Global Warming...true Or False?

[Sonthert]

Global warming.

Guys like Al Gore believe its man's industry and activities that are speeding along global warming. Are there any big names saying man's activities aren't contributing to global warming.

What do you guys think?

Here are my points:

1. Has anybody shown that carbon dioxide levels substantially increase global temperatures? They've shown a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature...but no cause and effect. There is a correlation between hat-wearing and baldness, but it would be unreasonable to believe that wearing a hat caused baldness. As people become more bald, they are probably more inclined to wear a hat, so baldness has a good causal influence on hat wearing.

2. CO2 levels only weakly add to global warming, its a minor greenhouse gas. It has a very flat warming curve. In fact, water is the most significant greenhouse gas...90% of the greenhouse effect (?) when stuff is burned to CO2, hydrogen on them is burned to H2O...so could water vapor in the air be the real problem?

3. There have been periods of warming and cooling in the history of the Earth. It was much colder in 1776, in the U.S. Pictures of Washington kicking ice out of the way on the Potomac River demonstrate that. The Potomac River hasn't frozen in recent memory. In 1816, the year was known as the year without a summer (or Eighteenhundred and froze to death) as it snowed in the U.S. in early July. Newly sheared sheep in the early summer died by the thousands of freezing to death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1816 Up until the early 1400s, Greenland was largely ice-free. We are within the normal range of temperatures observed in history, so its not that big a deal...yet.

4. There have been fairly cyclic trends, over several million years, up and down. There must be some natural process on the Earth that we don't understand that makes these cycles happen in the first place and operate to control them.

5. The Earth gets slightly heavier year after year, from particles from space, but for the most part, all the CO2 we release back into the air was in the air at one time. The oil we burn used to be plants...the Earth survived quite well with more carbon up and about, not trapped in oil and shales.

6. It could be worse...it could be an ice age.

7. Everybody's talking about how to control global warming by controlling CO2 emissions and pollution...what if they're wrong...what if its not something that man has control over (like I'm weakly proposing) or they're wrong and its something else other than CO2 that causes both increases in global temperatures and CO2 levels...efforts to slow CO2 production would be like taking Tylenol for the headache caused by a tumor. We need to be working on how to change our lives in response to the global warming...different crops, different growing areas, water usage, insect control, etc. Assume global warming is a foregone conclusion...why aren't we doing anything about it living with it? Controlling it, fine, that may be practical, but developing ways to cope with it has to be part of the equation...finding out in 100 years that we were wrong and society is struggling because we're not prepared would be sad indeed.

Good scientific counter to "An Inconvenient Truth":

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Edited November 29, 2007 by Sonthert

[ZenSilk]

Well, in a way im experiencing it first hand.

Last year at this exact time, i was up at Snowbird in a Condo looking out at the blizzard dumping snow down and getting antsy to hook up my new bindings to my new Forum Board and shred that mountain up.

To this day it has snowed twice here, but not even enough to stick to the grass. There's barely snow up at Alta, which usually gets the best, and Absolutely NONE at the Canyons, Park City's premier resort.

If the state with "The Greatest Snow On Earth" can't even get snow, something has to be wrong.

[Sonthert]

Well, in a way im experiencing it first hand.

Last year at this exact time, i was up at Snowbird in a Condo looking out at the blizzard dumping snow down and getting antsy to hook up my new bindings to my new Forum Board and shred that mountain up.

To this day it has snowed twice here, but not even enough to stick to the grass. There's barely snow up at Alta, which usually gets the best, and Absolutely NONE at the Canyons, Park City's premier resort.

If the state with "The Greatest Snow On Earth" can't even get snow, something has to be wrong.

Just imagine an island in modernity perpetually covered with snow and ice having grass in such quantities that sheep were the primary food these people ate and the island was named "Greenland" ...actually the translation.

[gaia.plateau]

Global warming.

Guys like Al Gore believe its man's industry and activities that are speeding along global warming. Are there any big names saying man's activities aren't contributing to global warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I'm going to read through the link you posted once I have a bit of time (once my term papers are done next week) and discuss your points then...

For now, I'll only comment on your first paragraph which outlines the nature of this discussion.

My field of study is International Conflict and Co-operation, in which environmental issues play an enormous role. That being said, 99% of the research I've done is in regard to how environmental issues like climate change affect the world, and not the science of it.

What I do know in regard to the science is that very few academics and/or scientists now refute the fact that humans, primarily through industry, are the reason for this global change. This April, the scientific community at large changed their degree of certainty from 60% to 90% that human industry is causing the impending climate change. Until last week, leaders like George Bush and Stephen Harper were still refuting this with the dubious claim that "the science is still out" on global warming.

Last week, however, the scientific community at large, legitimated by the world's only real structure of global governance, proclaimed that it they are now entirely and unequivocally certain.

So the debate now, among rational thinkers at any rate, is not whether global warming is true or false, or that we're causing it, but what it means. Many prominent scientists champion the notion that we can survive through climate change, although 100% of the supporting evidence that I've personally read or has been cited to me is in regard to developed countries- in largely accurate words, white folk. The majority of today's distinguished scientific minds believe that if serious action and reforms are not taken in response, we will face radical societal change across the globe. Edited November 24, 2007 by gaia.plateau

[Sonthert]

Global warming.

Guys like Al Gore believe its man's industry and activities that are speeding along global warming. Are there any big names saying man's activities aren't contributing to global warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I'm going to read through the link you posted once I have a bit of time (once my term papers are done next week) and discuss your points then...

For now, I'll only comment on your first paragraph which outlines the nature of this discussion.

My field of study is International Conflict and Co-operation, in which environmental issues play an enormous role. That being said, 99% of the research I've done is in regard to how environmental issues like climate change affect the world, and not the science of it.

What I do know in regard to the science is that very few academics and/or scientists now refute the fact that humans, primarily through industry, are the reason for this global change. This April, the scientific community at large changed their degree of certainty from 60% to 90% that human industry is causing the impending climate change. Until last week, leaders like George Bush and Stephen Harper were still refuting this with the dubious claim that "the science is still out" on global warming.

Last week, however, the scientific community at large, legitimated by the world's only real structure of global governance, proclaimed that it they are now entirely and unequivocally certain.

So the debate now, among rational thinkers at any rate, is not whether global warming is true or false, or that we're causing it, but what it means. Many prominent scientists champion the notion that we can survive through climate change, although 100% of the supporting evidence that I've personally read or has been cited to me is in regard to developed countries- in largely accurate words, white folk. The majority of today's distinguished scientific minds believe that if serious action and reforms are not taken in response, we will face radical societal change across the globe.

That is the proclamation, but I still see scientific discussion avoid the subject be referring to "Global climate change" rather than pointing man down for it. Where's the science? Saying its man's fault is fine, but without science to back it up, its just breaking wind. The science I see backs up the natural process argument. I see science-y looking stuff from the ethno-centered climate change...but their application of data and jumps to conclusion seem highly suspect...maybe I don't see all the stuff that there is...somebody link something scientific. "Everybody says" is not legitimate proof. Scientific reasoning will work. I'm open to the possibility...somebody dazzle me.

The climate is warmer now than it was when we started paying attention 120 years ago or so. If we're still well within what's considered "normal" over the history of the Earth, why are we worried?

"Everybody says" is not legitimate proof. I'd like to see some real science. I'm open to the possibility...somebody dazzle me.

One big question...How would we tell the difference between a climate change that's natural and one that man caused? Nobody on the side of man's fault can satisfactorily demonstrate that. If there is no way to resolve the two, than proclaiming it is man's fault is absurd.

[gaia.plateau]

"Everybody says" is not legitimate proof. I'd like to see some real science. I'm open to the possibility...somebody dazzle me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...11_07_ipcc4.pdf

On the page I linked you.

We live in a world characterized essentially by uncertainty and falibility. To say that "climate change isn't happening", or "climate change isn't being induced by human industry because it can't be proved 100% (note that it has been proved at around 98%)" is logically comparative to saying that "god exists because you can't disprove that he exists". In the same vein, the flying spaghetti monster exists because it cannot be proven beyond doubt that he does not exist.

In regard to the "Everybody says" notion... it's not "everybody says", it's "the most intelligent and reknowned scientists in the world, who have spent their lives studying this subject, say". If we can't give some credit and weight to the proclaimations of people who understand an issue far better than we can hope to, we're in a pretty stagnant place. The other option, of course, is to give equal credit to the democracy of information and blogs, selectively believing anything that anyone tells us.

[Akkbar]

At one time, the leading scientists in the world all thought that the world was flat, the earth was the center on the universe, and microwaves and radio waves will never have any practical application.

so, i dont know what to believe, but history has shown that those considered outside 'mainstream' science are often right.

[smoker6146]

I believe that global warming is 100% real.

However, it is 100% natural. Man has nothing to do with it.

[Elky]

From what I have read, and it may not be as much as some of you, it seems pretty clear that this world has always and will always have its cycles. It's also pretty evident that even if man is not creating this change, we are accountable for accelerating it to some degree. There is another way to look at it however. Arent we humans just another part of nature? I think it is possible that although other animals may not build their structures with metal and technology we are still doing what is natural to us humans. By this argument wouldn't we in some abstract way be just part of the cycle of nature?

I may be out of place as I'm pretty tired and kinda buzzed right now so sorry if that doesnt make any sense.

[Cybersist]

Based on what research I have done on the subject, I feel that global warming is a manmade occurance. Yes, the Earth has it's cycles, but the average temperatures in the last 30 years have completely stomped out any trends in recorded history.

[Johnny_D]

I believe that global warming is 100% real.

However, it is 100% natural. Man has nothing to do with it.

100% Agree with smoker6146, with a caveat that we may have, marginally, accelerated things. Maybe.

Based on what research I have done on the subject, I feel that global warming is a manmade occurance. Yes, the Earth has it's cycles, but the average temperatures in the last 30 years have completely stomped out any trends in recorded history.

Cybersist - Global Warming and cooling cycles are [I believe from what i have read] based on ice age type lengths of time. 100,000 of years cycles. The past 30 years, indeed the past 300 years, are nothing more than a fart in a storm compared to the these cycles. Another point to consider when thinking about comparing trends is that 'most' accurate recordings started sometime around 1850. Other records come from things like tree rings, ice cores and other more in-direct things like crop yield records [which of course are affected by a number of things, not just raw temperature]

In fact if you compare the whole of the earth's history and all of man's history and use the 24hr clock to compare - the earth has been here for 24hrs. We have been here for the past 5 minutes[1]

JD

[1] From a discovery channel documentary a few years ago.

[ghostofdavid]

When I first joined the hookahforum, I posted a link to junkscience.com. I searched and cannot find it though. Global warming? Maybe. Am I worried? Absolutely not.

Does that mean we can tell the progenitors of the Kyoto Protocol to shut it?

China still needs to clean up their manufacturing process. Who wants to tell them?

[Cybersist]

Your right, recorded history wasnt the right word choice... say anaylized history?

[gaia.plateau]

China still needs to clean up their manufacturing process. Who wants to tell them?

Maybe someone that didn't themselves industrialize through an even dirtier manufacturing process. Oh wait that's the entire developed world... I guess just invade them (you might die though?¹).

Notes
^1. ZenSilk, quoted from his reflections on the viability of using glow-stick fluid as a filter in a hookah basin.

[nicayotte]

global warming is due to all the cig smokers...... everyone should switch to hookah smoking!

[dcrooksjr]

I've done research on this topic and find it to be a fraud, while we do contribute we only contribute about .28% the rest is natural. I see this as just another way for them to tax or restrict us. I've posted a few articles take a look.


Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam


Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartlander
Publication Date: February 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country's first "Environment President," many of us thought the "global warming" scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn't happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.


It's B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the "population bomb," and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson's anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn't gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating "transferrable emission credits" for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own "mini-Kyotos."


Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over "global warming" is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable."

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC's latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes."

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer and marked "a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations," observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. "There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today."

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990's levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is "no regrets." The alternative to demands for immediate action to "stop global warming" is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called "no regrets," and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.


Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the "global warming" scam. Edited November 25, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[dcrooksjr]

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ Update by Joe D’Aleo, Icecap
Thursday, November 15, John Coleman, the founder of the cable TV Weather Channel and currently TV meteorologist in San Diego at KUSI began a series of short briefs trying to explain in simplified terms for the layman why he does not believe in global greenhouse warming on his KUSI climate blog.

Below was his original statement that got much national attention. KUSI and Icecap received hundreds of emails, better than 90% favorable, thanking John for his courage in speaking out on this issue and thanking KUSI and Icecap for covering the news the networks won’t cover. There were of course some negative responses mostly ad hominem attacks questioning motivation as is typical in this issue. Some requested John follow up with some concrete facts in understandable terms and he will begin to do that. The first brief on that link will address the ‘hockey stick”.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Read the rest of the original blog here.

[dcrooksjr]

The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In
Fresh studies, polls conclude climate change being used as revenue raising tactic

reddit_url='http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/040907Tax.htm'reddit_title='The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In'

digg_title = 'The Global Warming Tax Scam Kicks In';digg_bodytext = 'The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called green taxes that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.';digg_topic = 'politics';

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.

The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."

The study found that the social cost of Britain’s entire output of CO2 was £11.7 billion in 2005 but in the same year, the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9 billion. Meaning that even two years ago taxes were £10.2 billion in excess of the level agreed to meet the Britain’s CO2 emissions. The Alliance calculates this excess is equivalent to over £400 for each household in Britain.

"We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world," said Matthew Elliott of the TaxPayers' Alliance.

(Article continues below)



The report also reveals that the main “pollution taxes” of fuel duty; vehicle excise duty (road tax); the Climate Change Levy; Air Passenger Duty; the Landfill Tax and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, each have serious flaws which indicate that the government is less concerned about the environment and more concerned with raking in excessive revenues.

In addition a second study by accountants UHY Hacker Young backs up this claim by revealing that the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes. UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.

"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot."

If the government were really concerned about climate change then they would be offering incentives not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions in the form of tax breaks. But tax breaks aren't a giant cash bonanza for our exalted guardians of Mother Earth, the loving government, who are going to tax the living hell out of us for our own good and for the very survival of mankind, while lining their own pockets.

The Treasury has said the claims in the studies are "ridiculous" and has dropped the green bomb on the TaxPayers Alliance, reminding it that climate change is a justification to do anything.

A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."

Meanwhile Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, has reminded the government that over vamped green charges, far from being a solution, are a primary cause of cuts in public services. "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, the National Health Service." Taylor commented.

Released alongside the TaxPayers' Alliance study, a new YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults (double the usual sample) was commissioned into public attitudes towards green taxes.

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”

Remember that these studies encompass two year old figures and naturally do not even take into account newly proposed "carbon taxes" which would see a sky rocketing in costs sought by the Treasury.

In recent months we have seen proposals in the UK and the US to impose steep new taxes that would raise the cost of burning oil, gas and coal even at a time when the cost of energy is already through the roof.

Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring.

We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals.

Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles.

There is also actual discussion of imposing a carbon tax on humans for the air we breathe!

Meanwhile less than half of all published scientists endorse the theory that human activity constitutes a significant contribution to climate change, hardly a "consensus" as the UN appointed panel on climate change calls it.

The climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of man-made global warming.

If the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is? Because governments throughout the world love convincing people that they are in danger and that they can only be saved by letting them take control. Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government, more corporate monopoly, less sovereignty and less free market economy.

The global warming tax scam has kicked in. There's no time left for a debate they tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and there's peasants to flog.

Eco-fanatics and power-hungry elitists have taken total control of the global warming bandwagon. Before they choke the life out of modern industrialized civilization by eliminating the source of 80% of the planet's energy, and in the face of fierce silencing techniques, it is vital to further understand why scientific evidence is not on the side of the theory of human-caused warming.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

[dcrooksjr]

from: above top secret.com

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

This is a fact that not many people know about, and quite a few people, would like that there was no evidence to back this fact, because some people would like the world to believe that human activity is the cause for global warming on Earth. I am not advocating that releasing harmful gases, and chemicals in the oceans and atmosphere are good, but after a few years of research, I have come to understand that global warming is happening in the Solar System, not just on Earth.

Some people just want to listen to what some environmentalists are claiming, that global warming is happening because of human activity, and we are the cause for the extreme changes in climate we have been seeing lately getting worse and worse.

I will let now the facts speak for themselves as to what is really happening.


Mars may be going through a period of climate change, new findings from NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter suggest.

Odyssey has been mapping the distribution of materials on and near Mars' surface since early 2002, nearly a full annual cycle on Mars. Besides tracking seasonal changes, such as the advance and retreat of polar dry ice, the orbiter is returning evidence useful for learning about longer-term dynamics.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...



Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

New gullies that did not exist in mid-2002 have appeared on a Martian sand dune.

That's just one of the surprising discoveries that have resulted from the extended life of NASA's Mars Global Surveyor, which this month began its ninth year in orbit around Mars. Boulders tumbling down a Martian slope left tracks that weren't there two years ago. New impact craters formed since the 1970s suggest changes to age-estimating models. And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...


Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter
Philip S. Marcus

Top of pageJupiter's atmosphere, as observed in the 1979 Voyager space craft images, is characterized by 12 zonal jet streams and about 80 vortices, the largest of which are the Great Red Spot and three White Ovals that had formed1 in the 1930s. The Great Red Spot has been observed2 continuously since 1665 and, given the dynamical similarities between the Great Red Spot and the White Ovals, the disappearance3, 4 of two White Ovals in 1997−2000 was unexpected. Their longevity and sudden demise has been explained5 however, by the trapping of anticyclonic vortices in the troughs of Rossby waves, forcing them to merge. Here I propose that the disappearance of the White Ovals was not an isolated event, but part of a recurring climate cycle which will cause most of Jupiter's vortices to disappear within the next decade. In my numerical simulations, the loss of the vortices results in a global temperature change of about 10 K, which destabilizes the atmosphere and thereby leads to the formation of new vortices. After formation, the large vortices are eroded by turbulence over a time of 60 years—consistent with observations of the White Ovals—until they disappear and the cycle begins again.
www.nature.com...


Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
October 9, 2002

BIRMINGHAM, Ala.--Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory and Cornell University announced in a press conference today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, AL.

The team, led by James Elliot, professor of planetary astronomy at MIT and director of MIT's Wallace Observatory, made this finding by watching the dimming of a star when Pluto passed in front of it Aug. 20. The team carried out observations using eight telescopes at Mauna Kea Observatory, Haleakala, Lick Observatory, Lowell Observatory and Palomar Observatory. Data were successfully recorded at all sites.

An earlier attempt to observe an occultation of Pluto on July 19 in Chile was not highly successful. Observations were made from only two sites with small telescopes because the giant telescopes and other small telescopes involved lost out to bad weather or from being in the wrong location that day. These two occultations were the first to be successfully observed for Pluto since 1988.


web.mit.edu...

That's a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure in Pluto, which is the highest increase in any planet in the Solar system, and it is increasing as Pluto orbits away from the Sun. If the Sun is the cause for global warming in the solar system, as some scientists say, why is it that Pluto, the planet that is the farthest away from the Sun, experiencing the most severe effects, and it is getting worse and worse as it orbits away from the sun?


Pluto thought to be warming up
Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system's smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and it probably does not have rings.

Dr John Greenhill has collected observations from last month's event when Pluto passed in front of a bright star, making it easier to study.

French scientists have shared the measurements they took in Tasmania that night, which indicate that the planet is unlikely to have rings.

Dr Greenhill says the results are surprising because they show Pluto is warming up.

"It looks as though the atmosphere has not changed from 2002, which is pretty surprising because we expected the atmosphere would freeze out as the planet moved further away from the Sun," he said.

"But so far, if anything, the atmosphere has gotten even denser."
www.abc.net.au...


The following is a site which was made by several scientists who have no links with any government, or corporation, their findings are very interresting and give a different picture as to what is causing global warming. I can't quote any excerpts as there is a copyright issue, but I will post the link. Anyone interested in that information should read that site.

biocab.org...

biocab.org...


Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibliographic Code:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.
adsabs.harvard.edu...


ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
...........
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.
www.spaceref.com...









Ulysses sees Galactic Dust on the rise
01 Aug 2003

Since early 1992 Ulysses has been monitoring the stream of stardust flowing through our Solar System. The stardust is embedded in the local galactic cloud through which the Sun is moving at a speed of 26 kilometres every second. As a result of this relative motion, a single dust grain takes twenty years to traverse the Solar System. Observations by the DUST experiment on board Ulysses have shown that the stream of stardust is highly affected by the Sun's magnetic field.
.............
Unlike Earth, however, the Sun reverses its magnetic polarity every 11 years. The reversal always occurs during solar maximum. That's when the magnetic field is highly disordered, allowing more interstellar dust to enter the Solar System. It is interesting to note that in the reversed configuration after the recent solar maximum (North negative, South positive), the interstellar dust is even channelled more efficiently towards the inner Solar System. So we can expect even more interstellar dust from 2005 onwards, once the changes become fully effective.
sci.esa.int...

As can be seen, the Earth is not the only planet undergoing global warming, and human activity is not the cause of global warming in the Solar System, nor on Earth.

[dcrooksjr]

<H1 align=center>The Global Warming Scam</H1>

Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register] Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. [World Climate Report]

Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. [Telegraph]

Okay, take notes, there will be a quiz at the end of class.

First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet's resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming "hype" is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies. If you want to do something about the damage to the planet caused by oil, STOP THE WARS BEING FOUGHT OVER IT!

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. [Pacific Free Press]

See also:

Global warming on other planets
In 1975 we were doomed because of global cooling
List of global warming activists, now skeptics
Fear of a global 'coldening'

[NoPeace]

I'm a strong liberal and I have to say that global warming does exist but to actually think that anyone will do a damn thing about it unless laws are enforced which is extremely unlikely is very improbable. I like to the think of it as a new major stage of natural selection. We can delay it but the fact is, eventually the hole in our ozone will be so large that only the ppl will the lower skin cancer prbability genetics will survive. Its honestly innevitable. My family is fucked bcause we have a long line of skin cancer but I really don't care. Its all natural selection. Our environment constantly changes and this is just another.just like when the meteor killed the dinosaurs. But one fact that should be noted is that one volcanic eruption releases more polutants like carbon monoxide,etc into the air than we have made in our entire existence on this earth. I think we should use this as a leaning experience for the future because we can do shit now.

[Foos]

I think its funny how people buy into Al Gores bullshit. It's easy to watch a movie and declare yourself an expert on the subject like so many people I know have done. Ive had to write 3 different research papers on the subject, and Ive never found anything to make me believe that global warming is caused by humans. Scientists who believe human industry is causing global warming use computer based models to predict future temperatures and climate activity but honestly if meteorologists have difficulty predicting a 5 day weather forecast then why would anyone rely on the same technology to make predictions years in advance? I personally believe that the warming is occurring but there is just nothing to really prove that its not a natural thing. Edited November 25, 2007 by Foos

[TheScotsman]

Now any of us "old-timers" can remember back to the early 1980's when all of these "scientists" were telling us we all needed to buy some freeze-proof 1000SPF sunscreen? Remember the ozone was going to disappear by 2000, and we were headed into an ice age. (at the same time! for God sakes!!) As far as Al gore maybe we can make some Al-gore shisha? Load it with chili peppers for a real warming effect.

Ever notice how no one ever has any names of any scientists? it's just some anonymous group with no accountability... and some mindless talking head on the Nero-News doesn't count as a name.

More of government controlling people through fright. Without some major crisis who needs them?

[anathema]

False. Just look at the line charts of average temperature of earth over time(before dinosaurs and stuff).

And if you like Michael Crichton and want a cheap thrill learning about global warming, consider buying State of Fear at barnesandnoble.com and if you have a Discover card, you also get 5% Cash Back Bonus.

edit: yeah, save yourself some money and buy a different book by crichton, this isn't that good, go read prey or something. Edited November 26, 2007 by anathema

[Johnny_D]

False. Just look at the line charts of average temperature of earth over time(before dinosaurs and stuff).

Yes, these are brilliant. The chart that shows no corrolation between co2 and temperature. It's brilliant.

Or are you referring to the charts that show total cororation between co2 and temperature?

Get my drift?

JD