Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

The global warming lie

196 posts in this topic

handsun.jpg
William B Stoecker: Most of us by now have wised up to the fact that the controlled elite media routinely lie or withold important information from the public about such matters as the JFK murder, 9/11, or the London subway bombing. Most of us also know that the standard tactic for the big lie is to tell it loudly and often and publish nothing that contradicts it. And what have the elites been shouting at us over and over and over for the last few years? They have been warning us about the deadly peril of global warming caused by our consumption of fossil fuels which put carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. This, they claim, will warm the Earth so that ice sheets will melt and we will all be flooded, says Chicken Little, by the rising seas. Since that, apparently, did not frighten people enough, they have even suggested that warmer weather could cause a sudden ice age by upsetting ocean currents. They have shown detailed, computer generated maps of the future climate (this from people who cannot even predict tomorrow's weather in your home town) showing, among other things, desertfication. This works because most people associate deserts with heat and fail to realize that a warmer Earth would mean more evaporation from the seas, hence more clouds, hence more precipitation, not less.

Their solutions to this imagined danger include proposals for a UN tax on fossil fuel consumption that would lower living standards and make the New World Order even more powerful, along with a host of regulations that would apply only to the developed countries, where the citizens still have some semblance of freedom and prosperity. The rules would not apply to, for example, China and India, where coal could continue to be burned without limit. So how would that limit CO2 buildup? They are a little hazy on the details.

They give us varying figures on the likely perecentage of CO2 increase over the coming decades, and the average numerically challenged person can imagine that our atmosphere is, say, ten percent CO2 and a (for example) five percent increase would bring the total to fifteen percent. Here we see the value of dumbing down the schools for the last few decades. It is not ten percent CO2 and that is not the way to compute percentages. As well as can be measured, the atmosphere at present is .038 percent CO2, meaning less than four percent of one percent, or less than four parts per ten thousand. Even if it were to increase by ten percent, that would only be ten percent of three point eight percent of one percent, or less than four parts in every hundred thousand. On the face of it, it seems wildly improbable that such minute increases could cause significant climatic change. In fact, in a vast, dynamic system like Earth's atmosphere, where air and moisture are circulating and CO2 varies from one area to another and from one day to the next, and can be dissolved in or released from bodies of water, scientists cannot even measure such small changes with any certainty. In other words they do not even know for sure that the CO2 content is increasing at all. Furthermore, the media elites only quote those scientists who, knowing where their next check is coming from and what the results expected from them are, parrot the party line. In fact, a great many climatologists, seldom quoted, have stated that global warming has not been proven at all.

Not only can we not measure CO2 with any certainty; so vast and dynamic is our atmosphere, and so complex the interactions between it and those enormous heat reservoirs, the oceans, that we cannot even be certain that the temperature is rising.

We are encouraged to forget that many of the prophets of global warming were, as recently as the nineteen seventies, warning us about global cooling and an imminent ice age. The sky, it seems, is always falling; it just falls in different directions. Many of these same people (and, of course, the elite media) also predicted that a nuclear war would cause vast firestorms, and the resultant smoke would block the Sun's rays and bring about a nuclear winter. But to do that they had to ignore the CO2 inevitably produced by the fires; now they do the exact opposite and focus on the CO2 while ignoring the light-blocking smoke from car exhausts and coal burning power plants.

Furthermore, a temperature increase, if it did happen, would, to some extent, be self limiting. More evaporation and more clouds mean more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, but also more reflection of sunlight away from the Earth by the clouds, and the net effect of these two opposites tends to be a slight cooling. Not only that, but the extra CO2 would stimulate plant growth, since plants metabolize CO2 during photosynthesis, and there will also be more and faster plant growth throughout the world because of the longer growing seasons on a warmer Earth, and more vegetation in desert and semi-arid regions, now receiving more rain. This increased vegetation will take more CO2 out of the atmosphere, so that the CO2 increase also would be, to some extent, self limiting. Most people would argue that a warmer and wetter world with more vegetation would be, overall, a good thing both for natural ecosystems and for humanity. But the environmental extremists seem to be opposed to any change whatever, ignoring the fact that, over millions of years, Earth's climate has always changed and will continue to do so, regardless of human activities.

And we are dependent on fossil fuels due to these same extremists. The people now warning us about global warming are, for the most part, the same ones who have long opposed all nuclear power. They cite the disaster at Chernobyl, conveniently forgetting that this was an inherently bad design, never used in the West, and that the plant was poorly maintained and operated, and that the meltdown, while serious, failed to produce the kind of global catastrophe they had always predicted. They cite the leakage at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in the US, but fail to mention that no one died (and there was never a later increase in cancer or leukemia in the area or downwind), or that the design flaw that caused the incident was identified and corrected in all US reactors. They fail to mention the exemplary safety record of French reactors, or the fact that inherently safe reactor designs now exist. They focus on the waste storage issue, but, in the US at least, this is largely a problem of their own creation, as their court actions have prevented removal of waste to safe sites deep underground in arid regions. These same environmentalists have opposed building new hydroelectric power plants and have even called for the demolition of existing dams. When wind generated electricity seemed uneconomical and impractical they supported it, but once improved technology, economies of scale, and rising fossil fuel prices made it a little more competitive, they began opposing it, citing the danger that a few birds might fly into the blades.There are any number of ways to reduce bird strikes, but environmental extremists and their masters are not in the business of offering solutions, but rather of creating problems. And now, having made us overly dependent on fossil fuels, they want to take these away from us as well. If their secret goal was actually to impoverish, control, and even exterminate most of humanity they would not behave any differently.

And they ignore the fact, previously mentioned, that climate has always changed. Ice ages and periods of warming far beyond anything in modern times have come and gone without any human assistance. Many scientists believe that in the remote past there was at least one episode of global warming so extreme that most of the life on the planet was wiped out, and at least one ice age when glaciers and sea ice reached the equator. The last ice age ended some eleven thousand years ago, but then the Earth continued to warm, and between five and ten thousand years ago it was warmer than any time in recorded history. Around seven or eight thousand years ago the world was so warm and wet that the Sahara and other deserts were grasslands and even forests, with no fossil fuel consumption anywhere and no catastrophic rise in sea levels. Between three thousand and twenty five hundred years ago the Earth became colder and dryer, probably due to a massive volcanic eruption, and this may have brought about the end of Egypt's Old Kingdom. The climate then improved, but another period of cold and drought began in 536 A.D., probably also caused by a volcano (possibly Krakatoa), and this certainly contributed to the fall of Rome, and may have stimulated barbarian migrations, which mostly went from cold or dry regions to warmer or wetter ones. From about 1100 A.D. to about 1300 A.D. the Earth enjoyed the Medieval Warm Period and Europe climbed out of the Dark Ages only to be plunged into poverty and plague (there had also been an outbreak after 536) by the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence that human activity caused any of this.

But, interestingly enough, solar activity did. At least part of the Little Ice Age, from about 1650 to 1700, coincided with what is called the Maunder Minimum, when sunspot activity was very low (observations had not been possible before this, since there were no telescopes). Sunspots normally follow an eleven year cycle, and when the Sun is brighter and hotter there are more sunspots. The reasons for this are not fully understood, and we do not know why, at times, this cycle is disrupted by major changes in the Sun's energy output, but it should surprise no one that there is a rough correlation, with a slight delay, between increased solar activity and increased temperatures here on Earth. In fact, until very recently, solar activity has been much higher than it was during most of the last four hundred years. Perhaps that, rather than our fossil fuel consumption, accounts for the higher temperatures we may (or may not) be experiencing.

So what does all of this mean? Should we go to the opposite extreme and burn fossil fuels with abandon, or dam every river on Earth for hydroelectric power? Actually, there are many other alternatives. There are many other reasons why fossil fuels may not be the best option. We can develop nuclear and wind energy and research so called free or virtual energy. But we cannot, and must not, allow the elites and their lackeys to panic us into submission to their will.

William B Stoecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that the Larsen B ice shelf in Antartica disappeared. Coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather, you believe it or not I have always gone with the motto of better safe than sorry. Frankly, I'm not decided on global warming but I don't really see a down side to changing my light bulbs, using less electricity, etc...

Error on the side of caution is a policy that most can live with on this subject. Of course, having celebrities telling me that Polar Bears are gasping for survival based on something someone told them is as bad as them blindly supporting PETA without the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this "controlled elite media" doing this, and what do they have to gain? You mention that they are doing it to crush developing countries, but I need to put on a tinfoil hat to think about that for any extended period of time, unless there is some substantiated evidence of it. Oil companies on the other hand, have a great deal of money and power, and changes/regulations to CO2 emmisions would effect their bottom line greatly, so it would seam the rich would want to disuade the public from believing the notion of global warming. Either way, enviornmental awareness, as well as global stewardship is good, even if brought to the attention of the greater populace by "lies".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated in January 1995. The Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in February 2002.

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

The Old Farmer's Almanac doesn't get enough attention. They are calling for cooler weather. Going green is a good idea, always but lets do it for the right reasons. Being kind to the Earth that so kindly puts up with us. I think we are more likely to have a mini ice age than global warming. We had our warming and we are on the down side getting cooler, in 10, 20 or 100 years from now we will be getting warmer again. Warmer is better although I personally can't stand the heat, it is better for the human race. If we do go in to an ice age for any amount of time, you will see the true nature of man. I hope and pray I get surprised and everyone helps each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a better understanding of global warming, read today's article in the NY Times, see the link to the article below. Some of the highligts of the article state that 99% of our atmosphere does not trap heat (the oxygen and nitrogen components).

And if co2 was not present at it's current level, the earth would be about 20 degrees cooler. So if the the amount of co2 were to double, it would increase the average temperature by another 20 degrees. So while the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere may be very small relative to the other gases, its impact is very significant.

I take measurements of co2 as part of my job. The average readings in Washington dc are about 450 ppm. The average use to be much lower. There is no question that we are putting tons of co2 in the atmosphere every year. As the co2 in the atmosphere increases, it sinks into the ocean and causes an increase in acidity, which is damaging to oceans species. So there are many variables to consider.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth gets hot, Earth gets cold. That's what happens, get used to it everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming a hoax? That's sooo 3 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Global warming a hoax? That's sooo 3 years ago.

Do the alarmists still call it Global warming ?

I thought the new buzz word was Climate Change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the alarmists still call it Global warming ?

I thought the new buzz word was Climate Change.

No it can be both and we have excellent evidence that it is our fault and we have shown that it is not the suns.

Mr Stoecker has in previous post shown he has limited scientific knowledge and again he continues to show this and his lack of referencing is a good indicator of this.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate is always changing! The temperature of the earth is dependant on many things, the most notable of which is the sun. Sun spots, or the lack there of can cause dramatic changes in temperature (I.E the Little ice age in Europe 1645-1715). Also the level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not directly co-relate to the temperature of the earth.

The UN has set up an International panel for climate change, which means there are many peoples financial and working futures are directly linked with pedalling the false science. They are hardly likely to say that there isnt enough evidence to prove that climate change is man made, when it would likely put them out of a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The climate is always changing! The temperature of the earth is dependant on many things, the most notable of which is the sun. Sun spots, or the lack there of can cause dramatic changes in temperature (I.E the Little ice age in Europe 1645-1715). Also the level of CO2 in the atmosphere does not directly co-relate to the temperature of the earth.

The UN has set up an International panel for climate change, which means there are many peoples financial and working futures are directly linked with pedalling the false science. They are hardly likely to say that there isnt enough evidence to prove that climate change is man made, when it would likely put them out of a job.

Sorry but the evidence says your wrong.

Royal Society: It ain't the sun.

Nature: Polar warming is our fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earth gets hot, Earth gets cold. That's what happens, get used to it everyone

Exactly.

That's why I don't believe in global warming. >> It's just part of earth's cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly.

That's why I don't believe in global warming. >> It's just part of earth's cycle.

The evidence says your wrong (See above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The evidence says your wrong (See above)

So then, are we then the cause of Mars ice caps melting? as well as the melting moons of Saturn and Jupiter?

Wow... our CO2 emissions must be quite something to transit space!

Or perhaps we will quote David De Rothchild (spokesperson for Global climate change awareness and advocate of the Carbon Tax) when he claimed the reasons for Mars/Jupiter/Saturn moons warming was because they are closer to the sun than earth...ROFL!!!

Yes I'm serious... he DID say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then, are we then the cause of Mars ice caps melting? as well as the melting moons of Saturn and Jupiter?

Wow... our CO2 emissions must be quite something to transit space!

Or perhaps we will quote David De Rothchild (spokesperson for Global climate change awareness and advocate of the Carbon Tax) when he claimed the reasons for Mars/Jupiter/Saturn moons warming was because they are closer to the sun than earth...ROFL!!!

Yes I'm serious... he DID say that.

Oh dear, well he is an idiot if he did say that.

But anyway that has all been covered and it is all misnomer.

Here you are in this thread

More stuff on Mars.

Jupiter warming myth.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear, well he is an idiot if he did say that.

But anyway that has all been covered and it is all misnomer.

Here you are in this thread

More stuff on Mars.

Jupiter warming myth.

Wow... interesting but totally untrue.

Sorry Matt... I cant agree with this. Of course I'm a believer in Electric/Plasma cosmology (where most science describes most of these phenomenon's as mysterious the EU have explanations) so It's my own fault for disbelieving. I also can lead a horse to water but cant make him drink ;)

I guess we must agree that we disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow... interesting but totally untrue.

Sorry Matt... I cant agree with this. Of course I'm a believer in Electric/Plasma cosmology (where most science describes most of these phenomenon's as mysterious the EU have explanations) so It's my own fault for disbelieving. I also can lead a horse to water but cant make him drink ;)

I guess we must agree that we disagree.

Why exactly is it untrue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a bit of perspective on humanity's grasp of how the climate works, here's this little article. It's a flash back to the first attempt of using natural climate change as a scare tactic.

linky

A few decades after this they tried the whole "global cooling" thing. That didn't work out too well either. I guess today's climate fear-mongering is a bit more effective since people seem to think we know everything about everything.

There's also the 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring 13 times more prominent scientists then the UN IPCC summary did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for a bit of perspective on humanity's grasp of how the climate works, here's this little article. It's a flash back to the first attempt of using natural climate change as a scare tactic.

linky

A few decades after this they tried the whole "global cooling" thing. That didn't work out too well either. I guess today's climate fear-mongering is a bit more effective since people seem to think we know everything about everything.

There's also the 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring 13 times more prominent scientists then the UN IPCC summary did.

So you are not going to counter it with scientific evidence then (and that minority report, having read it, can only be described as crap).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi to everyone,

been offline for 4 months waiting for the internet in my new home in Madrid - connected finally, but depressed to see that William B. Stoecker is still peddling unsubstantiated, un-referenced, and un-supportable pseudoscience in a vain attempt to win the hearts and minds of those with sufficient "nouse" to actually investigate the realities of what Global Warming (I dont care if he calls it that or Climate Change) means to the world.

Next, he will be telling us that we cannot even predict the weather!!!! Which involves totally separate micro systems and not the macro systems that drive Climate Change (Global Warming - it comes down to the same thing - semantics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weather, you believe it or not I have always gone with the motto of better safe than sorry. Frankly, I'm not decided on global warming but I don't really see a down side to changing my light bulbs, using less electricity, etc...

Error on the side of caution is a policy that most can live with on this subject. Of course, having celebrities telling me that Polar Bears are gasping for survival based on something someone told them is as bad as them blindly supporting PETA without the facts.

Totally agree, to much information on both sides to make a decision either way. I'll drive my SUV and change my lightbulbs! I like the pun, weather anyone else got it or not. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The evidence says your wrong (See above)

And I say it's wrong. :3

I just think the earth's too powerful/strong to be affected by us humans. I really do.

Plus the Earth has a history of going through cycles! >>

Edited by MoonPrincess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I say it's wrong. :3

I just think the earth's too powerful/strong to be affected by us humans. I really do.

Plus the Earth has a history of going through cycles! >>

MoonPrincess...

In a very fundamental way, I think you are absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MoonPrincess...

In a very fundamental way, I think you are absolutely correct.

I guess that depends on what is defined as being affected. I personally see human influence as a small perturbation on top of the Earth's climate cycle, but then again, I have no idea what I am talking about ;)

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.