It's Offical: Global Warming is a Scam

Who can argue with that. Hell, the process of breathing contributes CO2 to our atmosphere. By that logic our very existence contributes to climate change. Every time I surf, I piss in my wetsuit to warm it up. When I think about it, like most surfers, I am dumping raw untreated sewage into our ocean. There can be be no question I am contributing to the pollution of our planet. The question is, by how much. The burden of proof for the man made global warming climatologists is to prove the man made emissions are having a significant impact. The melting ice in the polar regions is releasing greenhouses gases at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than humans, and that is only one natural source of the stuff.

Declaration of victory?

 

Good grief. As Obamanation told you, it's not that simple. You talking about freshman chemistry, meanwhile the weather is far more complex. If it were that simple, why do they have to play tricks to make their theories work?

I'll tell you again why I don't believe this:

1) They have to play "tricks" with the data to make it work the way they want it to. They don't stop and say "Hummm, maybe we were wrong" or even "Maybe we need to do more research." No, it's "act now time is running out, only $19.95 per month to save the planet!" It's like a lame infomercial.

2) They want us to sacrifice, while they profit. CNN actually asked "How much would you pay to prevent global warming?" Gore claims that he would be called a hypocrite if he didn't turn a profit off this.

3) Global cooling => Global warming => Climate change (with ozone depletion thrown in, but now largely forgotten). Hey, don't worry about the Global cooling scare, the science is all worked out now--tru$t us!

etc.

BTW, ever notice the whole hybrid craze. I mean remember the Geo Metro or the Toyota Echo. Sort of lame cars, but very fuel efficient. What should you do? Buy a hybrid that gets about 5-8 miles/gallon more than the conventional version of the same car and pay $10,000 more for it.

Great idea

I think more efficient technologies are great, but notice the consumer exploitation. They know people would pay not a high premium for a minimal mileage gain.

Check this scam out:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/civic-hybrid-owners-sue-honda-for-mileage-claims/

Nice settlement offer huh?

I used to think people who said "follow the money" were cynical, since I didn't really understand how greedy an unscrupulous some people really were. Don't be naive.

 

The weather is very complex, but sadly, again, you have embarrassed yourself and exposed how little you know about he very thing you are refuting. Climate != weather. The weather is the conditions in the atmosphere over very short periods, you know, the stuff you see out of your window, the clouds and sunshine. Climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. So have another go at completely cocking it up and giving us a good laugh at your expense.

Actually, the scientists, not the fame hunters riding their coat-tails, tell you to spend less. They tell you to turn lights off when you don't need them, take public transport were viable, waste less and be conscious of where your food comes from and how much packaging it has. But don't listen the scientists, you stick to your gore bashing and "CNN says" bullshit. You seem to take notice of everyone except the scientists. what's the matter, can you only understand the dumbed down shit they pump out on tv? Read a book for fuck sake.

oops, you have embarrassed yourself again. he hole in the ozone layer was caused by chlorofluorocarbon emissions, not co2 emissions. people became conscious of what CFCs were and what they done to the ozone layer. Regulations were introduced and we reduced the release of them. As a direct result of reduced CFC emissions the ozone layer, as we knew it would, repaired it's self. If only people, specifically people like you (ie the uneducated masses who feel entitled to express an opinion on the validity of a science they know nothing about) could do the same with co2 emissions, we might have a success story like we did with the ozone layer.

Yeah some people are trying to make money from it. that in no way has any effect on the validity of climate change. You seem to be all over the place here, criticising people who are making money from climate change as if that is actually an argument against the validity of the science. If your problem is people exploiting the situation then i'm with you, but don't assume that an argument against the exploitation is an argument against the science because that kind of logic will get you in trouble, very embarrassing trouble.

But then, we should expect your entire premise to be a logical fallacy, it's not like you have any facts or science to back up your nonsense. I mean, you have even admitted that co2 is a greenhouse gas, admitted that we are producing large volumes of it yet still feel the position of "it's not happening" is at all viable. Like i said, just watch your position crumble around you. Give up and go back to your colouring in or or whatever inconsequential dithering you use to fill your days, leave the science to clever people, there's a good lad.

 

Thanks for pointing out that climate and weather are different. I don't know how we would get anything done around here without your insight

Sometime I think they are right and people deserve to be fleeced. I just hope stOx is being paid to post this nonsense, or else I am really worried about him

These so-called scientist are getting nice grants to put out this garbage. Why else are they trying to "hide the decline"? they know that if they aren't on board they will not get funding.

I keep repeating simple themes, yet stOx doesn't get it

I have some philosophy-type maths for you (since we're being posh):

-- (Global cooling V Global warming V Climate change) => (You pay more money ^ Al Gore get's richer)
-- ~(Global cooling V Global warming V Climate change) => ~(You pay more ^ Al Gore gets richer)

∴ (Global cooling V Global warming V Climate change)

Hey, wait a minute...

 

The more pressing issue right now is habitat destruction, and loss of species. Right now we're watching more animals go extinct than ever before, because we keep plowing down habitats in which they live. We're looking at a faster extinction rate than the Permain-Triassic event which killed 90% of all life on the planet. It took a million years. We're doing it in decades.

 

Someone, ten years ago, tried to hide A decline. How you think this refutes the mountaines of evidence is probably the most amazing thing you have ever said, not amazing in a good way. You do what most people do when they are wrong, know it, yet lack the integrity to admit it. They ignore all the evidence refuting their position and latch on to some insignificant event which is evidence for nothing and try to present it as a smoking gun.

 

That is not quite accurate. Global temperatures have been dropping since 1998(more than 10 years). The only people ignoring that data are the man made global warming people. If their "direct correlation" theory was accurate, the temperature would have continued to rise because god knows we, as the human race, have not decreased our CO2 production for the same period of time. The scandalous emails from the Hadley institute as much as admitted defeat when they stated "we cant explain the decline in temperature".

 

Still latching on to a sentence from a single email sent ten years ago? It's tragic. Good job you lack integrity, anyone with even a shred of self respect would have felt obliged to shut the fuck up ages ago.

 

I don't need the sentence from the Hadley institute. It speaks for itself, as does the temperature data for the last 10 years. Please don't tell me you are going to start arguing with the temperature data now. I mean, it is accumulated and presented by the people you claim to back. Even though they have been cherry picking the sample, it still doesn't show a rise in the last 10 years. I guess that leaves you the choice of backing the people, or the data..... hmmm decisions decisions. The humor and irony of you using the words integrity and self respect was not lost on me. Thank you.

 

Here's a newer one for you.

This is a discussion about it by people who actually agree with you:

The problem is that they have all the answers, now they just need to make the data fit. Yeah, that's how science works

 

Climate data over a space of ten years? Is that the data set you are working from obumanation? No wonder you aren't making any sense. That's a cretinous as saying today rained twice as much as yesterday, ergo by next tuesday we will be under 60 foot of water. If I didn't enjoy slamming you so much I'd almost start to feel a little sorry for you, only almost and only a little though.

 

Stox, you are starting to disappoint me. Though you are a completely radicalized bigot, you normally try to stick to a few scientific facts, if only to twist their meaning, before changing the topic and hurling a few insults. Here are two decades worth of climate change data for you. Nobody from the man made global warming camp disputes these numbers. They just cant explain them.

You'll notice the last decade has a cooling trend, not a warming trend. All the other charts that display the exact same data differently show the exact same thing. Your issue isn't with me. It is with the data collected by the scientists you worship. Perhaps you should write Al Gore and ask him for the correct talking points.

[edit]BTW, I also appreciate your rain analogy. Would it be fair to say that if I partied every night last week and it rained every night last week, that as long as I continue to party, it will continue to rain? What if I partied for the last two nights, and it didnt rain? Am I making the argument that if I continue to party now, the dry weather will continue? You claim to be a logical man of science?

 

Cleaner air and cleaner water should always be a major focus. It's one of the few things I want the government providing incentives and laws for, though they SUCK @ it dragging partisan politics into it.

As for global warming, we need more facts. The CO2 argument and attempt to point @ consistent temperature rise has a very good counter to it, for example: http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/globalwarming.html

It's hard to get a good evaluation for it when the funds are all going towards groups to PROVE global warming and come up with a solution. These groups want to keep their funding and continue to get new equipment, as most would expect with politicians involved.

We all know humans poison the earth and that's why I suspect this isn't as hard of a sale as it should be with these horrible tracked trends, clear behind the scenes bias, and pathetic mis-quotes and fear tactics. If global warming is as clear and drastic as it's being pushed as, ALL related graphs and charts should be showing it clear cut and there should be no need for people getting rich promoting the theory.

 

obumanation i thought carefully selecting the data to support the conclusion you have already come to was something you were against? I guess dishonesty is fine when it supports what you think, right? The image you chose to display is even called "cherry pick"? Seriously, do you not have a brain? Could you show us the article you lifted the image from please, i'd like to wager it was an article showing how the liars of anti-climate change deliberately cherry pick data routinely. I'm still trying to decide if the use of that image says more about your dishonesty than it does about your intelligence, it's a very close one because on one hand i know how dishonest you are, but only the other hand i also know at what level you intellectually operate at. Go do something else kid, you aren't very good at this.

What happens when we look at climate as a whole and not a carefully selected section.

 

It looks more like a stat of turning air conditioners further down

 

Omitting the last 11 years of data doesn't help your case. The Man Made global warming people claim our CO2 emissions directly impact climate change. 11 years of falling temperatures, while man made CO2 production has dramatically increased year over year makes that claim dubious at best. Ignore the last 11 years if you like, but obviously the rest of the world is starting to pay attention and question the Fatwas handed down by your priests.

Since you mentioned Cherry Picking data, I thought you might find this an interesting read.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

It seems your allegations of cherry picking are better targeted at your own high priests and mullahs.

Regarding your many insults, thank you. I always love an admission that you have nothing else.

[edit]One last thing. I love your request for the source of that chart, seeking to discredit the site as hoaxters, or idiot unbelievers. With the amount of BS coming from the Hadley institute, most sensible people are starting to question anything originating from them. Does that make you the idiot zealot believer? Perhaps so.

 

The best way to stop global warming is to hold a global warming summit. I can remember two summits being snowed out here in the US over the last five years and now Europe is experiencing some very nice global cooling thanks to the Copenhagen debacle. I really enjoy the divine comedy in it.

 

Looks like we're about 0.2 degrees celcius warmer than we were in the year 1000. Run for the hills!

 

On the surface it doesn't look like a lot nate, but it is. We have a thing called a "tipping point" at which the effects are irreversible. We get to a point where the temerature is sufficient to melt enough ice required to release enough methane to make the process spiral out of control. At our current rate that tipping point will occure in 2015. We have 5 years. The problem isn't that it is going to get too hot for us, the problem is the effects that the change will have on the planet.

 

Cheer up stOx there is a bright side to global warming; it keeps the population in check if it gets bad enough, lol.

What I want to see is the proof that any cut in emissions will even stop the path the climate is on.