The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Peter Lindemann]

Stay on Topic

Hey Guys,

This thread is for discussion of Global Warming, pros and cons. If you want to discuss Planet-X, Nibiru, chem-trails, ozone depletion, aliens, or any of this other stuff, please start your own thread!

If you have something to add to the conversation on Climate Science, current climate news, or the like, please post that here.

No more OFF TOPIC posts, please.

Peter

[dmonarch]

Global Warming

Heres a nice informative link on global warming.
Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bugler]

Wikipedia is a propaganda tool so use it with caution.

[dmonarch]

Propaganda tool

This thread is not a topic on propoganda but one of global warming and the science related to it. The histrogram of the temperatures on the wikipedia page is the same one shown in the documentary. If graph on that page is propoganda then so to must be the documentary.
In the case of the documentary it used it in fashion to suit its own cause, much like the illusionist having you watch one hand while he does something with the other. If you look at the graph on wikipedia you can clearly see that the rate of change is abnormal. It may not be anormal to be high or low temperatures but the rate of change and in the temperature in this case are excessive.

[Peter Lindemann]

Thanks for your understanding

Bugler,

Thanks for editing your last post. As I said, this thread is for information on Climate Change. Dmonarch's link to the Wikipedia page on Global Warming is precisely relevant to this discussion as it presents the exact case for Global Warming that some of us are refuting in this thread.

All news sources are biased and represent the "picture of reality" of their creator. There is no database of neutral facts. Wikipedia, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, CNN, FOX News, Al Jazeera, all have their specific biases. This does not mean that useful information cannot be gathered from these sources.

Peter

[amigo]

As Peter alluded, I think we need to look at the bigger picture, the one of manipulation of information and people's belief system. Basically the language used in all these "communications" we get from our scientists.

With the Global Warming term now pushed aside (who remembers it anymore, right?) and superseeded by the Climate Change, many more possibilities are now available to those who propose that model. Hot, cold, no change, etc.

To me it reflects the past (second half of 20th Century) and present state of the orthodox science where they are really not sure about anything but they won't admit to it because they could lose those cushy tenure jobs and research grants, if only people found out how bogus most of it really is.

It reminds me of something one astrophysicist said in a lecture I've recently watched. He said that NASA knew most if not everything they needed to know about Mars, but if they would tell us all there is right now, then there'd be nor reason for future missions and millions of dollars of project grants would be "lost" (my God, even worse, re-directed to education or health???! )

My favourite example I like to use is the one of the Quantum Physics field where they go ahead and invent particles as they see fit just so that the equation balances. That kind of irrisponsible behaviour is indicative of our present orthodox science, so anything they tell us I take with a huge grain of salt.

By the way Peter, what's wrong with Bugler's link. I think that no information should be dogmatic, therefore Wikipedia is not the word of God and should be taken in context (of social networking at best) and not a factual source of information.
For that matter, science papers aren't factual either with so many scientists faking the results, or at best massaging them to suit their agenda.

To quote Robert DeNiro from the movie Ronin: "If there's doubt - there's no doubt."

So back to the Climate Change (to be politically correct), I personally believe it is serving some purpose to those who have power over this World. What purpose that is is not known to me, but usually their goals are never to our benefit...

[Shamus]

Call me Al, err, Doubting Thomas

Call me a skeptic, but to me anything that comes out of NASA is suspect. It seems more than a little suspicious that there is absolutely no corroboration of any of their "ozone research" from anyone outside of NASA.

Robert W. Pease, Professor Emeritus of Physical Climatology at UC Riverside wrote a scathing note on CFCs and ozone depletion that can be found here. It's instructive to note that there is clearly an agenda being pushed when it comes to "global warming", oops, I meant "climate change" by virtue of the fact that Dr. Pease's paper has all but been ignored while the drumbeat in the mainstream media (what is media but someone in the middle?) for man-made climate change has grown steadily louder and louder over the years until it is now almost deafening.

I'm sorry Peter, but it is next to impossible to separate out the politics from this issue--especially when important think tanks like the Club of Rome said that they would use this very issue to unite the world under a one-world government (cf. "The First Global Revolution" by Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider).

But, getting back to science, here's a salient quote from a good article on the subject:

The "CFC Depletion Theory" was first published in 1974 by F. Sherwood Roland and Mario J. Molina, University of California. Their work was treated as a joke by the world's scientific community until the mid-80s, when suddenly there were plenty of funds available for the study of such things.

There are genuine experts concerned at the erosion of truth. In 1986 the prestigious science journal "Geophysical Research Letters" asked forty-six of the world's leading climatologists and meteorologists to submit individual papers on their research and findings on the subject of the "Antarctic Hole" The overview of those findings includes

"... despite the number of public announcements, no clear link between manmade pollutants and ozone depletion over Antarctica has been established; indeed, a number of papers in this issue present serious alternatives to and constraints on the suggested chemical scenarios..The appearance of the South Polar total ozone minimum (the Hole) and higher values at mid-latitudes in the spring has been observed since the late 1950s, well before man-made pollutants could have had important impact on the stratosphere."

The introduction went on to suggest that the hole was apparently a natural phenomenon, affected by climatic shift in the upper atmosphere.

Dr Joseph Scotto, of the Biostatics Branch of the US National Cancer Insititute has found that UV light levels reaching the ground has decreased at the rate of 0.7% a year over a ten year period in the northern hemisphere, at the same time as ozone depletion has been recorded. It is a different story according to Dr Richard McKenzie who claims that "sunburning UV has increased 15% since ozone depletion began in the late 1970s." So who is one to believe?

[ashtweth]

I think so also, Nasa is suspect, they did not tell you about the UFO incidents, a cable TV owner recorded their com link in secret and you should see what they are hiding from us.
Also in the disclosure project a person who worked there stated that they air brush the UFO's out. All these references can be found here.
Disclosure Project

So i don't trust Nasa's take on global warming or any thing for that matter.
Hopefully that was not [too] off topic
Please don't talk about UFO's here or Peter will whip my butt

[ashtweth]

Guys here are some more links

Directory:Global Warming - PESWiki
Videos:Global Warming - PESWiki
Directory:Global Cooling - PESWiki
Directory:CO2 Sequestration - PESWiki
Directory:Oxygen Depletion - PESWiki

Global Cooling - Coldest year of the 21st Century (so far)

Global Warming, the Cult of Gaia and "Edidence"

[jibbguy]

Doubting NASA's scientific data on GW is without basis

Whatever NASA does about UFO's is no indication that they would skew data related to global warming. These things are being looked at by scientists all over the world who have nothing to do with NASA or the US government... And if they did manage to skew something, the risk of being found out and it then being publicized all over the internet is way too high. But we haven't seen any credible or direct repudiations of this data. That's because it is independently verified by the international scientific community....

Believe me, if there was bogus data from NASA then this documentary would be screaming about it at you

The idea that hundreds of thousands of scientists are "lying" about global warming is totally without merit... Wishful thinking and more red herring straw man ad homenim's aimed at discrediting hard scientific data (...which is rather obviously lacking on the other side).

But yes, lets follow the money.... A scientist makes about 100k a year; they are individuals and private citizens.... There is nothing as far as evidence that ties them together into some monstrous cabal. The majority of them could study other aspects of science and still get a tenured or otherwise good job.

The oil and coal industries (who would be affected most by possible GW legislation), make upwards of 300 billion in profits a year (in 2007, it was way above that lol). Not to mention all the other mining and heavy industries who would take a big hit in potential profits (at least until cleaner energy sources were used.....). Let's see, thats over a Trillion dollars in profits yearly in jeopardy if we decided to try and stop global warming. So where does that money trail lead you..?


Anyone ever think that denying global warming is another reason not to embrace Free Energy? ....That the denying of Humankind's use of fossil fuels is changing the entire climate is another reason to ignore the clean, cheap, renewable energy technologies that we explore here on this forum? Why get rid of gas stations and our SUV's if our masters lower the price of oil for us (...arbitrarilly lowered without real cause, just as they arbitrarily raised it 10 months ago).... And then work hard to convince us that human activity cannot and has not changed the planet's climate?

"Thermal Bloom" around built-up suburban and urban areas is conclusive proof that Man CAN effect our world AND DOES EVERY DAY. So denying that we could be the culprit for global warming on the grounds that we simply are "too insignificant" to change the mighty Climate... Would be incorrect.

However, let me repeat that this subject IS being used by some ON BOTH SIDES for political reasons. But it is important to remember that these are two separate issues: The hard scientific study of what is actually happening... And what political, social, or corporate groups, entities, or "cabals" are pushing on either side. Please understand that whatever "The Club of Rome" , the "Bildeburghers", or the "Council on Foreign Relations" say about using the GW issue to their possible advantage; has absolutely no bearing on whether GW actually exists or not.

So until some1 credibly reports on data skewing by NASA on their satellite, ground station, and U2 data regarding climate... i believe that there can be no reasonable cause to discount it. "Suggestion" and "Conjecture" can be fascinating and entertaining... But in this case, where the only salients of importance are directly related to international scientific study... Hard facts are the only important points.

[elmejor]

well, the video is no loger available, can you give me another link or something for this. i would like to see and give my comments on it

[dmonarch]

Heres a link on youtube. The video has been divided into eight parts. This is the first part link. Just follow the trail
YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle Part 1 of 8

well, the video is no loger available, can you give me another link or something for this. i would like to see and give my comments on it

[dmonarch]

Get What you want

No matter the discussion most people though reading the same matarial as everyone else are reading something entirly different, something taylored to there own tastes. Often the obvious slips right past them as they grab on to that aspect which suits them most. I once got a group of people to drink there urine simply from telling them what they wanted hear. Though if you stopped and listened to what i was saying you would realise that it was a heaping mound of hot ****. 90 percent of the population are on remote control fully under the impression that they are in control and experiencing reality on a moment by moment basis.

My point being no wonder no one can agree as everyone is getting what they want from the documentary.

The upside of belief is you have somewhere to stand and the downside is you have no where to move. The upside of no belief is that you have everywhere to move the down side is you can never stop.

[bugler]

Why did you convince people to drink their own urine?

thanks.

[dmonarch]

As an experiment. I admit now, not to a nice one but at the time it seemed ok. Humans are funny creatures, like children waiting for permision.

Why did you convince people to drink their own urine?

thanks.