The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Aaron]

"science" fraud

• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Umm, there are not very many authentic climate scientists out of the
"thousands" that are beating the global warming drum. Yet, you and others
use their testimony out of convenience.

The publications that are posting most of the global warming co2 "science"
operate like an underground casino in many cases. They are about as
authentic as the FDA "scientific studies" that get used to pass drugs
when many of the "authors" NEVER even personally contributed to the
studies. This is happening more and more in scientific journals and the
peer review process has become a "buddy buddy" club. This cannot
be denied. It is all about where the money comes from and who it
benefits. Who controls the journal? Where does the funding come from
to support the research from the studies? This is just how it has operated
for some time and it is getting worse. Many of the news reports you see
on television are there because they are actually paid advertisements
to report on some product, service, company, etc... and they aren't even
required to tell you they were paid to do the "story".

The IPCC consensus? You need to realize that MOST of the members
are NOT climate scientists. That speaks for itself!

[aussieaussieaussie]

Earth is cooling? Hahahahahaha

Sounds like you're intimately involved with the global warming belief on a
number of levels.
Don't worry, I believed in Global warming before I met her and really that statement was to say hey - I have done a little research on this, I didn't get this info from the newspaper!


You obviously take my comment out of context. The next sentences were:
"If you can think a few steps forward, when those
trails dissipate laterally for miles and miles and connect to trails next to
them doing the same thing and then 100% (which is very common) of
the "cloud coverage" is completely from the trails, that is not ice crystals
and it doesn't take much common sense to see that. "

Meaning, just because it is at a height where ice crystals form does NOT
automatically mean it is simply water vapor turning into ice crystals. That
is why I'm saying it is irrelevant that it is at those altitudes since you
use altitude as the premise to base your argument that it must be ice
crystals.
Ok, I understand your argument here. Please understand that I was only giving a response to Ash's claim that the altitude was two low to be ice. His claim is utterly false and I was simple clarifying that. Posting pics and making unsupported claims like Ash, doesn't help anyone here - so I was trying to make that statement.


Yes, there IS a debate and always will be. And those quotes revolve
heavily around the fact that there is no real evidence to show manmade
global warming is a reality. So it went from 3 paid scientists to all of those
numbers, which is still a drop in the bucket.
No problem here, Yes, there are more than 3 but as the article I posted clearly explains - this amounts to a drop in a bucket compared to the many many many scientists who think Climate change is real.

Also, using a little more critical thinking, just because oil has a vested
interest in not wanting their parade to be rained on doesn't mean that
science compiled by scientists that do not believe in manmade global
warming are a bunch of liars. Those distinctions are crucial to see things
for what they are I believe.
Ok so by your thinking here, I should accept scientific papers from tobacco scientists to be the truth and a totally unbiased document - get real my friend! It has been proven over and over the main players in the anti climate change field are paid by Big Oil - no mystery only the facts! These people are in the minority but sadly they are very very vocal.

I could say the exact same thing about you. You said you're not for the
co2 tax either but I could turn that into meaning you are an oil company
agent because of your belief in that and leave out everything else you say
to take it out of context. The motive of one doesn't have
to be the motive of another just because they are saying the same thing.
I didn't say I am not for the Co2 tax, I just think there may be better ways to reduce pollution. A tax is a small part of the equation.


I think it is a completely irrational conclusion to dismiss what they all say
just because it happens to strengthen the oil industry's side. That is one
of the most popular, irrational, illogical and meaningless arguments that
the pro global warming crowd uses.
What about their rock solid argument backed up by 1000's of peer-reviewed papers that humans are contributing to a global rise in temperatures? That one is most certainly not a irrational, illogical and meaningless argument!

I'm not for the co2 tax either as it is a scam on par with the what the
federal reserve has pulled but it doesn't automatically mean I want to
keep burning oil.

You can look at NASA's own admission when they were FORCED to
reanalyze their data, the warmest it has been was about 15 years ago.
And the COOLEST it has been was about the same time. In any case,
temps over the last 15 years simply have not risen and only manipulated
and cherry picked data has shown that it has.... meaning that all the
objective data, separate from all agendas and emotions, is that the Earth
is cooling.
Nice statement, would hold a lot more ground if you provided some proof or references.
I personally read over 30 papers using many many different methods to achieve their results and they all say the planet on average is getting warmer.
Latest data suggest a 0.13 degree C rise per decade.


You should take a look at Hamaker's model with glaciation because IF
there is any global warming tied to co2, it inevitably means we are moving
to an ice age and not the other way around. This is backed by MILLIONS
of years of evidence and not Al Gore's fake hockey stick.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I checked out Hamakers work, I even have one of his books on my bookshelf title: "The Survival Of Civilization", subtitled Carbon Dioxide, Investment Money, Population - Three Problems Threatening Our Existence.
His biggest fear seems to be that rises in CO2 in our atmosphere will cause climate change. His only objection to modern theory is that over 100s of years the climate will get warmer then plunge into an ice age. Also he can't really object to modern theory when he died 15 years ago!

Also, why do all you yanks hate Al Gore? Other than he is in politics? Climate change is bigger then any one person, and bigger then any one country - the sooner we all figure this out, the better hope we have on retaining some of our natural ecosystems!

Ozy

[aussieaussieaussie]

I love all this misinformation you got here, whats your source, people magazine or Fox news.


Umm, there are not very many authentic climate scientists out of the
"thousands" that are beating the global warming drum. Yet, you and others
use their testimony out of convenience.
Sorry your figures are incorrect here. There are hundreds of Millions of people talking seriously about climate change, out of that number there are approx, 500,000 scientists, out of that 10,000 are specifically trained in climate science - out of those 10,000 - 2000 of the best where chosen to be apart of the IPCC. These people are the world's authorities on the subject and I am not using their statements out of convenience - I am using them because they are the EXPERTS.


The publications that are posting most of the global warming co2 "science"
operate like an underground casino in many cases. They are about as
authentic as the FDA "scientific studies" that get used to pass drugs
when many of the "authors" NEVER even personally contributed to the
studies. This is happening more and more in scientific journals and the
peer review process has become a "buddy buddy" club. This cannot
be denied. It is all about where the money comes from and who it
benefits. Who controls the journal? Where does the funding come from
to support the research from the studies? This is just how it has operated
for some time and it is getting worse.
LOL, have you ever read a scientific journal? The reason why they are fundamentally better then newspapers is that you can't publish anything in them until you can get 100 people to agree with your conclusion and your methods to obtain that conclusion. Why are there almost no papers debunking climate change? Because you need evidence to publish in a scientific journal, while in a newspaper you only need an uneducated opinion.

Many of the news reports you see
on television are there because they are actually paid advertisements
to report on some product, service, company, etc... and they aren't even
required to tell you they were paid to do the "story".
Ahh, I see here is the problem - You get your information from the Cable news channels. You see we scientists don't get our news from these sources, we long ago realized that these news channels are complete rubbish. See we get our info from scientific journals.

The IPCC consensus? You need to realize that MOST of the members
are NOT climate scientists. That speaks for itself![/QUOTE]

Do your research buddy, to be apart of the IPCC, you have to be a climate scientist. Sure they have consultants from other fields - but the core people are all highly well respected climate scientists.

Please do some research before spreading this dribble, you are wasting valuable time, when we could be doing something to change this!

Ozy

I know your government is evil, but that doesn't mean Climate Change is a hoax like 9/11....

[ashtweth]

HAHAHA, Ash that plane is cruising at 10,000m which means the temperature up there is -60 degrees celsius. I do believe that is a good temperature for ice to form!

The con trail clearly is above the lower clouds which would average 3000m high or approx temperature of -5 degrees celsius

Folks! Read the science of climate change! Don't read the newspaper, especially the opinion section - READ a science journal! Once you do this you realize 10,000 scientists say there IS climate change and 3 scientists paid by big oil say there is no such thing.

I am not saying I agree with carbon taxes etc, but folks if you think there is no such thing as climate change - please pull your head out of the sand!

Thanks,

Ozy

A contrail does not stay there for 3-4 hours and expand out to a cloud, do some more research mate that's all i have to say for you, no one is saying climate change is not occurring they are saying that man made CO2 is not the culprit

You are WAY off, well i think i dont need to state that.

Ash

[aussieaussieaussie]

@Ash,

"A contrail does not stay there for 3-4 hours and expand out to a cloud,"
Yes they do! On a beautiful clear still aussie day like you have there in the photo they can hang around for an hour or two. If you want to snap a photo of a chemtrail you might have to work a little harder...

do some more research mate that's all i have to say for you, no one is saying climate change is not occurring they are saying that man made CO2 is not the culprit.
Ok, Aaron clearly states in his message that he believes there is no warming whatsoever. So once again fail Ash.
I ask you to read a little more science journals and a bit less free energy magazines before commenting on Man Made Co2.
If YOU do the research you will find it is very real and although there are many variables, it's very likely our pollution is the catalyst to the warming trend.


You are WAY off, well i think i dont need to state that.

Please feel free to attack me Ash, if you have a logical argument, but replying to these uneducated dribbles is starting to get a little tiresome.

Ozy

[ashtweth]

I have done more research into the chem trial phenom then you mate even got a certified government lab report published on our website you are a ridiculous waste of time, no contrails stays there for 3-4 hours and expands to a cloud you are a JOKE

what the hell are you doing here on this forum?,As for your Co2/climate change research recommendation i dont think so mate, i dont take advice from people like you. Hence why i have achieved what i have in life

Ash

[aussieaussieaussie]

Ok Ash, as always I check peoples claims before I post - so I read your 'research' on your site.

Firstly,

Secondly,

Sorry still wiping the tear away. I will give you this, there are some interesting pics shown there - but there are a lot of 'mystery' clouds and harrp clouds there that are normal cloud formation known to any meteorologist if you cared to ask them. Makes the rest of the material seem almost childish because it is obvious to any discerning reader that you have not even read meteorology 101. How can we possibly take you seriously?

Also your government report is for a water sample that shows your mate is collecting dangerous levels of heavy metals from rain water collected off his roof! Might explain all the other weird crap on his website!

Please Ash do us all a favor and read about cloud seeding. The small amount of exhaust from an airplane can indeed seed a much larger cloud that will hang around for a long time... if the conditions are right!

what the hell are you doing here on this forum?
I am here to find the real answers, but I seem to have got bogged down dealing with your illogical dribble. Once again put forward an idea logically and I am more then happy to listen!

As for your Co2/climate change research recommendation i dont think so mate.
Your loss, mate! It's sad that you choose to be biased and only get your news from one source. I on the other hand am a thinker and I choose to make my own mind up by reading both sides of an argument!

i dont take advice from people like you. Hence why i have achieved what i have in life
Correct! Because you choose to ignore common sense and Occam's razor you spend your life dribbling unscientific nonsense in forums such as this.

Now please, I prefer debating with Aaron. At least he can put an argument together in a logical way - he's smart, just a little misguided on the subject.

OOroo

Ozy

[Aaron]

post your real name

Many of the news reports you see
on television are there because they are actually paid advertisements
to report on some product, service, company, etc... and they aren't even
required to tell you they were paid to do the "story".
Ahh, I see here is the problem - You get your information from the Cable news channels. You see we scientists don't get our news from these sources, we long ago realized that these news channels are complete rubbish. See we get our info from scientific journals.

Self proclaimed "scientist" that jumps to conclusions based on a comparision
that I post. Not much common sense and sounds like the mentality that
believes the doctor must be right because that is what they learned in
medical school. JAMA, most respected medical journal only admitted vitamins
"may" be good for you in the last 15 years.

If you think the status quo "scientists" are going to bite the hand that
feeds them and jeopardize their funding, which is what it is has greatly
moved towards, you're living in a fantasy land completely out of touch
with any kind of reality whatsoever.

Yeah, you're here to find answers, yet you already have them all. You
already said you believe in global warming, you disagree with those here
that don't believe in the man made co2 global warming scam, from some
of our perspectives, then there are no answers you can get from this
thread.

Post your real name and links to your wife's papers so we can see if you're
real or just wasting everyone's time hiding behind an anonymous username
as many have done before you.

[Aaron]

manipulation

Ok, Aaron clearly states in his message that he believes there is no warming whatsoever. So once again fail Ash.
I ask you to read a little more science journals and a bit less free energy magazines before commenting on Man Made Co2.

There are warming episodes here and there but the overall TREND is COOLING.

You are a manipulator that takes my words and puts them into whatever
context is convenient for you. Assuming I get my info from the news because
I use that as an example of promoting bogus info is completely telling about
your own critical thinking ability, which is completely lacking.

[ashtweth]

Ok Ash, as always I check peoples claims before I post - so I read your 'research' on your site.

Firstly,

Secondly,

Sorry still wiping the tear away. I will give you this, there are some interesting pics shown there - but there are a lot of 'mystery' clouds and harrp clouds there that are normal cloud formation known to any meteorologist if you cared to ask them. Makes the rest of the material seem almost childish because it is obvious to any discerning reader that you have not even read meteorology 101. How can we possibly take you seriously?

Also your government report is for a water sample that shows your mate is collecting dangerous levels of heavy metals from rain water collected off his roof! Might explain all the other weird crap on his website!

Please Ash do us all a favor and read about cloud seeding. The small amount of exhaust from an airplane can indeed seed a much larger cloud that will hang around for a long time... if the conditions are right!

what the hell are you doing here on this forum?
I am here to find the real answers, but I seem to have got bogged down dealing with your illogical dribble. Once again put forward an idea logically and I am more then happy to listen!

As for your Co2/climate change research recommendation i dont think so mate.
Your loss, mate! It's sad that you choose to be biased and only get your news from one source. I on the other hand am a thinker and I choose to make my own mind up by reading both sides of an argument!

i dont take advice from people like you. Hence why i have achieved what i have in life
Correct! Because you choose to ignore common sense and Occam's razor you spend your life dribbling unscientific nonsense in forums such as this.

Now please, I prefer debating with Aaron. At least he can put an argument together in a logical way - he's smart, just a little misguided on the subject.

OOroo

Ozy

The Rain water sample was not collected from his roof. We dont get news from one source, cloud seeding has nothing to do with any thing we have stated or tested for, unlike you we dont parrot a web site , we work in the field, I stand by my comments about you being a waste of time plus my advice about not having to answer is pretty obvious.

The only thing i am sorry about , its a shame you went into an off topic line here in Peter's thread, there is Geo- engineering research worth looking into which i know the people here who are not distractions will be interested in.

As for your sorry behind, i think ill take mine and some others advice from PM's and let you distract yourself from now on. My apologies to Peter for having this guy post here.

Ash

[bolt1]

The issue over chemtrails has been raised by the UN recently as it has been proven beyond doubt to be extremely toxic.

This is hardly surprising given the fact the onboard aircraft toilets are connected direct to the jet engines via an emulsifier tank. Almost all aircraft have been retrofitted with this technology since the year 2000.

So they are not vapour trails but $hitTrails as proven by lab test contain blood, feacies, urine, virus, bacteria, DNA, particles of tissue, heavy metals snot and everything else found in sewers. This is operation backed up by much higher flying dedicated military tanker jets which spray even more crap.

WHY are they doing this? Commercial reasons number ONE as plane takes off full with people and fuel as journey ends fuel depletes and toilets fill but now toilet adds to combustion and increases thrust by 3% but more overall as toilet tank also loses weight from all the on-board fluids go out the engine saving more weight and fuel. Pilots don't even know about this as system is fully automatic and uses pressure switch to turn $hit dump on when over certain height and off for landing.

Second reason population control and getting sick is good for business! Ahh smell the fresh air

[aussieaussieaussie]

Ok I think I will answer Aaron first, at least he tries to put an argument together Ash!

Self proclaimed "scientist" that jumps to conclusions based on a comparision
that I post.
Not self proclaimed, my first degree was in biology! I stand by my conclusion, based on your answers I believe you have not read a scientific journal article on climate change - I believe you have got your info from other sources such as Cable News.

Not much common sense and sounds like the mentality that
believes the doctor must be right because that is what they learned in
medical school. JAMA, most respected medical journal only admitted vitamins
"may" be good for you in the last 15 years.
I never stated that the scientific method is perfect, but it's a whole lot better then anything else we got. Sometimes it may be slow to change, but the truth will always prevail because it is based solely on facts and not peoples forever changing opinions!


If you think the status quo "scientists" are going to bite the hand that
feeds them and jeopardize their funding, which is what it is has greatly
moved towards, you're living in a fantasy land completely out of touch
with any kind of reality whatsoever.
Haha, Great! Thats exactly what they did when they set up the IPCC! We knew about climate change decades ago and struggled to get the information out there because whoever published data on climate change no longer received funding from big business. It took over 20 years before enough scientists, who didn't care about big business scare tactics, published data and began the movement we see today. KNOW YOUR FACTS BEFORE ATTACKING ME! Thats all I ask, if I get something wrong attack me then!

Yeah, you're here to find answers, yet you already have them hall. You
already said you believe in global warming, you disagree with those here
that don't believe in the man made co2 global warming scam, from some
of our perspectives, then there are no answers you can get from this
thread.
Unlike others, I do approach EVERYTHING EVERYDAY with an open mind. But I ain't just going to believe you? Supply a link to the data and I am happy to take a look. If the argument put forth in the link is logical, then I am more then happy to agree with you. I am here for answers, but I am also here to help! By pointing the extremely obvious false claims out (like ashs, my first post here), so people who read this don't get lost in a sea of bull****. Debate is great mate, should be more of it. I got something to learn from you, you got something to learn from me.


Post your real name and links to your wife's papers so we can see if you're
real or just wasting everyone's time hiding behind an anonymous username
as many have done before you.
Firstly, I never said my wife had published any papers on this subject, I said she lectures about the subject. She tries to fill ordinary people in on the science behind climate change - letting people ascend from the opinion pages and getting a real understanding of what scientists worldwide are saying.
Basically she is taking a hot knife to the BS on both sides and making sure all that is left is the truth!
As for my real name, if I was to post this here, it would be seriously detrimental to my further career opportunities. This stuff is searchable and any employer would think twice about hiring me if they knew I even talked to the 'crack pots' on this forum.

There are warming episodes here and there but the overall TREND is COOLING.
Cool, Thanks mate for clarifying your opinion, if I ever summarize your opinion incorrectly again please feel free to point it out.

You are a manipulator that takes my words and puts them into whatever
context is convenient for you. Assuming I get my info from the news because
I use that as an example of promoting bogus info is completely telling about
your own critical thinking ability, which is completely lacking.
I never manipulated your words, if anybody reads your posts above and does not firmly believe that you do not believe in global warming - they are smoking some good stuff! Please clarify your opinion, but calling me a manipulator is false and yet another erroneous attack.

As for critical thinking, I do believe I have shown ample amounts of it my posts! I am obviously not one to believe someone just because they say so!
Please take the time to read an actual scientific paper on this subject, if you are still convinced that climate change is still bogus then please, tell us all why you still feel this way and show us the documents that you base your decision on. You never know it might just be convincing enough to convince me my opinion is wrong. I have provided documents and references, all you too have provided is a lot of Hot Air - back up your claims!

Ozy

[aussieaussieaussie]

Ok Ash your turn!

The Rain water sample was not collected from his roof.
The report says the sample came from a 15,000L tank. How else do you collect rain water into a tank such as this?
Also you only got back one result that was of any concern, so you want me to take a sample size of one and extrapolate that into a basis for your argument. WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING BROTHER?

We dont get news from one source,
Nexus and UFO weekly are not enough, you may need to research further.

cloud seeding has nothing to do with any thing we have stated.
Yes it does! You claim your proof is that airplane exhaust can not make a big cloud - not enough material so say. Cloud seeding, as in the ability of tiny particles to collected lots of water around them, explains it perfectly. Maybe you should understand what is going on up there before making bogus claims.

The only thing i am sorry about , its a shame you went into an off topic line here in Peter's thread, there is Geo- engineering research worth looking into which i know the people here who are not distractions will be interested in.
Off topic line? The thread is called "The Great Global Warming Swindle", your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!
As for your news well, Please tell us, I wait with baited breath...

As for your sorry behind, i think ill take mine and some others advice from PM's and let you distract yourself from now on.
Please do Ash, your comments are nothing but dribble. I have asked politely before and I will say it again - if you want to debate me on this subject you are going to have to do a little better then blowing Hot Air and illogical arguments, back up your claims mate with logic!

But I digress, my original intent here was to point out the disservice Ash is doing to the world.

He's all heart and no brains! You get people to investigate things that WE ALL SHOULD be investigating by developing your website and posting some information. But what happens is they only get a few sentences in and they are presented with a picture like this:

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/ole_215.jpg

Of which you claim is caused by chemtrails reacting with HAARP.

Anybody with half a brain has just left your webpage, never to return or be enlightened by the other (yet to be discovered) earth shattering information found on the website.

This is a very common cloud formation that can be found DAILY in Northern Australia, I have a picture that I took in Darwin in 1985 that looks identical and having worked up in that region, I can state, that I saw clouds like this every day!

Heres an idea, show your chemtrail page to a meteorologist, or heck any pilot or captain of a boat knows it too. The images that they laugh out loud at, these are the ones that should be removed.

I only used the above image as an example, there are others, got me laughing fairly hard for 10 whole minutes!

Your credibility Ash, if you ever had any, has long since disappeared.
I suggest you work on your credibility, this would be the best way you could help save the our environment.

If you need any help cleaning up your website, just let me know, I am always happy to assist - for the environments sake.

You got a good heart Ash, you most certainly got passion, now go out there and get some intelligence to match!

Ozy

[Shamus]

X marks the spot

[rickoff]

As for your [Ash's] news well, Please tell us, I wait with baited breath...

Oh no! "Baited breath?" That sounds rather putrid, and brings to mind a person having breath that smells like stinky fish bait. Perhaps what you meant to say was "bated" breath, for which "bated" is short for "abated," meaning that you would be holding your breath as you wait for a reply. I wouldn't suggest that you actually do that, though, as you would probably pass out or die before deserving a reply.