What people fail to talk about is the very real chance of a glacier rebound caused by melting glaciers diluting the northern atlantic ocean with fresh water which then changes the density of the water layers causing a disruption to the thermohaline current.

In a 2003 report (www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html), Robert Gagosian cites "rapidly advancing evidence [from, e.g., tree rings and ice cores] that Earth's climate has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past." For example, as the world warmed at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago, melting ice sheets appear to have triggered a sudden halt in the Conveyor, throwing the world back into a 1,300 year period of ice-age-like conditions called the "Younger Dryas."

Last month, for almost a week, the Gulf Stream ceased to flow northward to Europe. Go here: http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/ ... and scroll down to "Animations of the Gulf Stream velocities are here".

Click, and when the page loads, select "Last 26 weeks (Jan 23 21 bytes)" and observe. After the images load and the animation plays, you will see a short period of about a week between Dec 11th and 19th when the Gulf Stream actually stopped flowing toward Europe and flowed back South without completing its normal circuit.

The mainstream media fail to report on such things, I wonder why ;)

[bakedbogey]

The universe is so vast and powerful, how can we possibly have any influence on altering its course? Where nature is concerned, what will be, will be. Of course it makes sense to cut down on emissions and conserve energy - for our own health and own pocket. But it won't make the slightest difference to what will happen to the planet/universe.

It must be a godsend for the Chancellor to be able to play on our fears in such an ill-disguised 'noble' way. Now old Bush can see the error of his ways in not taxing his people earlier. Its all crap.

[misscpb]

I wonder what is going to be under all the ice when it has melted. I remember reading a book called Atlantis and it was fascinating and stated that the polar area's where never like that, maybe they are getting reading to return to their natural state and like other people have said, land shifts etc

[eternal_spirit]

Wasn't that many years ago the (experts) said the planet was heading towards an ice age.
We had some of the coldest winters on record.

Then we had some of the hottest summers on record.
The weather is chaos, seems man is playing a guessing game trying to predict and influence nature.

I don't know what to believe. Wouldn't be surprised if the Government try tax people for certain emmisions. So called "green taxes"

I can't figure out what anyone has to gain about lying about Global warming.

[jinjo5]

Thats a brilliant point well put,its only in the last few days that airlines have put thier prices up.But you still cant churn out loads of CO2 and expect nothing to change,climate wise.Maybe we are in the middle of a natural cycle,but i tend to think we are causing the problems.Nature is a delicately balanced thing.

[jinjo5]

If the gulf stream stops flowing to the UK(Northern europe) then we will have a little ice age of our own.Or is that scare tactics by the scientists.who knows?

[johnpeters]

I was told that just we have a solar year of 365 days, we have a sidereal year of just under 25000 solar years. This has 4 sidereal seasons of just over 6000 solar years. Apparantly we're coming into the sidereal summer and the heating of our sun and warming of planet earth is a natural occurance. In 6000 solar years we'll be going into the sidereal autumn and it will all start to cool down again.

The establishment are scaremongering to their advantage.

[notaslave]

Whatever comes out of the mouths of politicians you can be sure it is the opposite of truth.

[wgroarke]

Well thats very interesting and in all probability the HAARP is working overtime frying us all - but what about the human supersubconscious we all share -dont you think that is driving a real shift
Kind Regards
Liam

[misscpb]

I was told that just we have a solar year of 365 days, we have a sidereal year of just under 25000 solar years. This has 4 sidereal seasons of just over 6000 solar years. Apparantly we're coming into the sidereal summer and the heating of our sun and warming of planet earth is a natural occurance. In 6000 solar years we'll be going into the sidereal autumn and it will all start to cool down again.

The establishment are scaremongering to their advantage.

Hi John

Thats interesting, yes I agree also that it is all about scaremongering.

[dmessick]

John Peters I believe as Ed Mcmahon would say "You are correct sir"

Peace from america

[johnpeters]

At long last. I'm right about something!!!!! I've arrived lol...

[falseflag]

Recently on question time, Peter Hitchens suprisingly suggested that global warming was not a proven fact, he was then laughed at by the entire audience. This display proved beyond any doubt, that the public believe anything fed to them by the media. As I bet, not one person in that audience had done any independant or alternative research in to global warming. It showed the average Joe is totally reliant on the lies spread by the media.

[harpalchemist]

Listen,like many of us i'm sure,we have been doing our bit.I do all i can in this lifestyle,but you are missing the point.The truth has been withheld,once again,so we cannot make an informed decision.Those who know Gore is lying,probably were the first enviromentals aware of their generation,i know i was.But,they knew this would happen,why else would they be firing the ionosphere with trillions of watts of power.If tesla wasn't buried under patents,or the electric car wasn't sabotaged or general electric or jp morgan guilty of tearing up the global rail system,it probably would be a lot different.But,that don't change shit.Sure,i'm annoyed it came to this,but because of THE BIGGER PICTURE.Our solar system is changing,and suv's or anything else won't make a bit of difference.ITS ANOTHER SMOKESCREEN DESIGNED TO PULL AT THE HEART STRINGS TO HIDE THE REAL FACTS.This is another example of problem,reaction:solution.Are you getting it yet,or do you need some guru to say it first.Peace,after knowledge.

[houdini]

i got some strange looks in the dvd store the other day when i picked up a dvd that had a big chimney stack on the front cover.
it prob had something to do with me bursting out laughing when i'd flipped it over and saw Al Gore on the back cover.

falseflags post is good...there is no evidence that the warming is a proven fact, its just what they are telling us on the Muppet box.
with all the spraying that SEEMS to be going on in the skies around the globe tho, that surely has to be doing something up there,as well as what it COULD be doing to us.

[whitelightrabbit]

i'm not feeling gore at all. he has his own agenda even if he has a valid message. he plays the fear card too much.

as far as global warming is concerned, the weather is screwed everywhere, yet changing all the time. my grandfather measures the ocean temperature all the time and last year it was up 5 degrees from the previous year :eek: thats a big difference. anyway i only go by facts like that, not what the media tell me.

[starstainedglass]

When I was into green issues a few years ago, the political people did not give a toss whatsoever.
These days they are suddenly all over it like a rash.
Convieniently it is us who have to stop driving, using energy, pay more.
What about so and so billionaire in their private jet? And so and so billionaire in the massive mansion consuming more than us lot in our little cars put together probably.

[notaslave]

When Al Gore gets nominated for a Nobel "for his environment movie" you cna be sure as hell it's a load of bollocks.
There was a piece in the Sunday Telegraph saying they are using fiddled figures cant recall the url but if you go onto their site and type in christopher monckton you will see his articles with the "missing data".

[apemachine]

I agree with many of you. I don't believe it's man-made, and that global warming is natural. Like some of you already have pointed out, it's not just earth that is getting warmer, it's all the planets in our solar system. That alone is a very strong argument as to why we are not solely responsible.

A thing I'm noticing is that a lot of sheeps, err, I mean people, find this fact to be VERY hard to get into their brain-washed skulls. And I read an article today which quoted a high-ranked woman saying that remarks differing from the UN:s opinion about global warming is relative to anti-semitic thinking.. I guess they really don't want people to know the truth, oh, what a suprise eh? Haha..

[janeway]

As long as Nicola Tesla is denied I don't believe a word that Al Gore is saying.
We all know that there is free energy, we all know that there are undergorund cities all over the world connected with eachother with magnetic trains speeds up to 2 mach.
Did you see the movie: "who killed the electric car"?
And that man that is murdered who had a car driving on water.
These things all say enough.

I think they play this card because "the war on terror" is less popular and more and more people are speaking out against it; and now they have a new sucesfull moneyfiller and fearcreator "Global Warming".

I read somewhere, I really don't know where anymore, but they want a EU-law which makes denying Global Warming as punishable as denying "the holocaust".
And I read somewhere, perhaps DI-headlines: that the UK don't mention "War on Terror" anymore.

And indeed as someone before me puts it: where did we get that arrogance that we can influence mother earth, and father universe? (I leave the nuclear thing out of this). This is about CO2 mainly.
If the earth is not pleased with us, she will let us know, she has her own methods of doing that:)

I rest my case.

[markhowie]

As long as Nicola Tesla is denied I don't believe a word that Al Gore is saying.
We all know that there is free energy, we all know that there are undergorund cities all over the world connected with eachother with magnetic trains speeds up to 2 mach.
Did you see the movie: "who killed the electric car"?
And that man that is murdered who had a car driving on water.
These things all say enough.
I rest my case.

Aloha all
one to follow in the steps of Nicola Tesla was Henry Moray
you can read if you want:

The Sea of Energy in Which the Earth Floats
By T. Henry Moray, D. Sc.
at: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/moray5.htm
aparently his son is carrying on the same work
anybody any news..?


i personaly belive that the so-called powers that have controled this planet for the last 5 thousand years (if not more) have consiously kept humanity in the dark and that we are at least 150 /200 years behind in our proper phaze of evolution (or prosses).....
if they are so fanaticaly obsesed with keeping a genetic blood line then would they realy let us go beyond the point of no return as to global warming... for they to have decendents..... (is that a pertinant question...?)

Has the global warming been known about for so long as to chouse this path of "lower tecnologie" (poluting) as just another totalitarien tiptoe to one world gouvernement with marchal law (you know P.R.S.....)
"WE HAVE TO TAKE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU DISTROY YOURSELFS"

Personaly i feel that we could all become shamans
and collectivly consiously dream another illusion
(a right-nice-one )


>>> ,__o
>>_-\_<,
> (*)/'(*)
@+ mark (velo-man)

[pollock]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/09/polar.bears.scientists.reut/index.html

[cycle of eternity]

Natural Global Warming is the most ignorant thing i ever heard.

you seriously think burning gas from millions upon millions
of cars, factories, planes, trains ect.. have no affect
on the atmosphere?

take a birds eye view picture of L.A. and see people
choking in their OWN pollution they created hovering
over their heads. might of as well lock yourself in the
garage and leave the engine running. of course that's
exaggerating because we all know gas has oxygen in it.
go ahead and breathe it up, won't affect you.

Believing it's natural IS the government disinfo.

[kha zarr]

Natural Global Warming is the most ignorant thing i ever heard.

you seriously think burning gas from millions upon millions
of cars, factories, planes, trains ect.. have no affect
on the atmosphere?



Dont get me wrong, Im all for cleaning up dirty air and water. But Im not that sold on manmade global warming. Ill admit Im still making up my mind, but the case for it - its looking bad [the theory of it]. Check out 'the great global warming swindle' [google video it]. The measurement of tropospheric heat they did turned out to show less, not more heat, given the claim that increased CO2 from society, would trap more solar heat. By this assertion and others, they confidently show that manmade global warming is false. Dont feel like going into it all, check out the video. I was disappointed myself, that they didnt talk about real pollution in developed countries and its bad effects on health - but since its now political, its either 'yes its happening b/c of man, were all gonna bite it' or, 'no its not continue doing whatever we want' its another illusion, its more control....

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html [science of global warming saying 'not being possible to be manmade']

black body radiation definition [long, drawn out - but scientific]:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

Lets get talking on these science details, theyre important. If carbon is a 97% reflector of IR, and such a small increase in heat absorption occurs according to nov55 dot com, then how does that, from more added co2 [70-something percent of all atmospheric pollutants named as possible greenhouse gases], trap enough heat, for long enough, to heat up areas below where the co2 collects in the atmosphere, like the surface of the earth? No man-made global warming advocates [and few detractors] have clearly explained their positions, in a way that conforms and references sciences in a comprehensive manner. We need more explanations like Gary Novak's [nov55.com] or in the above documentary, they seem to make sense. Relying on taken-out-of-context science that fits the modeling, regardless of where it comes from, is irresponsible.

[kha zarr]

heres something interesting i just found out: [strong language/talk warning]

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/03/the_great_globa_1.html

the creator of the 'great global warming swindle' Martin Durkin, check out in this blog, the accusations of who he used to be involved in. What does it mean, I dunno, but it caught my eye some.

Again, what I said before - illusion-paradigm of politics of an issue [pollution of environment locally] to confuse people into two camps, for control [pollution is global and present risk to all life, give us control]. pro-manmade promoters say that, and pro-wasnt-manmade promoters say, dont worry about it, its a scam - to gain trust they might not deserve in other spheres [another control scheme in works?? what do ppl think of the above bloggers assertions about Durkin, in the way of this??]

The real issue is the direct impacts of pollution on human health and fully functional mental activity, imo.

[mada88]

If you have some ice cubes in your glass of drink and they melt does the water rise?
Its a global warning not global warming!

[loveforall]

i could not find the thread "An Inconvienent Goof" so ill post it here...

If you put yourself through that mind numbing swindle then i hope you would have noticed that al gore said something about "his good friend" cosmologist carl sagan. carl sagan wrote a book called "serpents of eden" (if i am wrong please correct me) and even DI says sagan knew a lot that he was not telling. gore according to some is a shape shifter, full blooded or plugged in, im not sure. serpent. shape shifter. anyone see the movie, remember him saying that?

[eternal_spirit]

i could not find the thread "An Inconvienent Goof" so ill post it here...

If you put yourself through that mind numbing swindle then i hope you would have noticed that al gore said something about "his good friend" cosmologist carl sagan. carl sagan wrote a book called "serpents of eden" (if i am wrong please correct me) and even DI says sagan knew a lot that he was not telling. gore according to some is a shape shifter, full blooded or plugged in, im not sure. serpent. shape shifter. anyone see the movie, remember him saying that?

Think Icke has quoted Sagans works before.......Put hand in the air to agree Global warming is a crock ( the official media version )

[notaslave]

Christopher Monckton's piece in the Telgraph November last year on Global Warming and basically figures fiddled. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml

[deca]

Global warming due to man is rubbish
this planet serface is 71% water
there so much rain forest,deserts mountain rages
we are mostly packed into towns and citys


Dry air is primarily made up of nitrogen (78.09%) and oxygen (20.95%). The remaining 1% is made up of argon (0.93%), carbon dioxide (0.03%) and other trace gases (0.003%). Water vapor (water in its gaseous state) is also present in air in varying amounts.

plants need co2

we showed worry about the other pollotion we pump out and also how we share use our natural resorces.
using less energy better and from renewable source working with our planet is what we should be doing.
paying more tax or using less and paying more for our energy.while thinking we are saving the planet is a joke.

sitck a glass of water in front of a fire(sun) then use a tiny bit of tin foil(co2) to add extra heat.

[seagiftsx]

Hi, I quite agee with Wave Warrior, yes indeed..changes coming no matter what..not sure I buy the global warming at all, and after all the ole govts usually several muddy feet ahead of us all, and leading us to believe one thing or another makes it just that much more simple to be sure we are lined up good and nicely, to march right where they want us..when things get ugly...however, networking can and will enlighten those who choose to see through all the crock. The next question, is the best way to go about see through the smoke and mirrors and not to end up in a 'wired encampment' and instead, begin the process of freedom within many new communites within a new society. After all once the cataclyms hit..regardless of where or what they are...the end result is whomever survives is going to need to have the knowledge ofhow to survive, grow food, etcand work together. It will come to that by and by from what Im seeing/reading.

[cruise4]

I agree... CO2 led Global Warming is rubbish. CO2 in atmosphere = 0.038% says a lot to me. All the planets seem to have some major influences going on. Probably the sun, but whats causing the sun change? Cosmic Gamma rays? I'd say CO2 doesn't matter at current levels and could go higher, the earth is not a closed system like a Greenhouse. Stuff their tax hikes.

Does anyone know if there are effects outside our Solar System?

Many different terms getting confused on this subject. Global warming, CO2 led Global Warming, Industry led Global warming, Pollution, Environmentalism, Climate change etc.
This makes telling others the facts difficult as half the time they don't know what their own position really is... you start talking about Global Warming and suddenly they are rabbiting about Pollution. Then you get labelled a Climate Change denier even though we believe in Climate change. Its all very odd.

Just read the http://www.holmestead.ca/index-ct.html site. Suggests Chemtrails are the governments fighting the increased Solar radiation which threatens the existence of the Human race. Don't know what to make of this yet.

[davidbarstis]

Yeah, Al Gore really cares about the environment. You would think that someone or the whole movement as a whole who is worried about carbon dioxide would also be concerned about the trees seeing as they are the best filters of air there is. Gore and Clinton was the first administration to deforest indian land here in the US. And does anyone realize how long it takes, for example, an oak tree to mature? Around 900 years yet these idiots think that cutting down trees and planting new ones is acceptable. Your getting rid of all those air filters and these people want stricter emissions on cars. Well, why not make the technology available where we can use the Earth's free energy around us? Why not more talk of stopping the deforesting of our planet. We know the answer to that.
I just saw a commercial last night here in the US that went on for 2 minutes where kids were talking about what they could do to stop global warming and how worried they were. One girl at the end started crying. I wanted to throw up. Holy brainwashing.
Do I believe the Earth is warming? Yes. But its not carbon dioxide. This planet has gone through many cycles. We're going through one again. I do believe we shouldn't pollute but I refuse to be taxed by the government or the UN on carbon emissions and big business keeps rolling and spewing out all types of toxins.
I know this global warming issue is catching on more and more but I am surprised by how many people I talk to don't belive it too much. I think most people on this planet do, but it's less than I thought. Thank goodness for that. It's just too bad how many people believe that putting cancer causing chemicals on your skin to block out the Sun is smart.

[pacoquerak]

Very important fact here, the earth's temperature has corusponded with CO2 as far back as we can read such things. Right now, co2 is almost twice what it ever has been. I can tell you that I see the global warming going on, the river I live near to has had 5 100 year floods in the past 7 years, (100 year flood meaning over 25 foot rise in a normaly 1-8 foot deep river). It is true that it is a natural cycle and that we are coming out of another ice age, but the CO2 is twice what it has ever been!

Who has anything to gain by adressing global warming? The only gain to be got is by dennying it and to keep on using fossil fuels, plus massive home apliances like refigerators, air conditioners, tv's ovens... Our society runs on conveniance and leasure and what for? When people in America and spreading throughout the world want to relax what do they do? They plop down in front of a green house gas spewing television and zonk out, ever letting their poor sensitive brains be warped by what they watch. Or they drown their depression in cooked food, which in almost all circumstances lowers the nutrient value of the food. How many people eat lots of vegtable? It should occur to people that by growing and eating vegtables you are actualy reducing green house gasses and helping to slow global warming. But not in this society, since the average food product travels 1500 miles to get to you.

Oil is the life blood of people like the Illuminati, the elite whatever, without it their control would be severly limmited. They would not have the power to decide what you eat, what you do for fun, relaxation, work. We are not suposed to be working for profit beyond all other consideration are we? What value does this merit and what values does it rub off on us as individuals?

I don't want to take from people, all I want to do is to give. This world is so sick and beset with unbalance that all I dream of achiving is to help to recreate some sort of balance. Doesn't it alarm you that someone would not have any true dreams of their own, except to restore good in the world? My personal dream is to have a farm in the tropics with loads of vegtables and different kinds of fish and animals and insects which help maintain the farm and feed me and all those who work with me +++ some pot growing so I can have a real escape instead of an alternate like TV. I don't want a different reality, I just want out.

What has oil offered us that is so imperative? The main reason it is used is that it's energy output is much greater than the input we do to make it. Does that make it good or worth use? Mabee in case of emergancy or in limmited use, but there are alternatives, which are inarguably much safer. Wind, solar and biofuel. The first car ran off electricity and the first combustion engine ran off hemp oil. Which brings me to another point. Hemp is much much more useful than oil will ever be. It replaces it, plus growing it will ensure that we never run out of farm land, restoring the vital nutrients it contains, replace lumber by an efficeny of 4 times, procure the protien that is needed by almost all starving people in the world and be a universal crop that can grow in any climate. But no, we better not do that cause people will get stoned all the time. Which do you think is worse? Go ahead, go back to sleep, drive you car every time you need to go out 5 miles or less (90 percent of all driving in the US), go ahead and zonk in front of that TV which produces more CO2 than air conditoners and refigerators combined, just go back to sleep and let the powers that be control the way you work, eat, relax, live your day to day lives.

Did anyone read little house on the prairy? poor people, living lives with very little comfort, but with rich deeply engrained values. This culture is the garbage culture, what do we make using oil of any use? Even the people that it produces are less useful by capita.

Oil is the blood of the reptilians.

[informationx]

I have not done enough personal research yet to know if it is a lie or the truth. However I will tell you my approach.

Q) Is it a good idea to pump millions of tons of nasty stuff into the air we need to breath each year?

A) No, silly idea.

Q) Is it a good idea to pump loads of crap into the water we need to drink?

A) Very silly idea.

Q) As an individual can I reduce my impact as regards to the above?

A) Yes I can, although I am a lazy bastard! lol :D

[cruise4]

"Very important fact here, the earth's temperature has corusponded with CO2 as far back as we can read such things"

Misleading statement... CO2 levels lag 800 years 'behind' Temperature increases.

"Right now, co2 is almost twice what it ever has been"

Not True.... CO2 has been as high as 5000 parts per million. Its currently approx. 380 parts per million.

"I can tell you that I see the global warming going on" Yes, but its because of Solar Activity not CO2.

We could cut CO2 emmissions to zero and achieve nothing, except money exchange from the poor to the already rich.

Then you link in Pollution which is a different issue.

CO2 is a Greenhouse gas... but NOT a significant one.

You CO2 led Global Warming people haven't looked at the data. You are 'repeaters'.

[informationx]

"Very important fact here, the earth's temperature has corusponded with CO2 as far back as we can read such things"

Misleading statement... CO2 levels lag 800 years 'behind' Temperature increases.

"Right now, co2 is almost twice what it ever has been"

Not True.... CO2 has been as high as 5000 parts per million. Its currently approx. 380 parts per million.

"I can tell you that I see the global warming going on" Yes, but its because of Solar Activity not CO2.

We could cut CO2 emmissions to zero and achieve nothing, except money exchange from the poor to the already rich.

Then you link in Pollution which is a different issue.

CO2 is a Greenhouse gas... but NOT a significant one.

You CO2 led Global Warming people haven't looked at the data. You are 'repeaters'.

Who's a repeater?

[pacoquerak]

there was that much co2 before there was a lot of life on the plannet.

But how how how does not having oil mean less money for the poor and more money for the rich? It is quite actualy the oposite, industrialism has relied on oil and has lowered the quality of life for people all over the world. What is so great about oil? And let's not forget all the coal that is poisoning our land and waters, much increasingly in china. And causing global warming. Hey, show me some real evidance that the other plannets are warming up as well, I would like to see them, because I have looked up the websites linked on this site and they did not seem to be based on any facts. Were these observed by some sort of a lander or something? how often do we even send those to anywhere but mars? Global warming is based on evidance, while this sun theory does not seem to be. Also, I am pretty positive that the sun works in much slower cycles than we can percive since the creation of man and the idea that it would start happening all of the sudon so rappidly seems pretty proposterous to me. Why aren't we hearing on the news "the sun sure keeps burning brighter and brighter, this last week the sun has been putting out another a googolplex candals, well that's fastenating nesws here's rick with sports"?

Because it's a lie.

Oh and the whole thing about not liking Gore, well the first time he ever apeared before congress it was adressing global warming. I hate fascist pigs as well, but when i'm getting fucked I at least like to get kissed too.

[cruise4]

I was referring to people that think CO2 is responsible for Global Warming as repeaters. Don't get me wrong and start calling me a Climate Change Denier, (What a NWO construction that phrase is), because I DO think the earth is Warming... just not from CO2.

Its the proposed Taxes based on CO2 led Global Warming that would move money from the poor to the rich.

You don't hear the truth on TV because the stations are controlled and tend to be used for Mind Control and NWO type propoganda. Seen any good 9/11 examinations on TV? No!

I agree with you informationx, but you are talking about Pollution, not Global Warming. As an individual I detest pollution and do all I can not to add to this problem, however its not really my problem, it stems from Greed and Carelessness. We need to tackle those that 'produce' the problem, not help cover it up. Why is food shipped half way across the world for example? Its certainly not for my benefit or my farmer neighbours benefit. I want British farmers growing natural food, local shops selling local produce, diversity when I walk down a high street. Corporation and Globalisation is the problem. If we elected Gardners instead of Psychopaths all this nonsense wouldn't happen.

Re. The Sun try these
http://www.convenient-lie.com/information.html#solar
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_art icle=1

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

I also just checked what the temperature was 800 years ago and apparently something called the Medieval Warm Period was about that time. I haven't researched this yet but given that CO2 levels show a lag of 800 years behind temperature rise, its potentially interesting. Could be bunk though.

Here's another idea... you tell me why you conclude CO2 is the cause of global warming and I'll respond accordingly.

One last point re. the sun. You could ask whats causing the sun to behave differently. Not sure but there are reports of Gamma ray emmissions and stuff which again I haven't got round to yet. Cycles are at work.

[davidbarstis]

Natural Global Warming is the most ignorant thing i ever heard.

you seriously think burning gas from millions upon millions
of cars, factories, planes, trains ect.. have no affect
on the atmosphere?

take a birds eye view picture of L.A. and see people
choking in their OWN pollution they created hovering
over their heads. might of as well lock yourself in the
garage and leave the engine running. of course that's
exaggerating because we all know gas has oxygen in it.
go ahead and breathe it up, won't affect you.

Believing it's natural IS the government disinfo.

I haven't see anyone in here say pollution was good for the environment. Don't see how thats the basis of your argument. Are you saying it is impossible for the Earth to naturally get warmer. That seems pretty ignorant. It's also ignorant to follow the same people who are polluting the air and the ones who want to centralize control of the environmental movement and tax the hell out of you for emitting greenhouse gases. It's ignorant to follow people who are going to make you pay and are poisoning you when they have the technology at their fingertips to end all this pollution. Instead of being worried about greenhouse gases why don't you stop polluting and become an activist to stop all the pollution instead of handing over your hard earned money to people to "solve" the problemn for you? How does any half intelligent person, believe what these people say when they are making money off of pollution? You think Al Gore stopped flying? How about Rothschild? They don't own factories and planes? You think they will tax themselves? If you're a meat eater, will you give up meat? The cattle industry the size that it is because of all the meat we eat, produces more CO2 than we do driving our cars. I'm not giving my money to these people to solve a non existing problem and if it were, they are the main contributors. Who in this forum owns a car making company or a plane or a factory or a train? I'd like to know how many people who are all of a sudden scared to death about global warming being caused by greenhouse gases, spent their lives aware of their lifestyle and the pollution they contributed? I bet not many. Now Al Gore, who likes to cut down trees on indian reservations, makes some stupid movie where data is manipulated and all the non ignorant people stop what they are doing and like good little sheep, start repeating the evidence that they heard but have not done the research to say differently. And we are the ignorant ones? LOL. What, the earth can't be polluted and be going through a natural cycle? If I start paying taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, the air will automatically get cleaner? Recycling is a joke because most of it does into landfills anyway. People just feel good about themselve because they put their plastic in a bin instead of the trash to let someone else solve the problem. Typical braindead mentallity. The least people can do before calling people ignorant, is to do a little research themselves. Or is observing that Los Angeles is polluted and that you can die by leaving your car running in the garage considered research? Can't wait for the book to come out.

[pacoquerak]

Hm, recycling for cash instead of throwing in the dumbster for loss of cash is a joke? The idea that it gets mixed into landfills is pecimistic myth. It must happen sometimes, but many many many clothes are made from recycled bottles in south america for practicaly nothing so boo you. I know that the earth is naturaly warming, this is fact, but it is not suposed to be increasing at this rate or even be anywhere near this level. Have you ever heard of the greenhouse effect? Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect or even better, let me show you an experiment where you can test to see if CO2 retains heat.

Get a few coffee cans, some vinegar, some baking soda, some kind of thermometer you can put in there withour letting out gas (there are sticky aquarium ones you can put on the outside) and a hot incandessant lamp. Shoot for 3 cans, fill them all with a good ammount of vinnegar (enough to heat up). One at a time mix one with a small ammount of baking soda, one with lots of baking soda and one with none at all and before mixing the next can heat the mixed can up using the lamp. Keep measuring the temperature until it heats no more, then remove the lamp and continue to measure the temperature until it is room temp. You will know which one held onto the heat the longest by timeing how long it took to cool down.

P.S. You fail to connect the fact that we don't need to be using all this oil to the fact that all this oil is what the powers that be are using to control us. Corn, wheat, soy and rice are grown using subsidized petro chemicals (fertalizer, pesticide and herbicide), harvested by tractors that run on subsidized oil, driven by trucks running on subsidized oil to refinery plants that are running on subsidized coal and oil procured flames and powered by subsidized power plants that run off of subsidized oil, coal and natural gas (natural gas produces a staggering 30% the ammount of CO2 of oil) trucked yet again by vehicles that run off subsidized oil to other factories that produce food product from the refined materials from the original factories with even more subsidized fossil fuels, sent by more trucks to packaging plants that package them in materials made from subsidized petro chemicals and then are trucked to distributing plants and finaly they actualy make it to trucks that are heading to the store in which they are bought by consumers who use their cars to drive there (90 percent of all driving in the states is to go no more than 5 miles) who get their fuel to go subsidized at the relatively low cost of about 3 bucks a gallon (some countries are as much as 3 times as costly) and live their lives driving to and from a work (likely one of these things!, except for the fact that much of this actualy takes place outside of the country in fascist countries set up by our government, the cia, facist generals, etc or in china, like I said before GREAT PLACE!) that they detest or subconsiously turn them into double speaking mind controled beasts and live happy lives to get this stuff, that you, you are actualy spending your tax dollars on to get all these things... and the fact that affter the invasion of Iraq, the increase in cost of oil has done nothing but lign the pockets of the people who are in control of it (Sodam WAS BAD CAUSE HE SOLD OIL CHEAP ARGH PISS ON THE ASHES THAT ARE HIS COUNTRY) And finaly the grand extravaganza finally, these things which are all indeed good and usable foods are processed into just about everything that the american population consumes, 80% YES EIGHTY PERCENT, that is what our taxes go into, things that aren't actualy good for anyone (actualy worse for you than almost all drugs, all but ludicrous inhalation of forign matter and just about anything else!), mostly high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oil, filler in oh so many products for thickening (gotta check those fucking labels) and various bleached grains and meals. GASP BEST SENTANCE EVER. The reality is, that it should not be controled by corporations who are given money by the government who gets it's money from you (and china) to sell it to you, because that's called fascism. It should be extremly scrutinized by the beurocracy of the world, because that is the only way it can be controled and it should not cost us a dime, except for the tax that is put upon it. We should not be pooring our money into increadibly unhealthy food and big oil industries, it should be going torwards things that are positive. The oil and food subsidies are actualy probobly the largest and most sinister conspiracies that exist (esspecaly considering that it fuels most of the other ones with cash) AND one final thought, all this money that comes from our taxes shows that the way that we produce food doesn't actualy cost any less than the hystorical way of growing food and making food, it just apears to in this gigantic canvas of fascism they have painted over the world. Besides, if you live near one, CSA's produce food and the one that I work at sells you a huge box of fresh vegtables (meaning they are much better for you) wheighing around 10 pounds for 20 bucks a week. This OWNS big oil and big food. There is the real conspiracy. We are doing all this global warming for no real reason, it is all the powers that be manipulating the world in the ways that they wish. ARGH when you right something like this man do you get the urge to kill many many people.
peace and love!

p.s. Cow's don't produce more CO2 than car's, they produce more methane..

[celtic isis]

Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

i was going to say this but wavewarrior beat me to it :) couldn't have put it better meself :)

more wealth and also to bring in the NWO to save on energy resources, to "save" the planet by "asking" or "suggesting" to us to surrender all our freedom in the name of combatting global warming, polution etc...oh yes this is the reality.

Global warming, cyclic warming is part of a natural process the earth goes through (see the book Cosmic Winter) however it's been made worse or escalated by polution and most people's sheer disregard and respect for our beautiful planet that is our only home. :rolleyes:

And boy does this make me sad.

[klinker]

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1694.cfm

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/wxwar.html

http://jerryesmith.com/

What have a learned about all this? In summary this is what I believe.

Global warming is a fraud.

Haarp facilities around the globe are being used to heat the ionosphere.

Chemtrails are used to alter/create weather fronts and reflect sunlight and possibly to detect energy signatures. They serve a variety of uses. The shit in them makes people ill but I am not sure if this is deliberate or simply a bonus for the NWO if the depopulation agenda is to be believed and I do believe this has been happening for many years.

The present weather changes on this planet are NOT the sole responsibility of chemtrails and haarp. All planets in our solar system are showing changes in their weather. This I believe is down to changes in our sun which in turn is being influenced by whatever else is happening in space at this time. The 26000 year cycle has already been mentioned. We are moving through space after all and something is kicking off out there.

[archangel]

From what I've read.

I do not think Global warming is a myth.

I'm sure some of it has to with too much C02

but the vast majority of it is happing from changes in our sun. Apparently all of the planets,moons,etc. in our solar system are heating up.

Nothing we can do about it.

So YES it is true but also FALSE because pollution is not the MAIN cause.

[breezei]

well this is the thing. theres this live earth going on. i think global warming is there but shit we cant do anything about it. so talking about and trying to do something about global warming is another scheme to take attention off of war. like man why isnt there free earth, and bands playing to stop war. people need to stop caring about that shit and just live they're life. because if you care about it that means you fear what its doing. if you just dont give a fuck you are neutral and then you can decide what you wanna do be negative or positive. so i see this attept to restore earth, a clause to keep the system running longer. so fuck that let global warming happen let people pollute the planet then it will make the cycle come by quicker and kill all those fucking idiots that help with the enslavement of humans . i see this cycle ending as a change and im going along with this change and going into a reality fit for me and others who want the same. the people that fear the global warming will only be put back into this reality to live in further remorse.

[klinker]

My understanding is that the oceans produce enough CO2 to make humankind's CO2 output look like a spit into the same ocean. The whole fraud is just another agenda to screw us over.

We need to drop the phrase 'global waming'.

[pacoquerak]

Did anyone read what I said? I set all the proof in front of you that global warming is at least somewhat caused by man, you don't have any proof that the sun is brighter than it used to be and that the other planets are warming up. In fact, the sun is at the stage where it is gradualy cooling down, until it turns into a pretty cool red giant. Seriously, read what I said before, or prove me wrong, no one has come anywhere close, you are just voicing your close minded opinions.

Also, the oceans turn CO2 into oxygen... the only reason why it doesn't is cause of all the nitrogen we dump into it

[lottie]

My understanding is that the oceans produce enough CO2 to make humankind's CO2 output look like a spit into the same ocean. The whole fraud is just another agenda to screw us over.

We need to drop the phrase 'global waming'.

I think the PC term is 'Climate Change'!!! :rolleyes:

[klinker]

Did anyone read what I said? I set all the proof in front of you that global warming is at least somewhat caused by man, you don't have any proof that the sun is brighter than it used to be and that the other planets are warming up. In fact, the sun is at the stage where it is gradualy cooling down, until it turns into a pretty cool red giant. Seriously, read what I said before, or prove me wrong, no one has come anywhere close, you are just voicing your close minded opinions.

Also, the oceans turn CO2 into oxygen... the only reason why it doesn't is cause of all the nitrogen we dump into it

Hang on a minute tiger. How do you know who to believe? What evidence have you given us that is not NWO sponsored? Personally I believe that no matter what we believe we're pretty much done for if 2012 will be anything to go by. Prove your information is correct please because before the global warming media propaganda bullshit started the news on the street for many years was that the sun was getting hotter as is the case with all suns before they start to implode. This news existed before it was considered useful to try and frighten us and manipulate any facts to suit their purposes so I am inclined to believe this more than the most recent 'facts'.

Please remind me how we dump nitrogen into the sea.

[ho1ogram]

The ABC website has a discussion forum on the topic: http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Board.aspx?b=89

For people in Australia The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary is on telly tomorrow night, ABC 8.30 pm.

[celtic isis]

From what I've read.

I do not think Global warming is a myth.

I'm sure some of it has to with too much C02

but the vast majority of it is happing from changes in our sun. Apparently all of the planets,moons,etc. in our solar system are heating up.

Nothing we can do about it.

So YES it is true but also FALSE because pollution is not the MAIN cause.

yep that's it, is IS happening just not soley the way they're saying it's happening.

[klinker]

I think the PC term is 'Climate Change'!!! :rolleyes:

Thanks Lottie. ;)

[pacoquerak]

first before you consider my belife in global warming, question your own belife in the sun. Our sun will never explode, it will keep growing larger and hotter for 10 billion years until it reaches the stage where helium fusion occurs. Then it will expand into a huge red giant, push earth outward while burning off all of the earth's water and oxygen. Then it will expand so far that it's gases will start to orbit it rather than be an active part of it and a tiny extremly hot white dwarf will form that will be hotter than our sun is now for a very long time as it gradualy cools. But the key here is we have 10 billion years. Do you know how long it would take you to count from one to a billion? 32 years. The sun is not gonna change that rapidly my friend, a human year to any time passed on the sun as far as the way it changes is a pretty big joke. Just because of how friggin big the sun is it is in a relatively stable cycle man. All the variables get averaged out.

We dump nitrogen into the sea by allowing all over the world for human and animal waste as well as top soil to be washed out of the land and into the ocean. Try googleing "dead zone gulf of mexico" there is a section in the gulf I think the size of new jersey and steadily growing where almost no life except for a very slight bacteria population can live. What does this bacteria population consist of? Little critters who consume waste and oxygen and turn it into less harmful waste and CO2. Then there are less common bacteria who turn those wastes into inert material and they exist with the smallest ammount of oxygen of anything and actualy live inside of rocks and under several inches of sediment, but of course are extremly fradgil and suseptable to essentialy overdose of what they live off of. We live in a delicate ecosystem.

Even if you don't belive in global warming, the combination of the fact that there is climate change going on in the world and the polution and misuse that we abuse here will result in the destruction of most species of life on the plannet. I reiterate, as before, fighting against global warming theorists only serves whether it is true or not the powers that be, not the average joe, not you nor I. This is enviroment as well as human society in decline. Good night, I hope everyone can stay positive in this hectic world.

[klinker]

first before you consider my belife in global warming, question your own belife in the sun. Our sun will never explode, it will keep growing larger and hotter for 10 billion years until it reaches the stage where helium fusion occurs. Then it will expand into a huge red giant, push earth outward while burning off all of the earth's water and oxygen. Then it will expand so far that it's gases will start to orbit it rather than be an active part of it and a tiny extremly hot white dwarf will form that will be hotter than our sun is now for a very long time as it gradualy cools. But the key here is we have 10 billion years. Do you know how long it would take you to count from one to a billion? 32 years. The sun is not gonna change that rapidly my friend, a human year to any time passed on the sun as far as the way it changes is a pretty big joke. Just because of how friggin big the sun is it is in a relatively stable cycle man. All the variables get averaged out.

We dump nitrogen into the sea by allowing all over the world for human and animal waste as well as top soil to be washed out of the land and into the ocean. Try googleing "dead zone gulf of mexico" there is a section in the gulf I think the size of new jersey and steadily growing where almost no life except for a very slight bacteria population can live. What does this bacteria population consist of? Little critters who consume waste and oxygen and turn it into less harmful waste and CO2. Then there are less common bacteria who turn those wastes into inert material and they exist with the smallest ammount of oxygen of anything and actualy live inside of rocks and under several inches of sediment, but of course are extremly fradgil and suseptable to essentialy overdose of what they live off of. We live in a delicate ecosystem.

Even if you don't belive in global warming, the combination of the fact that there is climate change going on in the world and the polution and misuse that we abuse here will result in the destruction of most species of life on the plannet. I reiterate, as before, fighting against global warming theorists only serves whether it is true or not the powers that be, not the average joe, not you nor I. This is enviroment as well as human society in decline. Good night, I hope everyone can stay positive in this hectic world.

Yes indeed there is climate change. There is always climate change and there always will be climate change, certainly for the next few billion years until the earth is no more. Our impact on this climate change is negligible imo. Gaia can take care of herself. We are just the ticks on the elephants arse. Our thinking is always around the climate changing to something other than what suits our being able to live here comfortable. How arrogant of us.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a separate issue and does have a negative effect on localised ecosystems.

[intuition]

Maybe global warming and the idea that the sun is warming up are both frauds.Like opposites in the argument like Mr icke says.We are given two options and that makes us think that one is surely true, so people like ourselfs that are more aware pick the less likely one.Maybe its a front for countries to start using weapons that cause earthquakes etc to other countries without the public knowing.

[lightbeing]

I tell you what, I'm sick to fooking death hearing the term 'carbon footprint', what a load of windy bollocks!!;):(:D

[2503]

I havent read through the entire thread so i dont know if anyone else has posted a similar comment.

We 'know' that the powers that be use PRS and divide and conquer in order to help them establish their goals.

Muslims v Christian
East v West
and so on

What i dont understand is why let programmes like the great global warming swindle air, they have control and they could just supress all this information in the mainstream media like with the 9/11 truth campaign. Unless they wanted to create two opposites and what greater battle than the well being of our home planet.

[legaata]

Ok, so we have HAARP, ELF waves, microwaves, SCALAR Weaponry, and what not....

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

Al Gore is no more than a big shitty hoax.
Here's the proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M

[klinker]

Al Gore is no more than a big shitty hoax.
Here's the proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M

Totally. Hey Al if you promote the global warming bullshit for us we will make you president.

[kblood]

Some of you say that there is lot of proof that global warming caused by CO2 is a lie and all that. Some even say that people believing in CO2 is causing global warming isnt doing enough research on it and repeating what the media is saying :confused:

Please do some proper research yourselves before thinking and writing, that we cant cause changes in the earths global ecosystem. Long before Al Gore made his documentary about global warming it was bussing around now and then. There have been articles about global warming several years before Al Gore made that documentary. I think Al Gore is a very good example about how the best lies is 90% true or more. In fact, I believe the documentary Al Gore has made about global warming is more than just 90% true. Of course Al Gore has his own agenda doing this. If he ever becomes president, he will probably get very rich due to co2 restriction acts, but that is really another story altogether.

I watched "The Global Warming Swindle" and thought "Omg, how could I have been so naive?". I also thought, "I knew that Al Gore was doing too good a job of convincing us!". I had to know the truth and I did my own research. I wanted to see if I could find some good articles disproving CO2 causing global warming, and why everyone believes it to be true.

One of my finds was this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

One of the facts that makes the global warming swindle look like a deception to stop us from worrying about CO2 is that they have changed one of the graphs showing warmth causing CO2 instead of being related directly to it. Their graph taken from NASA, shows rising in CO2 comes 10 years after the warmth going up, but the thing is the graph used in the show isnt the same as the graph they claimed to have gotten from NASA. It has been changed. CO2 and warmth on that graph is not seperate by 10 years in either direction.

The same might go for the graph used in "The Inconvinient Truth". There are also doubt about it being true. Im thinking Al Gore and those making the graph wanted it to show the global warming threat to be closer to us than it is. Probably to have people vote for him at the next election so he can become President next time around :rolleyes:

Still I see what he has done as bending the truth, and not just telling a lie. Americans doesnt always seem to be the smartest of people, so I actually dont even blame Al Gore for doing so. It was human of him (or reptillian? :P).

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

This page is so filled with facts trying to make us look away from the fact that CO2 is causing global warming that it is quite laughable. If you try to research the background of this homepage/organisation and the people behind the site and its "research", you will find that it is funded by Exxon Mobile. They are a front for or a company that get its money from fossile fuels. One of their articles even concludes that CO2 is in fact needed to solve some of our problems :D Really... thats where I realised what a waste of time it was for me even trying to read and understand all it said. They claimed that since plants use CO2, we would need more CO2 to increase plant wellfare on our planet and then we would be able to make enough food for our growing population. That solution is quite laughable... but also a bit sad that they would propose to keep polluting as a solution :P After this it didnt take me long to figure out they were probably funded by a company like Exxon, which I found evidence off shortly after.

Wether global warming is caused by Co2 or wether it will cause water levels to rise isnt really the point imo. I dont see what the downside is to just try to limit your Co2 outlets :P I would think that if goverments ought to help reduce Co2, then why not reward the companies making the best progress towards reducing how much Co2 they let out?

Still Im not sure wether it is simple too late to prevent water rising to happen. I myself dont stress it too much. I have always liked to use renewable energy. Rechargeable batteries and energy efficient lightbulbs makes for most of what I have done even before I was aware of the global warming. Many ways of avoiding Co2 actually makes you save money in the end. I dont have any car atm and therefore mostly use public transportation, but when I get one I will try to look for a car that doesnt use much gas per km2, or maybe even a car driving on H... is it brint in english? or maybe one of those hybrid cars. Still it will depend somewhat on what it will cost me to do it :( When you make the choice of buying a new car, then I hope you will focus as much or more on effectiveness, rather than "coolness" and how much power it has got under the hood. Of course I understand when someone simply cant afford a car that is effective, but giving it a thought wouldnt hurt you.

So to all you that dont believe we can affect the global eco system, try looking into how much the world has changed since we became the most powerfull beings on the planets(well, one of the most powerfull at least). We are able to make weapons now that would be able to shatter great parts of the planet. We have caused great areas to simply die by rerouting rivers for our own benefit. Think it being ridiculess that Co2 makes up much less than 1% of the atmosphere, but try considering how great these numbers are. 0,0001% of the atmosphere is not just a glass of water. It is probably so much that one person couldnt lift it if it was compressed to a solid cube. might not even be able to reach around it. So if we have changed the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere by 0,002 percent or something, I am quite certain that it has a great effect on the ecosystem.

Thats my food for thought. Peace out :)

[binhdinh_khiwarrior]

i dunno the weather is changing...i reckon pollution has a massive hand in it

[cruise4]

Some of you say that there is lot of proof that global warming caused by CO2 is a lie and all that. Some even say that people believing in CO2 is causing global warming isnt doing enough research on it and repeating what the media is saying :confused:

They are repeating what the media is saying .

Please do some proper research yourselves before thinking and writing, that we cant cause changes in the earths global ecosystem.

"earths global ecosystem" You've changed the subject.

Long before Al Gore made his documentary about global warming it was bussing around now and then. There have been articles about global warming several years before Al Gore made that documentary. I think Al Gore is a very good example about how the best lies is 90% true or more. In fact, I believe the documentary Al Gore has made about global warming is more than just 90% true. Of course Al Gore has his own agenda doing this. If he ever becomes president, he will probably get very rich due to co2 restriction acts, but that is really another story altogether.

Its bollocks.

I watched "The Global Warming Swindle" and thought "Omg, how could I have been so naive?". I also thought, "I knew that Al Gore was doing too good a job of convincing us!". I had to know the truth and I did my own research. I wanted to see if I could find some good articles disproving CO2 causing global warming, and why everyone believes it to be true.

One of my finds was this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Wikpedia:D

One of the facts that makes the global warming swindle look like a deception to stop us from worrying about CO2 is that they have changed one of the graphs showing warmth causing CO2 instead of being related directly to it.

Can't even understand the above sentence.
650 million years of Ice Core data shows an 800 year lag. Temperature rises, then 800 years later so does CO2. It might even help cool the planet.

Their graph taken from NASA, shows rising in CO2 comes 10 years after the warmth going up, but the thing is the graph used in the show isnt the same as the graph they claimed to have gotten from NASA. It has been changed. CO2 and warmth on that graph is not seperate by 10 years in either direction.

Can't understand the above sentence either but I think...
You are talking short term. You can show anything in isolation. It can take 1000 years for the ocean to propogate out temperature changes. Do you think Volcanoes, Brush fires, weapons tests and a multitude of other events are irrelevant.

The same might go for the graph used in "The Inconvinient Truth". There are also doubt about it being true. Im thinking Al Gore and those making the graph wanted it to show the global warming threat to be closer to us than it is. Probably to have people vote for him at the next election so he can become President next time around :rolleyes:

He wanted to lie and knew he was lying.

Still I see what he has done as bending the truth, and not just telling a lie. Americans doesnt always seem to be the smartest of people, so I actually dont even blame Al Gore for doing so. It was human of him (or reptillian? :P).

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp

This page is so filled with facts trying to make us look away from the fact that CO2 is causing global warming that it is quite laughable. If you try to research the background of this homepage/organisation and the people behind the site and its "research", you will find that it is funded by Exxon Mobile. They are a front for or a company that get its money from fossile fuels. One of their articles even concludes that CO2 is in fact needed to solve some of our problems :D

The people who will be most hurt by this CO2 bollocks is the poor of Africa.
Do not think I approve of Petro chemical companies.


Really... thats where I realised what a waste of time it was for me even trying to read and understand all it said. They claimed that since plants use CO2, we would need more CO2 to increase plant wellfare on our planet and then we would be able to make enough food for our growing population. That solution is quite laughable... but also a bit sad that they would propose to keep polluting as a solution :P After this it didnt take me long to figure out they were probably funded by a company like Exxon, which I found evidence off shortly after.

You've changed the subject to Pollution which we all want to do something about. Its the cause thats important. Why? Because they intend to tax us to fund their one world government as oppose to fixing their greedy, planet raping, polluting, slave ways. If they are so worried by CO2 why is the Amazon rain Forest being felled as quick as possible?

Whether global warming is caused by Co2 or wether it will cause water levels to rise isnt really the point imo. I dont see what the downside is to just try to limit your Co2 outlets :P I would think that if goverments ought to help reduce Co2, then why not reward the companies making the best progress towards reducing how much Co2 they let out?

Put some ice cubes in a glass of water. Mark the level. When they have melted has there been a level rise? This is known as Archimedes principle.

Still Im not sure wether it is simple too late to prevent water rising to happen. I myself dont stress it too much. I have always liked to use renewable energy. Rechargeable batteries and energy efficient lightbulbs

Do you know what energy efficient lightbulbs have in them and how they are made and how they are disposed of?

makes for most of what I have done even before I was aware of the global warming. Many ways of avoiding Co2 actually makes you save money in the end. I dont have any car atm and therefore mostly use public transportation, but when I get one I will try to look for a car that doesnt use much gas per km2, or maybe even a car driving on H... is it brint in english? or maybe one of those hybrid cars.

So to save mostly meaningless CO2 emmissions you are going to buy a new car. And you talk about Pollution.

Still it will depend somewhat on what it will cost me to do it :( When you make the choice of buying a new car, then I hope you will focus as much or more on effectiveness, rather than "coolness" and how much power it has got under the hood. Of course I understand when someone simply cant afford a car that is effective, but giving it a thought wouldnt hurt you.

So to all you that dont believe we can affect the global eco system,

"global eco system" You have changed the subject again.

try looking into how much the world has changed since we became the most powerfull beings on the planets(well, one of the most powerfull at least). We are able to make weapons now that would be able to shatter great parts of the planet. We have caused great areas to simply die by rerouting rivers for our own benefit.

Now you are 'starting' to look at the wider issues.

Think it being ridiculess that Co2 makes up much less than 1% of the atmosphere, but try considering how great these numbers are. 0,0001% of the atmosphere is not just a glass of water. It is probably so much that one person couldnt lift it if it was compressed to a solid cube. might not even be able to reach around it. So if we have changed the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere by 0,002 percent or something, I am quite certain that it has a great effect on the ecosystem.

What is the basis for your guess? CO2 comprises about 380ppm (0.038%). Its been as high as 5000 parts per million. Slightly unfair comparison but you get the point I'm sure.

Thats my food for thought. Peace out :)

Do one hell of a lot more research. Start here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

You may want to sign the petition mentioned here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707Environmentalists.htm

Most data points to the Sun being the culprit (and that doesn't mean the sun is getting hotter...research Flares, radiation, Cloud Formation etc.) when it comes to Global Warming... not man. Sorry to be harsh but I'm sick of this manipulative false science. Its very dangerous for us all.

[cruise4]

What do we make of this article?

Global Warming Deception – Part III

Klaus Müller
Epoch Times
Monday June 11, 2007

This is the third in a series of three articles. Please also read Global Warming Deception—Part I and Global Warming Deception—Part II

During the last century an Austrian politician and dictator was supposed to have said that a lie becomes believable if repeated often enough.

How often have we all heard or read the mantra "Greenhouse Effect?" It has become our constant fear-inducing companion and has metamorphosed into one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

In retrospect, in considering the CO2 fraud, the most absurd of all absurdities is the so-called Greenhouse Effect—because it defies any basis in physics and is thus easily discredited.



The Traditional Greenhouse Theory
This theory assumes that the temperature inside a greenhouse, within its glass walls, rises when the sun's heat waves pass through the glass, heating the air. The heated air rises to the roof where it is prevented from escaping, thus warming the space. This represents the greenhouse effect theory in a nutshell.

This is Newton's Law of Cooling, which depends on some type of limiting boundary (the glass greenhouse) to operate. At night, natural heat loss occurs by convection and conduction through the glass, also according to Newton's Law.

The Swedish Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius built a greenhouse in 1896 to predict future ice ages. He proposed that the heat buildup in a greenhouse was based on the concentration of CO2, which he believed enveloped heat. Almost all scientists, particularly leading German scientists from the Kaiser Wilhelm-Max Planck Institute, as late as 1970, considered this random speculation.

Using Arrhenius' model, all greenhouse operators could merely add additional CO2 to their greenhouses and they could turn off or use smaller space heaters during the cold seasons!

However, scientific treatises and scientifically "correct" colleagues at the "Club of Rome" have since revisited this theory, bringing it back to life.


Greenhouse Reality
The so-called and actually perceivable greenhouse effect in a real greenhouse can thus only be attributed to a lack in air exchange (convection). Replacement of warm air by cold air does not readily happen. That is the reason a greenhouse cools down slower than the surrounding area, thus behaving exactly according to Newton's Law. That's all there is!

Besides, a greenhouse effect presumes a closed system, which simply does not fully exist in a greenhouse and certainly not with planet Earth. There is no definable border from the Earth to the cosmos—in the final analysis both are part of the same system.

That is why the "natural Greenhouse Effect" does not exist.


Water Vapor or CO2?
According to research, water vapor accounts for two-thirds of the ongoing heat absorption on Earth. Just like a blanket of clouds. Nevertheless, according to calculations by the U.N.'s IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) this process is not happening. Since the IPCC panel deems the effect of water vapor simply too difficult to calculate and predict, they must call on other culprits, foremost CO2, but also CO, ozone and fluorocarbons.

To be blunt, it appears that two-thirds of the hypothetically assumed Greenhouse Effect's factors are not taken into consideration. Since they do not appear in any calculations, they make for an easy conclusion by anyone with a sound mind.


CO2—Catching Minos in a Shark's Net
Why is it that CO2 or other gases cannot contribute to heat absorption? CO2 does have the potential to store heat, but there is another consideration which collapses the reasoning behind the CO2 Greenhouse Effect. There is this law of physics: liquid or solid bodies, i.e. oceans, clouds and earth, emit and absorb energy via a spectrum of rays. Gases such as CO2 can only selectively absorb or emit energy, a fact easily verifiable in any elementary chemistry textbook.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Greenhouse Effect does not exist; neither in a garden greenhouse nor on Earth. To put it more directly—even if the atmosphere consisted of 100% CO2, the Earth's atmosphere would be unable to heat up as claimed; it is impossible according to the law of physics. So, that leads to another principle of physics.


The ABCs of Physics
Certain elements are heavier than air, and others are lighter than air. Some elements rise, like a helium balloon at a carnival, having a molecular weight of 4. Others descend, such as CO2 which has a molecular weight of 44, while air is only 29. That means CO2 naturally concentrates near the ground, where plants can derive nourishment.

By contrast, in the upper atmospheric regions where CO2 is accused of wreaking havoc, the CO2 concentration lowers to under 10 ppmv (parts per million by volume). These findings were discussed extensively in the 1980s in the journal Nature when it was still possible to publish such research results.

In a nutshell, the CO2 shell Arrhenius had postulated does not exist. CO2, for all intents, does not exist in the atmosphere where people imagine the Greenhouse Effect to be.


What is CO2's significance in the atmosphere?
As discussed in a prior article, CO2 constitutes a mere 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. Human CO2 production accounts for a mere 3 percent of the total CO2. Then what influence would we notice if worldwide CO2 levels were reduced by 10 or 20 percent? Such a reduction would have no effect whatsoever, since given the Earth's age, the portion of CO2 is uniquely low; during other Earth ages it was much higher. Actually, during the carbon era, our Earth saw a value as high as 6,000 ppmv. Yet life continues.


Entitled to Know Reality
The environmental political debate for a reduction of CO2 is a distant Utopian goal. In actuality, for over a decade, hysterics about climate changes have brought no practical solutions. An actual reduction is actually undesirable, but the menacing specter has to be kept alive.

All this continues, despite the 2003 Berlin Ministry of Ecology's pronouncement regarding CO2, "…such scenarios are not prognoses, but merely a broad spectrum of assumptions for future developments and their accompanying influences affecting global climate."

They conveniently left the back door wide open.

[chandrakavi]

i dunno the weather is changing...i reckon pollution has a massive hand in it


I feel pollution has always had a hand in it too.
David Icke has said that it is not Global warming it is pollution.

Also the fact that Al Gore made a movie about this, is not to create concience, he as a politician, wants to USE this so his team will make him President. I don't fall for that.

[kblood]

What do we make of this article?

Global Warming Deception – Part III

Klaus Müller
Epoch Times
Monday June 11, 2007


Try finding something that is prior 1990 please. Just being from 2007 makes it very likely that someone paid him to tell a believable lie. Same goes for alot of the CO2 babble ofc, but I believed this before Al Gore made his documentary about it.

3% of CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of us? And that doesnt seem like it could change the way our ecosystem works?

I can understand you might not believe pollution to be the main factor in global warming, but to disregard it seems stupid to me. Sorry for saying so, but most the anti CO2 I have found have proved to come indirectly from fossil fuel lobbiests or others with their kind of interests.

[cruise4]

Obviously too difficult to argue the science and facts then?

Its not a case of what I believe, its what real scientists from many sources say and their data, that matters. You really should look into this, and stop spending so much time looking a fuel lobbyist websites.

3% of 0.038ppm = 0.00114ppm

I'm sure even you can see this is becoming a ridiculously small amount.
I take that back... I'm not sure.

PS. Did you sign the petition?

[randyt]

Lu Tse,

I salute you. I can read from your posts that you have done your research.

To those who have posted in this tread and (still) think that global warming is just a "cosmic thing or change that occurs every x-thousand years" or a "scare-you-into-paying-higher-taxes tactic" I would like to recommend the following book - The Last Hours Of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/chapter.shtml

Keep in mind that the so called elite have nothing to gain from scaring people with global warming gibberish. Even if they manage to do this it would be FUTILE because once they have gotten everybody "really scared" and once they have "collected all those taxes", they are going right down with the ship - and they know this.



Randy

[cruise4]

Rather than post recommendations to buy a book that I assume you have read, why don't you post your actual points. That way we can agree or disagree with you and discuss accordingly.

I am not intending to buy books on the basis that you say nothing about them.

[cruise4]

After a quick look around the web I came across this article. Having not read the book I don't know if it accurately presents his case or not.

http://www.foundation.bw/OnThomHartmann.htm

Assuming it does...
First Off... this has nothing to do with 'CO2 led' Global Warming which is what the debate has been about.

"Keep in mind that the so called elite have nothing to gain from scaring people with global warming gibberish. Even if they manage to do this it would be FUTILE because once they have gotten everybody "really scared" and once they have "collected all those taxes", they are going right down with the ship - and they know this."

They have everything to gain from scaring people with 'CO2 led' GW issues. Its another way to tax everyone on many aspects of our lives and therefore get more money to spend on Black economy projects such as Underground Bunkers, or weapons to cull the population with.

How this book relates to 'going down with the ship' I have no idea. I have seen nothing here that suggests the planet is about to disappear.

The book appears to have everything to do with running out of Oil, a subsequent population crisis and the need to return to a more agrarian society... something I whole-heartedly agree with and think we should be doing already.

The reason this is unlikely to happen is due to the nature of those in positions of power and their need to retain control, which has always been based on utilising Public Resources for Private personal gain.

So quite what,

"To those who have posted in this thread and (still) think that global warming is just a "cosmic thing or change that occurs every x-thousand years" or a "scare-you-into-paying-higher-taxes tactic"

has to do with anything I have no idea. I hope you can enlighten me.

[kblood]

Obviously too difficult to argue the science and facts then?

Its not a case of what I believe, its what real scientists from many sources say and their data, that matters. You really should look into this, and stop spending so much time looking a fuel lobbyist websites.

3% of 0.038ppm = 0.00114ppm

I'm sure even you can see this is becoming a ridiculously small amount.
I take that back... I'm not sure.

PS. Did you sign the petition?

What petition? The one at the one on this thread? I think I did, but I will recheck after writing this :)

Problem is that the publications I have found on this seems to have been linked to lobbyists... Your last link was written by a german, and therefore I havent been able to check his credibility yet. I will try see what I can find on his books instead.

As for 0.00114ppm being a small amount... My guess it that it could easily fill a house or two. Correct me if im wrong. Is that amount the amount we have caused to be in the atmosphere now, or the amount we believe to have caused over time in the last few years?
(Edited:) Guess you can see that it might be a big amount. I cant say I know for sure either, but 3% considering how much is caused by nature, seems alot.

Scientifical data depends alot on what the one who is making the data and how they are laid out for us. As far as I know Nasa believes greenhouse gasses are affecting how much heat stays in the atmosphere. All data on it now is likely affected by lobbyiests though, since so much earnings depend on it for countries and nations, not just fossil fuel companies alone. Im not saying that there cant be other reasons for global warming than CO2, just that it seems very likely that it plays a role.

[kblood]

More thoughts on why lobbyism can play a huge factor on where the global debate on global warming goes:

Most countries got alot of their taxes due to taxation on fossil fuels, and most countries got debt as well. Here in my country the state gets 50% of everything we buy. It is probably less in other countries. In the US companies like Exxon got powerfull lobbyiests. The movie "Thank you for smoking" is great for giving an insight into lobbyism, and it is quite fun as well. Also I think many have heard about how powerfull the farmers lobbyiests are in Europe. (Sorry about the spelling errors :o ) In the EU our farmers produce too much food because they get funded by the EU to grow crops even the farmers might know for sure that cant be sold. Probably being adjusted, but has caused a few problems.

In the end problem is how the money flow goes. Countries would earn alot more money for the state on higher taxation on Co2. I hope they dont try to "solve the problem" by doing this. At the same time they would also loose alot of money if the population starts using hybrid cars instead, since they use less fuel and therefore might be taxed in other ways. If we change to cars that drives on hydrogen, then there will probably come a taxation on hydrogen used as fuel and might be something that the countries could agree to. I hope at least. Still this technology is very new and probably havent been introduced in most countries. Pro side to hydrogen cars is how the only exhaustion is water :D

[cruise4]

"Im not saying that there cant be other reasons for global warming than CO2, just that it seems very likely that it plays a role."

This is the thing kblood, it does 'sound' very likely but the science just doesn't back it up and i've looked really really hard.

I don't think Global Warming isn't happening...

its just the CO2 cause I have issue with, because my research strongly suggests its Sun activity... which makes a lot of sense as well.

0.00114ppm refers to the 'total' of man's contribution to the atmoshere. Trees, animals and Ocean's are far bigger contributors to CO2 than we are (proviso... that the earlier post I made is correct). 0.038ppm 'includes' what nature contributes. Its 'all' the CO2 in the atmoshere.

"Scientifical data depends a lot on what the one who is making the data"
You are totally correct, thats why you must check everything from multiple sources where possible.

I know you've seen one of these videos but the other one on this page is also worth seeing:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

This is a really good page as an introduction to all this... many sources.

Just seen your other post:

In the EU our farmers produce too much food because they get funded by the EU to grow crops even the farmers might know for sure that cant be sold.

This is the problem with 'subsidies'. farmers are paid to either grow silly crops or not grow at all. In the UK we suffer with the latter. EU policies are mad. They are part of the NWO and this could well turn out to be part of a tactic to starve us.

In relation to hybrid or hydrogen. Free energy 'may' have been invented years ago, but I cannot prove this. Whats going on is, the governments have gone into partnership with the bankers. This has occurred throughout the world bar a handful of countries, most of whom the US are at war with. When you understand how banks operate you will come to realise that what we think goes on with money couldn't be further from the truth.

Governments are now criminal organisations who are robbing us all blind and funnelling money into black ops, their pensions and salaries for the boys. The Police are used as patsies to enforce the collection and armies are sent into battle for no other reason than to fund both sides and make a killing (profit wise).

Now you may think this sounds ridiculous. But after you've researched everything I mention here you will see this is actually the mad truth.

WW1, WW2 and now WW3 have been set up 'deliberately' by these scum politicians and bankers who regard us as cattle and beneath them.

I'll leave it there for now. What country are you from? I'm UK.

[cruise4]

The 'petition' thing, I was taking the mick as I thought you were not going to look at the evidence i was presenting.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707Environmentalists.htm

Its well worth a look because Penn and Teller set up a stall at an environmental festival and get people to sign a petition banning Hydrogen Di-oxide (or something like that), which is actually water. Hundreds signed it and its great proof of how people don't think about what they are really doing. As they say... many people are 'joiners' of movements when they should research what the facts actually are.

[kblood]

The 'petition' thing, I was taking the mick as I thought you were not going to look at the evidence i was presenting.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707Environmentalists.htm

Its well worth a look because Penn and Teller set up a stall at an environmental festival and get people to sign a petition banning Hydrogen Di-oxide (or something like that), which is actually water. Hundreds signed it and its great proof of how people don't think about what they are really doing. As they say... many people are 'joiners' of movements when they should research what the facts actually are.

Lol :D Quite funny really.

The hydrogen fuel was invented quite recently here in Denmark. Less than 2 years old I think. They found a way to store it in some sort of pill form, and the cars should be in production... I might be wrong though. I will check up on it.

In regards to the sun theory. I read about "alot of scientists who disagree with the sunspot theory" after reading about how the "Global Warming Swindle" is probably mostly Swindle. Wikipedia isnt the best source of information, but it does link to Nasa, and disproof their graph about Co2 showing 10 years later than the warmth on the graph. Dunno if Nasa is mindcontrolled though :) You can never know anything for sure I guess. Should be alot of links to sources and so on about what wasnt true in that show, just the fact that some of those on the show had relations with Exxon made me feel a bit disgusted by all it said.
I havent looked much into how true it might be though. Just seems odd if that is the only reason... I read someone posting about all planets in our solar system getting warmer, possible something you posted. Dont know how they have gotten that information though, but if true then solar flares or spots does seem to be very much a factor in the the global warming.

[kblood]

I have read some of the sources you have posted Cruise4. Sorry for not doing soon, at least with more interest :o, earlier.

Would be nice if the solarflare points could be validated further back in time, but as it should be just about impossible to find any system for them at all, I guess that isnt likely.

That Nasa apparantly also got data that agrees with this also makes it more believable. Yea, im still caught up in what great companies in the business has about it.

Actually I dont really care what the cause for global warming is at all. Im just hoping that the development for renvewable energi sources are done asap :)

If an apocalypse is comming, and we are to get caught at sea, in caves, spaceships, flying cites, within dome cities or on a peak of a mountain top, then renewable energi is going to be quite handy :cool: So when we take in the fact that we might not have huge amounts of oil in the back garden after possible being cut from the surroundings, then at least we could have some energi sources that would last more than 24 hours... hopefully.

This is my main reason to vouch for CO2, like it or not ;)

As for my first post in this thread. I reread it and I was quite inconsiderate. This issue sometimes gets me a bit carried away. At least even the worst of forecasts havent given any evidence to say that it is the end of Earth, but certainly would have to make us shape up fast. At least within the next 500 years, which was my first estimation if it continued as it had done so far. Summers and winthers here are very noticably changing alot. Just about no snow at all at winther, and each summer seems to bring a new highest temperature for a long time.

Should global warming and the climate changes prove to be a quite harmless change within the next 50 years, then we would still be better off with renewable energi. It would also make spacetravel alot more possible, since sustaining alot of life on a vessel in outer space would sure need something better than any of the energy sources we have made so far, that I know of at least. Even the Illuminati should find space travel an alluring reward for letting us research such energi sources. Then again, if they already have them, I guess they can just keep us suffering untill they are sure they can let us do so :rolleyes:

All in all it seems we all here agree that renewable energi sources would be cool.

[randyt]

Hi Cruise4,

Indeed there are quite a few treads that deal with CO2 led global warming, but as you can see many aspects and factors of global warming are discussed troughout the post. I am not Thom Hartmann's PR manager so I have no intention of convincing you to read his book. I could care less if you don't.

The reason I mention this book is because it presents a balanced and well researched account of BOTH the depletion of natural resources AND the way the climate on this globe is changing.

It goes without saying that everyone is entiteld to believe whatever they want. I happen to believe both because of extensive reading into this subject and observable fact that the evironmental conditions the beings on this planet have to live under will get quite harsh - maybe not so for this one, but certainly for the next generation.

Randy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some recommended online reading:

http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html?nav=A-Z

http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw.html?nav=A-Z

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3jyXWmzgUoo

http://www.alternet.org/environment/50049/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

[randyt]

Everyone,

Many treads have been posted and I just went over a few of them again. I would like to add the following to my previous post:

Please consider the following:

Doesn't the so called elite have EVERYTHING to gain from trying to make people believe that there is no such thing as global warming and that all this climate change talk is just a hoax?

...think about this carefully....

The biggest polluters on this planet are not the "one and two income families living in the suburbs driving around in SUV's" and other "civilians" (..although everyone is contributing to this one way or another) The biggest pollution i.e contamination of air, land and water is produced by factories, owned by the large corporations, owned by - all together now! - the so called NWO Elite! Exactly!

To bring about structural change in the destruction of the climate THAT is where the plug would have to be pulled. It would costs large corporations tremendous amounts of money to produce the goods (we consume) in a more environmentally friendly manner and that is why they don't do it. Remember profit at all costs is everything to these people.

So they just say that waste produced by production doesn't affect the environment at all in a negative manner.

In ancient Rome when a crime was commited judges asked: Qui bono? which is latin for who benefits? Who benefits from trying to convince everyone that global warming/climate change doesn't exist?

I rest my case.


Randy

[cruise4]

Hi randyt... no I know you aren't pushing his book, but you have read it so can therefore post your ideas and conclusions gained from it... thats what I was after. I would now guess you think that synopsis I found was reasonably accurate...Yes?

"The biggest pollution i.e contamination of air, land and water is produced by factories, owned by the large corporations, owned by - all together now! - the so called NWO Elite! Exactly!"

You are absolutely right in saying this... its correct and what needs to be changed.

But what the elite are trying to do is convince the public at large that its the people's CO2 emmissions that are the problem... so letting themselves off the hook. They want the situation to develop whereby we all pay taxes based on CO2 emmissions and think we are making a difference, whilst they can happily go on with their Globalisation, Corporate, Greed and Pollution ridden ways with no interference.

They can only do this by convincing the people, that 'the people' are the problem... which you and me both agree isn't true. Its the NWO ways that is the problem.

We agree on the end point, you and me, but any CO2 basis is convoluted thinking.

I am going to go through your links later, but I'm suspicious of some of the sites listed just from prior knowledge... but I will check.

[cruise4]

Hi kblood, Yes I agree... renewable energy would be very welcome. I'm going to leave you to get on with your research. It takes time to build up a decent overall picture of whats really going on, and you are making the effort which is commendable.

One last thing... Great Global Warming Swindle isn't a bad film and has plenty of good info in it. Nearly every film you come across has a few detracting items. The trick is to sort the good from the bad, and take from the whole.

http://junkscience.com/

This can be a useful site sometimes.

[kblood]

Hi kblood, Yes I agree... renewable energy would be very welcome. I'm going to leave you to get on with your research. It takes time to build up a decent overall picture of whats really going on, and you are making the effort which is commendable.

One last thing... Great Global Warming Swindle isn't a bad film and has plenty of good info in it. Nearly every film you come across has a few detracting items. The trick is to sort the good from the bad, and take from the whole.

http://junkscience.com/

This can be a useful site sometimes.

Thanks for the link, and yes I agree :) As I have posted before I believe the best lies to be hidden in 90% or more of truths. I think the same applies to "Great Global Warming Swindle". The only thing I truly disagree with in it, is the graph that seems to be their "proof" that Co2 isnt affecting warmth but the other way around. That graph is shown on Wikipedia, and the other graph which is the graph that is currently at NASA on the same info.

The other proof that we only submit 3% of the global level os Co2, it just seems so much an attempt to make us not believe Co2 to be a problem. In the very same show though, they also go on about the huge amounts of natural Co2 that oceans emit and collect during the cycles of it over time. Since I have been educated in statistics, I know how easy it is to make the results look in a way that supports your conclusions the best way and making sure whatever doesnt support your conclusions is important to ridicule so that your conclusion seem genuine. Of course it is less important the more truth there is to the conclusion... my statistical part of a report didnt have the best of conclusions I have to admit, but we did manage to convince the teacher. Pure luck it wasnt our teacher in statistics that was grading it and seeing our presentation of it. Also asking the questions about it. Our grade should probably have been 2 points lower or something which would at least get it close to failed if not failed.

Another statistical insight to try to show how 3% being done by humans seems like alot to me. How much of our earths collective mass if made into a cube would be humans? Do we even reach 5%? That is somewhere near 1% per % of human mass of the planet :rolleyes:

As to the other points about Co2 not playing a huge role in warming anyway... I cant comment on that with good knowledge about it myself. But alot of what I have read about it rings true.

I hope I havent been milking the same points of how I see it too much now, but I do like to do whatever I can to make Co2 and pollution seem wrong to disregard totally at least. Hopefully the future will bring more ways of not emitting as much Co2 just to traverse our small planet :cool:

[kblood]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

This link undermines the credibility of the webmaster behind Junkscience.com a bit. The poll that greeted me on entering the site was a petition to write Al Gore. He got alot of things about why Co2 probably isnt the biggest factor in global warming, but the petition about Al Gore just doesnt seem good to me though. The theory wasnt his at all, he just took it to another level. As I see it he uses alot of fairly commonly known explenations about global warming. Explenations that was there before he made that show. I can understand why some might doubt his credibility if the first real stuff about global warming that had been looked at was Al Gores, but to me it just seems like he repeated alot of things I had read in science artikels up untill then. Could have been that global warming panel that had been releasing those kinds of articles before I realised what might have started the whole ball running on the Co2.

Since the theory about Co2 initially came from a Swedish scientists very long ago, it seems quite certain that he wasnt affected by lobbyiests at the time, then again, they were facing the comming of another "ice age" :rolleyes: I guess I should try to see why people were skeptic about his theories back in the 70'ies as well. I think that is what was said about him in "Global Warming Swindle". I dont remember his name though, and I dont have the recording of the show atm. I guess I will have to check up on it at some other time.

[kblood]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

This link undermines the credibility of the webmaster behind Junkscience.com a bit. The poll that greeted me on entering the site was a petition to write Al Gore.

Please dont get me wrong. There are alot of good information and articles on www.junkScience.com. It just doesnt seem to relate completely to the big picture. He seems to try to prove why he believes Co2 isnt the cause, so it might affect how he gives us his information. We all have to do this to some degree of course, otherwise we could never make a point of conclussion to something. It is the same with this site. Most of us come here with the intention to discuss David Icke and how we percieve and believe him to be right or wrong in his writings and so on. Therefore a similar forum for lets say "exploring the science of how global warming is affecting the Earth". Users on this forum might bring much scientific material and data to the site, because the "theme" on the site isnt about how the world might not be as it seem. Here however we have theories about the possible 2012 event or the comming of a new planet into our solar system might also have an affect on Earth.

The two later agrees might fit as scientific as well, but I dont think it would ever be posted on that site.

[aitch]

We all know that there is free energy, we all know that there are undergorund cities all over the world connected with eachother with magnetic trains speeds up to 2 mach.WTF !! I didn't know that shit !! Would love to see the proof ......

Anyway, so what if the planet is warming up and the Ice Caps will melt and the seas will rise ...... just build a frikkin wall around the coastline !!

[kblood]

Underground cities? I didnt know that had come to happen already. Is there any photographical proof? I have tried to research theories about underground cities, and have suggested that we had self sufficient underground cities build, and I was told there might already be cities underground. I just wasnt told anything specific. Like wether they were populated or not, and if populated then by what? Im not one who firmly believes that beings that look very different than us, with our intelligence, have been or are hiding here. Its not improbable though as I see it.

We usually dont embrace those who are different with love :rolleyes:

I would love to believe David Icke's sources about several kinds of renewable energi having already been developed and fully functional. If that is true we really do seem like a planet that aliens might be experimenting with. I would like to have a word with them if they are :mad:

[kblood]

WTF !! I didn't know that shit !! Would love to see the proof ......

Anyway, so what if the planet is warming up and the Ice Caps will melt and the seas will rise ...... just build a frikkin wall around the coastline !!

Yea, walls :) I have thought about that as well. Problem is we would have to give up on the areas that are too close to the ocean. If the water lvl if to rise 7 metres or more, then I think you can see how hard the would be to build walls like that around us all. I live in a small country with water all around it, so I would love that idea to be applyable to my country to prepare for rising water levels. Needed or no :p Still even for this small country it seems like a huge project.

[hania]

Hi all, I think I have something to add here, seeing as my first degree was in environmental science and to share knowledge is important.

Firstly, we live in a sensitive system, any increase or decrease in something within it will cause change and the systems have something called a tipping point, where the amount of one thing causes drastic change.

Secondly, I have read the IPCC report and couldn't believe my eyes, I had to read it 3 times, the reason for this, they make comments such as the one one solar radiative forcing such as:
"We have 4 decades worth of data, that's 4 solar cycles, anything outside of that is an anomoly and so is not relevant to this report"
They then go on to say
"Not enough is known about the subject and further study is needed"
To date I have over 300 such remarks throughout the paper for different areas, which as a scientist is a poorly written paper, then there are the factors they don't take into account, such as the alignment of planets in 2012/2013. (which is a real event, not a mystical prophecy)

See: http://www.astroviewer.com/interactive-night-sky-map.html

Start the viewer, then adjust the date, year first, then month, then day and it starts about 15th dec and goes through to about the 12th Jan.

Then there are things like the transit of our solar system through the rift, again not a mystical event but real, can be found at www.space.com for more info on that.

There is also the 25,800 year cycle of the earths wobble of the magnetic field, the drop in the magnetic field of the earth, the rise in the magnetic field of the sun, the effect of a polluted sea and how the evaporation point is lowered.

As I said these are all things not taken into account by any mainstream climatologist and they laugh and discredit people like me who have looked at them.

Now ironically as for CO2, it is the second most abundant GHG there is, yet we emit less than 2%(IPCC 2001) of it into the global system. The most abundant GHG is H2O but yet again, the IPCC and other mainstream climatologists forget to mention it or just mention it in passing to get to their main argument.

Supposedly the Sun has not increased it's output since 1750 as they still use the same amount of energy coming into our system for their models, and yet there is evidence that it has increased it's output by up to 25% since then check out these graphs to see from The solar influences data centre in Belgium, one of the forefront researchers in solar activity.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html


Now don't forget I told you the earth is sensitive within its universal time.

Because of this that means the energy coming into the atmosphere has increased causing a rise in our temperature, this along with the rise in the temperature of the oceans, our biggest sink of CO2, which ironically has been polluted by man from over intensive farming since the 1950's and the illegal dumping of other pollutants that is still going on today, which wasn't illegal 25 years ago and more. This effect is causing temperature of the sea to rise and the evaporation to fall (take a glass of water and heat it, if pure it will boil at 98-100 degrees C, when you add salt, like boiling the potatoes, it will fall to 75-85 degrees C, depending on how mush salt you put in) This is the cause of the rise in CO2, pre 1750 levels were about 260ppm CO2 approx (I say approx because the instruments they used were not as accurate as today), if we emit less than 2% then the current level of approx 380ppm means a rise of 120ppm. so over the time since 1750 (what is classed as the starting point or zero point) we have added approx 2.4ppm, leaving another 117.6ppm to have come from somewhere.
Don't forget I told you we live in a sensitive system and so even a 2% rise will have an effect, even though it would be minute.
So, as the sea's temperature is rising, the sea's are expanding and evaporating more H2O, the biggest GHG, and there is more water vapour present in the air today, by guess how much?? approx 40%, which is the same amount that CO2 has risen since 1750. All that water vapour has carried with it CO2 and other pollutants from the oceans into the atmosphere, causing the rise in atmospheric GHG and so causing a higher rise in temperature because of the effects GHG's have on holding infra red energy inside the atmosphere. So CO2 has a part to play, but it is not our output of CO2 that has caused it, it is the rise in CO2 from the oceans. Ironically though, it may be our polluting of the seas and change in land use that are a result in the amount of CO2 rising. Yet this is not the whole picture, there had to be a starting point and that starting point had to be the rise in the sun's output of up to 25% since 1750.

I hope this (in a basic way) gives you a bit more insight into what is happening. It is not so much what is happening that is the problem but the way in which it has been presented and continually gets presented by media and politicians.

[kblood]

I just realised what Co2 really is... I feel like such a fool now :rolleyes:

Oh well... guess all my ramblings about Co2 being a problem should be stricken. I had some help from Edit to realise this ;) Thanks for your post about carbon, and all that other nice info you have given so far, Edit :D

This world keeps surprising me... I cant believe it :o

[erikneo]

my opinion on global warming:

I will give the benefit of the doubt and do what ever is needed to do...A few days ago i started to go to work with my bike(4miles) and i'm going to sell my car...thats my contrubution to the planet..for now...

I will not give what the goverment wants(carbon tax) but give what the planet needs...I think that is fair enough beside its good not too much consume and try to live independant to the system right?

[erikneo]

The carbon tax thing is rediculus...does anyone else know what else the goverment wants to impose by doing"scaring us" this?

[amadeus]

I heard that Al Gore is connected (a board member?) of the investment bank Lehman Brothers (http://www.lehman.com/) who are making huge profits on the GW-taxation.

The pieces of the puzzle are falling in place...

Anyone know more about this...?

[hania]

Unless he is a guest at board meetings you should just do a little checking on the web site, can do wonders to the knowledge you can learn
Board of directors
http://www.lehman.com/who/bios/board_directors.htm

Senior management
http://www.lehman.com/who/bios/index.htm

Unless of course you enjoy finding links for others to do the work but then that would be silly, and if you heard something as gossip then before passing it on it's best to examine it yourself. There is nothing in the financials about that, or the economic online mags.

[amadeus]

Unless he is a guest at board meetings you should just do a little checking on the web site, can do wonders to the knowledge you can learn
Board of directors
http://www.lehman.com/who/bios/board_directors.htm

Senior management
http://www.lehman.com/who/bios/index.htm

Unless of course you enjoy finding links for others to do the work but then that would be silly, and if you heard something as gossip then before passing it on it's best to examine it yourself. There is nothing in the financials about that, or the economic online mags.

Im sorry, I was in a hurry and just wanted the "info" out. No agenda here, just wanted to throw that in the discussion. I did of course check those official sources whitout luck. I did however find THIS (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=212)

And after I read this quote from that site:

DuPont and BP will get money for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection equipment, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. (Al Gore is on the... Lehman Brothers board. He is also founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management LLP, though which he buys “carbon emission offsets,” to make up for his rather extravagant use of electricity, natural gas, gasoline and aviation fuel, and for the enormous amounts of greenhouse gas emissions they cause.) Pew, ED and NRDC will be able to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in more cash. Insurance companies can blame global warming for rate increases and coverage denials.

...I thought maybe there was something to it. As for the financial and economic news revealing this, nah don't think so...

I'll try to do my howework before I post the next time, scouts honor :)

[hania]

You would be surprised what is revealed in the financial's, like a few months ago they were talking about the need to reduce the value of stocks because of the money that wasn't bioeng spent in other areas ofd economy's, the this last week the markets fall substantialy, devaluing them, just like the predictions stated.

Anyway, have just spent some time checking out a few sites and as the Lehman Brothers website suggests Gore is not on the board, he is on the board of his own company with other's mind you, and some from Lehman Brothers. So it is a case of bad wording from the reporters, they should check their sources properly.
On the other hand from what I have just spent the last hour reading even before Inconvenient Truth he was in bed with Lehman Brothers Directors for all sorts of things from financing his presidential attempt to helping him with lawyers and funding when Bush took him to court in Florida state.
So under the surface their is more than meets the eye, especially as Lehman Brothers effectively own Paramount who helped Gore with setting up his own media company.

Don'tt believe me type "al Gore Lehman Brothers" into google, ignore the blogs and read things like the economist, the educational sites and of course the petition by Bush.

[hania]

Oh and this is the board of directors of ACP, Gore's environmental company

http://www.climateprotect.org/board

[abram730]

Ok, so we have HAARP, ELF waves, microwaves, SCALAR Weaponry, and what not....

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

I have known it was real since a child and that it would cause an ice age just like it always does... It can be changed... What would that do to the EU and America?

I know that Exxon dumps huge money into the scam argument but why go for the PR?

Damned if you do damned don't... the only way out is to find the solutions yourself and prevent the control..

So you argue they have a sun control device too lol.
regardless of the cause a solution would be good as we would be limited to a population of about 500 million in an ice age and that's a lot of war... with nukes on the table it could be ugly.. understand.

[abram730]

You would be surprised what is revealed in the financial's, like a few months ago they were talking about the need to reduce the value of stocks because of the money that wasn't bioeng spent in other areas ofd economy's, the this last week the markets fall substantialy, devaluing them, just like the predictions stated.

Anyway, have just spent some time checking out a few sites and as the Lehman Brothers website suggests Gore is not on the board, he is on the board of his own company with other's mind you, and some from Lehman Brothers. So it is a case of bad wording from the reporters, they should check their sources properly.
On the other hand from what I have just spent the last hour reading even before Inconvenient Truth he was in bed with Lehman Brothers Directors for all sorts of things from financing his presidential attempt to helping him with lawyers and funding when Bush took him to court in Florida state.
So under the surface their is more than meets the eye, especially as Lehman Brothers effectively own Paramount who helped Gore with setting up his own media company.

Don'tt believe me type "al Gore Lehman Brothers" into google, ignore the blogs and read things like the economist, the educational sites and of course the petition by Bush.

China thinks the dollar is over valued and wants some to evaporate so that their holdings grow in value... so that's why the mortgage collapse and the stock drop. Hopefully it's not the 40% they want. There is an unspoken language... Gore is helped because he can hear good.

China made a vague threat about crashing Americas economy by dumping a trillion US dollars on the market.

So yes.. many people know why and when... people that listen and serve do make money... that's how people are rich. Call it instincts

Gore seems to be on the good side even if he is surrounded by bad people. I don't know about the people he is around.

The world is what we make it and if you think about it what is made should be unmade.... Green is moral so some immorality can hide in it but to oppose something moral out of fear?

[hania]

"Abram730

"I know that Exxon dumps huge money into the scam argument but why go for the PR?"

That works both ways, there are scientists who will say whatever is wanted for both sides of the argument, I have read some pretty ridiculous studies that have been manipulted to fit with the mainstream religion of AGW. The IPCC 2007 is a fine example of this, especially with comments like (yet again like the 2001 report)
"Still further study is needed in this field, not enough is known outside of 4 decades of research to be conclusive so at best our results are best guess"

"Abram730

"we would be limited to a population of about 500 million in an ice age and that's a lot of war"

What, where have you got that figure from? Just plucked it out of the sky?
I have been studying the sciences for the last 27 years as well as the social sciences and no one has ever made such dubiosly ridiculous claims such as that. If you have come across them please post the link, or at least tell us where you got it from, ie which newspaper, documentary, research paper etc.

"Abram730

"So yes.. many people know why and when... people that listen and serve do make money... that's how people are rich. Call it instincts"

The value of money is nil, it is a false, the only ones that are rich are the ones that control the resources and make the rest of us think that the $ has a value.

"Abram730

"Green is moral so some immorality can hide in it but to oppose something moral out of fear?"

Who me or generally speaking about dissenters?
As the real science is bieng unravelled by those brave enough not to jump on the bandwagon, the human effects of the change in our climate is 0.2 degrees over 257 years from point zero as we like to call it. That has left 0.5 degrees to have been caused by something else, funny that the sun has increased it's output by 25% (Wm^2 that is reaching the earth) in the last 257 years and that as yet the only people that are looking at the effects of a planetary alignment (that really is going to happen in 2012) are still only looking at the effects of one planet's magnetic field and the sun's, not all of them, but that is going to change very soon as someone has the balls to do it, and yet again go against the mainstream.

Our system is sensitive on geological time, something hard for the general public to get their head around, a second is more like 1000's of years. so we should have the ball's to change our ways and live with nature instead of against it, but not for the reasons they want us to believe but because it is just the right thing to do and everything we do affects others in some way.
Do you buy chicken in the supermarket for your sunday roast?
Do you buy clothes in high street stores?
Do you own a new car, let's say a rover?

There are amny reasons why we shouldn't buy these things, low wages for the workers, massive environmental shipping costs and manufacturing costs through pollution which is killing wildlife.
The grain that was fed to your chicken was either grown GM (probably was wherever it came from anyway) and the land to grow that grain was either taken from the starving people of a country like Afrika, where food is a scarce resource, or from land that was reclaimed by chopping down VIRGIN rainforest and killing and reducing the habitat of thousands of insects, birds, mammals.

So it is not out of fear that people don't want change it is out of not understanding the full consequences of our every action, while we struggle under debt enslavement and give more power to a minority of families on the planet.

[cruise4]

"Gore seems to be on the good side" :D:D:D

[lydia78]

Bull.

Gore et al are all on the same team.

The planet does what she does regardless of us.

After being around as long as this old dame has, 50 or 100 yrs of human technology is nothing in comparison to the trials she's endured in her existence.

Get off the bandwagon of fear.

[infinitely free]

:Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

Well, shall we just get it straight!
I would be terribly ashamed, if i were them! Poluting our minds with their technology! Spraying stuff in air

And bulshiting, about global warming
:mad:

[chattanova]

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

'A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.'

full article -- http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

[starchildtesla]

Or it could be .. that global warming is real and they are taking over the movement and diverting there cause ...

Think about it all you hear is Carbon credits and recycling :confused:

When people should be asking Wat about UFO technologies or tesla???

They could be even staging global warming with Haarp ?and using it for population control ..

[infinitely free]

All this bullshit about the global warming..., and i've just heard that all plannets are going through climate changes (exc. Mercury)
Carbon dioxyde? :mad:

(Sorry guys! Had to mention it!)

[geronimo]

[QUOTE=lu tze;1102]It appears that the general consensus on this thread is that "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon and that the world is simply going through yet another climate cycle as it has done many times before as opposed to the result of two centuries of industrial activity and relentless pollution by mankind.

It also appears to be the consensus here that "Global Warming" as defined as an overall rise in the temperature of the earth is a reality and that the effects that are being seen is not erroneous data or scaremongering by special interest groups.

It saddens me that even here we have fallen into the all too common trap of arguing about exactly what or who is to blame, is it natural or is it man made, but little consideration has been paid to what we should do about it.

[QUOTE}

We need to take a careful look at the data before jumping to conclusions, and that includes the following - firstly, the seas are certainly warming up, but glaciers are advancing and thickening at the same time, all over the planet, however, the mainstream media isn't mentioning this salient fact. NASA has admitted that there are not thousands, but potentially millions of undersea volcanoes, an unknown proportion of which are active and currently raising the sea temperature by several degrees. Al Gore doesn't talk about this information - Robert Felix, who has investigated the thickening and advancing of the glaciers in New Zealand, Antarctica and so on, does. He discusses cyclical processes to do with the precession of the equinoxes, and how at the advent of a new ice age, there is either a magnetic pole shift or temporary deviance from magnetic pole norm. An unusual shift from the true magnetic north has already taken place by 18 miles+ in the past year, that's admitted. Unusual shifts in climatic patterns have occurred along the equator (heavy rains, etc.) which may indicate that a magnetic pole shift could be underway. In the last 50 years the magnetic strength of the Earth's field has decreased by at least 90 per cent. At the same time the sun is exhibiting more sunspot activity than for the last 1000 years. Make no mistake, something is happening alright, but it's NOT what we're being told, and let's be honest, Al Gore is on the Rothschild/Rockefeller global tax bandwagon and interested in deception, not truth. His 10+ homes and private planes are belching out carbon, guzzling electricity and he is, let's face it, a massive hypocrite, and according to David Icke, a Satanist, which might necessitate taking a closer look at his 'information'.
At the advent of a new ice age, which may take as little as 20 years to arrive, we have a scenario of undersea volcanic activity, warming of the seas, advancing of the glaciers, possible supervolcano (yellowstone) activity - the combination of glacier thickening and sea warming, rising humidity ultimately creating massive snowfall. 20 feet per day would not be out of the question. There may be a cycle of approximately 11,500 years and larger cycles where a similar pattern repeats.
All I am suggesting is that what we are being told is b*****ks and something else is going on of a cyclical nature - also something interesting is happening to other planets in the solar system. Look at the data, not at Al Gore's sound bites, peace prizes and so on. It's all fraud, designed to distract us from the truth - and I've no doubt that a vibrational change is a major part of that.

[octopusrex]

From the folks who brought to you the "gas gussler"...
And the folks who brought to you smart bombs...
A wonderful solution to mankinds energy problems.

Nuclear Energy.

"you reap what you soughed!"

[soxism]

People are so quick to Believe Al Gore, I just don’t understand why, when its been proven he has ties to the Illuminate.

So the biggest question is, why does Al gore's movie totally forget the LARGEST source of HEAT, LIGHT & Energy in the Solar System?

Its been Proven that Over the Life of the Planet, Poles have Changed, The Sun has become Strong, & Weaker in activity MANY times.

Personally i think, Global Warming is just another Tool of Fear to keep us here.

[WaveWarrior]

Hi guys

Yes i agree with Wavewarrior, Global warming (man made) is bullshit. We are coming to the end of a 26000yr cycle and its quite natural. The other planets in our galaxy are changing and theres no gas guzzling 4x4 cars on them.

The governments around the world will use this to squeeze more taxes and revenue out of us and then make our lives more stressful (they like doing this):eek:

I dont mind these planetary changes because its been nice and mild here in the UK and its Winter!

I suppose my point is...

According to "informed sources" humankind's contribution to Co2 is about 8% the rest being from so called natural Co2 sinks such as the oceans, volcanoes and such. Let us be generous and say humanity is 25% contribution. Fair enough, my question then is...

If humanity shut down EVERYTHING today.... the balance of natural Co2 release of 75% + continues on regardless. So what would science do to stifle that?

Global climate change is inevitable - with or without us. The climate has a steady state of change. That is a fact.

Anyway - I would respect any leadership that would come forward and say....

Climate change is a fact of planetary process (we are part of the process) therefore it is important we inform you of the specific changes in your region, the impacts projected and the steps you can take to respond to the changes.

This would be a realistic approach to assisting communities through the transition period of (inevitable) climate change and resulting impacts.

Selling and trading carbon credits is farcical.

Saying we can stem the climate change is something King Canute would have said.... or perhaps King Gore.

[infinitely free]

Some more info, on why, the G. W. talk is bullshit - Polar bear numbers in 1950: 5,000. Polar bear numbers today: 25,000 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=4test1)

[seer74]

well, I don't think its a TOTAL crock, but i DO think its being used as a scare tactic. Like many scare tactics though, just because they want you to be scared of it, doesn't mean it isn't real. (and just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you)

I'm not sure that global warming is as man-made of a phenomena as they say, but there are definitly some major climate changes going on, for whatever reason. But then it could be man-made, in this sense....thoughts shape reality, could it be happening because people believe it is happening?

[seer74]

Some more info, on why, the G. W. talk is bullshit - Polar bear numbers in 1950: 5,000. Polar bear numbers today: 25,000 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=4test1)

many "threatened" species numbers are way up. its because they have become PROTECTED species.

[seer74]

Al Gore burns more fossil fuels 1000 of us regular folks. Hypocrite.

George W. Bush's ranch on the other hand burns NONE (he's all wind and solar!!!). Makes money on it - doesn't spend any on it.

reduceing "greenhouse gases" would probably result in a SLIGHT reduction in the (non-man-made) phenomena called "global warming".

it is happening. but please don't be afraid... personally I would rather we all get burned alive before we all get chipped....

[ichi wa zen]

One thing i have learned about The Illuminati is that basically the opposite of what they are telling us is true. Therefore i dont feel this global warming thing is real. Also the polarcaps are not melting but becoming bigger which further proves that we are being lied too, but hey nothing new here :mad:

[tothestars]

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

Maybe it is just me but i have a hard time trusting a 33rd grade freemason.

[tothestars]

I read somewhere that they had farming on Greenland thousand year ago.

Still
the changes are happening to fast to be manmade imo.

[seer74]

I read somewhere that they had farming on Greenland thousand year ago.

Still
the changes are happening to fast to be manmade imo.

and i've read there's an old map made in europe... drawn centurys prior to the explorers with VERY modern cartography.... no one knows who made it. It shows both South America AND ANTARCTICA depicted accurately for what it would look like WITHOUT the glaciers.very interesting in ALL SORTS of ways some of them relevant to the thread...and connected....

[WaveWarrior]

Garsh... it's been a long and cold winter.

[craven dark]

I recently saw a programe on sky that said the sea ice around the south pole was increasing by 1000 km per year.

[diamond dogs]

Just like the "peak oil" issue. I'm now hearing those who believe oil is "abiotic" (that the planet produces this naturally and ongoingly), say that there is too mucn oil in the Middle East.


I am not too sure if I subscribe to this theory however we are constantly lied to about the North Sea Gas supply....

It's estimated that by 2010 half of Britain's gas will be imported. And by 2020, existing North Sea gas fields will be supplying only 10% of our gas needs.

I remember when they used to broadcast new finds on the TV and we were self suffcient until 2030 based on the finds in the 70's since then we have discovered massive fields. I have spoken to many rig workers and they tell me 1 in 7 drills comes up trumps because of sophisticated mappings and technology. ...explans why we use so many gas fired Elec power stations encouraged under the Thatcher Govt.

Interestingly there was a small fire at Bacton Gas Terminal last week (started around 6pm..good time to just miss the main news) that supposedly 'closed the plant for 3 days' lol....Can't work out the significance of this yet but one thing is certain we are paying through the nose for our own Gas!!

[blueberrysun]

No I don't believe Al Gore and I'm actually watching a really great show called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I'm sure you can find it on youtube

[blueberrysun]

Watch a great little docu called "the great global warming swindle" David actually mentioned it once and it's truley a fantastic docu

[the obliterati]

yup thats a great vid,i recomend it to all

[saab1981]

I'm fed up with the media and the government 'demonising' the public with regards to 'Global Warming'. I.e., YOU (the public) are causing it, with your cars, with not re-cycling, with leaving your televisions on standby. It's just such a load of bullshit.

I'm fed up even more with people just passively accepting everything the government and the news media says!

[chattanova]

Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7182/gorecrapfb6.jpg

A landmark court case that would destroy the so-called "consensus" behind man-made global warming could be in the works after Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud.

Companies that sell "carbon credits" on the basis that they offset carbon emissions could also be in the firing line as Coleman stated his conviction that man-made advocates would lose the case if a fair debate, something that the establishment is loathe to allow, was allowed to take place.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Coleman questioned whether carbon dioxide caused temperature increase, a point borne out by ice core samples that show increases in carbon dioxide in the environment are a result and not a cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

"The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere."

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Coleman's call for a court case to take on the global warming orthodox comes in the same week that the Carnegie Institute urged the need to reduce carbon emissions to zero within decades, a move that would devastate the third world and likely end human civilization as we know it, returning man back to the stone age.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/031408_warming_fraud.htm

[supadupadennis]

the sun has been getting hotter for the last 50 years.

therefore we get hotter:D

i think chemtrails are made to keep the heat down, and fuck with us by making us breathe the bullshit in.

[dangermouse]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2022095838626255715&q=al+gore+southpark&total=49&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_EhGG5LWs
:D

[musti]

very interesting video, thanks. some of them had an irritating quasi right-wing, strongly pro-western and pro-technology (not that i am a neoluddite) stance for my taste but that doesn't change the fact that it is quite clear that global warming doesn't seem to be man-made.

i don't remember who but one or two of the speakers said that the temp. is below the medieval warm period but that is not correct according to wikipedia data (which might not be correct):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

am i missing something here?

anyhow, i believe the reason for the man made story is to cover up the external reason for the global warming (dimensional change, photon belt, anunnaki, whatever it is).

[musti]

i'm replying to my own question in case someone is interested: the wikipedia link is the temperature anomaly (derivative) not the temperature average. my bad, i guess i wasn't paying enough attention...

[chattanova]

19,000 scientists sign petition rejecting global warming scam

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

http://oism.org/pproject/

[soopsje]

It's obvious how much money is involved in this lie. Look how much Al Gore is investing in trying to make us believe how bad everything is. Does he really want us to think that he is soooooooo concerned about this??? Hallo, what an idiot.
It's is all about money. Money money money.
I do not have money. Enough to live on and a little more to give away. (Mostly to animal-welfare[spelling?])And I feel perfectly happy with that. No savings, nothing. And boy do I feel good!
I am totaly sure that people will come to see that money is just....money....and I wouldn't be surprised when we are very soon going to see a total colaps of all these lies...WONDERFUL.:-))

[oiram]

19,000 scientists sign petition rejecting global warming scam
Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

http://oism.org/pproject/

This is a graph; Present day is on the left. Notice how we have been in the warm period longer. In fact previous warm periods were just spikes. But if I am looking at the graphic nothing really extraordinary only that the warm period is longer. If I look at the year scale this warm period started thousands of years ago and I can not see that our last 100 years of CO2 output has any special increasing effect!
Or did they have a lot of industry in Jesus times! To me it's just an natural phenomena! I do agree that we should do something in General about the Pollution we create for Personal health reasons but I don't think that we make the poles melt quicker! I don't think that we will get the top temperature reached around 320,000 years ago! What I can see very soon it will get colder & colder if we live long enough! When I look at the patten on the graphic we better enjoy the last warm time we have left before it drops off!
Global Warming is just a Political brainwashing scam to make Profits for the Elite power same like everything els it's just a scam!
Tomorrow they will tell us it is Global Cooling what a Brainwashing Game they are playing with us and all these payed off MSM's & Scientist's are in on the same Scam against Humanity; we can not trust anyone anymore! Just get rid of all these Control Freaks who needs them anyway better we get Public Servants!
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif

Population did increase because the Industrial Revolution made goods much more plentiful and life much better. The Industrial Revolution also increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the problem with the CO2 causes warming argument is that the temperature changes do not move in line with CO2 levels. For example, most of the warming seen in the records happened well before CO2 levels started to increase rapidly. And after they did we still got a cooling trend from 1945 to 1975 which made many scientists warn us about an upcoming ice age. If you want a better correlation between temperature and some factor all you need to do is to look at solar activity.
http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/worldpop.gifhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide3.png

[cew91]

Maybe its just a curse on the mankind in general for becoming gluttonous pigs?

[jambolina62]

edited because link not working

[jambolina62]

www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020

Please type .pdf at the end of this link once copied into your browser, otherwise you will not find it. I can't add the .pdf on here, as it will not find it this way.

The truth. Anthropological global warming? All scare mongering.

Nature, Not Human Activity,
Rules the Climate
© 2008, Science and Environmental Policy Project / S. Fred Singer

Let's face it, fear = control.

[quest]

Thanks jambolina62 for the pdf link to Singer's really useful 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate' report. The last paragraph of the conclusion speaks volumes:

"It is regrettable that the public debate over
climate change, fueled by the errors and
exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC,
has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an
embarrassment to science that hype has replaced
reason in the global debate over so important an
issue".

[magnus]

I'm from Norway....and when Al Gore was here to collect the peece price....he had his el.car on a truck and he himself took the plane....When he came to a city he drove arond in the el.car.....then when the press and the audience was gone...he put the el.car on the truck who drove it to the next city and he travelled more confortable...tok the plane ore a limo.....the next time he tok the bus from the airport....just to make opp for last time whit the el.car.....but his luggage whas travelling in this big limo behind the buss...he,he!!! how stupid do they think we are?????

[pennycat]

I believe that its hotter longer in the year than it use to be. The North pole is starting to look like a coconut slurpee that set in a hot car all afternoon. I believe in global cooking. I don't believe its because we haven't all ran out and bought new appliances with the Energy Compliant seal on them though.:cool:

[kweli]

BBC Caught Editing Story To Appease Global Warming Lobbyist

The BBC has sensationally been caught red-handed editing a news story about global warming in order to appease a rhetorical e mail sent by an environmental activist, while it has also emerged that BBC writers are aware of the growing suspicions about apparent attempts to censor skeptics of man-made global warming.

A report concerning the fact that global warming stopped in 1998 by the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin was altered to omit the fact that such evidence is cited by skeptics as a reason to doubt the link between Co2 emissions and temperature increase, and the headline was also changed.

The activist who e mailed Harrabin, Jo Abbess, also urged the BBC to censor skeptics of man-made global warming and not make reference to them, an order that was followed despite Harrabin revealing that BBC newsroom writers were aware that sidelining the skeptical side of the debate was making people suspicious.

Read the full e mail exchange here. The BBC has sensationally been caught red-handed editing a news story about global warming in order to appease a rhetorical e mail sent by an environmental activist, while it has also emerged that BBC writers are aware of the growing suspicions about apparent attempts to censor skeptics of man-made global warming.

A report concerning the fact that global warming stopped in 1998 by the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin was altered to omit the fact that such evidence is cited by skeptics as a reason to doubt the link between Co2 emissions and temperature increase, and the headline was also changed.

The activist who e mailed Harrabin, Jo Abbess, also urged the BBC to censor skeptics of man-made global warming and not make reference to them, an order that was followed despite Harrabin revealing that BBC newsroom writers were aware that sidelining the skeptical side of the debate was making people suspicious.

Read the full e mail exchange here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040708_bbc_caught.htm - - or via DI's 'Latest Headlines page'

[oiram]

I think I found the missing link we all missed?
Evaluate the charts carefully to not get confused!

So if the charts are reliable then the Ice volume is on an minimum stage; Arctic temperatures are maximum stage! Average Global temperatures minimum stage!

By evaluating using the charts on hand!
My Expected future prediction is Average Global temperatures will rise and Arctic temperatures will fall and Ice Volume will increase! ;):)
Does this sound about right?
In regards of CO2 we could use a bit more and we better add something more to not run out and all our trees got nothing to live of!
Most likely nature will add some more CO2 like it did 250,000 years ago!
Al Gore definitely knows about these charts; he is just a smart ass can you see how he is trying to trick us?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/Temp_0-400k_yrs.gif (http://revspeech.proboards45.com/index.c.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1207474521)
http://revspeech.proboards45.com/index.c.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1207474521
Vangel wrote: http://2cents.dailyreckoning.com/viewtopic.php?p=326035#326035
Antarctica has been getting both colder and thicker ice sheets. Everyone was so busy looking at the local warming on the Antarctic Peninsula that they took their eye off the area that held 98% of the ice. It isn't thinning.

Temperatures are controlled by clouds. Clouds are regulated by ionization in the lower atmosphere that is controlled by the incidence of cosmic radiation that hits the earth and that is controlled by solar activity. The bottom line is simple. If you want to look at the reason for cooling and heating trends look no further than the sun.

And Gore and his crew are easy to explain. To understand the hype you only need to follow the money. There are billions of dollars being thrown towards studies that model and look at the possible effects of global warming. There are plans to carry on lucrative carbon credit trading that will make some people very rich. The many scientists who have been pushing the issue without any real support depend on the funding going towards the GW 'problem.' Absent a problem there is no funding and they will have to get real jobs. Gore and a few others in the political sphere have set themselves up to profit from carbon trading schemes that would make them rich if companies were forced to use carbon credits to justify their production. The whole thing is a scam that is driven by hysteria and ignorance.
I seen enough Charts to logically backup my case; for me finally the CO2 case is closed!
The Kyoto Protocol is a dead Duck!

The Happy Ending !!!:cool:

[oiram]

It's all just about Money! Money! Money!
I suppose my point is...
According to "informed sources" humankind's contribution to Co2 is about 8% the rest being from so called natural Co2 sinks such as the oceans, volcanoes and such. Let us be generous and say humanity is 25% contribution. Fair enough, my question then is...
If humanity shut down EVERYTHING today.... the balance of natural Co2 release of 75% + continues on regardless. So what would science do to stifle that?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270c.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

More here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Also look at the graphic in my previous post CO2 is on a low point; second time in history!


Simply put!: All our Governments and payed-off Scientists & MSM's are Lying non trustworthy Criminal organisations!
Ones a Lier always a Lier!
Highly civilized educated People? Hah! Hah! ........ Here is the mark they all deserve: "666"!

[magnus]

Briksdals breen= one of Norways biggest glaciers...(ice mountains from the ice period) is not melting....IT IS GETTING BIGGER......I don't say no more:p

[tootrue]

Is it now a Solar System warming? :D- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65165

[juddfinn]

An email reply (below) from the comedian Marcus Brigstocke following a letter I wrote to him with counter evidence to Golbal Warming after hearing one of his rants against those who claimed Global Warming is all about NEW Taxation: (which is a bit of a straw man argument if taken in isolation)

Find the rant on YouTube > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GlWNQrWEgqU

"Thank you for your email. I'm not particularly aware of the changes in the
Antarctic so it made for fascinating reading - which I will try to research
further when I have time.

I'm not entirely clear from what you sent whether you are saying that all
the research suggesting that the climate is changing perilously fast is
hysterical nonsense or just that there are other views out there which
should be considered. Is it your position that anthropomorphic climate
change is a myth? In other words do you feel from the research you have done that we should continue with our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions?

My own position, as I'm sure you are aware, is that at present we seem to be
standing in the middle of a large road while an enormous truck is hurtling
towards us. Instead of stepping out of the way we are currently staying
pretty much where we are - in the middle of the road - busily discussing
whether or not the truck is red or blue.

I look forward to hearing from you.

All the best

Marcus Brigstocke"

I replied with a stack of evidence and links to the excellent Prof. Bob Carter lecture (also on YouTube) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI about two months ago.... so far no reply to that email.

Meanwhile :D> Stand up to Climate Change - Time for a New Routine

The event is timed to coincide with World Environment Day and is being hosted by the Environment Agency - but some seriously funny stand-up comedians will be there including:

BBC4 The Late Edition's Marcus Brigstocke Multi-Award winning comic and world record setter Tim FitzHigham Chortle Best Breakthrough Act of 2008 and BBC Radio 6 presenter Jon Richardson Plus a 'mystery special guest'. Oo-er

The gig takes place at The Comedy Café, 66/68 Rivington Street, London EC2A 3AY on Monday June 2. Entrance is free on a first come, first served basis - doors open at 7pm and the laughing starts at 8pm.

Hecklers Welcome ???!!!:cool:

[jahzel]

Part of me though really feels sorry for those who have been brainwashed by the massive con that is man-made global warming. I mean, I see these poor souls in music festivals desperately trying to hand out stickers to us to try and convince us that AL Gore isn't a blood drinking reptoid but rather a saviour of the planet.

*Tuts.*

[mr_self_destruct]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzxsl3PID9g

[cruise4]

"Is it your position that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth? In other words do you feel from the research you have done that we should continue with our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions?"

Classic muddling up!

[doyouknowyourdead]

one real environmental issue: biodiversity.

native mexican corn has gone from something like 60 strains to 6 strands left in the country. and how about the rain forest being eaten up everyday by industry?

[cruise4]

Don't get the argument wrong... there's massive environmental issues. We all know that I'd say. But the culprit is big business and thats what needs addressing.... not letting them fob you off with bullshit man-made CO2 which is proveable nonsense. Its their raping and pillaging of the planet for their profit margin that's the crime. The answer is to take control from the people who have done it and restore control to the people. All the rest is designed to avoid that outcome and to hide their misdeeds from the public at large who have been largely forced into buying their crap through monopoly practises and manipulation. You don't let Mass Murderers come up with the solutions to Mass Murder. OOOps... we do!

[the_real_jazzroc]

It appears that the general consensus on this thread is that "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon and that the world is simply going through yet another climate cycle as it has done many times before as opposed to the result of two centuries of industrial activity and relentless pollution by mankind.

It also appears to be the consensus here that "Global Warming" as defined as an overall rise in the temperature of the earth is a reality and that the effects that are being seen is not erroneous data or scaremongering by special interest groups.

It saddens me that even here we have fallen into the all too common trap of arguing about exactly what or who is to blame, is it natural or is it man made, but little consideration has been paid to what we should do about it.

The truth is that its not going to get better if we keep pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will most likely make things better regardless of how what is already there, got there.

The "elite" of society have become rich on the backs of the rest of us, exploiting the worlds natural resources while polluting the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat and the land we live on and still now change the argument towards attributing responsibility.

The truth is that while we are all so wrapped up in blaming each other we are not addressing the real issue which is that the climate is changing and biologically, life on this planet is going to get a lot tougher.

Now regardless of whether you like the man, his politics or his message and it is irrelevant whether the film An inconvenient truth sucks or not, the man has a point and you have to give Al Gore a big gold star for having the balls to get up and make it. We need to do something and we should have done it a while back. Not now but then. Later will be too late.

Al Gore was universally panned for telling us to use less resources and to use what we do use wisely but you must ask yourself who has the most to loose from people heeding his message.

The man is not going to be president, I think he knows that. He owes nothing to the Illuminati masters who rule the world. They let him down. They backed the other guy. The moron who was easier to control.

Think about it. The "elite" are in control of the resources that we as consumers desire. The more we want them the more they can charge us for them as demand outstrips supply. The more they charge the bigger their profits and the richer they get.

As consumption of oil hits a peak and those that control its supply get staggeringly richer as the price of a barrel of the black stuff rockets through the roof who will benefit the least from a drop in its demand.

When the consumer demands that natural resources are conserved by the use of recycled materials, who is going to suffer a drop in profits.

The change starts with the little people. If 200 million Americans woke up tomorrow and said I don't want to drive a 5 liter off road land tank that does 10 miles to the gallon, I want something small and economical that does 40 miles to the gallon instead, it would not matter if the price of a gallon of gas doubled in price if the average American was consuming only a quarter of what they did before. Lets face it the consumer would still be halving their fuel bills and the income for our rich and powerful would also halve but more importantly CO2 pollution would drop by 75%. We win financially AND environmentally.

If we consumed half the energy we presently do the incomes for the fat cat energy companies would halve and then some. They would not be able to charge a premium if supply was outstripping demand.

But you are saying what about the rest. The pollution, the raping of natural resources. What can we do to make the rich and powerful, the corporations that poison us do something about that. That kind of change is driven by political influence. The people with the most to loose from doing something about the environment are those that are in power. Well we are supposed to live in a democracy. We vote these assholes into power. We can choose not to. The 2008 presidential election is coming up. Make the environment an issue. An election is also not far off here on the other side of the Atlantic. We too can do the same thing.

Lets focus our attentions on resolving the problem and not assigning the blame before our cities are under water, our forests are deserts and the half of the population that survives the environmental chaos that is to come subsist on beach front properties that are presently what we know as hill tops.

Call it "global Warming", call it "climate Change", call it what you will if we continue to bicker on about the cause and do nothing about a solution then I am afraid, as it was most succinctly put a few posts higher up in this thread, we are all fucked!
Lu Tze, this is most excellent!

I can add that we can go further than this.

1. We can cut international trade to the minimum, which would be the world-wide and fair distribution of scarce resources and materials proportionately to populations.

2. We can assist each other, each in our separate nations, to maximise our self-sufficiency, which will help point 1.

3. We can do the same internally within each nation to distribute materials and resources as evenly as possible. Cities would erode in size (their quality of life is frequently sub-standard) and villages would appear which were limited in population size to the maximum number of people that any individual could properly "know".

4. We can begin an aggressive tree-planting, starting at the treeline and hilltops, running along the watercourses and rivers, to reverse the desertification of the planet at the greatest possible speed. This is really a part of the total consideration of the conservation of our freshwater resources. More trees = more fresh water.

5. We can consolidate our transport systems by using constant-contour canals for moving materials and water, railways (as modern and automatic as you like) for moving materials and products by night and people by day.

6. We can homologate our national and international satellite communication systems using open-source software to help the above points, and progress the general education of EVERYONE.

7. We can turn our eyes to gently geo-engineer our Earth - using Life itself.

A calm and studied (and VERY long-term) approach to these problems will do away with the Bible, and religion itself, for we will eventually return to EDEN.

Perhaps it's a good idea to think about these ideas (while up to our necks in a swamp and fighting fires!) otherwise one might think the swamp and fire were all there was to existence....

[kingmonkey]

Lu Tze, this is most excellent!

I can add that we can go further than this.

1. We can cut international trade to the minimum, which would be the world-wide and fair distribution of scarce resources and materials proportionately to populations.

2. We can assist each other, each in our separate nations, to maximise our self-sufficiency, which will help point 1.

3. We can do the same internally within each nation to distribute materials and resources as evenly as possible. Cities would erode in size (their quality of life is frequently sub-standard) and villages would appear which were limited in population size to the maximum number of people that any individual could properly "know".

4. We can begin an aggressive tree-planting, starting at the treeline and hilltops, running along the watercourses and rivers, to reverse the desertification of the planet at the greatest possible speed. This is really a part of the total consideration of the conservation of our freshwater resources. More trees = more fresh water.

5. We can consolidate our transport systems by using constant-contour canals for moving materials and water, railways (as modern and automatic as you like) for moving materials and products by night and people by day.

6. We can homologate our national and international satellite communication systems using open-source software to help the above points, and progress the general education of EVERYONE.

7. We can turn our eyes to gently geo-engineer our Earth - using Life itself.

A calm and studied (and VERY long-term) approach to these problems will do away with the Bible, and religion itself, for we will eventually return to EDEN.

Perhaps it's a good idea to think about these ideas (while up to our necks in a swamp and fighting fires!) otherwise one might think the swamp and fire were all there was to existence....

Agree 100%. Lu Tze's post is bang on the money as well.

Starting a common consensus of "it's natural phonmena" etc. is not helping anybody. This way of thinking, if it becomes widespread is gonna be a cheap excuse for everyone who likes their low priced & convenient creature comforts and consumer way of life to sit back and do nothing and carry on their current way of living. It's not just about the temperatures and climate, it's also about waste,deforestation,biodiversity issues etc. which isn't gonna get any better with the mass production of biofuels. The supply and demand for all this cheap crap we constantly consume needs to be reduced. We need to change the way we live. Once people start to live in harmony with the planet they might even realise that it's pretty rewarding and the need for constant purchasing of new things to occupy their physical space and mindspace will subside. There seems to be a rising opinion that human beings are some kind of cancer or destructive virus on this planet, which is a load of bollocks, we've just been conned into behaving like this since the industrial revolution to finance and prop up the elite and their cushdy existence.

[the_real_jazzroc]

There seems to be a rising opinion that human beings are some kind of cancer or destructive virus on this planet, which is a load of bollocks, we've just been conned into behaving like this since the industrial revolution to finance and prop up the elite and their cushdy existence.
Quite so.

There IS a difference between complaining about one's situation and seeing clearly ahead to a very long-term objective. The difference between the rat and the captain on the ship.

We ALL have the capacity to see BEAUTY, and we all have the capacity to fashion and create that beauty, each in our own individual ways.

We CAN lead this planet out of the hell we are about to descend into into a greater heaven than it has ever been, at a rate more than a hundred times faster than it would achieve at its own speed.

Perhaps the necessary vision to carry out this task is easier to envisage than you might think.

Just imagine that you have a nice hermetic and radiation-proof dwelling and all the provisions to live out the rest of your existence - but there's a catch...

It's on the Moon, and like a shining blue lamp in the blackest of skies there is the Earth, home to countless millions of vistas, plants, animals, insects, fish, birds, breezes, thunderstorms, blue skies, sea shores, waterfalls, rainbows, languages, poems, stories, children...

....there's your VISION.

[endlessvista]

a reduction in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will most likely make things better


Increased C02 levels leads to faster growth rates for plants and trees creating more food and natural habitats for wildlife. Have you thought about that?

No...? thought not.

You are another one who has fallen for this crackpot/misinformation notion that C02 is a toxic substance. Gimmie a break. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's people like you and your ignorant repeater assumptions that C02 is dangerous which will lead to microchips being implanted into us to monitor our C02 output and tax us accordingly.

You are not the voice of reason in this debate - you are dangerous. You are repeating the elite mantra to get us chiped in order to "save the planet".

Here is something to think about before you start getting all misty-eyed about Al Gore and NASA invented problems.

There are BILLIONS of tons of REAL toxic ex-industrial waste all over the world in and around REAL human habitation and this is a REAL evironmental issue and not this fruity C02 bullshit esoteric crap you have bought into. The elite have invented this AGW diversion to take attention away from the millions of REAL people who die of cancer every year because this waste was simply landscaped over.

I repeat C02 is NOT a toxic substance.

[element]

Most of us are in some way responsible for deforestation. Face reality or blame it on others, your choice.

[endlessvista]

Most of us are in some way responsible for deforestation. Face reality or blame it on others, your choice.

"Reality" would be replanting new forests and throwing off the C02 fetish and maybe, just maybe assuming that increased levels of C02 will actually speed up reforestation. Instead we are having sinister ideas about carbon taxes/credits (all run by the big finances houses naturally) and crackpot 'science' like pumping C02 into holes in the ground. Bonkers!

How about planing hundreds of millions of trees or edible crops to suck up the excess C02??? Nah, too obvious and not enough creaming off potential for the middle men.

The whole sickening absurdity of the Climate Change Agenda was brought clearly into view on France24 News this morning with Tony Blair on talking (on a TV station he hasn't bombed btw) about his Climate Action policy he is releasing in Japan today. The pained "what about the children" look on his face demanding C02 action while raining cluster bombs down on Iraq and Afghan villages is no problem for this man of peace, religion and saving us from the deadly toxin which C02 has now being declared by the repeaters.

It's not me who has a problem with reality. Not by a long shot mate.

[element]

Oh take it personal mate PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE. I didn't quote you now did I? So I said it in general. I don't care about Blair or someone else in power. When you think they are in power and we are hopeless slaves, you will realize that. Bombing or not, it doesn't mean they're all 100% evil and wrong about everything. They can have valid and bad things, just like you and me.

Most peoples are the ones buying into the meat, tobacco and wood that's coming from the jungles. Let's look at ourselves FOR GOD'S SAKE once.

[endlessvista]

Most peoples are the ones buying into the meat, tobacco and wood that's coming from the jungles. Let's look at ourselves FOR GOD'S SAKE once.

So plant more trees. Problem solved on a number of levels and that excess C02 will be very useful for growing them trees.

Or do you prefer we tackle the issue by trading carbon credits through Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JP Morgan rather than doing something practical like grow useful stuff to eat up the carbon. At what point was it decided that a Wall Street carbon fund manager was an improvement on nature in terms of dealing with C02?

There is a classic story in the Irish papers today. They just found half a million tons of toxic industrial waste in Ireland second-largest city Cork. Their Green Party Environment Minister is not concerned about it. But he has already banned incandescent lightbulbs and wants carbon taxes on everything to "save the planet" from Climate Change. Look, it's fucking nuts. Honest, it it.

The citizens of Cork are exposed to toxic Chromium, Lead, Heavy Metal, Benzene and Asbestos who cares! There was no Hollywood movie about it and Madonna does not sing about it like Carbon and Polar Bears...now that's real environmentalism!

That's how completely deranged the average political Green is. To quote the great man...PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION sums up the Climate Change farce agenda in a nutshell. It was conceived in the corridors of political power and never left it.

You have been had.

[micklemus]

Oh take it personal mate PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE. I didn't quote you now did I? So I said it in general. I don't care about Blair or someone else in power. When you think they are in power and we are hopeless slaves, you will realize that. Bombing or not, it doesn't mean they're all 100% evil and wrong about everything. They can have valid and bad things, just like you and me.

Most peoples are the ones buying into the meat, tobacco and wood that's coming from the jungles. Let's look at ourselves FOR GOD'S SAKE once.

With you there fella.

[kale]

Scientists back in 1990 were saying that this issue will become so intense that your either with it, or against.

Sure in theory its great to 'Save the Planet' you picture trees and rivers and blue sky pffffffffffft bwhahaha.

In reality, nothing changes, except the coast of energy. You have to pay for the right to release C02. Damn it, i just farted, that'll be $20 to the government.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&q=greenhouse+conspiracy&ei=hyqDSK6rD4HGwgOkmNiVDA

When are people going to wake up and realise the scinece body that tells us this crap is controlled by the NWO agenda? Some of Al Gores carbon credit companies biggest investors are in the defence industry!?

From Professor Lindzen
Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature-a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.

The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle-Al Gore's supposed mentor-is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.


he is also in the 1990 docco.

Carbon Tax, IMO, is designed to unite the Global Unions Ecconomies to implement a one world, uniformed energy system.


Co2 = the perpetual spew

[kingmonkey]

Global warming is a distraction from the real problem which is land pollution, dumpsites and deforestation/extinction etc. The way to stop this would be to stop manufacturing and consuming all the crap we do, which doesn't sit well with the powers that be because it'll effect there bank balances. They don't wanna tell the public not to buy things, so instead they just hike all the prices up so we can't afford as much, and then hit us with the carbon taxes for a non existant problem to fill the gap in profits the lack of consumption of products caused.

[geronimo]

Earth changes are a fact of planetary process - it is a cyclic phenomena and quite natural - with or without humanity doing stuff. It is most probable that global warming syndrome is a government sponsored "fear factor" whereby we the people will believe it is us to blame - get all guilty and remorseful and then play right into the "global warming" industry and tax schemes without complaint. This has always been the recipe for for extracting more wealth from the flocks.

Absolutely. In the UK we are experiencing another cool summer with greyed-out skies, abnormally dark skies, in fact...this is global warming? so why has the 'Press-Speak' been switched to 'Climate Change' and global warming is no longer mentioned? Yet Al Gore is rounding up young 'activists' to report on carbon footprint excess, and report on transgressors, while calling for a global carbon tax. With his fleet of private aircraft and 15 or is it 17? private homes consuming a staggering amount of electricity and fuel, he is of course, wholly exempt. Oh, right.
I seem to remember a young man who was calling for
restrictions on carbon emissions to save the planet. Wasn't his name Rothschild, isn't he rounding up young activists to report on carbon footprint excess, and report on transgressors, while calling for a global carbon tax? strangely enough, yes! his knowledge of planetary dynamics is... how shall I put this? It's a four-letter word
beginning with s and ending with t.

geronimo

[kingmonkey]

so why has the 'Press-Speak' been switched to 'Climate Change' and global warming is no longer mentioned?

Haha, exactly.

[jmmk]

Isn't the real problem ozone depletion, not global warming? The small warming
trend at the poles could just be a trend or a polar shift. When people are told
to use SPF 45 or higher in the direct sun when 30 years ago I was using SPF
10 or 15, that seems to me a big red flag. Also, with the ozone depleted,
wouldn't moisture and gases escape into space?

[eyepod]

Most of us are in some way responsible for deforestation. Face reality or blame it on others, your choice.

Most of us breath out water vapour and CO2 and fart methane as do the cows. All of which are the supposedely the worst green house gasses. Do you propose eugenics and vegetarianism to deal with it? The UN could well be proud of you.

Never mind exploding nuclear ordinace in the atmosphere destroying the ozone layer and flying crap loads of planes spraying everyone with toxic garbage. Let's just blame the masses, tax em and get rich Al.

[element]

Most of us breath out water vapour and CO2 and fart methane as do the cows. All of which are the supposedely the worst green house gasses. Do you propose eugenics and vegetarianism to deal with it? The UN could well be proud of you.

Never mind exploding nuclear ordinace in the atmosphere destroying the ozone layer and flying crap loads of planes spraying everyone with toxic garbage. Let's just blame the masses, tax em and get rich Al.

Fool. The unnessesary rainforest cutting is far more worse. It's a fact the average man keeps the business alive by buying/eating meat and coffee from those places. It's eating unique nature away, which is totally unnessesary. It's one of the many countless reasons to stop using such toxic things.

[eyepod]

Fool. The unnessesary rainforest cutting is far more worse. It's a fact the average man keeps the business alive by buying/eating meat and coffee from those places. It's eating unique nature away, which is totally unnessesary. It's one of the many countless reasons to stop using such toxic things.

And who do you think allows such activities to occur? Me that needs to eat, breath, drink, live or those making a shit load of money out of it? The virgin rainforests of Malaysia and Borneo are being slashed and burned to death for palm oil for your bio fuels and french fries. My fault or is someone making a crap load of money out of it?

[element]

And who do you think allows such activities to occur? Me that needs to eat, breath, drink, live or those making a shit load of money out of it? The virgin rainforests of Malaysia and Borneo are being slashed and burned to death for palm oil for your bio fuels and french fries. My fault or is someone making a crap load of money out of it?

Who is responsible? The one that buys it. You eat what you are. You're the owner of your boss. Man can live healthy without destroying rainforests or killing animals.

We can make a change, sadly most people are to much programmed in body sense gratification.

[eyepod]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1824
A cause and effect relationship, though, has been discovered between solar activity and global temperatures. Danish climatologists Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (in the 1991 issue of Science) and Douglas V. Hoyt and Dr. Kenneth H. Schatten (in their book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change) found that "global temperature variations during the past century are virtually all due to the variations in solar activity."

What about carbon dioxide levels? Scientists have found that past carbon dioxide levels, based, again, on historical and pre-historical tree ring, ice core and lake sediment samples, have changed significantly without human influence. Note, too, that between 1940 and 1980, when man-made levels of CO2 swelled rapidly, there was a decline in temperatures.

If scientific temperature records belie global warming; if scientists conclude that global temperatures are minimally affected by man; where, then, is scientific consensus -- the third claim supporting the notion of global warming? The answer is: there isn't any.

In 1996 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the IPCC -- released a document titled, "Summary for Policy Makers," which supported the notion of global warming. Environmentalists crowed that 15,000 scientists had signed the document.

However, the report was doctored without the knowledge of most of those 15,000 scientists, whose protests became so vocal that the lead authors backed off their conclusions, disavowing the document as "a political tract, not a scientific report."

In 1998, 17,000 scientists, six of whom are Nobel Laureates, signed the Oregon Petition, which declares, in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

In 1999 over ten thousand of the world's most renowned climatologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, etc., signed an open letter by Frederick Seitz, NAS Past President, that states, in part: the Kyoto Accord is "based upon flawed ideas."

Finally, in a paper in June of 2001, aptly titled, GLOBAL WARMING: The Press Gets It Wrong -- our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens."

In light of these facts, if the continual resurrection of the issue of global warming in the media is not a consummate example of the Big Lie, I'd be hard pressed to find a better one.

[eyepod]

Believe what you like.

[eyepod]

Who is responsible? The one that buys it. You eat what you are. You're the owner of your boss. Man can live healthy without destroying rainforests or killing animals.

We can make a change, sadly most people are to much programmed in body sense gratification.

Look don't get me wrong I am not disputing that destroying rain forests and animal habitats is wrong. I am totally against that. I am only arguing that the Global Warming agenda proposed by governments, UN etc. based on human CO2 emissions is just a crock of shit designed to make us pay more in taxes for everything i.e. food, travel, life, just about everything...

[suziwong]

Global warming / dimming - who knows what the true facts are - but the planets weather patterns are in total disruption - we can't deny it & those in charge can't deny it.

Instead of admitting that the real problem appears to be on a galactic scale - every single planet in our solar system has undergone dramatic changes over the past 20 years - the cause - massive energy flares from our sun - they chose to blame the general public - saying that is is a consequence of our carbon footprints and other such bs.

Don't believe the propaganda - it is another example of the public being fed mis-information whilst others try to cash in on the lies.
The BBC online news site published an article last week retracting the sentiments of a recent documentary the whole purpose of the documentary was to scaremonger individuals to be more eco friendly - the retraction was due to the science community insisting that the planetary changes are purely due to solar influence - but I bet that only very few saw the retraction in relation to the number who watched the documentary!

[cruise4]

Two article on the 'Holes in the Ozone Scare'

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/230899.htm
http://info-pollution.com/ranting.htm

Do a search for 'Suncreams cause cancer'

Manufacturers make crap so it breaks and we have to throw it away. There is no need to stop making anything... it just has to be made properly, without deliberate redundancy, without pollution etc. etc. saying the buyer is responsible is of course true, as is saying the exploiter is responsible. But the real responsibility lies with those in power who lay down deliberate pollution assuring greed policies and the people that vote them there. The real culprits to blame are the usual suspects... the corporations, bankers and criminal elites. Just because it's all crap doesn't mean that's how it 'has' to be. But whilst the environmentalist's keep attacking wrong targets and constantly showing how truly gullible they all are... things will only get worse.

Some great quotes here exposing their insane logic...
http://green-agenda.com/

[awakensong]

Yeah, Al Gore really cares about the environment. You would think that someone or the whole movement as a whole who is worried about carbon dioxide would also be concerned about the trees seeing as they are the best filters of air there is. Gore and Clinton was the first administration to deforest indian land here in the US. And does anyone realize how long it takes, for example, an oak tree to mature? Around 900 years yet these idiots think that cutting down trees and planting new ones is acceptable. Your getting rid of all those air filters and these people want stricter emissions on cars. Well, why not make the technology available where we can use the Earth's free energy around us? Why not more talk of stopping the deforesting of our planet. We know the answer to that.
I just saw a commercial last night here in the US that went on for 2 minutes where kids were talking about what they could do to stop global warming and how worried they were. One girl at the end started crying. I wanted to throw up. Holy brainwashing.
Do I believe the Earth is warming? Yes. But its not carbon dioxide. This planet has gone through many cycles. We're going through one again. I do believe we shouldn't pollute but I refuse to be taxed by the government or the UN on carbon emissions and big business keeps rolling and spewing out all types of toxins.
I know this global warming issue is catching on more and more but I am surprised by how many people I talk to don't belive it too much. I think most people on this planet do, but it's less than I thought. Thank goodness for that. It's just too bad how many people believe that putting cancer causing chemicals on your skin to block out the Sun is smart.
Not to mention Gore's own exhorbitant consumption of fuel energy:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119777.html

Al Gore Goes Greener-The Belle Meade Makeover

Ronald Bailey (http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/133.html) | April 20, 2007, 1:04pm
A couple of months ago, Oscar-winning envirohero (and former VPOTUS) Al Gore was subject to a little good natured ribbing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801823.html) about how much energy his house uses in comparison to the homes of other Americans. Estimates vary, but it uses somewhere between 20x and 12x as much. Gore responded that his family buys carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the criticism must have stung because Gore is giving his home at Belle Meade a green makeover (http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12602). He is installing 33 solar panels, a new furnance and radiant floor heat, among other energy saving features.

By the way, Snopes.com has an amusing comparision between Gore's home energy use and that of a certain rival. Check it out here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp).

[resistance]

The green agenda.

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

[element]

Global warming may or may not be false. Either way unnessesary deforestation is not something we should be proud of and prevent as much as we can. People tend to forget this. No, you don't have to support any group, but you can be conscious about what you eat, drink and buy.

[swoarg]

Most of us breath out water vapour and CO2 and fart methane.

hmm theres aprox 6,848,932,929 people on earth, everyone farts atleat
once a day :confused:

[endlessvista]

.

hmm theres aprox 6,848,932,929 people on earth, everyone farts atleat
once a day :confused:


So what? You in favour of genocide in order to save the Polar Bears then...

[endlessvista]

Awesome post and hits the nail on the head with these Endtime scams.


Two article on the 'Holes in the Ozone Scare'

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/beck/230899.htm
http://info-pollution.com/ranting.htm

Do a search for 'Suncreams cause cancer'

Manufacturers make crap so it breaks and we have to throw it away. There is no need to stop making anything... it just has to be made properly, without deliberate redundancy, without pollution etc. etc. saying the buyer is responsible is of course true, as is saying the exploiter is responsible. But the real responsibility lies with those in power who lay down deliberate pollution assuring greed policies and the people that vote them there. The real culprits to blame are the usual suspects... the corporations, bankers and criminal elites. Just because it's all crap doesn't mean that's how it 'has' to be. But whilst the environmentalist's keep attacking wrong targets and constantly showing how truly gullible they all are... things will only get worse.

Some great quotes here exposing their insane logic...
http://green-agenda.com/

[endlessvista]

"A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor



Next Question...

[awakensong]

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/banners/banner550x70.jpg (http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/Global_Warming_Survey.asp)

I have heard many people talking about how we can't afford to not stop Global Warming. They talk about all of the possible scenarios, and what may or may not happen. But they leave out the most likely scenario...trying to stop Global Warming and failing! I do not foresee all of the people around the globe following the instructions set forth by the Global Warming Crusade (GWC). Furthermore, it is my personal belief that even if by some miracle man did find a way to stop our "evil ways", we still could not affect the outcome. Global Warming will either happen or it won't, it will be catastrophic or it won't. Causing total global economic collapse will not make it any better either way.

IF WE DON'T SAY NO TO THE GLOBAL WARMING CRUSADERS IT IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING YES!

The Earth's climate changes


Let's get real for a minute. The Earth's climate changes! Would anyone care to dispute that?

Over the millennia, seas have dried up and transformed into deserts while tropical swamps have become frozen tundra. We find sea shells on top of mountains, and amphibian fossils in frozen ice caps. Lands that were frozen became warmer while tropical lands dried up. All of that sweet crude oil we live on came at a hefty price to the T-rex and his prehistoric friends. I think they would have welcomed a little global warming back then.

The climate changes...it always has and always will!

To think that we caused it, or can significantly change it, is the same as saying the world is flat. Queen Isabella and her contemporaries did not have enough information and lived in constant fear of the assumed and unknown. We are now in the same situation. The problem is the difference between losing Columbus and a few ships to a flat world as opposed to the devastation to our country, our way of life, and our world in the face of the global climate change debate. How big of a risk are you willing to take? How much are you prepared to pay in taxes and increased costs of services and goods?

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/images/globalwarmingtaxes2.jpg
The fact is that we just do not know enough to start mucking around with a system that has been making its own adjustments for hundreds of thousands of years. Anyone living in the 1970's might remember snow so deep that it drifted up to the roof of the house. It was even snowing in Florida! I believe those accounts lead to the fear of the coming ICE AGE.

Hello people! Stop getting led like lambs to the slaughter! All of this climate change debate is not about mother earth, but rather, things such as politics, policy, money, and the economy. If you don't believe all of this fear and guilt mongering isn't lining someone else's pocket check out: http://www.liveneutral.org/ (http://www.liveneutral.org/) . I wish I had thought of that scam first!

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/images/Gorejetchair.jpg
I am a big believer that people should think and believe in whatever they want, but if you are going to say it then DO IT! So far, I have seen the people that are saying we have to reduce our carbon footprint doing nothing to reduce their own. However, they want to tax us and tell us how we should all live.


DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!!!
If you are going to believe that we can effect climate change by driving smaller cars, traveling less, having smaller homes, buying carbon credits, buying local foods, and using less toilet paper...then DO IT! But tell me why I should listen to Hollywood's plea to save the earth while they ride in private jets and limo's traveling around the world marketing Global Warming AND their latest productions? Why should we listen to politicians who live in huge energy consuming homes, fly in private jets, travel with a motorcade, and produce one thousand times our "carbon footprint"?

Oh that's right...they can just buy some carbon credits and ease their guilty conscience. Just follow the money. Who bought up all of Enron's green technology? Could it be GE, who also owns NBC? Can we all say Green Week in one collective sigh? Where does the money go? Anyone? Does someone want to pay me not to produce anything? If we close down a manufacturing plant to reduce carbon emissions, do we also pay all of the people that worked there to not work?
http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/images/cavemans.jpg


The U.N. climate conference in December of 2007 met on the Indonesian island of Bali. Many of the delegates flew their private jets to an island whose airport cannot accommodate parking for that amount of air traffic. That's okay...they just flew the jets empty to neighboring airstrips to park them, and flew them back to paradise empty. When do we identify the hypocrisy and call the leaders of this Global Warming movement out on their actions? Don't you think that if the United Nations wanted to discuss the impending disaster we are creating by using so much fossil fuel that a TELECONFERENCE would have been a much better idea?

If you are going to SAY IT then DO IT!!

As was said in the movie The Outlaw Jose Wales ..."Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

Think About It!
Look fellow humans, if we all turned off our power, never started a car ever again and stayed right where we are this very minute sitting on the ground eating worms in the dark while using leaves instead of toilet paper.Global Climate Change would still happen!

Always has, always will!


ADAPT or DIE

We don't need to be looking for ways to stop climate change (WE CAN'T STOP IT) so get over it. Instead,we should look for ways to ADAPT to this wonderful ever changing world that we live on. That's my opinion, what's yours???

The purpose of this site is to create a sounding board and a collection of ideas and information that the national media is not providing. This is a place to send the people you meet to get a dose of reality when they are trying to explain how we need to reduce our carbon footprint before we cause the end of the universe. I want to be able to collect opinions and report on the other 90% of us that don't buy in to the entire "Inconvenient Truth/ Global Warming is Man's Fault Guilt Trip"
Every day we will add stories from "trusted news outlets" to our Guilt Trip News section in the hopes that people will read and comment and help pass along information to those who so desperately need to be educated!

We may not stop the movement, but it will give us a short cut to stop the painful conversations with those blinded by this new "crusade of the week". Instead of beating your head against a brick wall, just send them to this site! If this Global Warming crusade continues and plunges us into economic collapse, I will at least know that I did not stand by and let it happen without trying to do something about it!


http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/images/freegashome.jpg (http://www.aigtfreegas.com/)


Just for buying any of our merchandise we will give you a $25 gas certificate so you can still afford to drive while the Global Warming Crusade tries to keep gas prices going up with bad legislation.
Get Your Free Gas Now! (http://www.aigtfreegas.com/)

If your business can benefit from marketing our free gas program, please contact us at sales@aigtfreegas.com (sales@aigtfreegas.com).

[kingmonkey]

Awakensong,

Don't you find it strange that all the links on the reference material page on that inconvenient guilt trip site are all from the U.S senate's website?

[deathcultreject]

Ok, so we have HAARP, ELF waves, microwaves, SCALAR Weaponry, and what not....

So do you REALLY believe Al Gore??

Shill, shill, shill! ;)

I still think that deforestation and greenhouse gasses play a role in global warming.

[kingmonkey]

I still think that deforestation and greenhouse gasses play a role in global warming.

They can't not do. It just depends to what extent and how they deal with it. The only scam here is the governments introducing the carbon tax.That's not the only solution, but it's the one they prefer because of the cash it'll bring in.

The question of "is global warming a crock" is a crap one, because it definitely exists, it's just a question of what's causing it. Just because Al Gore is a complete twat and most probably a crook, doesn't make global warming any less of a problem.

[dynamo]

all we know about global warming, is all we've been told about global warming. This goes for almost everything we know. We are a generation that has actually learnt very little for itself.
But assuming global warming is real, it is natural, AND we have accelerated it, and coincidently the means for our accelerating it is fast depleting - Peak Oil
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
i hope rather much that peak oil at least, is real, as with no economy, no infrastructure and no mass media, there would be no mass domination, no mental slavery and no NWO, i see their hold failing immensely if peak oil is real.
So anything interesting about peak oil from people?

[deathcultreject]

They can't not do. It just depends to what extent and how they deal with it. The only scam here is the governments introducing the carbon tax.That's not the only solution, but it's the one they prefer because of the cash it'll bring in.

The question of "is global warming a crock" is a crap one, because it definitely exists, it's just a question of what's causing it. Just because Al Gore is a complete twat and most probably a crook, doesn't make global warming any less of a problem.

The issue should be pushed towards issues like giving patent rights for low impact technologies to the developing world, relief money being fed into oil extraction to counter peak oil issues in finance, not to mention oppressive states like Nigeria attacking tribal cultures such as the Ogoni people.

There are whole areas being smoke screened by the climate change sceptics and the shit flinging which they stir up, which is why oil interests pay and advise them so much.

The whole thing with the greenhouse gasses influence is that it's an unnaceptable risk. Irresponsible. The evidence has too much weight for it to be ignored, so the climate change sceptics confuse the issue instead.

They cause a massive drain on funding for non oil company environemntal scientists, because they keep on making niggling points which mean that old research has to be proven over and over agin, which it eventualy always is.

Meanwhile it's always big news to see a climate change fact drawn into 'question' and then small print when it's re proven over and over again.

[dynamo]

The fact remains, if you do some research, that there is no viable alternative to oil. Nothing can sustain this western consumer based society. we have at best, 5 years. and then, the people who, for so long have had the mass hysteria at their disposal will witness real, angry masses, demanding answers. It'll be very interesting to see how it happens.
I live in nz, pretty peaceful place really, but the government is investing in some interesting APC's etc, given that we've no way of transporting them and almost 0 chance of ever being invaded... i'm picking they're for use against people.

[kingmonkey]

Don't believe the propaganda - it is another example of the public being fed mis-information whilst others try to cash in on the lies.
The BBC online news site published an article last week retracting the sentiments of a recent documentary the whole purpose of the documentary was to scaremonger individuals to be more eco friendly - the retraction was due to the science community insisting that the planetary changes are purely due to solar influence - but I bet that only very few saw the retraction in relation to the number who watched the documentary!

Which scientists in the scientific community? Because they're wrong and I'd like to know why scientists pushing bad data are pressring the BBC into retractions.

[derek climate sceptic]

Hi All,
Peak Oil, yeah right, another hoax, sham, call it what you will.

http://www.the-thinking-man.com/peak-oil.html
- Peak Oil and the Doomers' Dire Predictions
Thinking-man.com

"Doomers" - if the cap fits, at least be honest enough to admit it...

[derek climate sceptic]

Hi All,
you might enjoy this thread......

http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=3649
- BBC Earth Climate Wars

I am, throughly. :D

[lyrag]

I dont believe in Global warming as much as it has been exploited, the scare tactics,the false temperature readings etc. I think what happens to the earth is going to happen anyway, if it is ment to. I dont really believe in alot of science, most of it is just an excuse for people to make up words and theories about things they dont understand FAIR enough, but to then say that it is correct,valid,teach it in schools and tell the whole nation that this is what is real. is a crock.
Although, i dont think the emphasis on people caring for the world and to stop being so selfish is a bad thing at all, i mean nobody needs to go to school to know that if you damage the earth, it will eventually effect us. If you damage anything that is living it eventually gets ill, gets diseases and if these re not treated it dies.
To think that us, plants and animals are all living, but the earth itself is not, i think is a bizzare view point, i mean when you really think about it.

[derek climate sceptic]

I agree totally regarding
" I don't really believe in a lot of science,"

So, being me, I have questioned the "MLO et al" CO2 global record.
It's quite easy really....

See,
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=102
and,
http://co2sceptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125
and at a few other forums...

More to follow soon from a closed forum..

In the meantime please, just consider the "algorithm elephant" for the MLO.....
THAT ELEPHANT DOES EXIST.

[derek climate sceptic]

I have posted on a closed forum the following post.
"We" do NOT measure (global background levels of ) CO2.
Some areas of concern.

Continuing from my post before Christmas..

What motivates "MLO et al" in the continuing CO2 monitoring program appears
to be explained by Dr Tans in one of his replies to Anthony Watts at,
http://wattsupwitht hat.com/2008/ 08/06/post- mortem-on- the-mauna- loa-co2-data- eruption
Excerpt of one of Dr. Tans email replies to Anthony Watts,
" We are very much aware that in a time
when carbon dioxide emissions will cost a lot of money,
there has to be an objective and fully credible way to quantify emissions.
Without that, carbon markets cannot function efficiently,
and policies cannot be measured relative to their objectives.
We think that the atmosphere itself can provide objective quantification. "
End of excerpt.

"there has to be an objective and fully credible way" – I agree wholeheartedly.
So, I have continued looking at MLO et al and the (ancient) instruments and method used.

I have posted an "elephant" version of what follows here on several forums,
ie,
http://co2sceptics. com/forum/ viewtopic. php?f=2&t=125
And,
http://www.greenwor ldtrust.org. uk/Forum/ phpBB2/viewtopic .php?t=102
Titled,
"We" do NOT measure (global) CO2 levels.
Second version –
How many elephants are in the room. ?

Here is a version for CS.

Mauna Loa Observatory has been measuring "global CO2" levels for 50 years now, in January 2009.
How good a record has it produced. ?

In the first version I looked at
http://esrl. noaa.gov/ gmd/ccgg/ about/co2_ measurements. html
this official page and description of the method employed to measure
the beneficial to plant life trace gas that is CO2.

Excerpt,
"Infrared absorption.
How does the CO2 analyzer work? Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends.
Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by
a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation,
contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light.
More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector.
We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of
CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures."
End of excerpt.

In short, at the wavelength measured the amounts of other gases that overlap CO2 (spectrally)
are present in such small amounts and their responses at this wavelength are so small that they can be ignored.
I have to admit that excepting water, this appears to be the case, but even so the sum of the other gases,
(N2O and O3 I believe) that are contributing, and may (do) vary MUST be taken into account
if the purported measurement accuracy of "MLO et al" to 0.1 ppm is to be correct.

There are however many other concerns.
If you consider the rational that it is the amount of a GHG present, how it varies, and
it's spectral response at a specific wavelength that is the important factor overall
then an obvious and large concern is immediately raised, namely water vapour..

1) The water vapour concern.

As Ferdinand's figures posted elsewhere show water vapour content can be both
considerable and varying (between 1000 to 10,000 ppm).
In almost all studies it is now widely accepted that water vapour is THE most important GHG
(contributing between 85% to 95% of the so called "greenhouse" effect)
because of it's strong and wide spectral response and the considerable quantities involved.

From the descriptions so far it becomes apparent that "MLO et al" believe they have dealt with this concern.
The next line of justification usually employed is that the air sample is dried by the cold water trap.
To "dry" air completely a temperature of about minus 70 C is required.
This is why the cold water temperature traps temperature record is important.
Given the size of the (water) concern even a slight change in the cold traps temperature could
have considerable and undesirable effects on the every ten seconds, accurate to 0.1 ppm measurements.

Tim Channon in another post at CS raised a question regarding what happens to the ice in the cold trap.
Over time I assume this ice must build up, eventually blocking the cold trap if it is not removed.
How is it removed, and when, and how often. ?
I would hazard a guess that the four machines (all in constant use according to an email from Dr. Tans)
at MLO are changed over at regular time intervals to allow the cold traps to be de-iced.
This would mean (up to) four different machines are used to produce one continuous record. !

This water vapour concern also does effect the air samples before they are even taken.
For instance in the cold of the early morning as dew forms the air cools as does the water vapour.
In the real world CO2 / water solubility changes mean that the water vapour
reduces the CO2 level in the air in the early morning.

It would seem reasonable that during a normal day CO2 levels would alter quite markedly due to
the changes in the air's temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water relationship alone.

Rain would have a considerable effect as Ferdinand has noted previously, lots of cooled water, high humidity.

Is there a temperature / pressure / humidity record for MLO.
Apparently not. ?

Water vapour and how it varies must be known within the instruments and out side where the samples are taken.
As well as how changes have effected the sample before it is taken.

Also are the adaptations to the instruments (originally made for contained air samples)
to take external measurements known NOT to effect the samples, a long pipe connected to a metal tower
presumably has condensation at different times of day or weather conditions.

2) QA / machine constants, repairs, replacements, and upgrades concerns.

Undoubtedly these are required, and repairs, replacements must have happened
over the 50 year record from MLO, but none are available on the internet.
I have not seen any other evidence that the records are available, or have been checked.
Since August 2008 a change log has been introduced, which 49 years on is
too little too late, but a step in the right direction undoubtedly.

Simply before August 2008 the changes, constants, repairs, upgrades are unknown,
any record produced now from some unknown as yet source, would have to be
to put it kindly somewhat taken on trust.
Would it be a historical record of changes and good QA process monitoring, or would it be freshly written. ?
All that is known at present is such records are not available on the internet,
and do not appear to have been verified or independently checked.

Given the importance of the measurements (as the Dr. Tans quote above illustrates)
this is a major concern as to the reliability of the instruments and the measurements they take.

3) The discarded outlier concern.

The practice of discarding any measurements that over several hours vary by more than 0.25ppm is
usually justified by "MLO et al" because there is little or no variation measured at the South Pole. ?
And, the samples have been altered by the volcanic CO2 emissions of the local volcanoes
(there are 2 in the vicinity – one the world's most active CO2 emitting volcano.)

Another justification used is because CO2 is assumed to be a well mixed gas,
so there is a back ground level to measure.
Does this ONLY apply to CO2. ?
Other gases are known to vary, but CO2 no, it is special, it IS well mixed, apparently.
An assumption with no "motive power" whatsoever for CO2s assumed mixing that does not apply to other gases. ?

Using the above "justifications" MLO et al then discard any measurements that
vary by more than their "allowed" amount. "Flags" denoted discarded data.

In some early studies of MLO released data it appeared that up to
80% of the "raw data" had been discarded.
Last August it appeared that much data was altered / discarded because of machine / instrument breakdown.
Overnight the data set back from Aug 2008 to 1974 was altered,
no explanation was given until WUWT asked.

The answers and concluding remarks on the below linked to thread are informative.
http://wattsupwitht hat.com/2008/ 08/04/one- day-later- mauna-loa- co2-graph- changes-data- doesnt/

The flags used to denote discarded data are not specific / quantified variables,
but are descriptions and therefore subjective.
This is simply the removal of "unwanted" outliers, by subjective decisions based on
preconceived assumptions of what they are measuring..
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics. info/phpbb3/ viewtopic. php?f=6&t=572

Dr Glassman summed this problem best with this statement.
Excerpt,
" Ferdinand reports that the data are reduced to produce smoother results.
He reports that investigators select data to reject volcanic, agricultural, and other local effects.
He says that they remove outliers before averaging, and that that is normal scientific and engineering practice.
Without more, these are all subjective steps. While they may be common practice,
they are at best incompletely reported or worse - unscientific.

Terrible mistakes have been made and actual frauds perpetrated by
improper removal of outliers. "
End of excerpt.
(Large size is my emphasis)

As an example of the care needed to avert massive mistakes being made using South Pole measurements,
incorrect assumptions and, basic misunderstanding of the processes involved,
Ozone is a excellent example.

South Pole data / measurements of Ozone were used to "show" how man had created the ozone hole,
as the processes involved were understood at the time.
That idea is now all but discredited, as the processes / effects both natural and man made
were not understood correctly.
http://www.newscien tist.com/ article/dn14211
recent discoveries have shown this.

The seasonal Ozone hole still appears to be at about (within 1% of) record size.

Overall, MLO et al have removed outliers that do not fit their
preconceived assumptions by subjective flags based on,

1) What they knew of.

2) What they knew of incorrectly and,

3) What they did not know of.

It should be of little surprise their measurements seem to fit their assumptions.

4) The variation of what do we actually measure concern.

Yes, spectrally we appear to measure CO2 but what and which variations
that are not admitted already as discarded. ?
In the mid 1950s Keeling himself produced a paper that discarded the effect of the vegetation
to any great extent on the MLO measurements, more recently plots have been produced showing
a net decrease in the MLO vegetation changes rate confirming, or
rather reaffirming Keeling's original findings.

[*IMG]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/MLO/MLOVeg-small.jpg[*/IMG]
(Please copy and paste to address bar and remove the two *)

In short the vegetation appears to be on the wane (less active sun possibly)
yet the MLO official rates of change of CO2 have not changed.
Excepting a recent hiccup as covered at WUWT that it would appear will soon be "corrected".
http://wattsupwitht hat.com/2009/ 01/11/mauna- loa-co2-record- posts-smallest- yearly-gain- in-its-history/

Almost any reading of the official MLO sites refers to "CO2 depleted (by vegetation) air samples". ?

There are other even more basic "what do we measure" questions.
Many measurements are flagged (discarded) by MLO because of the local volcano,
usually these are referred to as downslope wind directions, and nothing more.
In the case of downslope from the volcano winds this appears reasonable,
if it was correlated to volcanic activity or gas emissions.
The volcano could be permanently emitting gas, but I doubt it is a constant,
even so this may be reasonable.

Upslope winds appear to make up most of the voltage measurements that are kept for processing.
These winds are therefore used as our measurement of global CO2 levels.
Locally Keeling suggested vegetation was not much of an effect, but officially vegetation is given
as the reason for the seasonal variation as measured at MLO.

Is there anything else that could be effecting the measured CO2 level at MLO. ?

Mauna Loa is a volcanic island, it is in the Pacific ocean , and this island is near the equator.
Seasonally the trade winds shift North and South, as do the Hadley cells they are part of.
The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn show the seasonal movements of the Hadley cells North and South of the equator.
The official position is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, obviously not instantly but over many months globally speaking.
The usual answer given is that it takes about 18 months for CO2 emitted
from any locality to become evenly mixed globally.

Dr. Glassman's page http://www.rocketsc ientistsjournal. com/2006/ 10/co2_acquittal .html
The Acquittal of CO2
- covers the water / CO2 solubility / temperature relationship very well.

The trade winds that blow across Mauna Loa have blown across a part of the Pacific where
the water is known to be warming and so therefore de-gassing CO2.
The longer the wind has blown across the ocean the more CO2 that will
have been de-gassed by the ocean, so the higher the level of CO2 measured.
Over the path of the trade winds it would be reasonable to expect an increasing
level of CO2 as the wind neared the solar zenith and the doldrums.

Below is a roughly drawn figure that shows this.

[*IMG]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/MLO/Hadleycells-MLO.jpg[*/IMG]
(Please copy and paste to an address bar removing the two *)

Obviously Mauna Loa being an island does not move, but the trade winds do move with the sun's zenith,
between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. They move seasonally, regularly, and relatively predictably.
The point the figure is trying to illustrate is that MLO is on an island
that the trade winds move over seasonally.
If you have a measuring station (on the above figure) at point A
would you expect a lower CO2 reading than at point B on the diagram.
Yes.

Is this the seasonal variation that MLO is measuring. ?

5) The unseen algorithm concern.

Quite simply, remember Mann's 1998 and 2008 "Hockey Stick" temperature projections.
In the 1998 "Hockey Stick" there were supposedly 400 plus data sets.
Then by accident someone found a copy of the algorithm Mann et al used.
It turned out that Mann had used 112 data sets only,
AND one data set had been weighted by a factor of 396.
So, what appeared to be 400 plus data sets was in reality just one
because of the undeclared omissions and weighting..

No one has seen the algorithms used by "MLO et al".
We may have seen 2 days of 10 second voltage data of a 50 year record,
but algorithms, no, not at all, not one.

Constants / corrections used, what, how, why to calculate the ppm figures released,
we simply DO NOT KNOW.

This concern is THE major concern (closely followed by the discarded outliers concern), in my opinion.
This concern is a known fact,
no one has seen the algorithms used,
because they have never been given or released.

It really is that simple, no algorithm, no known objective or fully creditable MLO et al CO2 record,
whether it be of localized variations or "assumed" background global levels.

There are many further and more detailed concerns regarding the MLO et al CO2 "global" record of 50 years,
above I have merely tried to put some of the major areas (as I understand) of concern,
in as simple a way as possible.

If just one of the above concerns is reasonable the whole MLO et al CO2 record is
at best, neither objective nor fully creditable.

The simple fact is obvious; the algorithm concern alone is A FACT.

In my opinion the CO2 global record is discredited, unreliable, and does not measure what it purports to monitor.
What MLO et al purports to measure (a global CO2 background level) does that even exist,
except as an ideological expression of what "they" would like you to believe.
No, not in any real sense.
If such a place existed to measure such an "average level" then it WILL NOT BE
in the middle of a de-gassing ocean,
on a volcanic island,
near the world's most active CO2 emitting volcano,
being traversed seasonally by the trade winds.

My version of why MLO is important.

The MLO et al record has been used to "prove" or "support" most,
if not all AGW / man made EHG unproven hypothesis / ideas / fears, new ways to tax / control us.

It is plain that the base this is built on (MLO et al) is false, and
So therefore is everything built off it.

MLO et al is the ORIGINAL Hockey Stick and
is one of the cornerstones of the biggest scam in human history so far,
the idea that man has significantly effected the climate of this planet.

Other "cornerstones" of AGW being,
(the now discredited) Mann et al 1998 Hockey Stick, and
(the never validated) climate models
(which still have a very poor understanding of clouds as well as of oceanic phases and cycles,
and of course not forgetting the "constant" assumed solar influence,
and other solar effects that are flatly denied, namely the Svenmark theory).

The three main areas of support for AGW require you to have much to believe in.
Yet they are derived from an understanding and knowledge of the processes involved that is

a) incomplete,

b) assumed and,

c) has been shown to be wrong.

Belief is the life blood of politics and religion.
Science should be empirical.
MLO et al is NOT empirical.

The released data sets are the ideological representations of what they
assume they are trying to measure.

It requires a lot of belief, a belief that will cost us all dearly, and soon.

The planet continues to cool, as it has for the last ten years.
That WAS NOT modeled or predicted by anyone supporting the MLO et al / AGW unproven hypothesis's position.

Yours Derek.