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 3
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

That the warming is anthropomorphic is a reasonable connection with the fact that CO2 levels are increasing and are lab demonstrated to be a potent greenhouse gas and that the only source of this CO2 is us.

I’ll agree that people are fooled to believe that it is reasonable but being demonstrated in the lab is hardly proof. Animals and plants at night give off CO2 too, so we are not the only source. In the distant past, there has been a lot more life on this planet, increasing the level of CO2. What is reasonable to believe is that we are speeding up the rate of CO2 into the atmosphere. So we have to ask, is it at a rate faster than the Earth can absorb and is this rate change really changing the natural cycles? At this point, it is indeterminate.

I think flooding major cities and river deltas is a bad thing.

Yes, that is a bad thing however it is also historical. We have found long lost ancient cities submerged and we have remains of ancient coastal cities that are now high and dry. Was Man able to prevent that? Atlantis was probably a story of one of these. Satellite technology has found remains of all kinds of ancient features. Some claim that the Garden of Eden has been found just outside of Basra, in the Persian Gulf because satellites had found the remains of two ancient rivers converging on the Tigris and Euphrates. The Sahara turns into a marsh every 26,000 years. We are discovering evidence of climate change all the time, everywhere.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cheapest solution is to go nuclear, supplemented by solar and a little by the other technologies that get so my hype.

Fission is not the answer. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima. France gets like 70% of her energy from Fission. She is a time bomb waiting to go off. If you are concerned with Anthropomorphic Climate Change, we get a few more like these and you might just have it. What is needed is Fusion. Fusion is clean. When we become a Type I civilization, then our energy needs will be met. Dependence on carbon based fuels will drop, but this won’t change Global Warming. We might even see a trend to Global Cooling before we reach that point.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one issue that I part company with most, perhaps all other Pagans on. Global warming is indeed a fraud, in the sense that there is no good evidence that humans are causing, and some very convincing evidence that similar, and even greater levels of warming have happened in the past as part of the natural cycles of the earth and sun. The medieval warming period is one example often cited, but much better than this is the Bronze Age, during which it was so much warmer that areas of the British Isles that, even today, are boggy wastelands, were under intense cultivation, full of species that couldn't live here any more.

Global warming is also a fraud in another sense, a literal fraud, with its proponents fudging and making up data to suit their agenda, as has been proven in a number of cases now. The motivation is also clear, because funding soon dries up to any scientist who dare to deny global warming.

The fundamental prerequisites of life are heat and water. So why is it regarded as a bad thing if we become warmer and wetter? This doesn't make any sense to me.

Having said all of the above I am, most certainly, an environmentalist.

I was hoping someone would bring up the warming cycles. A friend of mine has often said that, since we didn't keep accurate records on weather temperature except for the last 100? 200? years, we don't know if what we experience now is a regular cycle. We do know the earth goes through regular warming/cooling cycles. I think this is an excellent post of yours. Kudos to you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this scenario: When the polar ice melts away( which it is at a much accelerated rate than a natural cycle) the cooler ocean waters will interrupt the ocean temperature conveyor systems like the Gulf Stream, vastly affecting the prime agricultural regions on earth. Famine and disease will impact everyone.

This is a bit alarmist in that this isn’t the only scenario. Shutting off the conveyor would depend on the rate of ice water being introduced into the system. And if that turns agricultural regions to desert, then deserts can just as easily turn into agricultural areas. It’s a crap shoot but Earth is still a system that works to stay in balance. It doesn’t like quick changes but is Man capable of making these quick changes? Other than an all out nuclear war, I don’t think Man can.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping someone would bring up the warming cycles. A friend of mine has often said that, since we didn't keep accurate records on weather temperature except for the last 100? 200? years, we don't know if what we experience now is a regular cycle. We do know the earth goes through regular warming/cooling cycles. I think this is an excellent post of yours. Kudos to you.

Well, she's right.

How do we know this isn't something the earth goes through every couple of hundred years? There have been many different points in history where we have experienced cooling off and warming up. There is a good documentary called Little Ice Age: Big Chill that talks about the Times in the past the earth has cooled off, and then warmed back up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an argument bantering back and forth here and I have to point something out...not only applicable to this topic but many-many topics across this board.

How many of you members out there are scientist and engineers or physicist? How many of you read an article that agrees with your point of view and you immediately accept it and when one disagrees you reject it?

This happens all over these boards.

The truth is...nearly all of us take what the "experts" tell us as fact...we are not qualified to do the research and experimentation ourselves...so we have no choice but to believe what we are told. All we can do is some mundane research and look for overall consensus...do "most" experts agree with this side of the argument or the other.

We need to stop fooling ourselves every time we find an expert that agrees with us...that does not make your side immediately correct.

As far as this topic...I believe climate change is a real phenomena. I am not convinced it is entirely man's fault...but we MIGHT be accelerating it. There is evidence the whole solar system is heating up...is that man's fault too?

As I have said before, we need to stop bickering over the cause and start focusing on practical things we can do to prepare for the ramifications of a shifting climate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, she's right.

How do we know this isn't something the earth goes through every couple of hundred years? There have been many different points in history where we have experienced cooling off and warming up. There is a good documentary called Little Ice Age: Big Chill that talks about the Times in the past the earth has cooled off, and then warmed back up.

That's right Kowalski. I also like the point Elfin makes that "Global warming is also a fraud in another sense, a literal fraud, with its proponents fudging and making up data to suit their agenda, as has been proven in a number of cases now."

:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an argument bantering back and forth here and I have to point something out...not only applicable to this topic but many-many topics across this board.

How many of you members out there are scientist and engineers or physicist? How many of you read an article that agrees with your point of view and you immediately accept it and when one disagrees you reject it?

This happens all over these boards.

The truth is...nearly all of us take what the "experts" tell us as fact...we are not qualified to do the research and experimentation ourselves...so we have no choice but to believe what we are told. All we can do is some mundane research and look for overall consensus...do "most" experts agree with this side of the argument or the other.

We need to stop fooling ourselves every time we find an expert that agrees with us...that does not make your side immediately correct.

As far as this topic...I believe climate change is a real phenomena. I am not convinced it is entirely man's fault...but we MIGHT be accelerating it. There is evidence the whole solar system is heating up...is that man's fault too?

As I have said before, we need to stop bickering over the cause and start focusing on practical things we can do to prepare for the ramifications of a shifting climate.

Touche (with an acute accent over the final e)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is retarded, earth goes thru cycles for millions of years, regardless of humans. it is a fact.

there is a cause , but apperantly too complex for you to grasp, since you can't phantom that humans are not the only force on earth.

Tell me what has started to drive temperature up in the last 150 years. I want the specific natural cycle with some actual evidence to support your belief in it.

You are still copping out of explaining why the planet is warming at the rate it is when there are no natural forcings to account for it. You are invoking the Magic hidden cause clause of the skeptic armaments.

Br Cornlelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right Kowalski. I also like the point Elfin makes that "Global warming is also a fraud in another sense, a literal fraud, with its proponents fudging and making up data to suit their agenda, as has been proven in a number of cases now."

:)

Support that with robust examples. That requires some degree of peer review refutation of some specific piece of data - not just a blog post from Watts up with that. Its easy to make such unsubstantiated claims but a damn site harder to support them.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of evidence of global warming, and the opposition to it is basically political.

I mainly blame the political left and especially the extremists of the environmental movement for the present denial movement seen on the right. People like Al Gore made their careers and wealth out of exaggerating it and the Democrats regularly thump the most fearsome predictions for votes. Now we have a predictable reaction. Global warming is seen as an excuse for government controls and socialism. There are free-enterprise ways to tackle the problem too.

In the meantime the danger increases.

Yes, Global Warming is caused by the sun and geothermal energy ( El Nino Effect).

Mankind contributes less than 1% to the global warming / cooling here on Earth.

It was never about saving the planet. It was always about using fear to gain power over the general population.

Food for thought: Without the sun, Earth would be an icy rock.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, she's right.

How do we know this isn't something the earth goes through every couple of hundred years? There have been many different points in history where we have experienced cooling off and warming up. There is a good documentary called Little Ice Age: Big Chill that talks about the Times in the past the earth has cooled off, and then warmed back up.

paleoclimatology tells us what cycles to expect. Simple.

The problem is that currently there is nothing to account5 for the warming - no known natural cycle fits the bill. We should be cooling - but we are not.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we could do about it is just be better custodians of the planet. We can also learn how to adapt to Gaia and her cycles. Pull back coastal communities or develop domed cities in those areas. Enclose estuaries. There are all sorts of things like this that can be done rather than pouring trillions down the drain trying to prevent something that we can't. We have the technology to engineer our existence rather than something on the level of terra-forming (i.e. we're not even yet a Type I Civilization).

So which is it??? Can we simply be better custodians or are we trying to "prevent something we can't"? Or are you saying it is too late and we simply have to engineer to deal with what is going to happen? Either way is billions of dollars.

I'm not sure how to force people to be better custodians of the planet. I mean, it is impossible to get many people to even support themselves, or eat healthy. I believe it is now 75% of the US that is overweight and the percentage that is morbidly obese is skyrocketing. If we can't even be good custodians of our own bodies, how can we expect the population to help the planet?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which is it??? Can we simply be better custodians or are we trying to "prevent something we can't"? Or are you saying it is too late and we simply have to engineer to deal with what is going to happen? Either way is billions of dollars.

I'm not sure how to force people to be better custodians of the planet. I mean, it is impossible to get many people to even support themselves, or eat healthy. I believe it is now 75% of the US that is overweight and the percentage that is morbidly obese is skyrocketing. If we can't even be good custodians of our own bodies, how can we expect the population to help the planet?

So we should not try ? We should give up ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to stop fooling ourselves every time we find an expert that agrees with us...that does not make your side immediately correct.

The problem being that if one expert uses 100 years of weather data, and the other expert uses crystals and meditation, I am generally going to believe the one with evidence. There can be many reasons to immediately dismiss some "experts". If I immedately dismiss one expert and embrace another it is usually due, as you pointed out, to my background. If I have a science background I will accept science experts. And if I have a religious/phylosophical background I will accept other experts. But unless either side has evidence... hard physically based numbers, it is not worth embracing one or the other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we should not try ? We should give up ?

Br Cornelius

Nope. I believe the problem is easily engineerable. It will just be expensive.

I don't believe that it will be fixed by depending on the Masses, since the masses only care (in general) about themselves. I believe experts will have to intervene and act to correct the issue back to where CO2 and the world temperature are supposed to be. But like I said, it will be very expensive and controversial, and I doubt the political will and financial resources will be made available anytime soon.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit alarmist in that this isn't the only scenario. Shutting off the conveyor would depend on the rate of ice water being introduced into the system. And if that turns agricultural regions to desert, then deserts can just as easily turn into agricultural areas. It's a crap shoot but Earth is still a system that works to stay in balance. It doesn't like quick changes but is Man capable of making these quick changes? Other than an all out nuclear war, I don't think Man can.

I agree my statement is alarmist,but it's still the truth. Earth may not be able to stay a balanced system with increasingly rapid greenhouse effects caused by human consumption of fossil fuels etc.. The earth is gonna be fine...we're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Natural Cycles" argument is a convenient cop out which allows people to ignore the reality without actually explaining what is happening. Nothing is without cause and there is no such thing as a causeless natural cycle.

No it is not a copout. Calling it a natural cycle is not saying that there is nothing to do. There is plenty to do. Saying that it is a natural cycle does not mean that no one should explore and study what these cycles actually are. Quite the opposite. A natural cycle means that there is science behind the process and not some wild hypothesis. It is just properly identifying the problem instead of working up people from fear mongering so that the Socialists can redistribute the wealth. Establishing the right mindset (Natural Cycles) leads to effective solutions and not throwing money at the problem and wondering why nothing is changing.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not a copout. Calling it a natural cycle is not saying that there is nothing to do. There is plenty to do. Saying that it is a natural cycle does not mean that no one should explore and study what these cycles actually are. Quite the opposite. A natural cycle means that there is science behind the process and not some wild hypothesis. It is just properly identifying the problem instead of working up people from fear mongering so that the Socialists can redistribute the wealth. Establishing the right mindset (Natural Cycles) leads to effective solutions and not throwing money at the problem and wondering why nothing is changing.

So what is the natural cycle ? What is the forcing agent ? Its still a cop out unless you can account for it with evidence.

The fact is that CO2 accounts for the rise nicely - there is a mechanism and an anticipated response to rising greenhouse gases. the facts fit the hypothesis and so you would have to account for why a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 levels wasn't effecting the climate.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice core samples contain trapped gasses which have provided concise CO2 levels for THOUSANDS of years not hundreds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can't change it, and those that say "we must try , we can't afford to stay still" are idiots imho.

but we do need to do something about. we need to equip\prepare ourselves to life when these changes do happen, we can't do much about earth, and anyone that says we can, i'd like to see just 1 instant where we did anything about climate on major scale and it worked. (local rains don't count).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can't change it, and those that say "we must try , we can't afford to stay still" are idiots imho.

but we do need to do something about. we need to equip\prepare ourselves to life when these changes do happen, we can't do much about earth, and anyone that says we can, i'd like to see just 1 instant where we did anything about climate on major scale and it worked. (local rains don't count).

we are doing something about the climate - we are quite capable of changing both local and global climate and we have contributed to aspects of climate change from the beginning of civilization. One of the oldest written legends, Gilgemesh, describes the deforestation of the near east and the decline of Meopotamia was at least partly consequential to that environmental catastrophe.

Massive reforestation on a planetary scale would have a significant impact in slowing climate change - as it did after the great plagues which swept the New and old worlds and lead to abandonment of huge tracks of cultivated land - leading to short term cooling events.

it shows a profound lack of awareness and imagination to say we cannot effect the climate.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the natural cycle ? What is the forcing agent ? Its still a cop out unless you can account for it with evidence.

Changing of the seasons, solar mins and maxs, the tilt and wobble in the Earth’s orbit, CMEs, Plate Tectonics, orbit of the moon and tides, etc. Ice cores and tree rings show that climate is not static. Climate has been cycling for billions of years. With all of these hundreds of factors and permutations, CO2 levels rise, we see *A* correlation with the activities of Man and automatically, Man is the villain? Please, pull somebody else’s leg.

The fact is that CO2 accounts for the rise nicely - there is a mechanism and an anticipated response to rising greenhouse gases. the facts fit the hypothesis and so you would have to account for why a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 levels wasn't effecting the climate.

Never said it didn’t affect the climate. The question has been, is Man causing climate change? It may account for it nicely but that is still not proof. You can show proof of it and I can show proof against it but that doesn’t matter. All I have to do is disprove it once and all the proof in the world won’t matter. That is how science works. And my proof against it is scientists like Professor Bob Carter.

This is just a political excuse for Socialists to try to usurp power. Socialist grabbed the term Anthropomorphic Global Warming because it sounded scary and when that failed, they pulled back a little bit and started calling it Climate Change (without the focus on Man) but the premise still persists that Man is behind it all. This is very dishonest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it shows a profound lack of awareness and imagination to say we cannot effect the climate.

Br Cornelius

No it only shows you have wild imagination, that is all, we can not affect climate, show me facts where we did.

There is absolutely no proof that pelage’s consequence did affect climate, it most likely a coincidence, and back in those times we did not even have any factories, and transportation, and such huge co2 emission, that is blamed for GW. A few years of no cultivation, is not a model to go by. Even if it was, the world today is way different from those days, and it is getting even more different with every year. and there is no turning back.

We can do something about pollution thou and I have seen examples, but climate, yea sure, tall that myth someone else.

we can change climate just as much as we can affect volcanos, and earthquakes.

we will continue to cut trees, and will continue to pump co2 in the air by factories and transportation, and it will only get larger. we consume earth resurses, and we can't live if we don't. may be if we didn't know all the things we have now are possible, we might, but than we would not have such a large population, modern medicine and progress increased our life span greatly, and now baby survival vs 100 years ago is increased by 8- 10 fold.

if you want to do anything about GW, prepare yourself, becouse there is nothinh we can or will do to change it, and reality is a ultimate proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing of the seasons, solar mins and maxs, the tilt and wobble in the Earth's orbit, CMEs, Plate Tectonics, orbit of the moon and tides, etc. Ice cores and tree rings show that climate is not static. Climate has been cycling for billions of years. With all of these hundreds of factors and permutations, CO2 levels rise, we see *A* correlation with the activities of Man and automatically, Man is the villain? Please, pull somebody else's leg.

Never said it didn't affect the climate. The question has been, is Man causing climate change? It may account for it nicely but that is still not proof. You can show proof of it and I can show proof against it but that doesn't matter. All I have to do is disprove it once and all the proof in the world won't matter. That is how science works. And my proof against it is scientists like Professor Bob Carter.

This is just a political excuse for Socialists to try to usurp power. Socialist grabbed the term Anthropomorphic Global Warming because it sounded scary and when that failed, they pulled back a little bit and started calling it Climate Change (without the focus on Man) but the premise still persists that Man is behind it all. This is very dishonest.

I asked for a correlated natural cycle as evidence that the forcing was natural. I asked for a natural cycle which can be demonstrated through data to have caused the recent warming. You have not done that and you failed to meet a scientifically meaningful answer to what is the natural cycle.

If you cant justify your belief with evidence - you are just another politically motivated dupe denier of the science of AGW.

Br Cornelius

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.