AGW is myth- its all for the money!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by mello, Oct 31, 2013.

  1. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Pllution dont have nothing with global warming. In 1988 it is established International cometee for climate change- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . They tried to messure how human activity effect climate change. In report from 2001 they predict rise of temperatures from 1,4 to 5,8 C degrees in next 100 years. As result ice sheet will melt and level of seas will rise. But meterologists, astronomers, climatologists often disagree that mankind and fossil fuels are responsible for climate change. Global warming is one of biggest historical hoaxes which as solution see Goverment control over everything which produce gases and new taxes. GW isnt main ecological problem. Why not clean rivers? Why not forested our planet? Why not stop Malaria? Why not press countries like Norway to stop hunting whales? Why not protect coral reefs? Why not rejuvenate Mangrove wood which can slow flood waves? Why not stop over fishing? Because if GW propaganda pass Goverment agency will get more tax money, UN will have new income, Insurance companies will charging higher premiums, lawyers will sue more, Wallstreet gets new source of commissions, Corparations will get more stimuluses, little companies will fail because they will not be able to satisfy new regulations and families will pay higher price of energy, water and land. „Consensus“ is manufactured for political cause not scientifical cause. Scientists from Brazil, Netherland, Germany Argentina, Portugal, Russia, France openly say that debate is all but not finished. Sun cant be ignored. Sun spots activity is when on sun we have huge explosions sometimes even big as Jupiter where Sun energy projects in Solar system and with Solar winds came on Earth. When it came to earth we messure it as warming. Al Gore movie „An inconvenient Truth“ as result have had counter effect. Many scientists protested after they watched this movie. Global warming caused by our consumption of fossil fuels which put carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere will warm the Earth so that ice sheets will melt and we will all be flooded is myth. There is no scientific study which confirms this. Idea is that UN tax on fossil fuel consumption that would lower living. In our air at present is 0.038 percent CO2. 0,038%. Oxygen and nitrogen make 99% of our air and 1% of everthing else. Over millions of years, Earths climate has always changed and will continue to do so, regardless of human activities. In our history Earth was without ice and all covered in ice aka Snowball earth.

    NIPCC- Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change findings were:
    1. Most of climate change is caused by natural forces.
    2. Human contribution is not significiant
    3. Solar activity changes are the main cause of climate change

    Sunspots have been observed since the time of Galileo and notice waht Astronomer David Whitehouse said: „The truth is, we can't ignore the sun.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. My own view on the theory that greenhouse gases are driving climate change is that it is a good working hypothesis - but, because I have studied the sun, I am not completely convinced.The sun is by far the single most powerful driving force on our climate, and the fact is we do not understand how it affects us as much as some think we do.“

    John Coleman weatherman from San Diego claim that Global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." to create economy crysis and keep prices of oil and food rising.
    „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.“

    Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2.
    Also its known that in Medieval warm period there wasnt burning of fossil fuel at all. CO2 is Plant food so more CO2 it gets better for plants. 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. David Whitehouse said that during 17 century sun spots disappeared for 60-70 years which probably cause Little Ice age. In 20 century solar cycle which lasts 11 years has increased which is probably reason of global warming. In 2000 Sun change activity and temperature stop to grow. Before 8000 years it was more hotter then today. But civilizations rose.

    Professor Joseph D Aleo also think that AGW is myth. Anthony Wats also argued that stations for messuring temperatures situated in urban environment dont give same results as stations in nature.

    Expert on hurricanes and meterologist Dr. William Gray also think that humans dont cause GW.Dr. Paul Reiter resigned from IPCC because he think that they manufacture data and ignore crucial points. He was annoyed because IPCC use Malaria as argument which fits into their story ignoring Malaria specalists which said that Malaria isnt simply tropical disease and that many factors effect spread of Malaria. He also pointed that in IPCC sit big number of non scientists.Editor of ‘EcoWorld’ Ed Ring also stressed out that GW debate isnt over and there is no consensus.

    Dr. William M. Briggs stated that he knows that many scientists go trough real hell if they want to published „non main stream“ research.

    Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi , astrophysicist, who worked in NASA Langely Research Center said for Dailytech: „ Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations.“ NASA refused to to release his results because as Ferenc said: „Money.“ His theory is published and peer reviewed. Miskolczi resigned in protest stating: „Unfortunately my working relationship with NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.“

    Dr. Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamic meterology and oceanography on University Hebrew in Jerusalem and author of over 70 scientific works in December, 2007 said that sceptics about GW harder published their researches with results that contradicts IPCC.

    Canadian academic Dr. David Suzuki in February 2008 publicly said: „Jail politicians who ignore climate science.“

    First woman that become PhD in meterology dr. Joanne Simpson said that she is sceptic about theory that man releasing greenhouse gases is main reason of global warming. „Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor recive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.“ She worked for NASA and author more then 190 scientific studies.

    William F. Mc Clenney geologists was also converter who now claim that he personally made calculations where he saw that humanity cant be reason for global warming.

    Also Dr. Art V. Douglas stated that GW caused my man released CO2 is myth.

    Atmospheric physicists James A. Peden , ex worker in Center for universe researchin Pittsburgh on February 18, 2008. said: „Sorry folks, but we are not exactly buying into global hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics and from onset many of claims were just plain fishy.“

    In January 2008. Environment scientist , professor Delgado Domingos from Portugal , director of Numerical Weather Forecast. He has more then 150 published articles in Thermodynamics, Fluid mechanics, Energy transfer, Environment and Meterologic forecast.
    „There are measurable climate changes but there is also an enormous mainpulation in reducing everything to CO2. The main gas producing the green house effect is water vapour. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control… It became an ideology, which is concerning.“

    „I am sceptic…Global warming has become a new religion.“Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    Physic professor Dr. Fredrick Wolf of Keene State College in New Haspshire said: „I am impressed by number of scintific colleagues who are naturally sceptical about the conclusions of human induced warming.“



    International Climate Conference in New York who issued a March 4 „Manhattan declaration“ on man made global warming stated:
    „There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in future cause catastrophic climate change.“

    Dr. Paul Reiter : „The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.“

    Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: „If we are facing crysis at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for wrong thing.“

    Meteorologist Art Horn: „Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political actions on global warming.“

    Climate statistician dr. William M. Briggs: „Too many people are too confident about too many things.“



    Danish scientists has shown how clouds might be seeded by incoming cosmic rays. The team believes that the research provides evidence that fluctuations in the cosmic-ray flux caused by changes in solar activity could play a role in climate change. Henrik Svensmark of the National Space Institute in Denmark believes that an effect related to the Sun's fluctuating magnetic fields may also play a major role in the warming.The idea is that cosmic rays seed clouds by ionizing molecules in Earth's atmosphere that draw in other molecules to create the aerosols around which water vapour can condense to form cloud droplets. The low-lying clouds that result then have the effect of cooling the Earth by reflecting incoming sunshine back out to space. Since the Sun's magnetic field tends to deflect cosmic rays away from the Earth, the planet will be warmer when solar activity is high and, conversely, cooler when it is low. in 2007 he and his colleagues at the National Space Institute provided an alternative line of evidence in support of their theory, carrying out controlled laboratory tests showing how ionizing radiation in the form of gamma rays could stimulate atmospheric molecules to clump together into aerosols. "This is something that needs to be investigated in more detail," he adds, "but it is potentially an important piece in the puzzle of how cosmic rays affect cloud formation."

    Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years.A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change.The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951.

    As we can see most greenhouse effect came from water vapour. So are we gonna banned water vapour? No. Conspiracy by IPCC is obvious. They want to tax fossil fuel. And we are dependent on fossil fuels.(?)Ofcourse we not but thats what we are being told. Same as that we have freedom. Freedom hm…? Okay where can I buy car on water, electricity or garbage or solar power? You cant. Fossil fuel is only energy same as Kings and Emperors trough history told people that wood is only fuel. Tesla coil can produce ozone. We can create ozone. If AGW pass Goverment agency will get more tax money, UN will have new income, Insurance companies will charging higher premiums, lawyers will sue more, Wallstreet gets new source of commissions, Corparations will get more stimuluses, little companies will fail because they will not be able to satisfy new regulations and families will pay higher price of energy, water, land and ofcourse oil. ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell will flourished. They are too big to fail. We will pay CO2 taxes in new higher prices plus they will get stimuluses. AGW is hoax folks. Idea is to control population. Same as GMO. Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Svngenta, Cargill, ADM, Epicvte and media houses, AGW supporters, Oil wars, Pharma conspiracy are here for same cause. Sun spots appear cca every 11 years. Gas inside Sun trough submerged tunnels of gases make full circles around sun equator and poles in 40 years. Every 11 years its peak. Recently something happening with this circulation. In May 2006 this circulation slowed-it was never recorded that low. Its only indicator that something happening to our sun. Yet IPCC ignore this. But people like Italian historian Majolino Bisaccioni and Jesuit Astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli argued that Sun Spots cause revolutions and wars. When sun cools Earth less food on earth, immigration follows, rebellions, wars starts…Its interesting that historians dont ignore sun but people who should study it-does.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    How much do you want to bet this poster doesn't defend his views?

    I mean it's just silly, the fossil fuel industry is the most profitable in the history of humanity.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,132
    How much do you want to bet this copy and paste spam, all over the internet?

    Hello!
    This is my first thread here so we will see how will this end up.

    Pllution dont have nothing with global warming. In 1988 it is established International cometee for climate change- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . They tried to messure...​


    http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=32823.0
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Spaming?

    You are hilarious.
     
  8. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    All in.
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    A decade or two ago you might have had a case, but not anymore. Corporations and the military are already preparing to mitigate it's effects. Alaska is currently suffering from melting permafrost, and coastal native villages are being moved farther inland. Yes, clean energy costs more, there is no way around that. By the way we already tax fossil fuels, it would be no problem at all to tax it more even without the justification of global warming.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  10. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Yes but humans are not cause.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    They are obviously the cause. The sudden rise in CO[sup]2[/sup] coincides with the rise of industry.
     
  12. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41


    Do we have consensus?
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Among scientists? Yes.
     
  14. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41

    Thats funny when you consider what scientists say from OP for example.
    Scientists with whom I talked say there is no consensus.
    Plus many scientists agrees that IPCC are charlatans and lysenkoists.
     
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    How many scientists have you talked with? Are you prepared to name any of them?
     
  16. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Why not start with those who publicly expressed their views as those in OP?
     
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    It's your parade. I want to see the clowns.
     
  18. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Dont dodge and avoid. I put my effort to collect qoutes from scientists.
    I show you my "clowns". Lets see what you got?
    Or you are affraid and you are here for redicule?
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    How many did you talk to?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. mello Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Source?
     
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    So you've also based your conclusion on talking to a few scientists, who have told you there is no consensus.

    But these scientists who told you this cannot represent a fair sample, there are tens of thousands of climate scientists, and plenty of others who study related fields. Why trust the handful you've talked to, which must be like, less than 1/10,000th of the population of climate scientists?

    Is it because statistics is a funny word for you, or are you just one of those people who trusts what someone with authority tells you?
     
  22. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Yep. it's a myth. 7,000,000,000 people spewing 35,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere isn't going to affect the planet.
     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,365
    It already has affected the planet.

    What isn't going to affect the coming changes in climate, is people like you making a lot of useless noise about it. But, just for laughs, what's your explanation for the increase in average global temperature over the last 30 years?
     

Share This Page