Global warming is a scam

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,507
793
113
usa
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112227

You didn't see this report in the New York Times or the National Inquirer, the global warming hoax is debunked again by The Journel of Geophysical Research.
Global warming is a scam and now The Science Czar John Holdren is predicting a Global Ice Age by 2020 and expects a billion people to die. Which is It? Warming or Freezing the scam continues and if we spend enough money on Cap and Trade(TAX) that will cure everything. Read more below on the new scare tactic on Global Freezing by the Science Czar. LOL

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112317
 

MadJack

Administrator
Staff member
Forum Admin
Super Moderators
Channel Owner
Jul 13, 1999
105,043
1,546
113
70
home
i guarantee that NOBODY will click any of the links you posted here.

:sadwave:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
The BBC today--


<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>What happened to global warming?


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO -->
<!-- S IBYL --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=466 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom>By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
999999.gif


<!-- E IBYL --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
_46521996_000150583-1.jpg
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
_46522743_007440016-1.jpg
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>
o.gif
</TD><TD class=sibtbg>
_46522612_005604304-1.jpg

start_quote_rb.gif
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
end_quote_rb.gif





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
<!-- S IIMA -->
_46522678_003489684-1.jpg
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume


<!-- E IIMA -->Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,787
637
113
49
TX
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXrc1XZayp4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXrc1XZayp4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXrc1XZayp4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXrc1XZayp4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yes and Gore just fills his wallet on that CRAP science, he should be taken out back and SHOT.

:D
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Here's what I can't get past. I cannot imagine that with the addition of industrialized man, for say, 100 years or so, that the output we have put into our environment has caused our environment to stay the same, or be positive in relation to common cyclical patterns. We have never before seen air pollution. We have never before seen pollution on land which has changed the landscape of where we live time and time again. We have man digging beneath the surface of our planet, which changes the physics of the planet. We have byproducts of how we live every day that have to have affected our environment in a negative way. To say we haven't just doesn't face any kind of common sense facts that any of us EVER grew up with.

The past 100 years of our planet have been very different, and in any sane person's mind should have changed our planet. Much more so than any years before it - unless you can show me anything different.

To ignore this common sense approach is simply stupid, in my view. But, enlighten me as to how we shouldn't consider how WE have impacted our planet over the past, say, 100 years?
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Here's what I can't get past. I cannot imagine that with the addition of industrialized man, for say, 100 years or so, that the output we have put into our environment has caused our environment to stay the same, or be positive in relation to common cyclical patterns. We have never before seen air pollution. We have never before seen pollution on land which has changed the landscape of where we live time and time again. We have man digging beneath the surface of our planet, which changes the physics of the planet. We have byproducts of how we live every day that have to have affected our environment in a negative way. To say we haven't just doesn't face any kind of common sense facts that any of us EVER grew up with.

The past 100 years of our planet have been very different, and in any sane person's mind should have changed our planet. Much more so than any years before it - unless you can show me anything different.

To ignore this common sense approach is simply stupid, in my view. But, enlighten me as to how we shouldn't consider how WE have impacted our planet over the past, say, 100 years?
Nicely stated Chad. Common sense, facts and empirical evidence are abstract concepts to Raymond, Skulnik, Hedge & Linus.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,787
637
113
49
TX
Here's what I can't get past. I cannot imagine that with the addition of industrialized man, for say, 100 years or so, that the output we have put into our environment has caused our environment to stay the same, or be positive in relation to common cyclical patterns. We have never before seen air pollution. We have never before seen pollution on land which has changed the landscape of where we live time and time again. We have man digging beneath the surface of our planet, which changes the physics of the planet. We have byproducts of how we live every day that have to have affected our environment in a negative way. To say we haven't just doesn't face any kind of common sense facts that any of us EVER grew up with.

The past 100 years of our planet have been very different, and in any sane person's mind should have changed our planet. Much more so than any years before it - unless you can show me anything different.

To ignore this common sense approach is simply stupid, in my view. But, enlighten me as to how we shouldn't consider how WE have impacted our planet over the past, say, 100 years?

Its all a hoax my friend, explain the extinction of the dinosaurs? Was there SUV's then? global warming is a scam
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Its all a hoax my friend, explain the extinction of the dinosaurs? Was there SUV's then? global warming is a scam
Apparently I confused you. I'll ask it another way. Do you believe dinosaurs walked the earth in the last 6000 years, alongside humans? If you do, I'd like to hear your theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs.
:0corn
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
Here's what I can't get past. I cannot imagine that with the addition of industrialized man, for say, 100 years or so, that the output we have put into our environment has caused our environment to stay the same, or be positive in relation to common cyclical patterns. We have never before seen air pollution. We have never before seen pollution on land which has changed the landscape of where we live time and time again. We have man digging beneath the surface of our planet, which changes the physics of the planet. We have byproducts of how we live every day that have to have affected our environment in a negative way. To say we haven't just doesn't face any kind of common sense facts that any of us EVER grew up with.

The past 100 years of our planet have been very different, and in any sane person's mind should have changed our planet. Much more so than any years before it - unless you can show me anything different.

To ignore this common sense approach is simply stupid, in my view. But, enlighten me as to how we shouldn't consider how WE have impacted our planet over the past, say, 100 years?


Hmm wonder how all the climate changes occured back in ice ages etc

I'm all for controling polution--but to think we control the climate is a little far fetched-

You might have heard about Al Gores talk in minnesto friday. A guy in auience was questioning Al on several obvious false claims and they cut the mic off--

Senate committee barred all nay sayers from the table--

I don't know bout you but appears to me a flagrant attempt to get one side of story.

Now if they can get folks to forget their global "warming" mantra and conentrate on their new "climate change" it may avert them from looking like utter baffoons--and allow them to use "any event" to basck up claims.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,787
637
113
49
TX
Apparently I confused you. I'll ask it another way. Do you believe dinosaurs walked the earth in the last 6000 years, alongside humans? If you do, I'd like to hear your theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs.
:0corn

my point is dinosaurs are extinct because the earth warmed up. explain that phenomenon? Was it because of pollutants in the air? Was it because everyone was driving SUV's or had their houses a/c set on 72? Its called weather cycles, they happen to occur for periods of time, hot,cold,hot,cold...right now we are coming out of an ice age

global warming is a scam to get legislators to get more money from the end consumers like you and me, thats it its a money grab. its false and a complete hoax
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wayne, I've never once pretended to know what's right or wrong on this issue. But it sounds like to me that you are hinting that climate change might be an issue to look at? As I've mentioned repeatedly here (and really never had anyone speak back to it specifically), man has to have had some negative affects on this planet. Man-made problems, and issues, and our country is at the top of the list of offenders. Of course, this gets back to the heart of the conservative, protecting and thinking essentially only of themselves, and putting less importance on everything else around them. As long as they apparently are unaffected negatively, they really don't care about anything else.

Another thing, IMO. Our country is supposed to be different, and a leader of the free world. With that comes some responsibilities, if we want to continue being that. Living up to what we as a country are doing, and using, on this planet is part of the deal, I think. I know some here couldn't care less, and even profit off of some of the things we do, which is again, part of the issue.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Senate committee barred all nay sayers from the table-

This didn't seem to bother you when it was the previous administration and the creation of our energy policy of the past few years. Except in that case, senators weren't really much a part of the picture at all, just those that benefited from the exclusions.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top